Federal Government’s Censorship Plan is Dangerous to Children
Sun 21 Dec 2008Thanks to the Courier-Mail (Brisbane/Queensland’s daily News Ltd newspaper) for publishing my letter to the editor, this weekend.
For a detailed discussion of why I say what I did, see my previous post Cancer and Colitis victims Condemn Conroy’s Censorship.
The Courier-Mail, December 20-21, 2008. p70
Just for comparison, here’s what I submitted…
Short version:
I’ve studied Senator Conroy’s internet filter and it doesn’t actually work. Instead it will make the internet more dangerous for children and not get one paedophile one meter closer to a courtroom. Spend the money on AFP detectives.Longer version:
I’ve studied Senator Conroy’s internet filter and none of the proposed products block 100% of unwanted sites. One product blocks only 87% of unwanted sites. This is like having 87% of a pool fence; more dangerous than no fence at all. Parents will let their guard down, making the internet more dangerous for children than before. Further, Conroy’s tens of millions of dollars will not get one paedophile one meter closer to a courtroom. Spend the money on AFP detectives.
No complaints. I’m glad they chose the long version. But it is interesting to see how the editing process works.
- All references to Senator Conroy have been removed. (What are they telling me here? Play the ball and not the man?)
- “Conroy’s tens of millions of dollars” becomes “millions of dollars spent on this project”. (Tens of millions? Millions? I guess the man in the street gets the picture. It’s a lot of money.)
- Introducing the US spelling of “paedophile”. (?)
- “AFP detectives” becomes “the Australian Federal Police”. (Watch acronyms.)
December 21st, 2008 at 23:56
Mike,
The ISP I am working on with this project is using a filter product not used in the previous trials, and the feedback I have from the DBCDE is that this trial is not restricted to the previous products.
There were too many mickey mouse products last time, there are a couple of real products in this test.
The mandatory filter is a blacklist, and our product does 100% on that, without fail, and gets almost all anon proxies within a minute of a first address request. So that argument from many people is an old dudder as well.
Certificate classes for encrypted sites are on their way as well, which will eventually weed out the nasties wanting to use this route as well. It still puzzles me that so many people want to nominate this as the unresolvable way around filters. The day will come sooner than you think where access to encrypted sessions to sites without an authorised certificate will also be blocked nationally. Registered sites will ebe able to establish encrypted sessions, nasties will not be registered and thus blocked.
Not rocket science, but you need to understand the actual technologies and what might actually work. Too many people seem fixated on seeing only the weaknesses of a limited number of products. I have not seen one of them look beyond these for potential workable solutions.
If they run their networks like that then they must be pretty ordinary networks…
So all that said, I think we need to watch and see what comes out of these tests, hope that these trials are run better than the last trials, hope that the process is handled professionally and perhasp actually look at the forensic capabilities of some of these technologies.
BTW, the point of the exercise is simple: Block junk deemed illegal.
BTW2: I suggest you do not use products that cannot block more than 87% of unwanted sites.
BTW3: And what do we do with a police force that cannot prevent 100% crime? Fire them all and replace them with parental controls? Use the AFP?
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:34
G’day MikeofMelb,
Thanks for this comment and thanks for confirming your e-mail address.
“our product does 100%” - That’s good. Are you able to tell me your product’s name? At this point, all I have to go on is the ACMA’s June 2008 report into the products it tested, none of which scored 100%.
(And BTW4: Am I correct in assuming that you are in line for a substantial financial gain if your product is selected?)
Good luck — Mike
December 22nd, 2008 at 15:29
@Mike of Melbourne
Why did your company not participate in the mickey mouse trials?
Should have been a slam dunk for you if your product is a good as you say it is.
As I understand it all filtering solution vendors where able to setup their platforms to ensure they were operated in the optimal manner.
I can only conclude that your company did not want to subject itself to a formal evaluation?
Awaiting your response, Cameron.
January 3rd, 2009 at 22:28
I actually have a philosophical problem with sites being banned based on some set of criteria that is not transparent.
We’ll start with one of two things deemed important, but we won’t know when dissenting political opinions disappear.
And don’t say “oh this government would not do that”, because governments change ( as we have seen), but legislation to control the populace is rarely repealed.
January 3rd, 2009 at 23:15
Worse, when we find something being blocked that shouldn’t be, there’ll be no process to handle any appeal.
January 11th, 2009 at 23:06
First point: Filtering Illegal content is not as effective socially as finding and arresting those that use it. A 100% effective filter will mean a 100% blinding of the police trying to find paedophiles who will only be caught later when they attack a child.
Second point: MikeofMelb, I understand that there may be commercial concerns preventing you from declaring which ISP with which you are involved, but try linking something to substantiate your technical claims at least once.
Third point: I’m with Mike on this one, I’m sick of people spelling the word paedophile incorrectly. It is NOT pedophile. It’s not even the americanised spelling, pedophile is somebody that loves feet!
January 18th, 2009 at 18:14
I also have a philosophical problem with the Government taking a medium and deciding, presumable with the ‘public interest’ in mind, what should be shown and what should be hidden from the public.
The first point I should make is that there is no such thing as the ‘public interest’. There are the interests of individuals only. Be wary whenever you hear the term ‘public interest’ used in defence of a proposed measure or law.
Second, the censorship of online content, however effective or not, is an encroachment on individuals in society to exercise their own judgement, and indeed directly assumes that our elected representatives and their respective departments are able to exercise superior judgement to those whom they represent.
I think the following quote by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action sums this up quite well:
The mere fact that a nationwide Internet filter is being discussed as a real possibility in coming years is of grave concern, and I believe we are on a slippery slope. The idea of a filter that prohibits content, deemed by the Government, as too sensitive for the public, is clearly totalitarian in nature, and especially for the ‘Lucky Country’.
Child pornography, which were told is the reason for this filter, is indeed already too far ‘underground’ to be affected in any way by the Government’s proposed Internet filter. The filter will filter only unencrypted material, and naïvely assumes that those in possession of, and involved in the distribution of, such material, would not attempt to cover their own tracks. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the early 20th century gave rise to moonshining and other dangerous practices, and prohibition of illicit drugs has increased their potency and danger many times over. This filter, a form of prohibition, will also have unexpected consequences.
I agree with Mike Fitz. The money for this misguided filter is better off given to the Federal Police, instead of squandered on a totalitarian Internet filter paid for by the public who do not want the filter twice: first by their taxes used to create it; and second by the increased costs of Internet access, passed on by ISPs forced to pay for implementing the filter.
March 5th, 2009 at 0:51
87 Percent…
That’s how effective Senator Conroy’s proposed Mandatory ISP Filter could be according to the ACMA[1][2].
Senator Stephen Conroy’s mandatory ISP filter could be as low as 87 percent effective at blocking ‘unwanted material…
January 26th, 2010 at 6:04
This debate is plain and simple. Either you want the government to decide what you can and can’t say, or you don’t.
Let’s not forget that those who sacrafice freedom for security will NOT get and do NOT DESERVE either. If you want to live in an information vaccume then bugger off to China and let the rest of us make up our own minds on what is ’safe’ for us and our kids thank you very much.
Furthermore, it’s OBVIOUS where this is headed, you only need to visit some of the not so ‘lucky’ countries, this has all happened before and ignorance is NOT an excuse. People get the governments they deserve.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:57
This is an popular topic for parents with teenagers. Im glad that there are options available to use to proect our family.