STEPHEN CONROY EXTENDED INTERVIEW | Hungry Beast

TEPHEN CONROY EXTENDED INTERVIEW

by Hungry Beast February 9, 2010 at 05:35pm

Dan Ilic talks with Senator Conroy about the Rudd Government's proposed mandatory internet filter and more.-->

Dan Ilic talks with Senator Conroy about the Rudd Government's proposed mandatory internet filter and more.

by Hungry Beast February 9, 2010 at 05:35pm

It is vital that, not only Australian, but any internet user be aware of this information and all that relates to the current Federal Australian Government, and in particular Senator Conroy's plans, for the introduction of mandatory internet filtering for this country.

Any well versed internet user knows exactly what this means, and that no matter what system is put in place, it will not resolve the "problem".

Don't let it happen in Australia! Don't let it happen anywhere! Make them, force them, to deal with the real issues at hand and put in resources to ensure the safety of children etc. This notion is ludicrous, wasteful, laughable and deserves to be highlight exactly as that!

Don't be fooled parents! Don't think that this will protect anyone! And don't be fooled that it won't slow networks, become political (think about it, all information about Abortion or Euthanasia could well be blocked...not just some, ALL!), and since our Government sites Thailand and China as case examples, its a dangerous path on which they walk.

Don't let it happen! Post your thoughts.

Sylvestor


Filed under  //  Censorship   Conroy   Government   Internet Filter   no-filter  
Comments (0)
Posted 26 days ago

"Conroy's filter will not make the internet safer" - commentary but not mine

146 comments

Suzanne Dvorak

Suzanne Dvorak

Today marks Safer Internet Day, a day observed by more than 50 countries across the globe to promote safer and more responsible use of online technology, particularly among children and young people.

Children wade into the world of technology at increasingly younger ages - by the time they become teenagers, the technological divide between generations can pose challenges for parents who want to guide their children safely through the virtual world.

Young people reportedly spend about two-thirds of their online-time on social networking sites, which have paved the way for a sharp increase in cyber bullying.

Cyber bullying - the use of the internet, mobile phones, and other digital technologies to threaten or abuse - means bullying can take place without time or geographic constraints.

Up to 10 per cent of Australian students have reported being bullied by means of technology over a school term, predominantly among secondary students.

So how do we make the internet safe for children and young people?

Well, it's a question that has vexed the Federal Government since Communications Minister Stephen Conroy revealed last December that the Federal Government would press ahead with mandatory internet filtering as part of its $125.8 million investment in cyber safety.

Critics argue that mandatory Internet Service Provider (ISP) filters are ineffective, an infringement on freedom of speech and that the money spent could be better invested beefing up the Australian Federal Police to deal with cyber crime and online predators.

Protecting children is a compelling argument in favour of the Federal Government's proposed internet filter. However, parents accustomed to imposing some form of internet regulation in the home might resist government-imposed restrictions that are heavy-handed compared to equivalent democracies - especially if their tech-savvy children can easily circumvent the filtering system.

In fact, the most effective way to make the internet safe for children is education. Children, young people, teachers and parents all need to understand the potential dangers and parents can play a significant part by discussing these issues with their children.

Australian research reveals that most parents already do a good job negotiating internet access with their children and that this varies according to age, gender and internet experience. They also have conversations about their children's rights, responsibilities and concerns about bullying and inappropriate content. Such conversations are important in creating an environment of trust between parents and children and for children to learn safe and appropriate behaviour online and offline.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - which Australia has ratified - says that both parents and governments should always act in the best interests of children to protect them from harmful information and material. However, the Convention also recognises the right of children and young people to seek and receive information through any media. Clearly the Convention states broad principles which need to be balanced out in practice.

The best way to protect children from harm is to teach them to protect themselves. Just as we teach children how to cross the road safely, we must teach them how to safely navigate the internet. We do this by assisting and guiding them in the first instance, teaching them how to identify and avoid danger, and what to do if an unsafe situation occurs. As they mature, we allow them greater freedom.

It is the same with internet safety. Parents and community leaders have a responsibility to be good role models. They need to monitor content accessed by children, listen to their concerns and demonstrate responsible internet use.

Curbing freedom of speech will not prevent the exploitation of children. A broad filter may even block genuine forums, for example, in which teenagers can discuss issues that may contain explicit content. This will not protect them; rather it may prevent them from finding information that is valuable to their physical, mental and emotional health and wellbeing.

