School students across the country (anyone know if all school’s participate?) will again take part in Safer Internet Day this year. Organised by ACMA in Australia, Safer Internet Day (SID) is an International event to promote safe and responsible use of the Internet, and unlike some of the Government’s other so called ‘cyber-safety’ initiatives this is one I’ll happily support.
Not only that, I’ll even agree with Senator Conroy when he says “Young people are highly engaged with the online world and it is important that they have the knowledge and experience needed to be responsible cyber-citizens.” Too right Senator. Now if only you could take some of your own advice and make education the key to helping young people navigate the Internet safely.
I’ll also go on record and disagree with accusations that Senator Conroy acted insensitively in light of the Victoria bushfire disaster when he released today’s SID press release mentioning content filtering. The inclusion of policy in the release, no matter how bad, does not devalue the loss of life or fire-fighting efforts of those affected by this tragic event. I do not believe it was insensitive to release this PR the day before the event.
However, what should be noted about Senator Conroy’s press release is that what he called ‘ISP level filtering‘ in the 2008 SID PR, he’s now calling ‘content filtering’.
Safer Internet Day 2009
When: Tuesday, February 10
International Website: http://www.saferinternet.org
10 comments
Danu Poyner says:
Feb 9, 2009
Totally agree Mike. The hysteria from those opposed to content filtering that so often surrounds this issue is off the mark and gets us nowhere.
Unfortunately, all those retweetings on Twitter flying around today saying the Cyber-Safety Plan money should be spent on bushfire relief show a remarkable (even wilful perhaps?) ignorance of how government policy actually works and help reinforce the perception of opponents as crazy libertarians.
It’s worth reminding people also that of the $128m for the plan, only $44m is marked for content filtering. The rest of it all seems quite reasonable.
Keep up the good work!
Conan1989 says:
Feb 10, 2009
arrrh! fiddle sticks!
So Conroy has got his spin doctors to rename “ISP level filtering[censorship]” with “content filtering” to presumably confuse the fact that the Internet is not a broadcast medium.
TV, movies have content regulation, so why not the Internet, very cleaver, very sly.
Only way to counter this is to reinforce that the Internet is not a broadcast medium, but a network.
stormwarden says:
Feb 10, 2009
I to also agree 100% with Mike, and I commented to this effect over on the article about the ‘insensitive’ press release.
I had a bit of a rant on twitter last night. In my opinion, sprouting incorrect information is less likely for those watching to take the message seriously. The only part of the entire plan that is bad is the filtering. Take that away, spend the money on more initiatives like this day, more education.
I also disagree with those on twitter who think the day should be cancelled because of the events occuring in Victoria. With Australia being one of 50 countries involved, wouldn’t it be better to still proceed? A global initiative, a global message is more powerful the more that are involved. And those thinking of Victoria also aren’t thinking of those in North Queensland who are inundated with flooding.
I do hope that a large number of schools and children participate. The more that do, the more likely the education message will be heard.
Mike says:
Feb 10, 2009
Thanks for the comments guys. All good points.
As I mentioned on Twitter, we don’t need to use this disaster as a political bargaining tool to defeat the cleanfeed. It might be well intended, but it’s unnecessary and unfair.
Bob Bain says:
Feb 10, 2009
The person who “acted insensitively in light of the Victoria bushfire disaster” was Duncan Riley..
http://www.duncanriley.com/
Ode to the dead
by duncan on February 9, 2009
As the sun sets over Victoria
let us remember those who have fallen.
Those who lived an Australian dream
The retired, first home owners and those in between.
Let us forever remember that even in the digital age we were unable to save them.
and lets us respect them by learning from the disaster.
We cannot raise the dead but we can learn from their deaths.
let us learn in years to come better ways of saving the living.
At this dark time we remember the fallen like those who fell before them and know that together we can make this country better.
May generations hence remember this time and those that have died if only as a beacon as to why we should always strive to advance civilization and the safety it should, and always must provide.
===========
Bob
Duncan seems quite emotional and it doesn’t sound like a “political bargaining tool” to me.
“Let us forever remember that even in the digital age we were unable to save them.
and lets us respect them by learning from the disaster.”
There was silence in the parliament yesterday as politicians from both sides of parliament considered that the things they discuss and argue over can at times be seen as not as important as the disasters that nature can bring with it.
Like King Canute neither they nor the digital economy can assist.
I believe Duncan was writing from the heart and it most certainly isn’t IMHO a “political ploy”
Mike says:
Feb 10, 2009
Hey Bob,
My comment about using the bushfire as a political bargaining tool was directed at those persons on Twitter telling the gov to drop their $128 million cyber-safety budget on bushfire victims (as mentioned by Stormwarden and Danu above).
Mike
Jon Seymour says:
Feb 10, 2009
Have to agree with you, Mike. Undoubtedly the $44 million dollars is better spent on many other things, but it is counterproductive to to even think that this is an opportunity to be exploited – it isn’t. I also agree that criticism of Conroy’s press release is unfounded.
That said, I agree with the criticism of Rudd made by Greg ? in Crikey today about Rudd’s populist appeal to the hatred of witches when it has yet to be clearly established whether arsonists are largely responsible for the fires. This is the same brand of demagoguery that we saw on display during the Bill Henson
fiasco. We deserve better from our so-called leaders.
jon.
Bob Bain says:
Feb 16, 2009
On a slightly distaceful note I note the alleged Victorian arssonist was named in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Friday complete with some items extracted from what is alleged to be his social networking page – in this case I believe it was Facebook.
I noted that the ALLEGED arsonist (who seemingly has also been charged with one count of possessing Child Pornography) appears to have other social networking pages including myspace and I quote from this WordPress blog
http://frigginloon.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/victoria-fire-arsonist-responsible-for-21-deaths-arrested/
================
“Footnote: The Churchill Arsonist was named on this blog via the comments but in respect to the Victorian Court Order I will not mention his name (you’ll have to have a peek at the comments). Lets just say his American social networking site is creepy to say the least.
I’M JUST SAYING : Kaz has just informed the Loons that the arsonist’s Myspace page lists Kevin Rudd as a friend! I checked, it is true!!!!! Watch his page disappear.”
================
They Sydney Daily Telegraph on Friday weren’t as apologetic (one of the pages had a full pace photograph of the alleged arsonist)
Whether the myspace entries disappears or not is a matter for conjecture.
Bob Bain says:
Feb 16, 2009
Addendum: The suppression order which it seems only applied in Victoria has been lifted.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25060493-5018722,00.html
February 16, 2009
Article from: Australian Associated Press
A COURT has lifted the suppression order on naming the man charged over a fatal bushfire at Churchill in Victoria’s southeast.
Bob
There’s quite a bit to consider regarding this from the viewpoint of censorship.
For instance should the press draw conclusions and publish them from social networking sites if a person has been charged but not convicted ?
Should a person charged be free to continue to operate a social networking site and possibly ccomment on charges brought before him/her ?
Should the mandatory filtering scheme block sites of those charged with criminal offences ?
Bob Bain says:
Feb 16, 2009
Picked up by The Inquisitr
http://www.inquisitr.com/18139/bushfire-arsonist-brendan-sokaluk-worships-mother-earth-on-spooky-myspace-page/
The site was there this morning and the following URL would have found it…
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=199945570
Now all it says is …
This user has either cancelled their membership, or their account has been deleted.
===========
I’m not sure why. I didn’t find anything spooky on that particular page – even though I noted that Kevin Rudd was listed as a friend yesterday – but not this morning..
I guess a lawyer is acting under the authority of the author. There was nothing on the web page that invited people towards arson. There were a few simple words about sex but nothing offensive.
Bob