Jan
7
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
Comments
19 Responses to “Second Life, Skype, Even Google Won’t be blocked by The Australian Government?”
Leave a Reply
Some good points made here Molly. Worse case scenario: Google, Yahoo, Skype, Second Life, etc. will have to clean up their act. But in my opinion, that isn’t a bad thing. But who listens to me anyway, I’m everyone’s favourite censorship loon, LOL.
Two questions.
What do you mean by “Have you described to your readers that blocked actually means that the content could be rated 15+, 18+…”? There is no mention at all of rating in this plan, only of ISP-level blocking based on an unspecified ACMA blacklist. You may be thinking of the previous, much more limited filtering applied to commercial entertainment providers?
What makes you think that overseas-hosted web services like Google will be “asked to participate” in anything by the Australian Government? What mechanism is there to request that they alter anything about their service, and what do you think they should be altering under this proposal?
Hey Lauredhel,
Thanks for the comment.
On point one, if you look at the proposal at the ACMA website, it talks about having age filters for MA15+, R18+ and then Blocking the content above this level, the same way as TV,Movies,Magazines,etc are rated and censored TODAY.
On why over seas hosts will participate. Well if they have content on them that will be blocked or age limited and it effects other parts of their services that don’t need to be blocked or age limited, you would think that they would probably (if it isn’t to prohibitive and is do able) find away to modulate there content in a way that means that the content can be age rated or blocked (if above R18+) and leave the stuff that doesn’t need to be rated, unrated!
Not sure this is any better an explanation.
Molly
The ACMA page you refer to is about the Restricted Access System Declaration 2007. The Clean Filter proposal you refer to at the start of your blog post is a completely different plan. Which one is your post about?
Lauredhel, are you sure? My impression is the clean filter comes from this! Thats what most people are linking too. I think you will find (and perhaps I am wrong so if you have links, let me know) the clean filter is going to implement this policy (i.e. age restrict 15+ and 18+ content and ban the stuff that it mentions it will ban).
HTH, and as I say, I welcome information that proves me wrong.
Molly
First, some of the things you suggest are technically impossible via ISP filtering, at least without blocking both the service and similar services entirely. Its both invasive and impractical for ISP filtering to in any way look at the content of the message, and actually impossible for many services that either use encryption or don’t present their content in a standard format (like Second Life). Where both adult and general content come from the same service, ISP filtering is unlikely to be any use at all (PC filtering is more use in some cases, such as text based services, but still no use for things like Second Life).
More importantly, I think both you and Deborah are living in a bit of a fantasy world if you think something like Google groups or Second Life are willing or able to make neatly divide up their content differently to the way they already do in response to the Australian government having a fit of censorship. In the unlikely event ACMA was silly enough to try and block parts of them, these services would simply become unavailable to anyone who opted in.
This message is an excellent example of why the censorship debate gets so heated, BTW - people talking as if they are moderates, but then cheerfully debating amongst themselves censorship ideas that go far beyond anything Conroy has suggested as if they are reasonable, without even realising why it would be so invasive and impractical.
Isn’t the main concern the speed reduction the filter will bring with it. Remember we don’t have the boardband in Australia like they do in Europe etc.
There is two levels of filtering anyway, one at the incoming gateways (international blacklist, few 200-500 sites) and another at the ISP. It’s the later we are talking about?
Molly, the ACMA proposal you are talking about refers only to services that originate in Australia - it doesn’t refer to content hosted internationally. Its a proposal to ensure that locally content providers do the right thing, not a proposal for internet censorship (ISPs are mostly ‘carriage providers’ not content providers, in the language they use).
Dave, I will give you that I may have it wrong (have you read this thing, it isn’t a 100% clear) but as I read it, the onus will go partly to the ISP to block the international content. Google agree with you on the hosted international point, although (if I read it correctly) they do go on to say things like Youtube would pretty much meet the expectations. This also shows that if the organizations are bigger enough and don’t want to lose Australian users, they will come to the party.
I agree that technologically it will be challenging but not impossible. I would have thought it possible to block url/adult and let in url/safe. Even if the provider virtually or really used different IP addresses for the different content.
Greg, yes I think the Speed concern is actually a good reason to be against or to question the policy. The thing is most against it go on a which hunt of the Government using it to block people with comments against them.
I have no problem with the debate, but keep it at an honest level and not a fictional level like Duncan took it suggesting that the government could block email!
Molly
Molly, read all the links I’ve posted at my blog that explain the clean feed proposal and its critiques. Conray’s proposal ISP-level mandatory opt-out blacklisted-sites “cleanfeed” has NOTHING to do with the 2007 Australian entertainment-industry rating system.
I think you’d do well to inform yourself on this before pontificating to others.
Hi Lauredhel,
Are you sure? I thought one went with the other in much the same way that Speed Cameras goes with Speed limit law (please no, you think internet censoring is a road law type comments, its an analogy)?
Which post are you refering too as I think I have read most of the references off of the Great Firewall post. In that post you reference the idea of content blocking based on analysising the content that I haven’t seen mentioned in the stuff I have read from the Government. Have you got a link to that (i.e. where the government mention content blocking)?
Reading the EFA (well browsing it) that is what I thought the government was looking at, a URL based blocking system. I agree that its probably a very poor bandaid and that parent vigilance and personal blocking programs are better. I believe I have said it all along. My main objection is to:
a) Suggesting this makes us like China! That is just a plain insult and (although China may also block porn,etc) normally said to like the Aussie filter to the fact that China block content they just don’t want their people to know (i.e. Tiananmen Square)
b) People saying that the government is doing it to block people disagreeing with them
c) scare mongering like suggesting that email may be blocked. Please!
So, yes there are issues with the idea. I personally have no problem with it. My mother always said that “locks only keep the honest people out” and this filter will only block some content for people that truly don’t want it. If people really want it they will get it. This is perhaps the beauty (and dark side) of the internet (I say dark side as it does let a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, minute amount of really sick stuff to take place (i.e. kiddy porn sites, bomb making)(note, I don’t think the internet should be shutdown or anything, don’t attack me on the last point as I am the first one jumping up and down when ACA runs the bad internet let …. happen story but it is true you can get just about anything you want on the internet, but the good totally eclipses the bad)).
I am suprised more aren’t arguing the point that false hope/belief is worst then no hope/belief argument. I mean if the parents that really don’t want their kids exposed to this but aren’t technically aware think this will 100% protect their kids, then that is worst then them thinking that their kids are in danger of them seeing things they don’t want.
HTH explain my views. Thank you for the healthy debate. As I said, reading Duncan’s name calling debate was getting very discouraging.
Molly
I think the main point that many folks are trying to make with these claims (which I agree are often exaggerated) is that, from what the public has been told so far, it’s not possible to say what will and won’t be filtered.
I’ve not seen anywhere refer to a black and white classification system of what will and won’t be blocked under this policy. Regardless of any of the (considerable) technical problems, we’re effectively at the whim of whoever is running the programme once it is in place. Is there a government document setting out what is and isn’t acceptable content?
From what has been publicly released thus far - a few phrases with non-specific terms such as “objectionable content” - the only thing that we can be certain is to be on the list (and quite rightly so) is child pornography. However the question is still wide open as to what else could be on that list. The fact that the classification system is not public and transparent is a huge problem.
I see Mr Riley is not declaring his political leanings, nor his history in posting false and misleading and even objectionable material, see the last two posts I made on Deborah’s blog for links.
http://www.australianwomenonline.com/?p=126#comment-168
And more disturbingly this:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1997/287/16167
I’m amazed that his one man crusade can be so spiteful - no wonder his former employer’s party lost at the election, and also, they also entertained a similar filter as well - talk about rank hypocrisy.
Also, I notice his spies are out in force
http://www.duncanriley.com/2008/01/08/mrs-robinson-cant-keep-her-word/#comment-214984
Frank, I got involved in the personal stuff for a bit, but to be honest I am over that and am more interested in the excellent level of debate on the issue. You have a right to say what you want here (as long as its legal and not plainly spiteful) but I trying not to be drawn in on it.
But on Duncan’s “politial leanings” I think he has made it every clear on his blog and podcasts on a number of occasions that he is a former Liberal party staffer.
