Somebody Think Of The Children

Have you seen this:

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25040381-5013038,00.html

By Sean the Blogonaut on Feb 11, 2009

The ISPs they’ve chosen just proves what we knew all along: that they don’t intend to actually investigate anything. I’d be willing to bet now that the trial is going to conclude in Conroy’s favour. But seriously, Tech 2U? Do they really have customers? And are OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1 actually significant business ISPs? Netforce’s website doesn’t seem to give any real information about their ISP operation at all, much less advertise it.

Also, I’d point out that iPrimus already offers a voluntary filter (http://www.iprimus.com.au/PrimusWeb/HomeSolutions/AdditionalServices/WebFilter/). Apart from the fact that Australians already have the freedom to use it if we want to, I suspect this might skew implementation costs, since they probably already have a lot of the core infrastructure that’s going to be required. Just one more reason to be sceptical of this trial.

By Coenraad on Feb 12, 2009

Sean, I loved the comments from Mr Pillion that PC filters require “specialist knowledge to install and maintain”. Right, so in other words parents are too stupid to know how to install them or wait for the program to automatically download updates. Still trying to figure out how the filter gives parents more options and “provides an array of additional tools that puts control of internet content with the end user” when in fact the control is in the hands of those who decide what gets put on the blacklist. This is the most poorly argued opinion piece in the series so far.

By Matthew on Feb 12, 2009

Webshield – SuperBlogger #5

Mandatory filtering won’t slow net access

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25040381-5013038,00.html

February 11, 2009

Anthony Pillion is the managing director of Webshield Internet Services, a provider of content filtered internet access and a membero of the federal Government’s Consultative Working Group on Cyber-Safety. In this blog he speaks only for himself and on behalf of Webshield not on behalf of the Consultative Working Group or the federal Government.

================

I believe iiNet oppose the filter and are currently before the courts with regards to Copyright matters.

I have read some suggestion that Optus are alleged to have marketed in some form or another “adult services” (Source the ANU Link List)

I would suggest that Webshield may confirm that the trials work and that there are no technical problems. The Managing Director seems to believe that’s the case as stated in the SuperBlogger blog.

Like iiNet perhaps Webshield have a bias in respect of the filter.

Shouldn’t ISPs involved in the trial be free from any preconceived notions regarding the success or otherwise of that trial.

By Bob Bain on Feb 12, 2009

Apart from Primus (biggest player there), who the hell are these other ones? I’ve only heard about Webshield in relation to their filtering.

Where are Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Internode, Westnet…?

Oh. Right. Conroy doesn’t want anybody big enough to provide a reasonable sample source.

By Joyce on Feb 12, 2009

I don’t see why Webshield would be happily taking part in this trial. Surely it can’t be in their best interests to be taking part (or at least being pro-filter) in a trial which will force all other ISP’s to adopt filtering, arguably Webshield’s only selling point.

By Dylan on Feb 12, 2009

@Dylan: Maybe they will help provide filtering to other ISP’s directly. Or perhaps they will take a kickback from a third party filter vendor they are associated with. Perhaps they are motivated by ideology – Webshield is listed in some Christian business directories. And they are listed as a partner with Watchdog, Peter Mancer’s NZ based, “Christian Principled” corporation (which is also heavily involved in offering filter technology for the trial).

By Sam D on Feb 12, 2009

Bloody hell. Maybe I’m way overreacting, but this is sounding more like totalitarian state tactics (eg China, Vietnam) every day. Apart from Primus, I had heard of none of these ISPs until this post. Honestly, possible provider bias completely aside, if they can’t or won’t even get the big players like Telstra and Optus on board, how can any such trial be in any way remotely credible?
Oh, but, that doesn’t matter of course. It’s becoming all too obvious that the trial is just a total sham so as to look like due process is being followed. Kinda like a general election in Vietnam, where the ruling Party declares in advance that it will be returned with a 98% majority. Just in case anyone is thinking of voting otherwise. But at least they can say, well we did hold an election, we’re a democracy.
I give up on this. This government will have a filter, and nothing, not even the hand of God will stop it implementing one. I’m already trialling VPN software so I won’t lose my online job which depends on totally unfiltered packet transfer.
Sorry for the lack of faith, but from what I’ve seen til now, I don’t think Conroy & Co. even give a flying f… about the technical issues. The scent of power and control a filter offers is much too powerful.

