8 posts tagged “censorship”
Here is their excellent response.
There is also a link on this site to a letter signed by a number of concerned groups including Save the Children Fund. They correctly recognise this approach is not targeted in the correct area.
I know we are now getting closer to China and that's not a bad thing, but trying to mimic China's censorship tactics is following them just a little too closely.
With the experts available to Conroy, I don't understand why his approach is still being persisted with. He can't possibly believe he is on the right track so he must have alternate motivations.
Is he religiously inspired? Quite often folk who are will follow any suggestion they think "feels right" in the hope it turns out for the better.
Perhaps he wants to appear to be doing something? Looking busy is not a bad tactic unless someone starts actually looking at what you are doing. I have seen this used successfully in the Public Service.
From a more sinister viewpoint it could be aimed at shutting down the more revealing information streams like Euthanasia sites or real data from areas where our troops are stationed. I don't think this one is the case but I think young Stephen is an optimist if he thinks other Governments of this country wont use it this way in the future. Can you imagine leaving information sources in the hands of someone like Phillip Ruddock or Tony Abbott? It would simply be too irresistible to these folk who think it's their God given right to manage our lives.
What an interesting turn of events in the ill fated and impractical ACMA Internet Censorship blacklist. With Senator Conroy counter-threatened with legal action if he tries to interfere with freedom of the Swedish Press.
Here is a brief summary of the whole sorry fiasco that has predictably unfolded as the government tries to legislate censorship for bad Christians who don't follow their Churches teachings on Internet filters.
- It started with the Election campaign and the Libs trying to say they were the Christian party (they even had Pastor Danny claim God said they would win.)
- Kevin 07 countered with plenty of Church appearances and saying he would fix the Internet access problem. (Sadly, not the speed issue.)
- Labor then won on the strength of Kevin not being John Howard
- Conroy took the job of testing to see if it could be done effectively.
- The test results were poor but Conroy decided he could spin them with some clever stats.
- Folk who know the the enormity of the task got a copy of the figures and blew the whistle on the real results.
- Then every nut case and failing religious cause got involved trying to push their own likes and dislikes.
Then yesterday someone released a list of web sites to wikileaks.org claiming they were the ACMA list. Conroy then claimed the list was phony but then gave the game away by threatening legal action against any Aussies involved. (I have to admit this bit was unpredictable. I thought he was smarter than that.)
Today we have the icing on the cake with Wikileaks threatening to request extradition of the big talking Senator if he tries to interfer with Sweden's fundamental rights.
So that is the story so far. The process does impact our Net speed, doesn't tackle the child pornographers, automatically lets some stuff through it should not and stops sites it should allow through, opens the Government to restriction of trade charges for sites that should be allowed, gives the special interest groups a chance to lobby to stop us viewing sites they don't want to see, and all this because some Church goers (I think the figure was about 40%) don't have net filters on their home PCs.
For those of you inclined to dismiss the power being sort after here I have a cautionary tale that happened to me yesterday. When I saw a news report about the alledged banned list I went for a look see to check if the euthanisia sites had been added. The connection timed out so I checked against Google images. It was working fine. Tried again over the next few hours and still couldn't get through. I then zipped off an email to my provider (who isn't on the test vendor list) to see if they were blocking it. No reply (unusual for them) but suddenly the service is available today.
No matter if my service was being blocked or not it is a classic example of the Government having the power to stop me reading wikileaks postings about all manner of things including how China treats its citizens. Imagine this power in the hands of Phillip Ruddock. Labor wont be in power forever and the power is too great for any pollie to be allowed in any case.
This email response makes for an excellent study for how the AG approaches his job and especially criticism. Firstly, the usage of the term Mr Anonymous. (He should be so lucky) After having read my email and then my blog he still doesn’t know my name. Now this could be simple inattention to detail but I think he is trying to invalidate the criticism by falsely claiming it was made anonymously. A desperate start designed to inflame.
Of course this follows his aggressive behaviour as shown on the Good Game program. An approach that automatically sets folk against his cause. What we were hoping for was a straight forward point of view that could be defended on its merits. I have no doubt a solid discussion could be had on this matter but not by young Michael. He seems to have decided there is a conspiracy underway run by prepubescent male gamers.
I did apologise for claiming he does not use email. Apparently asking for a postal address is his way of sorting the abuse from the criticism. I have no doubt that he gets plenty of crank efforts especially from a few youngsters but surely a read of the content enables him to work out which ones are just some kid venting and which ones have a point to make. (I suggested a count of the F word would be a good starting point)
This is next effort is particularly irrelevant.
I trust you will be a candidate for the State District of Croydon at the next State election,
The
logic of this statement escapes me. Obviously he doesn't think other folks views are worth considering. A childish argument. By way of education for the AG this is how it works.
