Government to censor the Internet

[Hursticon]

I know that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is the leader and that "The buck stops with him" but does anyone have any links to proper quotes where he has actually given his approval or at least backing to Dictator Conroy's abortion of a policy of Internet filtering?.

I'm a person who, for some reason? , enjoys watching question time and I've not seen/heard of him saying he is for the policy but then I've not seen/heard him say that he is against it either.

I try to keep on top of these sorts of things as 1. I'm entering the I.T. Networking industry (Trying...) and 2. Conroy is probably the only member of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's cabinet that I would like to see Fired... Out of a cannon, into the Sun.

[SGB]

I know that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is the leader and that "The buck stops with him" but does anyone have any links to proper quotes where he has actually given his approval or at least backing to Dictator Conroy's abortion of a policy of Internet filtering?

The filter policy isn't Conroy's policy, it's Rudd's. Conroy's just the poor whipping boy who has been tasked with the policy because it falls under his portfolio.

As for your question, closest I've seen is a couple of months back when Rudd said on Sunrise he made no apologies for the filter. That's it.

I'm a person who, for some reason? , enjoys watching question time and I've not seen/heard of him saying he is for the policy but then I've not seen/heard him say that he is against it either.

Rudd's not spoken about the filter during QT so far. As I said earlier, the filter is Rudd's policy so he's all for it.

[Hursticon]

I know that politics is a Hotly debated subject and arguments can break out before people realise so with that being said SGB, please don't think I'm trying to start one when I say this:

If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd hasn't mentioned it during question time, hasn't stated that he himself has come up with a policy to ("directly" <- lol) combat Child Pornography and has only mentioned that he has no apologies for the policy in one media based situation, how do you know that it is indeed the PM's policy?

Do you have any sources that state this? I'm just curious because I'd like to read/hear it as I personally have no problem with the Policy so long as it is constructed and implemented properly and only performs what it was originally intended to do.

I would not be surprised if it was the Prime Minister's policy, at least it may of been in the beginning but as it is Senator Conroy's portfolio, I can guarantee you that since it has fallen into to Senator Conroy's hands the Filters scope has gone from only Child Pornography to whatever the Government, or at least Senator Conroy's departments, deems as "dangerous material" which is why we are seeing such appalling amounts of legitimate sites being blocked and disgusting impacts on data transfer speeds.

I agree that the preliminary tests of the filter have been far less than welcoming and that Australia's rank of 58 in a survey of the world's average connection speeds is only going to get worse if the internet filter is implemented, but if we are to hang someone for these atrocities against Freedom of Speech and an Australian Adult's right to choose what information they see and how quickly that they receive it, then I think we can all agree that we should make sure we reprimand the right person.

At the end of the day I believe a filter that prevents access to known and unknown Child Pornography websites should be implemented, so long as the filter does just that and only that but ask anybody in the I.T. field and they'll tell you, "If there is a Will there is a Way" and in I.T. there is always a way to get around even the heaviest of security measures.

[SGB]

I know that politics is a Hotly debated subject and arguments can break out before people realise so with that being said SGB, please don't think I'm trying to start one when I say this:

I'm not under the impression you're trying to start one.

If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd hasn't mentioned it during question time, hasn't stated that he himself has come up with a policy to ("directly" <- lol) combat Child Pornography and has only mentioned that he has no apologies for the policy in one media based situation, how do you know that it is indeed the PM's policy?

It's definitely Rudd's policy because he calls the shots within ALP. He's known to have a "support me and my policies or you're out of the party" stance. If he didn't want the filter it wouldn't be on the table.

The only reason he's not spoken about the filter (apart from on Sunrise) is because it's an unpopular policy and Rudd steers clear of unpopular policies and lets relevant ministers take the crap and backlash over them.

I personally have no problem with the Policy so long as it is constructed and implemented properly and only performs what it was originally intended to do.

You should be concerned about it because it won't achieve the Govt's claimed aims at all, and legal content WILL be blocked under the policy. It'll take me way too long to fully outline/explain all the details about it, but I suggest you have a read through of EFA's Filtering Overview fact sheet or the very informative Libertus.net for more information about the Govt's plan and the ridiculous classification laws in this country that will allow the Govt to block legal content if the filter is implemented.

Simply put: the policy won't achieve any of the Govt's aims, and just creates a censorship infrastucture that WILL be abused (which is the primary reason why I'm opposed to the filter).

