musings of a geek

Anyone who has been following the internet filtering debate with an objective eye, will understand how completely pointless it will be to spend $44.5M – (in the first year alone) – of taxpayer money on this politically motivated and farcical plan.

Despite an admission by the department that it won't be illegal to bypass the filter, and the plethora of really simple ways to bypass it coming to light, the government still insists it is the right thing for Australia.

Well, here is – (what should be) – another nail in the coffin of this whole concept – a man jailed for the downloading of child pornography:

Interestingly, the charges and subsequent finding of guilt and sentencing of this man were as a result of material he downloaded between 2005 and 2008. There is no filter in place now, and there was no filter in place then. Why do we need a filter to catch these cretins? There are always reports of arrests and convictions for this kind of behaviour, so clearly a filter is not needed to achieve these highly desirable outcomes.

Now, remember – the filter will only block websites, and the material the filter is supposed to block is mostly available through non-website sources – (newsgroups, emails, peer-to-peer sharing) – so the filter won’t actually stop these kinds of activities. Clearly, the technology to detect it and intervene upon the offenders exists and works well. Again, this counters against the argument for the need of a filter. An expensive, unwanted, easily bypassed filter.

Furthermore – let us remove the technology aspect to this argument. What if this guy was sitting on a park bench, waiting for a friend to walk up and hand him a bundle of printed child pornography material? Would he be inline to be arrested and charged – (and hopefully convicted) – for this also? Of course he would – because child pornography is illegal. It is ALREADY illegal.

Whether it be printed hard copy, or electronically obtained via the internet. The internet is not illegal, and even if the filter was able to force these people offline – (which it wont) – they would just turn to other methods of distribution, such as postal, and park bench deliveries.

What did the consumers of this horrible stuff do before the internet came along? Did child pornography not exist before the internet? Do we charge Telstra for allowing people to organise criminal activities over their phone lines? No, because Telstra would not be responsible for the use of its service, just as the internet is not responsible for child pornography.

When a machine on the internet hosting this kind of material is detected, international law enforcement treaties exist that would allow for it to be shut down. So shut them down. Disconnect hosting companies that support this rubbish from the internet until they remove it. Force it offline. Prosecute the creators of the material.

Make no mistake, I am in no way a supporter of child pornography, but the government’s plan covers more than this illegal material. It covers a lot of perfectly legal material, but material which someone has judged to be “morally objectionable”. By their standards.

The government should classify all material – there is nothing wrong with that. Classifications allow people to make informed choices of what they do and do not wish to view. Just as it does on television now. Hopefully most parents – (myself included) – would not want their littlies watching “M” or even “PG” rated shows, but that does not mean that it should be unavailable to older people, who want to watch them.

Much of the material on the blacklist is “R” and “X” rated – not generally my cup of tea, but not illegal either – but I would never suggest that nobody should have the right to watch it. The government has decided that much of this material should not, and will not be available. To anyone. Full stop.

Interestingly, there are “R” rated channels available on subscription television in Australia, debunking the government’s argument that you “can’t watch this material on television, so why should it be available online?”

As a person, my choice to view this perfectly legal material online would be made for me – and this is where the filter fails, because it is my choice. Not theirs. If I chose to download ACTUALLY illegal material, I would know that, and know that I am risking the consequences. Like drug traffickers who get caught in south-east Asian countries and put to death. They went there knowing what might happen, and I therefore have no sympathy for them.

And like the guy above, who is now in jail for downloading child pornography. As he should be.

The fact that I would be able to bypass the filter, and see the supposedly blocked material anyway, shows just how stupid the idea to spend all this taxpayer money on it really is. That and the fact that it doesn’t stop this stuff from being produced – which is the REAL problem.

David – congratulations to yourself and to Sky News Australia for landing the role of moderator and convener of the upcoming first leaders debate for the 2010 Australian Federal Election. Top Notch.

On behalf of the many thousands of law-abiding internet users who believe in democracy in this country, please raise the issue of Federal Labor’s ridiculous, unworkable, and unwanted mandatory internet filtering plans. Do not just raise it towards Labor and their uncommunicative and bullying, so-called “public consultation”, but also to the Coalition, and their seeming inability to come up with any clear position on the plan. A plan that many Australians are extremely passionate about.

Raise the issue of Mark Newton's well-reasoned submission to the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety and its subsequent censoring when the submission was released by the government.

Raise the issue of Turkey’s internet censorship mechanism, which was originally aimed in a very similar area to Labor’s stated aims of the Australian filter, but within a year deteriorated into a nightmare of restrictions of freedom.

Raise the issue of the extensive litany of utterly stupid statements made by Senator Conroy in trying to sell the plan to Australians.

