The Internet Filter - A Bad Idea.

Forum Rules

Helios_Multi TPoxygen11final

[Snoskred]

Hi all,

Normally we do not allow political topics here on the forums as people tend to take sides and it can end in tears. However on this occasion I think we can *all* agree that the plan to filter the internet -

- will slow down the internet for the rest of us

- will make it *more* difficult for the Federal Police to catch people downloading child pornography - something it is clear the Federal Police are extremely good at and are continually getting better at. If the government would use some of the funding for this filter to fund the Federal Police instead, that would be a much better plan.

- the filter will drive a lot of the child pornographers more underground than they are already, making it more difficult to identify and arrest them

- and now we find out that they intend to do a lot more with the filtering than originally intended - they will be using it to stop people downloading tv shows and movies and games.

You can see Senator Conroy's blog post here. You can read an article - and an awful lot of comments - about this blog post here. There is discussion on this topic on Whirlpool, also.

What can you do?

Find your local politician and write to them on this topic. For info on how to do that, click here.

Email Senator Conroy and tell him how you feel about this awful idea. His email address is available on this website.

Check out the No Clean Feed site.

Spread the word by blogging about it. To make it easier for you to blog about it, here is a code box with all the links I have posted in this post, you can take them and put them on your blog very easily.

Code:

Senator Conroy's blog post -
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/civil_and_confident_society_online
News.com.au article -
http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,24833959-5014239,00.html
Whirlpool Discussion -
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-threads.cfm?f=100
Find your local politician -
http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/lobby.html
Email Stephen Conroy -
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/senators.asp?id=3L6
No Clean Feed website -
http://nocleanfeed.com/
See all the senators -
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/index.asp?sort=state

Post your letters here -

If you write a letter to a politician, you can feel free to post it in this thread to inspire others.

Keep things civil -

I would ask all of you to try and keep the discussion of this topic civil. Please do not name call the politicians, that doesn't help anyone. Unfortunately this includes using my favourite name for Kevin Rudd - Krudd. If I can restrain myself, so can we all. I use it here as an example of what is not ok for posting in this thread - we will delete anything that involves name calling on sight. If we can have a civil, intelligent discussion about this, the admin team here will seriously consider allowing discussions on these kinds of topics in the future.

Let us try to focus our energy in a positive direction of getting something done.

This could be the end of the internet as we know it - speed wise, freedom of speech wise, general freedom wise. If you have never written to a politician before, now is the time. In general for every one letter they get, they consider it to represent the views of a certain number (I can't remember the number off the top of my head) of the population. This means you taking the time to write a letter can really make a difference.

You do not have to stop at sending it to your local politician. Copy and paste is a wonderful thing. If you use Thunderbird, you can save your message as a template, and just copy one politician email address at a time and send off emails to all the politicians from your state, or even all the politicians in the country.

I certainly recommend you email *every* senator, if possible. All the senators can be found here.

If you write a blog post on this topic -

Please link to that post in this thread as well.

[leechbabe]

Thank you.  I've emailed Senator Conroy and my local member.

I've also posted a link back from my Facebook Status to this thread.

[Snoskred]

More about downloading TV shows..

We live in a country where our television stations have no respect for the viewers. That is why people download TV shows. They don't do it because it is fun, or because they *want* to. They do it because they want to watch a show as the people making the show intended - in order, in a timely manner.

For example - the show Dexter was first seen in the USA in 2006. Channel 10 just ran that first season on free to air TV in 2008. It was released on DVD here long before it appeared on TV. It was also shown on the pay tv channel Showcase before it appeared on TV here. There were people who downloaded the show as it aired back in 2006. When it did appear on TV here, the times it was shown differed - anywhere between 9:30pm and 10:50pm. It wasn't always clear in advance when the show would be on. As Channel 10 were playing Season 1, Season 3 was being completed and aired in the USA.

If our TV stations were somehow made to show series - in order, at the same time each week, and within a short time of them appearing on TV in other places, guess what would happen? NOBODY WOULD NEED TO DOWNLOAD THINGS.

