Mandatory ISP Filter Mind Map
Fri 22 Jan 2010I 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 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:
- www.stopinternetcensorship.org, particularly the Action Page where there are 5 things you can do right now to help stop internet censorship,
- Whirlpool’s knowledge base article on the “Cleanfeed”,
- Sign EFAs Petition now.
- Wear a Conroy Cartoon T-Shirt.
- See my earlier Conroy Cartoon posts.
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:37
[…] Mandatory ISP Filter Mind Map « MikeFitz with overflow bit set… mike.brisgeek.com/2010/01/22/mandatory-isp-filter-mind-map – view page – cached 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. […]
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:54
Nice work Mike, but RC isn’t “poorly defined”, it’s really quite clearly defined, and it DOES include euthanasia information. Check out http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan.html#RC for the details.
January 22nd, 2010 at 21:49
Thanks, Geordie. You’re right, I should have said “badly defined” - it’s over-broad as far as average Aussies are concerned.
January 22nd, 2010 at 22:00
[…] was just reading some excellent information by @MikeFitzAU about the “clean feed” planned by Senator Conroy here in Australia. […]
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:24
At the bottom of the map you have “Some of us worked very hard to get Mr Rudd elected”, followed by “He has allowed Senator Conroy to treat us with contempt”.
That should read “He has INSTRUCTED Senator Conroy…”
Rudd has not _allowed_ Conroy to do anything, and I doubt Conroy could reach his **** with either hand on a good day, especially when it comes to IT or social matters.
January 25th, 2010 at 10:34
I’m inclined to agree, Jeff. But I have to keep telling myself, “The bad policy is the enemy. Don’t get sidetracked by the personalities.”
The betrayal by Labor of one of the key demographics (intelligent internet users) that got them elected, is unconscionable.
January 31st, 2010 at 9:53
[…] bit set… …or .NET and other stuff that wouldn’t fit into Mike’s day job. « Mandatory ISP Filter Mind Map […]
February 3rd, 2010 at 0:05
I like the idea of limiting the debate to non technical arguments. This allows the discussion to engage a majority, who can influence these decisions.
Many people will value the filter as a service that blocks undesirable content without the concern (and direct cost) of configuring the filter themselves. This argument itself may be good policy politically.
Recommending a policy that mandates the filter is provided by all Aus ISP’s as an OPT-IN service may be worth consideration. This is an opposing argument to “the filter is a waste of taxpayer funds” and should be considered in that context. It is a political solution that would satisfy those who stand to profit (40-50m) from developing the filter and more importantly, the non-technical majority who see the filter as a commoditised government service that resolves the complex technical problem of how to filter content considered unacceptable by an authority whom they trust.
I’d also like to see some reference to the risks that a mandatory filter would introduce to free speech included. Possibly related to the proposition that “its PROHIBITION”. Free speech is a right that most people recognise, value and are likely to support. Even with a high level of ignorance for the other technical details of the debate.
February 3rd, 2010 at 0:42
Thanks for your comment, Ricky.
Actually I believe there are already OPT-IN choices available. At least one Australian ISP has spotted the potential market and is already offering a “cleaned feed” using one of the commercially available filtering packages. This offers both advantages of no local configuration required PLUS no cost to the taxpayer.
You mention the threat to free speech and others have done this too. I don’t so much see the filter as a block on what we can SAY. Rather it is a block on what we can READ. It infringes our ability to read ALL the information available on a censored topic. We as a nation will then make poor decisions based on only what our government wants us to read.
February 3rd, 2010 at 13:29
re ricky_elias: ‘Freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of expression’ (or freedom to READ) may be different terms but are certainly not treated as mutually exclusive throughout history in both legal instruments and philosophical discourse. Today, we generally use the term ‘freedom of information’ to refer to such freedoms on the internet.
The names may change but the essential qualities of all three expressions remain the same; the unfettered movement of ideas in society.
From a campaign perspective, I would suggest using the term ‘Freedom of Speech’ (with Caps) instead of, or along side, the other two because ‘Freedom of Speech’ is more loaded and sensational - in the same manner you employ the word PROHIBITION instead of CENSORSHIP - it will prick the ears of even the staunchest conservative. The same cannot be said of ‘freedom of expression and/or information’ (which conjure up images of hippies searching google for tips on how to grow weed)
Yes, this is pure politiking but we should, at least on one flank, be fighting fire with fire (note: the U.S. Gov uses the term (f.o.speech) when commenting on China’s censorship but falls back to the other two terms (expression/information) when discussing it’s own domestic censorship intentions).
As for the debate diagram: the arguments presented are, on the whole, moderate and sound (in political speak: soft) The fed Labor machine will happily dispose of them before breakfast on any given day.
We are up against both major parties here and they will run a serious scare campaign on serveral fronts - illegal porn, rec drug manufacturing, bomb making, terrorist activities - and if we cannot wage a similar war based on sensationalist humbug then we have no chance of stopping this legislation.
On the whole, I don’t believe we have any hope of thwarting this book- burning legislation unless we turn it into a political football (think climate change/border protection). We must muddy the waters of right and wrong so that the policy gets stuck in no-mans land.
Information Prohibition must, at the very least, stand in direct opposition to Freedom of Speech. Idea’s must be allowed their own Due Process. Internet Prohibition must be seen as un-democratic and downright un-Australian.
And so the question remains; can we get Warnie on the bandwagon before they do?
April 6th, 2010 at 12:46
[…] may recall my earlier post where I presented a Mind Map of the arguments against Senator Conroy’s Mandatory ISP Filter […]