He would see his attempt to sell the idea as a success, because mainstream Australia doesn’t see it as an issue – but that is because he refuses to adequately present it to the Australian people.

Please, make it an issue. Make it a very public issue – before freedoms online, and freedom of speech in general, are put at the top of the slippery slide towards disappearance.

Please.

One of the main arguments put forward by supporters of the internet filter is that the internet is no different from any other content distribution mechanism in the modern, connected world. They insist their plan is “not censorship”.

They insist that the internet is “nothing special”, and that it is a “broadcast mechanism” – much like television and radio, and as such, the classification systems that apply to television and radio are equally applicable to the internet. But, as people with some level of foresight can tell you, the dynamics of the internet are completely different, and a very special case.

The internet is very very different. In any given region in Australia, there are five broadcast television networks, which deliver up to fifteen channels into their local areas. Each area can be served by pay-television operators Foxtel and Austar who co-operate in delivering a bouquet of approximately 150 channels. Most Australians therefore have been 15 and 165 channels of television content, beamed directly into their loungerooms.

Classification is obviously a big job – every single program broadcast on every single one of those channels needs to be classified so that viewers can make an informed decision as to whether they – or more importantly – their children should be watching a particular program. It allows each and every family unit to make their own decision as to what is appropriate for them.

This is one of the two the concepts that the proposed mandatory internet filter attempts to apply to the internet. That every web page should be classified so people can make an informed decision on whether they want themselves or their children to view it. Obviously, this is ludicrous. Classifying the entire content of 165 television channels is a massive job. Imagine how big a job classifying approximately two trillion web pages would be?

Fortunately, the government understands this, and say that they won’t blacklist anything on the internet unless a complaint is made, and the content complained about is deemed “inappropriate”. Once deemed “inappropriate”, it is placed in the so-called “Refused Classification” basket, and officially at least, that content will be inaccessible to everyone in Australia. No personal choice, just arbitrarily banned, by a government controlled mechanism. This content will not necessarily be “illegal” in the traditional sense. You just won’t be able to see it online, because someone who believes that their own personal moral standard is applicable to everyone else, has decided that it needs to be blocked. Regardless of whether it is available in Australia in other forms – and in many cases, it is and will continue to be available.

Hang on…what? Aren’t the government saying that the internet is nothing special, and needs to be treated in the same way as television? Already, they are treating it differently, by not only classifying the content, but banning it, and not allowing Australian’s to make their own choice as to whether they want to view it online? Curious – smelling a little like censorship, right?

Earlier this year, Senator Stephen Conroy appeared on the “ABC Radio National Breakfast” program to discuss a recently granted license fee concession made to Australian television broadcasters – reducing their license fee over a number of years, to allow them to use the funds save to combat the threat that is IPTV – in layman’s terms – television-style content delivered over the internet. Interestingly, one of the main concerns of IPTV that Senator Conroy wanted to combat was that when television-style content is “beamed” into “television rooms” all over Australia, from anywhere in the world, that we as Australians cannot control that content.

His main beef was that Australian television broadcasters have specific Australian content restrictions – a certain amount of the content that they broadcast MUST be Australian-made. That is fair enough – it is a provision that protects the production – (and therefore jobs) – of Australian film and television producers, while still allowing overseas content to be shown. Content is classified, regardless of its origin, and broadcast. People then get to choose if they want to watch it or not. Certainly, R-rated and X-rated content is not shown on traditional terrestrially broadcast television in Australia, but R-rated content is shown on specific adult channels on subscription television platforms. Channels which people can CHOOSE to subscribe to or not.

Australians are not blocked from viewing this content – but the internet filter is proposed to block some R-rated and X-rated content – however, lets get back to Senator Conroy’s radio appearance. Interestingly, in that interview, he stated quite clearly that “you can’t regulate the internet” – and after a pause when he realised what he had said – he added “in terms of IPTV content”.

Another contradiction. If the internet is a “special” case, why can’t he regulate the internet in terms of IPTV content? Video (and audio) content on iTunes and other online distribution systems is given a classification. Can’t IPTV streams be classified too? If the internet is not special, why can’t he block IPTV streams that don’t meet Australian content rules? Much as he proposes to block content on the internet that doesn’t meet “reasonable moral standards”?

See how even Stephen Conroy himself doesn’t realise he has admitted that the internet actually IS special? That it is different?

As with television – each and every family unit must make their own decision as to what is appropriate. The internet filter will cut a whole swathe of content out of that decision making process, because somebody we don’t know, will likely never meet, and who thinks they have a better idea of what is “right” or “wrong”, has already decided that we are not allowed to see it. However the supporters of the filter try to spin it, that is censorship.

That is anti-democratic.