I do not know if the TV stations is something which Senator Conroy has control over, but if he does maybe he should be focusing on finding ways to improve the airing of TV shows here in order to stop people needing or wanting to download them.

If people are fans enough of a show to download them, usually they are fans enough to purchase the box set when it is released.

[Snoskred]

My letter -

I am writing to you today in order to express my disgust regarding Senator Conroy's plan to implement an internet filter.

It has recently been revealed by Senator Conroy via his blog (link here) that this plan is intended to filter a lot more things than originally intended, including peer to peer and bittorrent traffic. Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology is the most common way for computer users to share video, picture and music files over the internet.

However, this technology is not just a vehicle for people to download illegally pirated material. For example, one of the more popular games on the internet, World Of Warcraft, uses peer to peer technology to release updates and patches for their game. It is also utilised by programs like Skype, which allow internet users to hold text or voice chats with each other via the internet for free. I have personally used Skype to talk to friends and family all over the world.

It is estimated that this plan will slow down the internet in Australia. Asher Moses reported in the Age (at this link) that this plan may slow down the internet by as much as 87 per cent. For a country where a lot of internet users are still on dial up speeds, this is a significant problem.

Before we create an "online civil society" there are some serious issues that must be dealt with in this country - the economy, housing, unemployment to name just a few - instead of this $125.8 million Cyber-Safety Plan - this money could be put to much better uses.

The proposed "national broadband network" is also an extreme waste of money. What needs to be done is to bring fibre optic cable from the "node" (the telephone exchange) to peoples homes - not to put fibre optic cable from the "node" (the telephone exchange) inwards. There is no point having fibre optic cable on just one side of the telephone exchange. It costs a lot of money to roll out the fibre optic cable - and this is why the companies did small roll outs and then stopped. If the government would roll fibre out to the people, believe me the companies would do what needs to be done on the other side of the telephone exchange.

The reason I mention that is because the current plan will do absolutely nothing to speed up the internet for anyone. It will be billions of money spent for no decent result. It will do nothing to combat the slowing down that this proposed filter will cause.

I strongly object to both of these plans, and I would like you to strongly object to these plans also - for the reasons I have expressed above.

[Gamone]

This forum has not always practiced what it's preaching today. The forum once censored me when I submitted a few calm words concerning the state of the Australian infrastructure... which has since become a front-page topic in the press. To my mind, Conroy can get away with his outrageous schemes for the simple reason that Australia is full of naive do-gooders who do lip service towards free speech without really believing in it.

[Snoskred]

As I stated in my original post, Gamone, we do have rules here. Normally we do not allow political topics here on the forums as people tend to take sides and it can end in tears.

I have been a member of Australian forums which have been torn apart by allowing the discussion of politics. That is why we made the decision not to allow subjects such as politics or religion here.

We have made an exception for this topic, and *if* it goes well, and *if* people remain civil. we will seriously consider changing those rules. We have been thinking about it for a while. This is your opportunity as a forum member to show that these discussions can be held without needing excessive moderation due to personal attacks and name calling.

Your post is not the best start to that, I have to say, I feel like you have attacked us for not allowing discussion of these topics. We host the forums, and we get to make the rules. We would like to be able to change them. Prove to us that ya'all can have civil discussions of these topics, and we will do so.

[Neil]

Couldn't agree more!  I posted on it this morning. -- and a couple of times earlier.

[Gamone]

I was hoping that the generosity of your thinking might extend to your welcoming me to start a thread about the Australian infrastructure. Instead, you say limply: "I feel like you have attacked us..." So, let's leave it at that. I have the privilege, here in France, of living in an advanced society that does not tolerate censorship in any form.

[CrystalsQuest]

You didn't include one method of protest: coincidentally the first topic in the Government's "Consultation Blog" is "The Digital Economy".
The link to the section on regulatory framework, open for comments is:

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/regulatory_framework

I posted on the first page before they split it up into sections. They have 29 pages of comments on that first page, I think that's why they created the 'framework' page - because most of them were on/against filtering.

