Net filtering 'plan' is a fraud

Net filtering 'plan' is a fraud

In August this year I wrote a punch article about the lunacy of the Rudd Government’s proposed mandatory ISP internet filtering.

At that stage it was a trial but on Tuesday this week Minister Conroy announced his intention to proceed with legislation to enact this mad idea.

This is a policy that is based on a fraud so much so the Minister could barely explain it with a straight face yesterday.

Not that I’m cynical about the Labor media machine but this announcement was dumped out the week before Christmas in the middle of a massive international negotiation on climate change when even the Minister admitted it was ready to go in October.  But I digress.

The fraud is that Stephen Conroy and Kevin Rudd want you to believe that you ‘protect’ our kids from the ‘nasties’ of the internet by ‘filtering’ inappropriate websites at the internet service provider level.

The truth is that you can do no such thing. You see the proponents of this ridiculous idea say that those opposed to this want to expose ‘your’ children to the worst of the nasties on the internet.  This is an unadulterated lie.

I don’t want my kids (and yes I have two who are nearly at internet using age) watching hard core porn on the internet or for them to be exposed to paedophiles looking to get their rocks off and I will take measures to ensure that they are protected.

But for the government to suggest, which it is, that this will ‘protect’ kids is to provide an assurance they can not deliver.

This will provide false cover to parents, fraudulent reassurance that their children are ‘safe’ from ‘predators’ on the internet.  It will not.

There is already a blacklist.  There are already tools for parents to instigate protective measures in both the home and through the ISP.  As I said in August…

There are a range of home based filters that are either provided or commercially available.  They are not fool proof but neither is ISP based filtering.

Home-based filters are by far the best and most effective weapon against internet nasties and the grubs who roam cyberspace preying on children.

Proponents of ISP filtering claim it will make it safer.  Rubbish.  Indeed the ISP filter systems work by closing down access to web addresses after they have been launched.  Some claim that this will be as little as 24 hours after the website is launched.  Even in the best case scenario it is going to be the old dog chasing its tail.

The ISP filters fail to address online chat rooms, peer to peer connections and emails. 
What we have to ask ourselves here is how much are we sacrificing for additional ‘protections’?

To make this mandatory is to take us down an extremely dangerous road of censorship.  Not to put too finer a point on this, if the government is successful in introducing this legislation it will be able to list any site it considers inappropriate.

We have already seen that Kevin Rudd is more than happy to attempt to censor, he even tried to censor Members of Parliament from criticising his government.

There are some of my colleagues and many concerned parents and grandparents who like the idea that we can protect kids on the net.  I respect and understand their desire absolutely.  But this so-called filter does not do that. 

Finally any credibility that Kevin Rudd may have had on his claimed belief in the benefit of fast broadband must now surely be thrown out the back door.  This is nothing other than a blatant attempt to buy votes based on mums and dads greatest fears.

This policy is a fraud that will not work and I for one will not support it.




Comments

Laura
# Laura
Friday, December 18, 2009 1:38 PM
Thankyou jamie for standing up for the people, especially for those who just don't understand how this filter will do nothing to prevent people accessing the 'nasties', whether accidentally or on purpose.

Few people will have ever even encountered perfectly legal porn sites accidentally whilst online, and I would be surprised if more than 1 in a million stumble onto child porn accidentally. You can't search for it, the search engines block it, so the only way to access it is to have the links given to you by someone else. and so, likewise, will the methods to bypass the filter be passed on.

more so, there are many of us on faster than 8 Mbps connections, and the trial did not test this, supposedly because none of the ISPs had faster than 8Mbps connections on offer. I find this very hard to believe, as one of the ISPs was iPrimus, which offers ADSL2+ which usually goes up to 24 Mbps.

I don't pay a premium to have fast cable for that extra speed to be taken away because of a bottleneck in the filter that occurss because it wasn't tested properly.
Simon Shaw
Friday, December 18, 2009 1:49 PM
Great stance on the filter! This is the worst Labor policy yet, worse than the ETS!
R Gardner`
# R Gardner`
Friday, December 18, 2009 5:56 PM
Jamie, thanks so much for having the courage to speak you mind on the censorship issue.
Daniel
# Daniel
Friday, December 18, 2009 6:04 PM
Hi Jamie,

Thankyou for your strong stance on this issue. It is comforting to know that there are members sticking up for 98% of Australians who agree with your stance - and who also see it for the empty policy it is which will do nothing to achieve its claims. The only thing it is guarenteed to do would be to spend millions of wasted taxpayer money better spent on education, health and policing.

Keep up the good work

Daniel
Daniel Burke
# Daniel Burke
Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:47 PM
As someone who has lived in Mayo for 20 years now, I am pleased to know that you have a clue about this issue.

One point that I have tried to get an answer from Conroy myself, but he refuses to acknowledge my question, is this...

As a computer programmer who writes online applications that deal with finances, I am required to research expoits, methods for compromising systems, so that I may write software that is immune to these attacks. This information is very clearly "describing how to commit a crime", and according to Stephen Conroy's own press release, would be subject to the filter.

This information is needed by all of Australia's Information Security professionals to secure our nation from digital terrorism, and by openly blocking this information, we are promoting our nation as a potential target for digital terrorism - likely the biggest threat facing our economy in the coming years as all business migrates to digital transactions.

How does Conroy et al. plan to deal with this issue? Will there be ways to bypass the filter so security professionals can keep our nation secure? This is not something that can be solved by allowing IT people to write in requesting a copy of the filtered material, such exploits are very often used maliciously within hours of the exploit being published. Australian business can not afford to be left in the dark regarding this information.

This scenario of attacks happening within 24 hours is so common, it has a name. See: Zero Day Attacks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_day_attack
Claire
# Claire
Friday, February 19, 2010 5:27 PM
I wrote you a letter thanking you last time you sent out a letter protesting about this proposal, and I want to thank you again. Myself and everyone I know are so against this and it is good to see a representative who feels the same way.
Keep up the good work.
Karen
# Karen
Friday, March 19, 2010 11:25 AM
I am another long term May resident (32 years now). This proposal is nothing short of a Nazi type tactic. If this is allowed to pass, then God only knows what is next. It must be stopped.

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website