How does 1 individual change a system that allows
one AG to block legislation? By drawing attention to the problem for a big swag
of Voters. When enough Voters demand better performance from their politicians,
things get done right.
I offer, as an example, the demise of John Howard. He
didn’t address the problems of the future. Folk recognised his short comings.
And he lost the Election AND his own seat.
What’s with the “If you don’t agree with me you have to stand against me” argument? I hope this is not your solution to all the email complaints. The inference here is he will do what he bloody well likes rather than follow the wishes of the Voters if he chooses not to agree with them. Not quite what Democracy is supposed to be.
Now in the AG’s particular case it sounds like his efforts with migrants is well received and I applaud his efforts, but being effective for those folk doesn’t (or shouldn’t) allow him to be “out to lunch” on a different matter entirely.
Now to the diatribe bit. If he cared to read my anti war material before leaping to some odd conclusions, he would see it is much more relevant than trying to stop software entering the country. It’s aimed at the business end of the problem. Countries ignoring the UN and ramping up the frustration throughout the Middle East. You know, the folk with real guns and bombs and no moral limits on who they might use them against.
He clearly didn’t get the point of the criticism. I’m not here to defend any game scenarios. (I’m a FPS gamer who usually dials the blood off) I’m for getting a ratings system that can be controlled and reduces the risk of bringing in software with no controls at all. By not addressing the problem he encourages law breaking.
This next bit I don’t get at all.
** from meeting them in their lounge rooms (and now you will be horrified, Mr Anonymous) after the service outside their pagoda, mosque or church.**
Now why would I be horrified by him chatting to constituents outside any Church venue, be it Christian or otherwise? Obviously he is better at leaps of logic than following the point.
In conclusion, I think I can see why he is having so much trouble coming to grips with the problem. It’s all about personal vendettas. He thinks every criticism is from a rude gamer rather than something he should apply his brain to.
Now that he has had a swipe at the Eros Foundation I will
invite them to comment and see what sort of behaviour they have observed in
their battles with the AG. I don’t think I will be the only one to have
experienced his twisted responses.
And if you have read this and are still unhappy Mr Atkinson, I'd be only too happy to publish your response if you are unable to post a comment.
Last week I received an unhappy email from the South Aussie AG about my blog piece bemoaning his influence. I sent him a reply to give him a chance to do a better job of it but he has not taken advantage of this opportunity so here, in all its glory, is the email.
The next post will address the tactics and shortcomings of the AG’s email. Clearly, he got lost in the first attempt.
Dear Mr Anonymous
Your Blog site contains the false imputation that I do not use email because I cannot use email.
The reason I ask email correspondents for a street address is owing to the large number of crank emails I receive on this topic (and a few others). I do not reply into the ether to threatening, abusive and illiterate emails I receive from people with pseudonyms and people who may or may not live in Australia. Most of the letters on this topic fall into that category (I shall be reading to Parliament a selection of emails on this topic). I think it a proper courtesy to correspond with a real person at a real address, not a phantom.
I look forward to your action matching your rhetoric. I trust you will be a candidate for the State District of Croydon at the next State election, due in March, 2010. At the last election I won more than 76 p.c. of the two-party preferred vote. I have held Croydon for 19 years, but, owing to the gaming industry being run by billion-dollar multinational corporations, I am sure any candidate running against me on this issue would be lavishly funded.
My electorate has the highest proportion of people from a non-English-speaking background of any of the 47 electorates in South Australia. My new-citizen and new-constituent letters and my election material need to be printed in 40 languages other than English. If one is a Christian Sudanese who has escaped a lifetime of war and chaos and who speaks in Dinka and reads in Arabic and is trying to find lodgings for the family, find employment and sponsor relatives from the old country, one's vote is hardly likely to hinge on the "right" to score gamer points by running down and killing pedestrians on the pavement, cutting people in half with absurdly large calibre shells, blowing oneself up in a market, killing a prostitute to recover the fee one just paid her, injecting drugs or raping a woman using the computer controls.
Ditto for Bosniak Muslims, Burmese, Hazara Afghans, Congolese, Rwandans, Kossova Albanians and Orthodox Bosnian Serbs who have been subjected to the practical instead of the virtual suffering on computer screen. Actually, I know some of these constituents' views on censorship: from street-corner meetings, letters, phone calls, from meeting them in their lounge rooms (and now you will be horrified, Mr Anonymous) after the service outside their pagoda, mosque or church.
For years, Fiona and Robbie of the Eros Foundation (the front for sex shops) have been saying they are going to get rid of me at the next election, and they brandish the lists of names and addresses of people to whom they sell X-rated videos. Fiona and Robbie write to them and tell them not to vote for me. What Fiona and Robbie can't grasp is that pornography addicts don't vote as pornography addicts - they vote as Australian citizens.
