Dec 1 2008

Clean Feed slammed by Children’s Welfare Groups

Via the Syd­ney Morn­ing Herald:

Sup­port for the Government’s plan to cen­sor the inter­net has hit rock bot­tom, with even some children’s wel­fare groups now say­ing that that the manda­tory fil­ters, aimed squarely at pro­tect­ing kids, are inef­fec­tive and a waste of money.”

When the peo­ple whose job it is to think of the chil­dren are telling you that your plan to save the chil­dren is wrong and stu­pid, it’s seri­ously time to give it up.


Nov 13 2008

Only proof against Internet Rabbits…

While I was doing some research for my last dia­tribe, I came across a few heartening/​interesting links:

http://​defend​ingscoundrels​.com/​2​0​0​8​/​1​0​/​c​a​n​-​l​a​b​o​r​-​i​m​p​l​e​m​e​n​t​-​c​l​e​a​n​-​f​e​e​d​.​h​tml — Via Elec­tron­ics Fron­tiers Aus­tralia, Dale Clap­per­ton out­lines legal rea­sons why the Fence won’t stand. His whole blog is worth a look.

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24641171–15306,00.html — Con­roy cop­ping flak on Tues­day for being vague about the plan.

I’ll keep post­ing such fun things as I find them. Down with censorship!


Nov 13 2008

But there’s no rabbits in the Internet?

Urgh.

Sen­a­tor Conroy’s Inter­net Rab­bit Fence (apt name?) is bring­ing up a few nasty issues in my mind when it comes to pol­i­tics. We’ll take it as given that the idea is fun­da­men­tally stu­pid on a tech­ni­cal level — bet­ter net­work types than I have pointed out the flaws.

All this stress­ing about what peo­ple are see­ing on the Inter­net though, that’s a symp­tom of some­thing deeper, and far more insidious.

A bit of a recap, for those who missed the issue: the gov­ern­ment wants to set up a fil­ter on all inbound and out­bound inter­net con­nec­tions in the coun­try (essen­tially). This would pre­vent access to mate­r­ial deemed ille­gal by any­one, and option­ally, pre­vent access to mate­r­ial deemed ‘objec­tion­able’ (unless you opt out of that fil­ter­ing list). So no more access to the Anarchist’s Cook­book for us.

Unfor­tu­nately, what con­sti­tutes ‘objec­tion­able’ mate­r­ial has yet to be read­ily explained, so we’re not exactly sure what else we’ll lose access to, either.

Sen­a­tor Conroy’s own web­site has a choice quote:

The inter­net is a won­der­ful tool that is deliv­er­ing ben­e­fits to increas­ing num­bers of Aus­tralian fam­i­lies but the Gov­ern­ment wants to find ways to make it safer, par­tic­u­larly for chil­dren. This report will assist the Gov­ern­ment to deliver on its elec­tion com­mit­ment to cre­ate a safer online envi­ron­ment,” Sen­a­tor Con­roy said.

(DBCDE Minister’s Web­site, accessed 13 Novem­ber 2008)

It’s that tired old “won’t some­body think of the chil­dren!?” line. The Inter­net does make it eas­ier for every­one to access infor­ma­tion of all sorts, it’s true, and some of that infor­ma­tion could be called ‘unde­sir­able’, at best. I cer­tainly can’t argue that young and devel­op­ing minds should be shielded from some mate­r­ial, or at least guided through any inter­ac­tion with it by some­one of sound mind and good sense.

How­ever — that’s the respon­si­bil­ity of par­ents and fam­i­lies, not the state. The Inter­net does not fly into liv­ing rooms by magic; data of an unde­sir­able nature must be actively sought out. Gone are the days of porn pop-​ups on major sites and search results that con­tain links to smut — you have to go look­ing for the bad stuff.

There are con­sent­ing adults in Aus­tralia who like smut. My gen­er­a­tion par­tic­u­larly seem quite com­fort­able with the idea of pornog­ra­phy (eth­i­cal issues aside, that’s a dis­cus­sion for another day). We are vot­ing, tax-​paying adults, many of us of sound mind and good sense. If we say we want smut, then by crikey, smut we shall have.

This fil­ter, as pro­posed, allows some­one in the gov­ern­ment — I’m not quite clear whom, yet — to cre­ate a black­list of sites that none of us can see. Bet­ter yet, we don’t get to see what that list of sites is; we’re expected to sit qui­etly by and let the gov­ern­ment make those deci­sions for us. So far, I see no abil­ity for any­one to object to what goes on that black­list, there’s no way to opt out of it entirely, and no means by which to chal­lenge those decisions.

Any time some­one in gov­ern­ment starts talk­ing about mak­ing these kinds of deci­sions for you, it’s time to get angry. We’re a nation of adults. Most of us are edu­cated (to some degree or another), at least loosely aware of what we object to, and what we find acceptable.

WE CAN MAKE UP OUR OWN DAMN MINDS.

I’m all for pro­tect­ing the chil­dren; let’s do that. How­ever, let us do that in a way that does not restrict access for every consenting-​age adult in the land; make the sys­tem opt-​in for par­ents and fam­i­lies who are con­cerned, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

It’s a slip­pery slope from ‘objec­tion­able on moral grounds’ to ‘objec­tion­able because it crit­i­cises the gov­ern­ment’. This gov­ern­ment may, indeed, be well-​intentioned. They might not want to use the Rab­bit Fence in a way that restricts access to legit­i­mate infor­ma­tion. What about the next gov­ern­ment? The one after? Once the infra­struc­ture is in place, it’s just a mat­ter of time.

This one needs to be fought, and fought hard, by every legal means. I urge you all to talk about this issue, dis­cuss it, get the word out, and let your rep­re­sen­ta­tives in gov­ern­ment know that it’s not going to fly — it’s a waste of tax­payer money, and worse, it’s a ridicu­lous assault on our civil liberties.


Online farmacia los medicamentos de venta tadalafil espana con un descuento | http://fastessays.co.uk/assignment | acer battery