CrystalsQuest

[Anonymum]

I was hoping that the generosity of your thinking might extend to your welcoming me to start a thread about the Australian infrastructure. Instead, you say limply: "I feel like you have attacked us..." So, let's leave it at that. I have the privilege, here in France, of living in an advanced society that does not tolerate censorship in any form.

Gamone
I appreciate your need to be heard, and until now I have been silent on the whole matter, however in this instance I must agree with Snos.
The rules have always been stringent on these matters, and as we make the rules, I'm afraid until it can be proven everybody can have a civilised discussion, then the rules will remain.
For every rule change there must be a test case, and this is it. Because it's not a subject you chose to start does not make it wrong.
If and when the rules change, then you are more than welcome to post on the subject you obviously feel strongly about.
Until then I can assure you we are in fact privileged to live in one of the greatest countries in the world regardless of how you see it, and your comment does not encourage me to vote for any type of political duscussion if that's the attitude people are going to take should they not get their own way.
It's this type of thng that we're trying to avoid, not encourage.

[Claire Hone]

Hi there, I have been so busy this year with business and personal issues with my autistic son, that I haven't got involved with Aussie Bloggers as much as I would like.  Hopefully that will change in 2009.  The issue you have raised here is a direct assault upon our human right to speak out as individuals.  As a former Londoner (now Aussie citizen :-) ) we had Speaker's Corner.  Anyone was allowed the right to get on their soapbox and talk about any subject,any topic.  You may not agree, you may not like it, but you had the right to speak, and you had the right to walk away.  This is democracy and it is vital that we watch and protect it at all times.  I will most certainly be writing to the relevant authorities and making my voice heard (I hope).  My latest blog about my son talks about a cut in funding for next year and our new principal's dictatorship of our school.  If this legislation goes ahead, would I be allowed to write about what happened?

C xx

[luciodiasribeiro]

This is a serious very serious subject.
We need to move and we need to act.
There are more damage than solution on this stupid idea

there are numerous ways you can make difference, please check my
No Censorship in Australia post.

Lucio Ribeiro

[Sueblimely]

Although political, we are discussing a matter that has relevance to the topic of this community. Most of us use the internet extensively for research, surfing, reading other blogs, social networking or using forums such as these. The speed issue will affect us all and we may be cut off from legitimate sites due to error. One issue that concerns me is that we will not know which sites are being banned which leaves the system open to abuse - can you imagine a scenario where sites criticizing government policy would be on the no go list or where someone's idea of innapropriate does not match with the majority but is still banned?

As for the torrent sites and downloads, what gets me is that our download limits are limited even with our so called "unlimited plans". Australia cannot be a major offender considering our population and our download capabilities. We have to be careful towards the end of every month so that we are not speed limited.

Many of the downloaded shows are eventually shown on free to air or cable here but a huge amount are never shown because they do not appeal to the masses or they are not US shows. No one is losing revenue by our downloads of these.

[jab_au]

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
-- Adolf Hitler (Source)

Sometimes the worst people in history, can put things in the best words to describe the situation.

[Liam]

I agree that this is a very serious issue which will have far reaching consequences for internet users and our society as a whole.  When I've mentioned this plan to friends overseas they have been astounded that such a plan could even be considered in a country like Australia.

I recently made a post on this issue here > 

I'm very happy to support this motion in any way I can.

[macgirvin]

On the bright side, the concept is doomed to failure. The only drawback is that it will take some time for failure to manifest itself, during which time things may not be pleasant.

I find it somewhat amusing that I may find a couple of my own web properties inaccessible. I will likely require a proxy or bypass in order to administer them. But no big deal.  Tunneling through corporate firewalls is a good analogy. Most competent IT folks can do this and have been forced to at one time or another. I can put a proxy script on a U.S. server in under a minute and completely bypass the Aussie filter. If it comes to that, I may be forced to do so.

A far better option in the long term is for a reliable and widespread internet ratings service, so that one can make their own choices about whether or not a destination URL is suitable for reasons of content appropriateness, business reputation, exposure to malware, whatever. I worked on the prototype for such a service - which recently was launched publicly as safeweb.norton.com. This is what others are doing to solve the problem. Filters are used by China and don't work. Everybody in China knows how to get around the filter if they need to. The same will happen here.