Don't forget to nominate for the election in February 2010, Mr Anonymous, and don't forget to include the result in Croydon in your Blog.
Michael Atkinson
Member for Croydon
P.S. If you really believe in freedom of communication, will you publish this reply unexpurgated on your Blogsite?
Last week’s blog on the
recalcitrant SA AG has not gone without comment from the very man himself. By
email no less. And pleased to say the email is a beautiful example of the
practice of politics when you want to run a smoke screen.
He has requested it be published in full but I think it’s only fair to give him a chance to clean up the content (not swearing I hasten to mention. Just logic). I sure as hell wouldn’t want something so disjointed to be published in my name without having a chance to think it through properly and perhaps rephrase it, but I’m not sure he thinks the same way.
Personally, I hope he leaves it pretty much intact because it explains so much about the man’s character. Besides, if he really is “into the technology” he can post the thing himself without it looking like a set piece to damage him in his absence.
I’m going to leave it till next week but if no further communication is forth coming I’ll publish it in full as per his request and we can pick it apart as a guide to what you should look out for when dealing with politicians who have their own agenda come hell or high water.
Somehow I don’t think it will be as enlightening as Senator Andrew Bartlett but it should be educational all the same.
Meet Michael Atkinson the South Australian AG. Young Michael comes from that tired old school that think that sticking your head in the sand can make the problem go away. In this case R 18+ classifications for games.
According to Michael, if you don't have the rating, the games don't get into the country and thus don't get played by kids.
Luckily history has given us a few examples of this sort of thinking. Does anyone remember the US experiment with Prohibition? That worked. Well, the Mafia reckon is was a good idea at any rate.
Recently this character appeared on Good Game which gets a run on ABC2 TV and I was looking forward to the piece expecting at least some reasonable defence of his position. No such luck. Every ones else's data was attacked as industry inspired even though further examination showed it to be independent. Meanwhile, his first attempt and seeking public opinion was withdrawn when he realised the Public wasn't with him on the matter.
His reason? "Only minor changes really. Nothing major." Well why bother with the change? Was there a misplaced comma or something?
To say the AG did his case no end of damage is an understatement. He appeared to be more focused on revenge against some hostile emails he had received rather than being a bloke weighing up the pros and cons of the situation. He also made the comment that if he let it pass one of the other AG's would stop it.
Yeah?
Which one?
Looks like another tired old bull dust story to defend the indefensible.
And here comes the clincher. I dropped an email to him about his poor performance on Good Game. The response from his office was to request my postal address to get a reply.
Wonderful. Another pollie who doesn't use email. So Daryl Williams (Federal AG some years back) was not alone in his technophobia. How can a man who doesn't use the technology (nor study history for that matter) be allowed to block progress?
I hope the Voters in his Electorate are a bit more switched on than young Michael. South Oz must be due for an Election some time soon.
Senator,
I was deeply disappointed with your contribution on The Media Report last week. Especially the defensive approach you took to the interview. I was hoping that now we had thrown out Howard we might actually get a Communications Minister with a bit more of a clue about the field. Instead we were treated to a Howardesque performance of blaming the Voters for voting Labor on no less than 4 occasions. It’s not a good look. It smacks of knowing you are following a dud path but not having the courage to back out of an error of judgement.
You also seem to have rewritten history over the Election result. We voted Labor to get rid of Little Johnnie not to support an attack on our freedoms and a slowing down of our Internet speed. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Labor present itself as a non conservative party? Doesn’t it stand for personal freedoms free of religious interference and a fair go? I bloody well hope so because that’s why I voted Labor.
The fact that you are pursuing this censorship in the mistaken view that it attacks the problem of child pornography shows a distinct lack of understanding of the medium and to claim the process does not inhibit Net speed is mischievous in the least and downright dishonest in the cold light of day.
At the very least you should recognise you are opening a Pandora’s Box of trouble by going down this path. Firstly, you are destroying your credibility with the more technical in the country but even more of a problem, you will have every nut case and special interest group queued up outside your office try to get their pet hates barred from access. Imagine the mess and guess who will be known to be RESPONSIBLE? You won’t be able to walk away from responsibility even on the commercial stations when the grief hits the fan as it most certainly will.
Please stop wasting our money on this pipe dream. How about redirecting your efforts into improving our connection speed or putting some pressure on Telstra instead of hitting soft targets like ISPs? It would be worthwhile and give you some respect with the Voters.
Most of the Labor Ministers have been a breath of fresh air. I hope you can get back on track and join them.
I am posting this open letter on my blog next to the summary of The Media Report program in which you appeared.
Peter Mc
Well it finally happened. After months of avoiding a Q and A on The Media Report, the Minister for Communications, Stephen Conroy, finally braved an appearance. And if you read the transcript you can understand his reluctance.