A broad filter might lull parents into a false sense of security, incorrectly assuming their children will be shielded from harm and that there is no need for vigilant parental monitoring. Likewise, children would not be empowered to learn responsible internet use and how to respond in the face of danger.

The lack of evidence to support the efficacy of the Government's planned internet filter suggests that the money could be better spent on internet safety education for children and parents, an investment that will offer children greater protection online and offline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is vital that, not only Australian, but any internet user be aware of this information and all that relates to the current Federal Australian Government, and in particular Senator Conroy's plans, for the introduction of mandatory internet filtering for this country.

Any well versed internet user knows exactly what this means, and that no matter what system is put in place, it will not resolve the "problem".

Don't let it happen in Australia! Don't let it happen anywhere! Make them, force them, to deal with the real issues at hand and put in resources to ensure the safety of children etc. This notion is ludicrous, wasteful, laughable and deserves to be highlight exactly as that!

Don't be fooled parents! Don't think that this will protect anyone! And don't be fooled that it won't slow networks, become political (think about it, all information about Abortion or Euthanasia could well be blocked...not just some, ALL!), and since our Government sites Thailand and China as case examples, its a dangerous path on which they walk.

Don't let it happen!

Sylvestor

Filed under  //  ABC news   Censorship   Conroy   Government   Internet Filter   no-filter  
Comments (0)
Posted 26 days ago

Federal Opposition renews call for ISP filter trial audit - Computerworld

Coalition "yet to be convinced" mandatory ISP-level filtering will be effective

The Federal Opposition has renewed its call for an independent audit of the Rudd Government’s mandatory ISP-level filtering trial.

In a blog post, Opposition Communications Minister Tony Smith wrote that the Federal Coalition supported “sensible and workable measures” to protect children from inappropriate online content.

However, the Coalition was yet to be convinced that mandatory filtering will be effective, Smith wrote.

“The Coalition would like an independent audit of the trial results and we hope this can happen as soon as possible,” he wrote.

Smith said the Coalition’s position was based on concerns that mandatory ISP-level filtering may not be the most effective and achievable way to protect children online.

“Experts say that most predatory risks to children lurk in those areas of the online world that are largely immune to filtering, such as chat rooms, email and peer-to-peer networks,” the blog post reads.

“That is why, in relation to unlawful online activity, it is essential that our nation’s law enforcement bodies are adequately resourced to tackle it in the most sophisticated way possible.

“The fact it has taken the Minister two years to produce his plan and release results of filtering trials highlights the complexity and problematic nature of his proposal. The Coalition is yet to be convinced that mandatory filtering will be effective.”

Smith said the Coalition would continue to consult extensively with the telecommunications industry and other stakeholders to enable a “fully informed response”, if and when the Government put forward any formal proposal or legislation.

The post comes almost two months after the official announcement of the Rudd Government’s mandatory ISP-level content filter, and represents the first official position of the Opposition on the filter.

Smith first called for an independent audit of the Federal Government's controversial ISP-level content filtering trial results in December.

It is vital that, not only Australian, but any internet user be aware of this information and all that relates to the current Federal Australian Government, and in particular Senator Conroy's plans, for the introduction of mandatory internet filtering for this country.

Any well versed internet user knows exactly what this means, and that no matter what system is put in place, it will not resolve the "problem".

Don't let it happen in Australia! Don't let it happen anywhere! Make them, force them, to deal with the real issues at hand and put in resources to ensure the safety of children etc. This notion is ludicrous, wasteful, laughable and deserves to be highlight exactly as that!

Don't be fooled parents! Don't think that this will protect anyone! And don't be fooled that it won't slow networks, become political (think about it, all information about Abortion or Euthanasia could well be blocked...not just some, ALL!), and since our Government sites Thailand and China as case examples, its a dangerous path on which they walk.

Don't let it happen!

Sylvestor

Filed under  //  Censorship   Conroy   Government   Internet Filter   no-filter  
Comments (0)
Posted 26 days ago

Filtering works - like tripping over old ladies at the intersection!

RESULTS of a federal government trial show that live ISP-level content filtering does not have a negative impact on network performance and can work in a real-time environment.

However, a highly anticipated report based on the pilot is still weeks away and the federal Opposition says the government can not be trusted to deliver on the $43 billion national broadband network when the goalpost keeps shifting for a mere $300,000 filtering trial.

