Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 52

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/cache.php on line 36

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/cache.php on line 389

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 537

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 537

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 537

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 537

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 556

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 653

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 653

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 653

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 653

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el($output) in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/classes.php on line 678

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/query.php on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/theme.php on line 508
2010 » January MikeFitz with overflow bit set…

Archive for January, 2010

ISP Filter Will Disadvantage Australian Companies

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 74

UPDATE:
Thanks to those who provided feedback on this, particularly Jeff Waugh and others via Twitter and Whirlpool.  It would appear that requests from overseas to Australian-hosted websites will not be filtered.  This means that the problem described below will not eventuate until Google sets up and starts issuing crawl requests from an Australian node. — MikeFitz
———————

A Deloitte analyst, Damien Tampling, has been reported by ARNnet as predicting the Government’s controversial ISP filter will have minimal long-term effect on Australian businesses.

I think there’s an important factor that Mr Tampling has missed altogether.

It has become clear over the past few months that Google is now placing a higher importance on “Page Load Speed” when calculating Page Rank – the all-important score that gets my business near the top of page 1 of Google search results.

My Australian website, hosted in Australia, will be crawled by the googlebot through an Australian ISP.  Senator Conroy says it will load “a blink of an eye” slower, but this is an eternity to the googlebot.  My page rank will then be lower than that of a competing US, UK or NZ company.  I and other Australian companies will forever be at a commercial disadvantage because of the filter.

As I see it, ISP Filter -> Slower Page Loads -> Lower Google Page Rank -> Commercial disadvantage for Australian companies.  What do others think?

———————
See also…

Mandatory ISP Filter Mind Map

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 74

I have prepared this mind map to help guide the discussion in an upcoming meeting with a Labor MHR.  As best I can, I have presented the basic arguments against Senator Conroy’s current Mandatory ISP Filter policy with a minimum of technical jargon.

Mind Map presenting arguments against Senator Conroy's Mandatory ISP Filter
Mind Map presenting arguments against Senator Conroy’s Mandatory ISP Filter and offering a better solution for Child Cyber-Safety (click to enlarge)

The aim is to enlist this Member’s support for changing Labor’s Child Cyber-Safety policy away from the expensive and ineffective ISP filter and towards in-home filtering and education for parents about their role in ensuring their child’s safety.

Critically Urgent

The need to get this policy changed is now critically urgent as Senator Conroy has announced that legislation will be presented to Parliament in the next few months.

If you think it is helpful, please use the Mind Map to guide your own discussions with friends, relatives, workmates, etc.  Download a copy as

Of course, many technical arguments have been omitted but if you spot any errors, serious omissions or room for improvement, please let me know.

Thanks to Kath (@sleepydumpling) for suggesting that I use the word “PROHIBITION” instead of “CENSORSHIP” when talking to a politician.  Of course some politicians will think Censorship is perfectly reasonable in certain circumstances and the word doesn’t create a negative image for them at all.  On the other hand, Prohibition reminds us all of the bootlegging and other unintended outcomes of banning alcohol in the 1920s.

For further information:

Future Filter

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 74

My basic argument against the government’s mandatory internet filter is
It won’t work; it’s a waste of our taxes; parents will let their guard down; children will be harmed.

However, there’s also this other niggling question…
Do I trust ALL future governments to NOT misuse the national internet filter infrastructure?

Do you trust ALL future governments to NOT misuse the national internet filter infrastructure?

2009: The ACMA is blacklisting an ANTI-abortion website because its images are offensive to children.
2011 (as the filter goes live): We now have the national infrastructure to filter all RC material, including euthanasia and PRO-abortion websites.
2016 (after the revolution): The People’s Republic of Australia will now ‘harmonize’ all references to the Federation Square riot and massacre which, of course, DID NOT HAPPEN.
2021 (after the Jihad): The Islamic Caliphate of Australia will now filter all pro-Christian websites.

Who knows what the future holds?  If a national internet filtering infrastructure is in place, will it be mis-used?  It’s only a matter of time.

What sort of Australia do you want to leave for your children?

———————
Update
You can now purchase this cartoon on a t-shirt.

Related “Conroy Cartoons”

Phone Senator Conroy
Phone Senator Conroy
87 Percent
87 Percent
Pervert Conroy?
Pervert Conroy?
Quixotic Conroy
Quixotic Conroy

Pervert Conroy?

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 74

One of the most despicable things Senator Stephen Conroy has done was in the early days of the mandatory ISP filter policy.  He asserted, on the floor of the Senate, that opposition to this bad policy equates to support for paedophilia[1][2].