The issue is Internet Censorship at the ISP level and the Minister’s answers clearly show a man under pressure, on the defensive, and either incapable of understanding his portfolio, or prepared to lie about the impact of the “nanny state” approach.
Instead of approaching this interview as an opportunity to explain what is happening and ease our fears of having our slow internet speeds even further weakened, the Minister was straight on the defensive and clearly happy to pack lots of “noise” into his answers. This is strangely a feature of the Communications Minister role. The previous Liberals in the role were very weak on technology as well. Richard Alston was out of his depth and if you go back even further, I think Darryl Williams didn’t even own a PC. He certainly didn’t produce anything during his tenure.
Now, let’s have a look at the interview in detail.
How is this for a shocking opening statement.
Stephen Conroy: Well what we're proposing is that we actually have an election commitment. It was stated clearly before the election to protect Australian families and kids from some material that is currently on the net. Now at the moment there is illegal material on the net, things like child pornography, things like ultra-violent sites; and so what we're seeking to do is take technology and actually enforce the existing law. Now no-one is suggesting, I don't think so far that I've heard, that people want to be able to access child pornography sites, or should be able to access child pornography sites. So just to give this a context: we're seeking to use new and emerging advances to block access to sites like that.
Wow. Straight off he blames the Voters for voting Labor. Not a good start. He also seems to have forgotten why we voted in the first place which was to get rid of John Howard, a man uninterested in Democratic Freedoms by any measure. In fact this policy excuse comes straight from the Liberal handbook. It’s a very defensive start as well.
Then we have those old chestnuts “child pornography” and “ultra-violent sites”. Ah. Nothing new here. Try and link those who don’t want Government interference to child porn and violence. This is like yelling 911 in an American debate. Brain off. End of argument. Subtle it aint.
The interviewer, Antony Funnell responded with ....
Antony Funnell: But as you'd be aware, I mean there are reports that various senators, including Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding from Family First, there have been reports that they're keen to access to sites like online gaming sites and also general pornography sites included as banned sites with this filter. What's your view on that, and is that a consideration being taken into account by the government?
This is an excellent question that strikes at the heart of the matter of Government interference. It grows. Every special interest group wants a piece of the action and there is no top limit.
The brilliant defence of the Minister?
Stephen Conroy: This is a long-standing election commitment. We made this commitment back when Kim Beazley was leader of the Labor Party, so just to give you an indication, this is a long-standing position we've been advocating. The trouble is ...
Ouch. Back to blaming the Voters. This is not going so well.
Antony Funnell: But could things like general pornography sites and gambling sites be included on the list of banned sites?
Stephen Conroy: Well as I said, what we're seeking to do is implement our election commitments and Senators should be aware what our election commitments are. There's been a number of wild and inaccurate assertions about what Labor's policy is, and let me be clear: we are committed to work with the industry to see if it is technically feasible. That's why we've conducted a laboratory test, and we're moving to conduct a live test with ISPs. That's Labor's policies. At this stage, the very early stages of working with the industry, because there's a lot of claims about the degradation of the internet. If I could just address those for a minute. You've seen the sort of filtering we're talking about introduced in a range of other countries like the UK, Sweden, Norway, France and New Zealand, and there has been no determinal effect on internet speed or performance. We're aware of the concerns...
Oops. Let’s not answer this one. Clearly a Yes was the honest response.
Then it appears we have passed the Lab stage and going into the real world.
Now the clincher. there has been no determinal effect on internet speed or performance
There is no way to add filtering without hitting the connection speed even before the special interests group start bloating the list. Hands up any gamers who think it is possible. This bit is where I question the Minister’s expertise. If he has any expertise he knows this is incorrect. If he doesn’t then his team of “Experts” must have been handpicked.
And two more slaps at Labor voters in this passage. I feel so guilty.
There are a couple more questions you can read or listen to yourself here, The Great firewall of Australia, and then the item continues with a proper expert, Marc Pesce, who makes the statement .....
Mark Pesce: Well as near as we can tell, with the small test that they ran, it slowed down access speeds by about 86%, so it would take us from a nation that's not particularly fast in our broadband, to a nation that's much more molasses-like in broadband. Now whether this is going to be truly annoying or noticeable, it's going to be something that's going to be there, and the more aggressive that the government is about detecting things that are unacceptable, the slower that is, the more processing that's required. And that's essentially going to be a cat-and-mouse race, because not only is the filter going to be easy to get around using technologies like TOR, not only is the filter going to give you false positives, but it's actually going to ruin the quality of the internet experience. So it's going to be a lose, lose, lose situation.
Ouch, again. Now that sounds more accurate. Somehow I think it explains why Conroy was so nervous. No wonder The Media Report is getting axed next year. Dumbing down is more expedient that doing a good job in your portfolio.