Scare Mongering! Remember when it used to be the term used to describe the way the Howard government used to justify the war on Terror. You know, be vigilant, the guy next door could blow you up, is it safe going to the footy or is a terrorist trying to blow you up. This was the line of arguments that the government used to go into Iraq and remove their government. Didn’t the anti-war campaigners get after the government telling us that Terror strikes although not completely out of the question are unlikely.

Well those that oppose the Clean filter are starting to use the same tactics. They are using the Chicken Little defence that the Sky is falling, the Sky is falling. Leading the charge is Duncan Riley, who wrote a brilliant example of scare mongering in his post tilte: “Will Second Life, Skype, Even Google Be Blocked By The Australian Government?”

I’ve been discussing on Twitter and elsewhere this week exactly what may be blocked by the Great Firewall of Australia once our nanny-state Government decides to implement it (we’re not sure exactly how yet either, could by via Regulation/ Declaration via ACMA, of by Act of Parliament).

The key is that the Australian Government wants to block anything that is pornography, inappropriate material, illegal and violent, at least those are the words used in the various press reports. The censorship loons and the do-gooders are naturally focused on porn, so lets just take a brief look in that direction.

So Duncan went on to list services that could be “blocked” by the clean filter. So I thought, I will look at what he wrote and add my thoughts. I added a comment to Duncan’s blog and to my surprise (well not that big a surprise) it was censored (i.e. Deleted/removed) (see image of the blog post with the comment). Oh, well. You would have thought that Duncan would want to debate and get his point across, but instead he decided name calling would be a better option. But never fear as I happen to have a copy of the comment and so here it is:

——————————————-

Its good to see you talking the issue instead of just playing the man/women as you have over most of the last posts. Lets look at each item you bring up:

1) Second life: Yes, I think it risks having problems, but there is an easy solution for Second Life to not be completely banned, Clean up there act on the sick/illegal stuff and make itself compatible with the law. Have some way of having areas that are for activity’s that fit in the 15+ category and the 18+ category and then police those areas. Build a way that ISP’s can run the age test they are required to do under the policy when people are hitting those areas. Having said this, my (poor) understanding is that SL is a 18+ environment anyway (isn’t there a kids version, did Scoble get banned for letting his kid play it at a conference?) so ISP’s simply need to run the 18+ age test.
Verdict: No need to ban if they clean up the “beyond sick, and likely illegal” stuff

2) Skype: Skype isn’t really a website, its a Phone service. The government has laws for Telephony today and I would image they would apply better to Skype.
Verdict: Hardly likely unless it or its users are breaking laws in relation to telephony

3) Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, Usenet: Yes they have some things that will need to be subject to the age filter. They may also be subject to having illegal X rated porn so could be asked to remove that or risk being banned (which I guess could be banning the individual group or banning the whole thing).
Verdict: Could have some content that could cause banning although it is more likely to be just the groups that offend rather then the whole service

4) BitTorrent: Bittorrent is an interesting one. Although it is possible to use the service in a legal manner, I think it goes with out saying that High, majority of the time (I would estimate 80-90, but Duncan might have better figures) it is being used for “illegal” means namely downloading TV SHows, Music, Movies, etc that would break the copyright law. Would the government expect the ISP’s to just block bittorrent because of this? Maybe. So I will give you that there is a concern here especially if the Media companies see it as a way to protect their property. Having said this, don’t you think something else would popup?
Verdict: Could be in Danger

5) Email: Come on!
Verdict: What do you think!!!!!!!!

6) Twitter: May I just add a comment here that I am glad you didn’t just add things to the list to Scare Monger (lol). Yes, it is possible, but more likely not!
Verdict: Is possible but so is that one of my websites gets bought by FairFax for 40 million dollars. Is either likely? No!

7) Blogs: Interesting. Yes I am sure there are some blogs that will be banned. I am sure there are some that will be restricted to 18+. Another group will be made 15+ and the majority will be left alone. It will depend on the content, much the same way some magazines anyone can buy, and some have plastic wrapping and can only be bought by people over the age of 18 and a small number are not allowed to be sold in this country.
Verdict: Horses for courses. Most fine, Some 15+, some 18+ and a some blocked completely

Google: Yes google will be asked to participate and make sure that there seach results and other properties comply to the law but the thought of them being blocked is about as likely as me being the Next PM!
Verdict: Does this even warrant a verdict?

9) Internet Archive: Yes they will have to comply to the policy or at least I should say that the ISP’s will have to have them comply to the policy but this would be a small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, part of their Achieve so its unlikely a complete ban would occur. On a side note, do they have a porn policy? I am sure if it was worldwide illegal stuff (like kiddy porn) they would probably want it remove any.
Verdict: small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small, small chance some parts of the achieve could be blocked/restricted but on whole they should be fine.

Lastly, it is interesting you say blocked. Have you described to your readers that blocked actually means that the content could be rated 15+, 18+ or (as you want to get the point out there) completely illegal/not allowed in Australia in which it would then asked to be taken down or banned? I also had a laugh that you used the term “nanny-state”, as other Get This listeners probably did as well! In summary, good to see you back on the issue and not off in the weeds play the person, not the issue.

————————————

So there you have it. I will be interested if the debate gets back on track away from the name calling.

Molly