Molly
PS. Are you sure it is the same Duncan Riley in that Green Left post? From what I can see (and its not 100% clear) that group is in NSW yet I beleive Duncan is in Perth and would have been at that time. Also, it seems to be a young liberal site and hes an old fart!
Molly,
I believe that Duncan was originally from NSW and was a Merchant Banker, according to that first BIo, and I believe this happen ed in the nineties and that Young Libs are 25 and under, so i’m assuming it’s one and the same - considering who he was once employed by.
If he has mentioned on his blogs and podcasts, then I apologise, but his “about” page only mentions “Duncan has a diverse background. Having started in merchant banking in Sydney in the mid 1990’s he’s had stints in Management and as a staff member to a Federal Member of Parliament.’
http://www.duncanriley.com/about/
And he also mentions he’s in his early to mid 30’s and the Green Left article dates back to 1997.
You are correct that both this blog, and Hoyden About Town have shown some maturity to discuss the issue in a mature way, and haven’t resorted to the Riley Method of personal attack, which unfortunately he doesn’t seem to realise, and takes EVERY comment as a personal insult.
BTW, if this reply isn’t suitable for publication, by all means remove this and the previous one and/or edit it, and we can continue this offlist.
Getting back on topic, it saddens me that certain elements of the Blogosphere have taken a “Take All Prisoners” aaprroach to this issue - there are no “Magic Bullets”, and all solutiions, even the most stupid of them, should be discussed in a calm and rational manner.
Deborah’s recent post on a US proposal to offer an opt-in dedicated port for filtered content, based on Ratings similar to Radio/TV/movies, sounds like the most suitable at this present time, as it allows customers to select what level of “filtering” they would like to use, and that it also places onus on content providers to rate their sites accordingly.
The Website for this proposal is here: http://www.cp80.org/
Unfortunately, the naysayers would no doubt prefer the “World Wild West” version of the net, and insist that PC filters and supervision will cure the problem.
In reality, Client based filters CAN be bypassed (and Senator Coonan’s You Beaut Filter was disabled by a tech-savvy teen in less than an hour), plus you cannot control your kids 24/7 - what happens when the kid goes to a friend for a sleepover etc, wthere the net isn’t filtered ? And what if said parents don’t care ?
As I’ve said elsware, this is a complex problem, and no one solution will solve it, but frankly resorting to juvenile name-calling and other personal attacks weakens, rather than strengthens your argument.
Jason
You are correct when you said the government hasn’t told the public what websites will be blocked because I really don’t think they know yet. What they are proposing will be a huge undertaking (compiling a blacklist). But what myself, Molly and Frank have maintained from the beginning is: assuming the government is going to use the ISP filter to censor and abuse freedom of speech is ridiculous.
I hope the government ultimate decides to implement something similar to the CP80 initiative, instead of ISP filtering. But we will all have to wait for next round of announcements to find out. I’m already getting a headache thinking about what opposition that will bring because some people on the web will always oppose any and all changes to the Internet.
Deborah
i dont understand.
why do people without children have to be put through this? dont i have a right to decide what i should and shouldnt see. or should the government decide for me this isnt about porn they can just as easily block a website to the associated press as they can some porn site which by the way you will NEVER stomp out of the internet. because you cant filter images only tags and names. its about the freedom of information thats all this is about the ability to control the content you see. and i GUARENTEE if you opt out you will be put on a list and monitored this is evil. why cant parents be left to look after their own children they shouldnt be leaving children UNSUPERVISED on the internet in the first place if there so worried about the children there are a huge range of products that can be used to limit computer access (locks timers products that only allow computer usage at certain times in the day for certain periods etc.) not to mention personal firewalls why is the government making EVERYONE do this. for the sake of the minority. for the sake of he boogeyman
its a joke. its evil. we should have the right to freedom of information. which is exactly what they will take away
weather you like it or not. thats what this is doing
Hi Laurence,
Not sure if you will be back, but if you do, answer me this, do you think the government should censor videos and magazines as well? If you don’t, then I support your right to argue against censorship.
If you do, then why should the internet be any different to a video or a magazine? Don’t say it won’t work, because Video and Magazine censorship isn’t 100% prefect either.
And the free press thing is just silly and the point of the whole post. THE SKY IS FALLIN THE SKY IS FALLING!
Molly