Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Child P-rnography is looking increasingly desper… What? Sorry? Conroy is not responsible for child p-rnography? No? “Cheap rhetorical trick,” you say?
Yes, it’s the very same cheap trick the Minister himself used in Senate Estimates on Monday night when — just as he did in December last year — he accused critics of Labor’s internet censorship policy of supporting kiddie p-rn.
Senator Conroy: […] I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child p-rnography.
Senator Ludlam: No. That is why I was interested in asking about the law enforcement side of it as well.
Senator Conroy: No, we are working both angles at it. We are just trying to use technology to enforce the existing laws.
Senator Ludlam: I am just wondering if I can put these questions to you without being accused of being pro child p-rnography. That would assist.
Senator Conroy: I was wondering if I could get the questions without being accused of being the Great Wall of China.
Well, Minister, stop supporting the idea of filters at the internet service provider (ISP) which block an as-yet-undefined range of “inappropriate” material, then maybe the comparisons with China will stop too. Senator Conroy is caught between a rock and a hard place. Prior to the 2007 election, the ALP committed to “ensuring all Australian families can utilise ISP filters that block prohibited content as identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Families should also be able to access filters that can be customised to block more material if they choose.”
He also inherited a timetable for trialling ISP-level filters from his Coalition predecessor, Senator Helen Coonan.
The problem is, ISP-level filters are the wrong way to go. As anti-censorship campaigner Michael Meloni points out, “Is the Government really in the best position to decide what [is inappropriate]? Does inappropriate include information on s-xual health, breast-feeding, drugs and abortion? The one size fits all approach of filtering at ISP level causes problems because young children, teenagers and adults often use the same family computer. Material inappropriate in one household might be appropriate in another, but the Government’s scheme doesn’t allow for any fine-tuning. It’s a poor substitute for the discretion and attention of parents.”
When the report on phase one of the trial was released in July, it showed the filters simply aren’t good enough. They block too much legitimate material. They can’t touch peer-to-per file sharing, which is where most of the nasties live. And they degrade internet performance to boot.
I reckon Conroy knows the filters are a dud. When that report dropped, he “welcomed” it and was “encouraged” by it, but only The Australian used the word “success”. Not Conroy — a fact his office confirmed to Crikey this morning.
I reckon he’s just going through the motions with Coonan’s timetable to keep Family First Senator Steve Fielding happy. Fielding’s Senate vote is desperately needed for other matters, as is überpopulist Nick Xenophon’s — a man who knows the value of words like “kiddie p-rn” in stirring the voters’ emotions. Until that much-anticipated double dissolution election, anyway, after which Conroy can renegotiate with the somewhat-more-rational Greens.
Meanwhile, with all the evidence running against an evidence-based policy for ISP-level filtering, Senator Conroy can only lash out and threaten his critics. It’s not a good look.
Stilgherrian writes at stilgherrian.com
I wonder what the Minister is trying to hide? Or whom he is trying to protect?
Who will be the arbiter deciding what constitues innappropriate content?
Who will be responsible for interpretting this opinion and implimenting it (forcing it upon the Australian public)?
Why is the Minister only approaching this issue from a TOP-DOWN approach rather than a BOTTOM-UP strategy that could encourage valuable debate, encourage participation by parents and children, teachers and businesses alike,?
It occurs to me, (and obviously many people before me), that you catch more flies with honey than with a ‘jackboot’.
In my opinion, the Ministers attitude on this topic is one of anger, single-mindedness, demonstrates contempt for any alternatives and is not representative of the contituants who afforded him his position of responsibility.
Without wanting to put too fine a point on it, this internet filtering policy is a dog. This is bad policy, motivated by misplaced ideology, flying in the face of all the evidence about its potential implementation problems and effects.
Apart from the (very serious) technical issues, the idea of an interfering Government on a moral crusade on anything some noisy pressure group declares objectionable is really quite sickening.
What does “objectionable” even mean? Is it anything that anyone, anywhere can object to? Legal adult content? Politically sensitive material? Anything to do with communism? Anything that criticises Government policies? It’s a slippery slope to the “Ministry of Information”. This is a ridiculous restriction on free speech and access to information, so why are conservative commentators who are usually so critical of “politically correct” censorship suddenly silent?
You can see how ‘effective’ filters are when resorting to references to p-rn and s-x is sufficient to pass e-mail filters. If filters worked, it would probably be paying the cost in throughput. But they don’t. Come back when they work, and we can have this conversation then.
I always knew that bring Chairman Rudd and his underlings to power will result in turning Australia into another Communist state based around Moaist China. First he wants to censor the free flow of information. One wonders what’s going to happy next? Jailing people who criticize the government? Conroy and his cronies have already started censoring people who oppose the filtering scheme. Clearly the netalert scheme is the perfect solution.
Clearly, conroy is an incompetent twat who has no idea how the internet works. Chairman Rudd on the other hand is just a communist in disguise and a liar who base his policies on approval polls.
I wonder if the uninformed Australians who voted these clowns in are regretting it now.
It is putting the cart before the horse; we have not even a network to filter and the reduced speed will be most notable for the disadvantaged already with third world speeds and service!
We cannot trust Mr. Rudd in my experience, wish I was wrong!
I am testing the question of whether Mr. Rudd genuinely has only the interests of us Australians in mind or if it is more about infallibility at our expense meaning he is a populist with words and no substance!
To my own surprise and misjudgment I find in practice it is the latter of the two scenarios!
It seems we have been hood winked and I base this on what we see in parliamentary play time which I watch with disgust at every opportunity and my request of Mr. Rudd to come to the party and personally respond to my substantiated claims and evidence regarding Telstra and TIO cooperative efforts to hide liability and ignore accountability in regards to Telstra’s immoral action in breach of the TPA as well as ACCC and indeed the Labor Governments own Miscomprehension skills used to ignore problems even when ample evidence is provided!
The Labor and Liberal Government parties just stopped answering my emails so this is there tactic to not be accountable, are there other Australians that make serious claims with evidence and receive this approach by Government? Please have your say as we need to bring this out in the open!
Here is my experience and evidence which Government has been directed to and ignored, you be the judge: http://www.broadband.notice.com.au
If I lie may the Government prove it or address the problem, I call them and stand by my words!
They will not solve problems unless they are first able to accept the fact that such problems exist and have occurred to the continuing detriment of our economy!
Only by admitting mistakes can we use the opportunity to better our self’s, solving the problems on our way!
Gary Looney