How do I explain to friends & colleagues why we shouldn’t introduce mandatory filtering
January 8, 2008 – 7:41 pmOne question some of you might be asking is: How do I explain to my friends/co-workers/partner/dog why we shouldn’t introduce mandatory ISP filtering in Australia?
Louise Schaper wrote me with a great letter which includes a number of points you can mention (content written in orange is where I have added additional information):
- It won’t work: Firstly, it won’t be technically possible to be able to block all websites containing pornographic content. By telling parents it’s ’safe’ to allow their children use the Net unsupervised is incorrect as they will still be able to purposefully or accidently view pornographic content. Parents need to be informed and not lulled into a false sence of security. Related to this is that this will also be a huge waste of taxpayer money.
- It may block health, sex and drug information sites: Secondly, websites containing sex education, health information, drug education information and others may also be blocked (even sites such as YouTube could end up being blocked if the filter finds material deemed pornographic on the site. Content that may require an ‘adult perspective’ could also be prohibited under ACMA guidelines.).
- An affront to civil liberties: Thirdly, the Government is telling ALL Australians (including all of us aged over the age of 18) that we should not be viewing pornographic material. It will be removing our choice as adults and blocking access to sites they deem inappropriate. Not only does this have huge ramifications for civil liberties, but also would be problematic for those who need access to this material for their work and research.Slow your broadband connection speed: Finally, the filtering process is likely to slow Internet connection speeds (as the filter has to run before it can deliver the results of a search or loading a web page).
- Slow your broadband connection speed: The filtering process is likely to slow Internet connection speeds (as the filter has to run before it can deliver the results of a search or loading a web page).
In addition to Louise’s points, I’d just like to add a few of my own that I think are important.
- Small ISPs risk going out of business: A report commissioned by the Howard Government found that enforcing ISPs to filter their service had the potential to force smaller operators out of business. This means less choice for the consumer and people out of work.
- The cost of your Internet bill will increase: The same report also found that ISPs will need to pass on the costs involved with filtering to the customer. Why pay extra when mandatory filtering doesn’t even do what the Government claims.
If you’d like to see Louise’s letter in full and send it to someone you know who is still sitting on the fence, please read on. My two points above are also included…
Dear …
This has received little press, but this is an issue you will want to know about as it will affect all of us….
As you have probably heard - Senator Stephen Conroy (Federal Broadband Minister) is mandating that all Internet Service Providers (ISPs: the companies that provide us the Internet eg Telstra, Optus, iinet etc) block access to websites containing pornographic content or other “inappropriate material”. They are aiming to have this in place by the end of January 2008 (that’s right - just a matter of weeks away!).
The government states that the aim behind this drastic action is to protect children from pornographic content and to stop access to child pornography etc. However, child pornograhy is already illegal and websites that feature such images are already blocked.
This is problematic for six main reasons:
1) It won’t work: Firstly, it won’t be technically possible to be able to block all websites containing pornographic content. By telling parents it’s ’safe’ to allow their children use the Net unsupervised is incorrect as they will still be able to purposefully or accidently view pornographic content. Parents need to be informed and not lulled into a false sence of security.
- related to this is that this will also be a huge waste of taxpayer money.
2) It may block health, sex and drug information sites: Secondly, websites containing sex education, health information, drug education information and others may also be blocked (even sites such as YouTube could end up being blocked if the filter finds material deemed pornographic on the site. Content that may require an ‘adult perspective’ could also be prohibited under ACMA guidelines.)
3) An affront to civil liberties: Thirdly, the Government is telling ALL Australians (including all of us aged over the age of 18) that we should not be viewing pornographic material. It will be removing our choice as adults and blocking access to sites they deem inappropriate. Not only does this have huge ramifications for civil liberties, but also would be problematic for those who need access to this material for their work and research (as I imagine many WASS members would).
4) Slow your broadband connection speed: The filtering process is likely to slow Internet connection speeds (as the filter has to run before it can deliver the results of a search or loading a web page).
5) Small ISPs risk going out of business: A report commissioned by the Howard Government found that enforcing ISPs to filter their service had the potential to force smaller operators out of business. This means less choice for the consumer and people out of work.
6) The cost of your Internet bill will increase: The same report also found that ISPs will need to pass on the costs involved with filtering to the customer. Why pay extra when mandatory filtering doesn’t even do what the Government claims.
