Net Censorship – part 262

The absolutely ridiculous idea of our ‘so called’ Minister for Communications has featured in the news again. This time, Michael Malone, the managing Director of one of the largest ISPs has agreed to be involved in the trials. But there is a twist, he’s agreed to be involved, 

to provide the Government with "hard numbers" demonstrating "how stupid it is" – specifically that the filtering system would not work, would be patently simple to bypass, would not filter peer-to-peer traffic and would significantly degrade network speeds.

He’s not the only one questioning Stephen Conroy, Senator Ludlam raised the issue in question time today. Ludlam asked Conroy to retract his claims he’d made in a Senate Estimates committee, namely that

… Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand had all implemented similar filtering systems.

However, in all cases, participation by ISPs was optional and the filtering was limited in scope to predominantly child pornography.

So Conroy may not of outright lied, but his obfuscation is equivalent to lying, surely? So why aren’t the government opposition and media calling him on this? I’m really over people lying to me by not quite telling me the truth, or providing a half truth, or by bullying me into just believing what they say no matter if it’s true, false or something in between.

And that’s how he’s getting away with it in the media and ‘general’ public. He indicates he’s doing this to ‘save the children from pornography and paedophilia’ so who would dare to say anything against it? Well me and many others fortunately, people who realise this is all a smoke screen. Filtering porn on the net won’t stop paedophiles, for a start they tend to use messaging and peer-to-peer services to contact children and pass media to each other. The filter wont prevent any of that, and the police already have plenty of powers and technology to investigate, find and prosecute these people (as has been evidenced with numerous prosecutions around the world recently).

So we look into this filtering further and find that Conroy wants to filter “illegal” sites (whatever illegal is), but there is already a ‘black list’ of illegal sites in service in Australia. So what’s the porn thing all about? Well, you wouldn’t know it but the government might need one or two of the Independents to vote with the bill. Guess who the Independents are? Senator Fielding – right wing religious nut job party; and Senator Xenophon – anti-gambling nutter. How these two absolutely minority Independents got into parliament is beyond me. How Australia’s Internet, freedom of speech and right to view adult entertainment are all being curtailed by a few BRAIN DEAD MORONS is  beyond belief. Democracy at its worse.

I like Malone’s conclusion:

"This is the worst Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed."

and we’ve had some real shockers! Why has Australia had so many complete imbeciles running technology portfolios?

Share this post :

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under censorship, christian right, democracy, freedom of speech, hypocrisy, internet censorship, paedophile, politics, porn

3 responses to “Net Censorship – part 262

  1. cryo

    I’m actually with iiNet. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. It’s not going to be much fun when the speed slows down, but I’ll make it my duty to circumvent the filter in as many ways as possible, just to prove a point.
    (obviously staying away from child porn and the like though)

  2. What is the position of The Greens on this? They’re the only ones who seem to be questioning the idea rather than asking for more things to be censored, or staying silent. But I haven’t seen any clear statement from them either way. Wont the ruddites need them to get it through the senate? Is it doomed anyway, so the trials are just a waste of time and money?

  3. @Michael, well for a start Ludlam is a Green. You can see the video of Ludlams question and Conroy’s answer here. You can hear the lies come direct from Conroy’s lips. The vast difference between Australia’s planned Internet censorship and the countries he mentions is that Australia’s will be compulsory, you have to opt-out and even then many sites will still be blocked. The UK system is voluntary for both the ISPs and users, you have to opt-in and not all ISPs have filtering anyway. IMHO this is a much better method, people who worry about porn, or whatever, can get themselves filtered, The rest of us can view what we like (within relative limits – no child porn obviously)

    I expect all the Greens are against the Internet filter, I’ll try and find out if they do have a policy.

    I suspect the problem whether the bill will pass or not may lie in if it goes to a conscience vote and some Liberals may vote for it. From what I’ve read it could be a close call, which is why we all have to contact our local MPs and let them know we don’t want this. see the no clean feed link in the sidebar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s