[Hursticon]

I'm fully aware that the current filter will not achieve what it was originally desired to do, but it's not like it cannot be done.

I support a Child Pornography Filter that works, the one that has currently been proposed does not fall into this category as it does not work as desired.

What I am saying is that I support the policy but the way it is being implemented is what I don't support.

Look at the Filter as a Computer File, the current file that is being proposed is riddled with bugs and full of exploits (i.e. Windows Vista) and those who wrote the current code for the file have failed to stick to the original scope which has compromised the quality, effectiveness and functionality of the file.

What needs to be done is that the current file should be deleted and the whole code writing process should be restarted creating a new file, whilst remaining within the constraints of the original scope so as to maintain the desired quality, effectiveness and functionality.

[kup]

I am not convinced that protecting children is the real motivation for this thing. That's just the selling point.

They know that the filter is meaningless for people who search for that stuff as they are likely already adept at hiding their 'steps' or bypassing protections. However this isn't the case for the average person who just surfs the net for general info.

The scary thing about this filter is that it may invisibly block content which is not illegal but just inconvenient to the Government. What is there to stop them from blocking websites which are critical of Government policies for example. That way all you end up reading are either websites that promote the policy or explain it without a hint of criticism making you think that the Government is doing 'a good job' when they aren't. Since you don't know critical websites are being blocked, how can you read the other side of the story?

In my oppinion, the real motivation behind the filter is to control what the voters know and that way the Government is in a position to 'control' votes.

[Hursticon]

I agree Kup, the policy certainly has become some what of a control measure, hence why many websites and other media outlets are likening the filter to that of China's which I believe has absolutely no place in Modern Australia.

Unfortunately, many members of parliament - local, state and federal display a pitiful knowledge level of Modern I.T. and subsequently bare a 60's-70's attitude towards it, "We can use this magic calculator to control the minds of the population" and "Computer games are only played by children between the ages of 3 and 10". It is these neanderthals that are defining the current policy's scope and who are dragging Australian I.T. further and further backward.

Unfortunately we'll have to wait another 10-15 years before anybody who is properly educated in I.T. considers joining politics because at the moment neither the Government nor the Opposition have any clue on what they're doing with the I.T. Sector, though at least the Government is thinking when it comes to the NBN but that is a subject for a different thread.

[DarkHyren]

At the end of the day I believe a filter that prevents access to known and unknown Child Pornography websites should be implemented, so long as the filter does just that

The problem with that theory is that there are not really any child pornography web sites, only just a handful at any given time.
Most any that pop up are taken down within 24 hours by the FBI/CIA/Police task force.
Despite what people may think, CP doesn't get distributed over the net through websites but through usenets/darknets, file sharing and the like.
A filter is not going to be able to do anything about that.
Guaranteed that if a secret blacklist of sites is made and a filter used to block them, it will be abused by any government.

[Hursticon]

I agree that the vast majority of Child Pornography is distributed not through websites but through P2P and the like but I disagree that a filter is unable to do anything about it because the filter would only have to be applied at the protocol level as well, though I think that this is why transmission speeds are being affected as filtering at the protocol level tends to create a bit of a bottle-neck and can create large amounts of overhead.

[SGB]

but I disagree that a filter is unable to do anything about it

Circumvention makes filters unable to do anything. The fact that filters are easily bypassable/circumventable makes the filter policy absolutely useless. Takes no more than a couple of seconds to get around them.

Unfortunately, many members of parliament - local, state and federal display a pitiful knowledge level of Modern I.T. and subsequently bare a 60's-70's attitude towards it

It's certainly a sad indictment of the lack of tech understanding among pollies. Conroy has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of IT knowledge. His self-admission that he is unable to set up a digital TV boxset was an absolute doozy. I bet Conroy's three year old daughter could easily set up the boxset.

From what I've seen, the only federal-level pollies that have demonstrated decent understanding of technology are the ALP's Kate Lundy and the Greens' Scott Ludlam (who has the Greens' Communications gig/portfolio).

Lundy's had genuine interest in technology for years now (and used to be Shadow IT Minister during the Beazley era), and Ludlam has some IT-based qualifications (one of which is graphic designer).

Ludlam's been terrific in going after Conroy; if it weren't for Ludlam, we probably wouldn't know as much about the filter plans & details as we do now.