[mickdakota]

An excellent article from the SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/fatal-flaws-in-website-censorship-plan/2008/12/22/1229794328860.html

[squadron]

Here's my letter that I posted yesterday. I've also posted the protest banner on one of my web sites. Banner code can be obtained here:
http://nocleanfeed.com/action.html




========================
Senator Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Dear Minister Conroy,

I have never written to a government minister before, but I have serious concerns about the Rudd Government’s mandatory Internet filtering plan. Given the importance your Government has attached to modernising Australia's broadband network, pursuing a policy that can only slow down and increase the costs of home and business internet access seems misguided at best, and pandering to right-wing Christian minorities at worst.

Australian governments have never been very good at communications policy. Examples include: pay TV infrastructure, the privitisation of Telecom and the development of a national broadband network that doesn’t include the nation’s biggest carrier. Now we have another ill-conceived and expensive communications policy debacle with the clean-feed mandate.

Australian households are diverse, and most do not have young children, so mandating a one-size-fits-all clean feed approach will not serve the public or business well. I don't think it is the Government's role to decide what's appropriate for me or my children, and neither do most Australians.
 
Like China, Australia, will become a laughing stock and seen as a technically clumsy and naive cyber-nanny-state.  Don’t be blinkered Minister, seek counsel from people outside of Canberra who know what they are talking about. Ask yourself why no other western democratic country has a similar scheme.

Given the amount of Internet content available, the Government will never be able to classify it all and filters will always result in an unacceptable level of over-blocking. Did you know that for $3 per month it’s possible to use an overseas proxy server that completely bypasses all local ISP filtering?  The introduction of a clean-fee will just educate people as to what bypass technology is available and encourage the use of such technology by terrorists and pedophiles. Ask the national security agencies what they think of such technology.

I feel that the time and money could be spent in better ways both to protect children and improve Australia's digital infrastructure.  Australian parents need better education about the risks their children face online. Trying to rid the Internet of adult content is futile, and can only distract from that mission. Stupid promises can be broken … break this one.

I can’t wait until the next election,

Your sincerely,

Name and address supplied
===============================

[whoozhe]

This filtering has nothing to do with porn, saving our souls or protecting children. The Government knows quite well that such filtering will never work. They know that a ten year old can figure a way around any filter within minutes. They know that there exists software to make circumvention easy. So why are they bothering? Some ay say to be seen as doing something. Me, I say it is just another attempt to save the status quo, those who stand to lose the most as the internet gets faster. TV, Cable TV in particular, movie theatres, the "No Fun" brigade  and just about anyone who would prefer your dollar in their pockets instead of it being used for home entertainment.
The other reason is that Governments love to control every aspect of our lives, at any cost.
This is not just a conspiracy theory as these same people have been doing everything possible to kill off or take full control of the net from the day the web browser came into being.
I hope that ALL Internet providers, including Telstra and Optus, fight this right to the High Court. If they want financial help in fighting this abomination of a law then I am willing to donate.

[Dorothy]

Censorship is always a bad idea even though I am from the US we are continually dealing with government interference and today the awful task of watching them attempt  more control and spending along with the continuation of higher taxes.  I feel we are headed towards another Boston Tea Party.  We have less  services and the government spending and taking more while it appears they are wiping out the middle class and we're  helpless as to how to stop the madness.  So if in your heart you feel this is the first step towards control and Censorship it probably is and I wish you enough needed support to stop it in it's infancy.

Best Wishes

Dorothy from grammology
grammology.com

[BiteTheDust]

G'day all

letter sent ages ago and a petition signed.
I am also with William on two points. If we were not so laid back we would not tolerate such censorship. And infrastructure and filtering cannot reallybe separated. Both are major planks in the governments policy Better infrastructure would mean that if such a plan goes ahead that potential blockages be reduced and slow downs be minimised

Robbo

[Sueblimely]

I read this blog comment about the filter and wondered if anyone could confirm that this may be true "centralising australia’s internet connections may well create a large scale security problem by creating a huge logged and backed-up treasure trove of data containing slightly encrypted credit card numbers."? 