By Daniel on Feb 12, 2009

Just on the aside, perhaps we shouldn’t really be all that surprised at how forcefully this filter is being pushed. Australia has a long and notorious history of censorship. Two names: DH Lawrence, and Pier Paolo Pasolini should suffice as examples. In fact, there is good evidence from linguists that a significant amount of Australian slang dates back to the days when convicts needed to find ways to avoid the censorship of their keepers.
One thing that has kept Australia reasonably free is the terribly convoluted way it designs its legislation and the slow manner in which it updates laws: remember the 90s when Victoria Police vowed never again to prosecute another porn shop after a massive raid on Club X stores around the state resulted in the case being thrown out of court because X-rated videos did not constitute “photographic film”.
On the other hand, no one cared less when hundreds of locally based phone-sex operators, many of them single mothers, were thrown out of business because the government decided that such telephonic services went against the moral order. A lot of people lost their jobs and ended up in the dole queue, but that didn’t count for anything when it came to, you guessed it, “protecting the children”.
Now the internet is a wild and untamed beast, and I honestly do not for a moment expect that an Australian government, such governments having always been obsessed with censorship, could let the internet just stay there as it currently is. We need to put this into historical context. Our governments have always been hungry for censorship. The draconian laws are already there and have been for years. All that is lacking is an effective way of enforcing them. Hence the filter.

By Daniel on Feb 12, 2009

All that is lacking is an effective way of enforcing them. Hence the filter.

By Daniel on Feb 12, 2009

Effective?

By Joyce on Feb 13, 2009

@Joyce: I agree, Daniel’s point could probably have been better expressed like this:

“All that is lacking is _the pretence of_ an effective way of enforcing them. Hence the filter.”

By Jon Seymour on Feb 14, 2009

Could I sugest:

“All that is lacking is the pretence of an intellectually defensible rationale for censoring the Internet – as well as _the pretence of_ an effective means of enforcement. Hence the so-called ‘filter’.”

Whether or not the ‘filters’ tested work badly or well, objections to government censorship of the World Wide Web remain.

By Syd Walker on Feb 14, 2009

I read those bozos are complaining that it is the Australian people’s fault for voting Labor. Sure, Labor promised that they would introduce a nation-wide filter, but they decided it will be on a voluntary basis; people could opt-in if they wished. It was not until October last year that we found out that Labor did a back-flip, announcing that this filter will be mandatory instead. They lied to their own people; and by introducing this filter, they are basically saying that parents are incompetent when it comes to protecting their own children.

By Glenn Petrie on Feb 15, 2009

What I find most annoying is Senator Conroy’s statements like ‘The Australian people voted for internet filtering in the 07 elections’. No they didn’t. I voted for Labour and I certainly didn’t! As mentioned by Glenn they voted for Opt-in filtering, not mandatory filtering. And they didn’t even vote for filtering! They voted for a new government when they were sick of the old one. I’m sure if one of Labour’s policies was something utterly insane like “Give Krudd 1 billion $ per year salary” we still would have voted them in becuase everyone was sick of Howard & Co.

D.

By Dylan on Feb 16, 2009

I am in a state if despair as well Daniel, I work everyday to update my record of the socialist catholics taking over the internet. The science “examining” filtering should be first class but labor conduct these abuses of science when they want to implement new laws just like Bracks did in Victoria with simulated drug driving research from Swinburne Uni. Rudd is on his way to plead with the pope that Mary McKillop is made a saint. What ignorant times we live in. Conroy is an extrem religious zealot. The socialist Christian Labor bullies act on their own conscience not what science and the Australian people demand.

Take political action and a little search engine optimisation too make sure the mongrels are exposed abusing science to make fake results. What is the sample size, etc. etc Replication of results peer reviews all normal science out the window for a paternalistic fascist Christian censorship regime for labor.

What’s more in Victoria and Queensland I might be jailed for sever ridicule of Rudd and Conroy’s religious disposition under religious vilifications laws. All praise be to Rudd.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Religion/Vilification.html#ruddy

Tim Anderson

By Tim on Jul 7, 2009