To find out more:
Sign the online petition - which will be presented to Senator Conroy - http://petitions.
Further information:
- Satirical website on the Government’s changes as well as links to sites with further information - http://www.netalarm
- Government’s Internet Censorship Policy - http://www.senatorc
- What will be banned under the new filter - the Govt hasn?t worked this out yet but they are likely to follow ACMA guidelines. One of these is “material that deals with issues or contains depictions which require an adult perspective” this could include health, sex and drug information - http://www.acma.
- Article from today’s Australian - http://www.australi
2 Responses to “How do I explain to friends & colleagues why we shouldn’t introduce mandatory filtering”
People keep comparing this with the aptly named “Great Fire-Wall of China”, which hints as to the kind of state that would allow this kind of censorship - precisely named, an authoritarian one. Others mentioned include Saudi Arabia and Burma. These relatively extreme forms of government do not encourage free-thinking and democratic processes due to the fact they undermine the constricting grip these governments have over these people.
People talk about all these other factors and ignore the blatant one staring them in the face. This is not a policy of a liberal democratic society but one of a police state. Do we so quickly forget our history? Does not one person remember our recent past, the early to mid 20th century? Forget times with governments filtering the internet but remember the times when; the Nazi Government burned books, censored mail, banned films; the Soviet Government censored radio, film, literature, poetry and music…I could go on, but I won’t.
The point is, Orson Welles made it perfectly clear in his novel 1984 and Terry Gilliam not so clear in his film Brazil, that governments who implement this kind of policy are restricting freedoms and hence gaining power over the people. Knowledge is power.
How far of a jump is it for this kind of thing to become politically motivated? The Australian Government isn’t just talking about pornography (that is just the Trojan Horse with which they are using to sneak their policy behind the mental walls of the politically ignorant), it speaks of hate speech and other “inappropriate content” (what a vague term that is).
Censoring opinion is dangerous, how long before having that exact opinion is deemed “inappropriate” in itself? You might have an opinion that goes fundamentally against my code of ethics, philosophical outlook on the world or system of understanding of society…but…I support your right to have an opinion with the trade off of me being allowed to disagree with that opinion. Anything else would be hypocritical.
Then the government uses this “opt-out” policy to appear friendly, but it merely allows a series of factors to play towards it’s own advantage.
1. An opt-out policy doesn’t need to be advertised, in fact it suffers from it, to appear “desirable” and “effective”. Those ignorant of the decision leave only those few who know of the policy to elect their disagreement. The less advertisment, the more ignorant people are. Hence, only a small amount of the population will opt-out and it will be spun about to appear as though the Australian population agrees with this decision. With an opt-in policy only those who truly want this system will become a part of it, and the government will have to advertise the policy - by avoiding this a win both economically and politically is pretty much inevitable.
2. An opt-out policy allows a “short list” to be generated of those who disagree with the governmental stance - in essence a watch list of individuals. How long before they start reading your personal emails? This isn’t a scare tactic, this is a serious possibility.
3. With a “sucessful” policy integration, as in it is spun to appear as desired by the (ignorant) population due to the insignificant amount of people who opt-out, how long before it is totally mandatory and there is no way to opt-out?
I know this is all pretty disjointed, but it isn’t an essay…just a series of thoughts on the whole issue. I hope that they help you to recognise the danger that this policy is in a liberal democratic country.
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.” - Sid Meier, Alpha Centauri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_without_Borders
By Xythan on Jan 12, 2008
In my mind, the single most important reason that the internet must NOT be censored, is not mentioned here. So allow me to explain:
The internet is the only remaining free network in our society. Our newspapers, radio waves, and televison stations are all owned by a handful of companies, which offer an illusion of choice, but only present a limited number of politically and financially -motivated viewpoints.
If the people of Australia give our government the right to censor out internet, for any reason, this power will be abused and end this last great democratic network that we have.
The risk we face, is that in the name of censoring ‘child porn’ or ‘terrorism’ or any other fear-instilling evil, the govt will expand its powers and censor any information that is against its political interests, or corporate interests. Dissent will be squashed. This is undemocratic, and I mean it very literally when I say that this is the largest step towards fascism that any modern nation can take.
So for the love of freedom, fight to the last man, woman and child, to keep the governemnt the hell away from censoring our internet, because it is the last democratic network our nation has.
By Anon on Jan 26, 2008