[Gary Looney]

Although political, we are discussing a matter that has relevance to the topic of this community. Most of us use the internet extensively for research, surfing, reading other blogs, social networking or using forums such as these. The speed issue will affect us all and we may be cut off from legitimate sites due to error. One issue that concerns me is that we will not know which sites are being banned which leaves the system open to abuse - can you imagine a scenario where sites criticizing government policy would be on the no go list or where someone's idea of innapropriate does not match with the majority but is still banned?

As for the torrent sites and downloads, what gets me is that our download limits are limited even with our so called "unlimited plans". Australia cannot be a major offender considering our population and our download capabilities. We have to be careful towards the end of every month so that we are not speed limited.

Many of the downloaded shows are eventually shown on free to air or cable here but a huge amount are never shown because they do not appeal to the masses or they are not US shows. No one is losing revenue by our downloads of these.

Hi All

And Sueblimely, your points are good, or I just agree (whichever is correct from the onlooker!)

Censorship concerns me:

Internet in Australia is expensive and lagging behind some undeveloped countries in speed.
So the remote and less well to do in Australia with less modern infrastructure and service have slower connections on average.
Regardless of availability even, budget limitations force uses to compromise on either data, speed or both.

I said somewhere on a forum that Filtering is like putting the cart before the horse!
I since herd Senator Conroy use the phrase” horse before the cart?” in parliament, it is not personal but I do question government. Words are only words unless you understand them.

Priority has been ignored here, I would like people to ask why and seriously ask yourself “Who do you trust to ...?”

This is a Government Tool, a very expensive Government Tool that cannot be justified.
Ever watched media releases in which the department makes decisions on TV and Movie content suitability?  Neither this, nor anything like it is the way forward for Internet!



My opinion:
Pornographic material is not the main drive for this.

Internet has given us a growing platform for free speech and the resources of law for those of comprehension, once only affordable to layers.

We need to think a lot smarter and reverse the Chinese experience in Australia!

Solving this needs reasoning and alternative models to be put forward to government, not an easy task but we can think on this and hopefully see some suggestions posted here!

I would like to see further networking of our education and science institutions for efficiency of resources that would enable filtering within this network, private computers should not have forced filtering.

Our society does not practice what it preaches and Government is often the aspiration and roll model due to the confidence it often needs to falsely maintain above truth.

If a parent allows their children to stay up late or children wake up in the early hours to watch TV they are bombarded with hours of:
                                  “Want a hot sexy babe on your mobile” or
“Call now were hot and horny, see my girlfriend and I rub cream all over our bodies”
Have I missed something here, are we a perverse society?

The many messages such as these are broadcast into every home in the country which is censored by the same strain of human that filter the internet!

I want to share my opinion over time here to talk these issues through, hopefully considering views from others to define a model that is representative of our little community here!

What do you want to see?

If you had no choice but to be filtered, how could we build safeguards in to protect against our transparence concerns?


Come back when I have thought this through further.

Gary

[louise]

thanks for the links to and contact details I will send off a letter today. To be honest I really thought that this was so obviously ridiculous that it would die a natural death but it doesn't seem to be happening.

It just doesn't make sense. It will be a huge step backwards and make us look pretty silly internationally.

As far as pornography goes I think it's just a red herring to appeal to the masses. It will not have any effect at all and surely if people are over 18 they can make their own decisions about what they access online so long as it's legal.

I 'll get off my butt and start writing.

[Gary Looney]

It just doesn't make sense. It will be a huge step backwards and make us look pretty silly internationally.

As far as pornography goes I think it's just a red herring to appeal to the masses. It will not have any effect at all and surely if people are over 18 they can make their own decisions about what they access online so long as it's legal.

Hi louise

I agree with your take, well worded.

I add that it will also cost our country financially, if you are 18 you should have the right to make your own decision, the question of behaving legally could be ruled upon with conflicted interests.
This is a complex area.


Gary