"The trial shows that filtering does work and that the gear stops identified IP addresses without major degradation to network speed," sources close to the trial said. "We can stop individual URLs, IP addresses, but we can't stop peer-to-peer nor virtual private network-type traffic."

Trials concluded last month and Enex has submitted the test results to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin slammed the government for the delay and said it had produced "nothing" since the filtering policy was first announced in the run up to the 2007 federal election. "This procrastination is unbelievable," Senator Minchin said. “They should release the report now. There seems to be a systemic problem with Senator Conroy and deadlines," he said. "Until today, we still don't even know what the criteria for the trials are."

"Senator Conroy doesn't seem to be able to handle a small trial. How on earth can we expect him to handle a $43bn broadband project? This incompetence doesn't bode well for taxpayers," Senator Minchin said.

Originally the government wanted to bar every web page listed on a secret blacklist managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The list contains a wide array of URLs that contain both illegal and prohibited content.

Senator Conroy has always stated that ISP filtering is no silver bullet and was not the only answer in tackling child pornography. He has pledged to make the report public in "due course".

Senator Minchin said the Coalition did not support mandatory internet filtering, but if legislation was the chosen route, it would study it carefully before making a decision.

The controversial filtering plan has been slammed by several quarters including privacy advocates, child protection groups and advocacy organisation GetUp.

Their main concern is the mandatory nature of the program which forces ISPs to play ball. Most argue that a voluntary approach by industry is the way to go.

Related link: Internet filtering a farce: Minchin - Sept 2, 2009

It wasn't as if it wouldn't work. And blocking IPs/URLs at the point of entry is sure to work without harming network performance substantially. But. If it takes a year, $300,000 and a lot of too'ing and fro'ing to just get preliminary test results, I think the patient is not looking at a very healthy life.

If their arguments are true to be believed. Its only about blocking extreme nasties. Not that there are many just those considered too nasty for Aussie's to visit. Who knows what those sites my do to us!?!

If that is the case, with $300,000 already spent (that a few years of my salary wasted!), the actual investment for what they say is a small percentage of nasties out there, is going to be a very very costly exercise.

Please don't waste my money Senator Conroy. I work hard for it. I would rather see it go toward an old-age pension increase; or a new dining table for The Lodge - seriously - at least they would have more purpose and use!

Thanks but no thanks Senator Conroy - but I have a mummy already :) I don't need someone watching over me while I browse the WWW. And, it doesn't really matter, we will just work around your silly notions.

Sylvestor
www.twitter.com/Sylvestor

Filed under  //  Censorship   Conroy   Filter   Internet   Minchin   NBN  
Comments (0)
Posted 5 months ago

internet filter australia - Google News

Could Internet filtering cause more harm than good?

ZDNet - Zack Whittaker - ‎Sep 16, 2009‎
With the United Kingdom and New Zealand with independent filters in place, and Australia potentially soon after, Internet censorship is becoming common ...

PM's site suffers Anonymous DDos attack

Computerworld Australia - ‎Sep 9, 2009‎
The disabling follows a 'Declaration of War' against the Australian government by Anonymous as a reprisal for its role in establishing an Internet filter. ...

The Australian Internet Filter project in place by the current Federal Government (under Senator Conroy) is a touch topic for some. Basically its about censorship. Applying a model of "rating" web content against a set of criteria that determines whether or not Australian web users should have access or not.

This would be unbelievably difficult, without resorting to automation. Currently a panel of "censors" determine ratings on other media here in Australia. They watch, listen, play, read etc then determine what rating the content should have.

On the web, this would be impossible. There is just too much!

So the focus is narrowed.

Across the media, the loudest voices talk about "child protection". Filtering out the nasty child-abusive-paedophillic websites that are not so nice. They aren't very nice, I agree. I don't condone that sort of activity one bit.

But. If this internet filter is about child protection then I am concerned.

How much money has been and will be spent on this?

How much money and resources could be redirected to the real issue? Police, Child Protection authorities, Health, Families, Education to help stop the problem at the root rather than band-aid it and claim success.

Senator Conroy. Is this the man you want protecting YOUR children? He seems to want to. Is this right? I don't have all the answers. But I have my concerns.

What do you think?

Sylvestor
www.twitter.com/Sylvestor

Filed under  //  Censorship   Conroy   Google news   Internet Filter   Kevin Rudd   NBN  
Comments (0)
Posted 5 months ago