Yeah, well two can play that game…
Now that his ISP filter clearly won’t protect children, what’s his real motivation for pushing on regardless?

Now that Senator Stephen Conroy's mandatory ISP filter has been shown to be ineffective and a waste of money, why is it still Labor policy?

Citizen: Senator Conroy, you know your ineffective ISP filter won’t protect children from internet nasties?
Sen. Conroy: You must be a pervert.
Citizen: You know parents will let their guard down, thinking “The government is doing my job for me.”
Sen. Conroy: You must be a pervert.
Citizen: You know children will be harmed as a result of your ISP filter?
Sen. Conroy: I KNEW you were a pervert.
Citizen: You know it will be a huge waste of our taxes and won’t get one paedophile one meter closer to a courtroom.
Sen. Conroy: Isn’t it GREAT? (Welcome to the pervert club, by the way.)

Of course I don’t really believe that Senator Conroy is a pervert.  But I sure don’t like his “bully boy” tactics.

His real motivation for pushing on regardless is to establish the Western world’s most efficient censorship scheme.  Don’t fall for Conroy’s Con.

The mandatory ISP filter will never be 100% effective.  Our nation will never be able to afford the army of bureaucrats necessary to keep an ACMA “BlackList” up to date enough to protect children, while avoiding the unintended consequences of censorship experienced in other countries.

A better solution is parental supervision, aided if necessary by in-home filtering software targeted at the age-group of the children.

I call upon Prime Minister Rudd to cancel Senator Conroy’s white-elephant censorship scheme once and for all.  Spend the money on the Australian Federal Police and parent education.

———————
Update
You can now purchase this cartoon on a t-shirt.

———————
[1]  Senate Estimates Hansard, October 20, 2008 (PDF 1.21Mb)
Senator Conroy (in response to a question from Senator Ludlam about whether other countries have mandatory or opt-in systems):
I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.
Senator Ludlam: I am just wondering if I can put these questions to you without being accused of being pro child pornography.

[2] “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.” ABC News: Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children

Related “Conroy Cartoons”

Phone Senator Conroy
Phone Senator Conroy
87 Percent
87 Percent
Future Filter
Future Filter
Quixotic Conroy
Quixotic Conroy

Christian Pastor falls for Conroy’s Con

Friday, January 1st, 2010

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/bri58020/public_html/mike/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 74

It’s sad to see well-meaning people taken in by Conroy’s Con.  For example, Pastor Ruth Limkin writes in the print and online versions of today’s Courier-Mail, “Filtering of websites does not make a nanny state.”

Conroy has made a courageous decision to trial and now proceed with ISP filtering of refused classification material.

It is one for which he will receive much hate mail, but one for which he should also be applauded by those who realise what he set out to do which is to protect our children from the very worst, illegal material online.

Mrs Limkin mentions that “an independent body, as opposed to the Government, will determine classification of internet sites.”  She doesn’t seem to notice that the sheer size of the internet means that this approach is doomed to failure.  And children will be immediately at risk.

I submitted the following as a letter to the editor…

Ruth Limkin, please!  Open your eyes.  You have been taken in by Conroy’s Con.

In July 2008, Google’s index of unique URLs hit one trillion and is “increasing by several billion pages per day”[1].  There is no way our nation will ever afford the army of bureaucrats necessary to protect children by creating a “blacklist” of all the bad stuff.

By supporting Conroy’s solution, you are actually placing children in harm’s way.  Parents will let their guard down, thinking “The government is doing my job for me.”

You are also supporting a huge waste of our taxes on something that won’t get one paedophile one meter closer to a courtroom.

A better solution would be parental supervision, aided where necessary by in-home filtering software targeted at the age group of the children.

Conroy (and our Labor government) is harnessing your, no doubt well-intentioned, aim of “protecting children” to build something far worse than a nanny state. It is censorship.

An Australia with an easily-manipulated censorship scheme in place is not the Australia I want to leave to my children.

—————————————
[1] We knew the web was big…
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-knew-web-was-big.html

———————
Update 1 Jan 10:
Good news.  I’ve just had the phone call.  Watch out for this letter in tomorrow’s print edition of the Courier-Mail.

———————
Update 2 Jan 10:
Here it is as published, along with a more technical letter from Jonathan Bendall.

Courier-Mail: Letters to the Editor re Australian Internet Censorship

———————
Update 4 Jan 10:
Monday’s Courier-Mail included another letter.  This one from Bill Hely.

Courier-Mail: Letters to the Editor re Australian Internet Censorship

———————
For more information, see my earlier posts: