Prime Minister avoids questions on Internet filtering

Typical bull**** from Krudd. No chance in hell that he is on the fence on this issue.

Total JOKE that web chat was. His advisors could not even choose 20 people who were for censorship of the internet.

Labor has lost my vote

I voted for Labor in the last Federal Election.. I won't be making that mistake again. If Labor insist on panding to the right wing religious nuts out there and filtering the internet whilst using fear of phedophiles as an excuse to parents who don't know any better - there is no way I'll waste my vote on them.

Simple solution to his problem

From Mr. Rudd
“I don't want to ignore the debate on Internet filtering. Look, I know this is really controversial. But we are trying to get the balance right between maximising individual freedom on the one hand, while protecting young people in particular from the real nasties out there. This ain’t easy,” Prime Minister Rudd said.

Solution
Dont make it mandatory...
- kids protected if parents worried
- adults have freedom to decide what they want

Although this wont be appealing to them due to straining senate alliances/old gov having equivalent but client side solution etc

Dont get me wrong I'm not a liberal supporter but this has seriously hurt there standing among the techsavvy

The farmer avoids the squawking crows....

lol...

Jamincanberra just walloped on with 9 points on filtering, all together in a couple of posts, and expected a response to them all?

Jamin was not expecting a response, jamin just wanted to make the usual protest statement...

Rudd can get all those points by just visiting WP, where they are repeated ad infinitum, day in day out...

Asking for reasons why any system in any country could not become corrupted is also pretty naive and blinkered... You could take 100 examples of systems that have not become corrupted from 100 countries... Silly question.

The Army could become corrupted tomorrow and start massacring people in the Sydney CBD, how will we guarantee that won't happen? Dopey question, soz...

Now "Gah" is a classic... Get's right off woth a couple of "expletive deleted" on a public forum, and then comp[lains about how some parents raise their kids. Classic tool. Pot/kettle/pot/kettle/oops...

To Roddy

He didn't have to address EVERY point in Jamin's post. All he had to do was address one. Any one.

What did he do instead? Fob the discussion off to party lackeys with another of his "getting the balance right" platitudes.

Bullying

If Rudd is so against bullying, what would he call it when you force responsible adults against their wishes, to have their internet access censored by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, and refuse to even discuss, debate or explain why adults have no choice in the matter?

“I don't want to ignore the debate on Internet filtering. Look, I know this is really controversial. But we are trying to get the balance right between maximising individual freedom on the one hand, while protecting young people in particular from the real nasties out there. This ain’t easy,” Prime Minister Rudd said.

So blocking maybe 1-2thousand URLs of "almost exclusively RC content", is going to protect children how exactly??????????????????????????????????????????????

It's fairly natural that he wouldn't want to talk about filtering, after all it's a policy which appeals pretty much solely to a different demographic to the one he's engaging, and it has the potential to hurt him a great deal more than it can help. Hopefully this will be one more thing that will make him realise the above political reality and drop it or get serious about safeguards and scope.

I think this chat session was a good idea though, kudos to the PM for doing it.

Re: Name on country

Anonymous, define political content in this context, and where is the demarcation of political content from associated subjects content that needs restricting?

EG: If someone published some unacceptable pics on a webpage within a website that includes political comment, and those pics or that one page was censored, yet the site allowed to continue, would that be political censorship?

Re: To Roddy

If Jamin had come up with one or two good and well thought out questions, Rudd would have been obliged to respond.

Instead Jamin reels off a series of almost template complaints/objections/generalisations on the subject.

Jamin made it easy for Rudd to look at all of that and talk about "getting the balance right" and avoid further comment. Who wouldn't...

re: Roddy... lol

Tony, I addressed points you had raised, just not how you wanted I think...

First, I do not support anything blindly. What is it with some folks that quickly refer to "blindly supporting", when the other person is not of their opinion?

Rudd's avoidance? Rudd would comment, if the issue was perceived as a problem for the broader Australian public.

So far it is not.

Yes it is an issue of concern, but it looks the issue is getting the model right, not whether to do it. The people of Australia have a funny habit of making known what is critical to them across the nation, and filtering is not in the top 5 for the average Aussie...

It was easy for him to avoid it, the approach from Jamin was simply far too clumsy, and just came across like a flag waving protester. Most peoplem except jouros seek toavoid the flag wavers.

Just look at the majority of the questions and the subjects covered. It was pretty clear to Rudd what stories will end up on the major daily's front pages and which end up in the IT mags and The Register et al... Jamin had a great chance and blew it...

@ Roddy

I agree Tony, the issue is not under the radar, it is just not yet a priority that needs fixing.

Yeah, but how many of those came from a concentrated group of people making multiple posts? I even read them boasting on WP etc of how many posts in different names they submit, or how often they manage to vote in online polls...

Naturally Conroy's demeanour changes Tony, your's would change too if you knew that you were now up for a an aggressive session, and that one or two politicians were baout to make as much mileage out of these questions as they just can...

How would you react if you were constantly being bombarded by a specific group or individuals? Irrespective of the issue at hand, you are in for an aggressive session. Your demeanour would change as well as this become an habitual attack pattern. But that is politics. When I listen to the sessions or read the transcripts, it looks and sounds to me like Conroy is giving as good as he gets when he gets into swing...

But votes in major numbers? The votes issues will be on the front pages of the major newspapers on a regular basis...

Re-clarify

Roddy, while I would have thought political content in terms of repressive regimes would be obvious, I'll re-clarify.

Name a country with mandatory internet filtering which has not yet stifled political opinion, whether it be issues such as abortion, euthanasia, drug problems, homosexuality, others, and last but not least, censoring out political ideologies such as values which the incumbent party doesn't agree with. Even if we go by the government's "almost exclusively Refused Classification" argument for the moment, as soon as the filters are switched on, our country will be censoring political opinion and content.

With your second paragraph, the famous anti-abortion image is most certainly political content and probably comes with text underneath it (I haven't seen it), as are the videos on the Peaceful Pill. I realise that political content is very broad, but I still can't think of any countries which have mandatory internet filtering which haven't been used to censor political opinion or dissent.

Re: Tony / @ Roddy

The relentless attack comes from a couple of very determined (all honours for persistence) groups, such as the very active WP forum, some pollies, GetUp, bloggers who get around to posting on any article remotely connected to filtering or Conroy often...

But let's face it, Conroy was never ever a gifted oratry performer...

Then we add Minchin, who I think is generally OK, who has the job of attacking whatever Conroy does, informed or not... All the time... lol

I have read up on that purported comment, and I have seen myriad references to it, and they are almost all misinterpreted. Look at the context of his comment, and try and relate that to the interpreations.

(No I am not a Labor voter...)

Re: Re-clarify

Hallo again Ben.

My question was aimed at getting your definition of political content, otherwise I could not respond adequately to your question. Lots of people have different views of what is, and what is not political content.

Finland.

Now there is the issue with "political content"... Someone puts a tattoo of "Equal Rights For Gays" on their butt and engages in a filmed sex session with a 14 yo, it gets banned and whammo, they have just stifled "political comment"... lol. Bizarre example, but it fits the bill to a tee.

Ben, engaging in "political comment" does not give anyone the right to transgress existing laws in Australia, it does not put people above the law. Or would you contend that a skinhead kicking the crapper out of a Leb in Sydney whilst yelling " Vote for the Anti Immigration Party", should be left in peace and allowed to continue as he is making a political comment? A filming of the act should be allowed on YouTube because it is political content?

Of course you wouldn't, well I hope not anyway.

The images you are referring to were individually defined as potentially prohibited I believe.

Not the site, not the authors, not their campaign, just the images.

The images were not the political content, they were simply over the top. These are the examples which the "average Aussie" looks at and wonders how some people can come to call pix of dead foetuses "political comment"...

That does not win support and votes Ben, that alienates many people, and make sit easy for Rudd to skip on past the subject until someone comes up with a question he cannot deflect.

@ Roddy

Roddy,

Firstly, Germany doesn't actually have mandatory filtering, they only passed a law, which doesn't compare to real-life examples. When it gets implemented (wait about a year to see if they stick to their word), then that could be a useful comparison. Until then, it's all hypothetical.

You also say that the ratings 'fizzled' when they talked about internet censorship. Evidence please? If 100 000 people can sign an online petition, are you really suggesting that people don't give a damn about the issue? Out of the thousands of fluff stories they cover, THIS ONE is the one they go "don't care"? How do you measure whether the very few spots in the mainstream media were successful or not?

As with the defining of political content and your examples, your examples of people beating the crap out of other people in the name of political speech was a very inaccurate comparison to the topic at hand. We are talking about censoring information on the internet, not stopping people beating someone because they are a different race. I fail to see how looking at the information such as the ones I described earlier is a valid comparison to physical violence. The internet is in the privacy of one's home, yelling racist comments out on the street, for example, is very different.

If the anti-abortion images weren't political content, then what was? How is it not political content? They are expressing their views through images. Does it really make a difference how they express their political views? You say they are 'over the top'. Who decides what is 'over the top'? The same people who said Bill Henson was a child pornographer? THe same people who think FHM causes people to rape? I don't agree with the message they were presenting, but I won't deny their freedom to present their views.

You again bring up this fictional 'average Aussie', like there is such a thing. I'm sure the 'average Aussie' are disgusted by groups like the ACL and their pretending to claim the moral high ground on this issue. Should they be censored? It's not the image which is the point anti-censorship advocates are trying to point to, but that something which is entirely legal to view, being censored at the discretion of a single faceless bureaucrat, and making decisions based on laws which can be amended anytime to censor absolutely anything.

Finally, you say that if we present decent questions to Rudd, he won't skip over them. Out of the countless thousands of questions we have asked, are you saying that NONE of them have been reasonable? He hasn't answered a single one of them or even acknowledged the issue, and WE are at fault?

Rudd is going down! Vote for the Greens FFS people, they are the only party that offers any real alternatives to the two major parties. It's time to give them a try.

@Anonymous 14:56: Incorrect. In the house of reps, your preferences go where you direct them. You can number the sheet in any order you like. Green votes only go to Labor if that's the order you rank them at the ballot.

In the Senate, most people vote "above the line", in which case the party decides where the preferences go. But it's not the Senate votes that decide who's the PM.

To Ben...

Hi Ben, got to this too late, back in the morning.

You are right about Germany, we will se when it is implemented. Move onto Finland etc.

See you tomorrow.

The "decent question" related, as did the original post, to Jamin's wayward effort.

@ Roddy

Hi Roddy,

I can't name a democratic country which has corrupted mandatory internet filtering (or even have mandatory internet filtering), because they don't exist. The onus is on you to find one.

I don't think it is misleading at all the comparisons between how countries with mandatory internet filtering operate with internet content. They have mandatory internet filtering, they abuse it. What makes them so different from Australia? I'd argue that their governments have too much power, and giving our government the power to censor the internet is definitely following that path.

You make a comparison and say we shouldn't have police here because some countries like Syria have corrupted police forces. The USA, UK, New Zealand, in fact practically every single country in the world has police forces, not just eastern countries which tend to be corrupt.

Where are the real world examples that ISP filtering works properly with IPv6? Our government refuses to test that, among a whole host of other issues. Could it be that there will be problems?

If by Rudd acknowledging the issue, "I realise it is a tough issue and we have to get the balance right" on a web chat to an audience of a couple of hundred counts as acknowledging the issue, then you're grasping at straws. By acknowledging the issue, he needs to actually speak about the issues to a wide audience, not brush every single one of them to one side with a vague remark when it is inconvenient to him.

You obviously don't know about the process for getting on the blacklist. ACMA can add something to the blacklist subject to a complaint if they think the CB *might* call it prohibited. The CB are under no obligation to classify overseas hosted content. Potential prohibited/prohibited/prohibited through CB - it makes no difference what it is called, as it all comes to the same outcome - banned for all adults.

Hi Roddy,
You're right, most

Hi Roddy,

You're right, most Australians won't accept that this policy is similar to China's or North Korea's, but most people studying the policy know that it is pretty damn close. Despite Conroy's lies that they scaled back the proposal to only RC, every other piece of evidence suggests they haven't changed a single thing.

Have a read of: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/online_safety_and_security/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering - and note the word 'prohibited'. Then look at http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_90102 - and note that content which can legally be broadcast on television will be censored by the proposal.

With the police examples, we accept that there is some corruption in some police forces, around the world. But when we have every single country which has mandatory filtering blocking political opinion, then it's not a matter of *some* corruption, but *unanimous* corruption with these systems.

If you read the transcript - http://pm.gov.au/node/6263 - he did *not* acknowledge the issue at the beginning, and only mentioned it at all at the end (delaying as much as possible) because he would look like a total douche for ignoring it completely (yes I initially should have said he *barely* acknowledged the issue). So he reckons some vague statement at the end is helpful to this debate. Out of the, what, nearly 2 years of this debate, if that last sentence is the best evidence to support Rudd's acknowledgement of the issue, then I stand by my statement that it is grasping at straws.

With IPv6, I don't know of any ISPs which offer both IPv6 support *and* ISP filtering which filtering IPv6 traffic, but if you could point me in the right direction, I'll take a look. If they haven't even tested it yet around the world (except in censorware labs), then why should we have faith that it will magically work in Australia? Should we introduce filtering now, or wait until IPv6 is widely adopted then introduce it?

With the CB, I didn't say they could ignore content which comes to their attention, but that not all web content which is classified is forwarded to them, and ACMA can take a guess at what the CB would classify the content, as evidenced in the Broadcasting Services Act - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch7.html. I note that the CB have been taking a look at some content I have complained about, but know that is only because ACMA is forwarding it to them which they don't have to, most likely to avoid another anti-abortion scandal and playing it safe. Great spend of the tax dollars, eh?

If the content is hosted in Australia, then yes the CB must take a look at it, but overseas content, and ACMA need only have a quick look and make a decision, then if an error in judgement occurs, then they have a backup plan in saying that it was only 'potential' prohibited content. There's also no appeals process. Technically speaking, it is only prohibited content if CB see it, otherwise it is only potential prohibited content.

Your last sentence is funny, because 100% of the content on the leaked ACMA blacklists (all 3 of them) is legal to view. Nobody is committing a crime in viewing the content. The government wants to apply the standards of internet for children, and justify that to all adults. Call me alarmist, but with this legislation they could censor absolutely anything through amendments, no doubt with 'pressure' from wowser groups like the ACL. They could even censor this very site if they somehow passed the amendments. Thinking examples like that won't happen is to think that freedom of information in this country just happened by accident.

The question is, do you like MA15+ and upwards content? If you do, it's still prohibited content, and will still be censored if this policy comes into effect, despite being completely legal to view.

@Roddy

Roddy,

Of course we can't compare our internet environment with China's at this moment, because they have government mandated internet censorship while we don't. With this policy, we will. The point being made is that the legislation permits that downward spiral of scope creep. If the ACL had control of the internet, and arguably many politicians and people making these decisions are opposed to more progressive ideas, then imagine what we would end up viewing.

"They are not morally bankrupt due to filtering, and their application of filtering and censorship is not a natural progression of any form of internet filtering."

It's a chicken or the egg scenario. Were they corrupt before they could suppress political opinion, or as a result of the technology, did they realise that they could be corrupt and people would be none the wiser? If you still can't point to a single country in the world with mandatory internet filtering which has not suppressed political opinion, I'm afraid your arguments are very superficial.

"The Internet is not some interplanetary technology that has changed human ethics and morals, or the way mankind works. It does not "infect" otherwise democratic governments woth a undeniable desire and compulsion to start corruption democratic processes... lol"

Among many things, it helps expose their deception and they realise they can't control the information at present, so they attempt to control it. What possible guarantee can you provide that the system will *never* be abused? That is a serious question. Censorship in our country has been getting more repressive for decades, with a recent Senate hearing exposing motivations to hide any porn whatsoever in adult shops. How far would the scope creep have to go before you think it went too far?

"You may dislike Rudd and Conroy as much as you like, that is your full right, however they have proven to be pretty democratic overall, and the vast majority of Australians also think so. Just check the mainstream polls on their approval and preferred gov ratings..."

Just goes to show that since Rudd has tried his hardest to make this issue not hit the mainstream media, his approval ratings are high. Do you really think that if most people knew about this policy, his approval ratings are high? Your claim doesn't prove a thing. Iran's president had high approval ratings as well.

@Roddy

The censorship in our country did get more relaxed in the past few decades, however it is trending the other way. For example, prior to 1999, the only content you couldn't host on the internet was illegal content. Now, you can't host content rated MA15+ on Australian servers. What purpose does that serve? We have servos running scared of astro-turfing groups (organisations pretending to represent grass roots movements) who 'pressure' them to remove skin magazines from their shelves. Less or more repressive censorship?

There was a recent court injunction for 60 minutes which prohibited channel nine for airing a story even mentioning suicide. Not promoting, not instruction, just discussing the subject in a serious manner. What does this type of censorship achieve? It says that if something is controversial, best not mention it at all. I could mention many more examples.

And now, we are the first democracy to propose mandatory internet censorship of completely legal online content. Yet you say our censorship is not getting more regressive? Seriously?

"Of course not. It is not the etchnology that corrupts these people Ben, it is these people that corrupt the technology..."

It's both. Think about it for a second. Our government will have a blank cheque to censor whatever they like on the internet, and if they don't like the current legislation, they can easily amend it. Yet you say that despite all that, you feel extremely confident that it will *never* be abused? You're kidding!

"What possible guarantee can you give that ANY of our services and structures in our society will not be corrupted? Any?? Will you discard any structure or service that is potentially tainted with corruption?"

When ansering those kinds of questions, I tend to look for real-world examples. We don't do away with police, ambulance officers, and governments (ie. anarchy) because some are corrupt. We accept *some* corruption (and try to hold them to the fire to avoid this from occurring), but there are some systems that are so inherently dangerous that they should never be used. Mandatory internet censorship is one of them. I've asked this at least 3 times - what makes Australia so unique as compared to every other country with corrupted mandatory internet censorship, and the proposed legislation so water-tight that it could not possibly be abused?

"Soz mate, that is no justification to discard a system. In our democracy you need to prove it first, not convict on suspicion..."

You need to prove that such a system is necessary, that people actually want it, that it will work, that it won't cost too much, that it will be implemented exactly the way the legislation requires (ie. no corruption and 'caching' errors), and that despite all the best security measures, the blacklist of all this 'worst of the worst' online content won't be leaked.

The onus is on the people advocating this system to answer these questions. We don't just spend hundreds of millions on a dangerous system which has no proven benefits. It doesn't even work in China (the physical threats are what does the trick), so why on earth would it work in Australia?

@Roddy

The injunction was brought by the courts. But the point I was making was that some topics which would be allowed for discussion in a serious manner not long ago are simply not permitted anymore. Just the mere discussion of the subject is apparently not allowed. Which I think doesn't achieve much at all. How is our society meant to overcome certain issues if they are repressed and nobody ever talks about them?

Take paedophilia for instance. A group could argue that even the mere mention of paedophilia encourages a paedophile to abuse a child. If they win that battle, what's next? How far could such a point be argued?

While I strongly support the work of Beyond Blue and other charitable organisations, that is their viewpoint, and I'm sure there will be other research saying that covering up discussion means that the problems never get addressed, and therefore, never overcome. Which is exactly how our censorship became more liberal and mentioning sex no longer became taboo, until recently where that record is going in reverse.

And for the record, I loathe channel nine as well, so I rarely defend them.

Roddy I will admit you have a point about *self* censorship, but not about *government* censorship.

But before I move on:

"Tried a discussion in the workplace lately whether woman are the same value to a company as men doing the same job? Whether it is right or wrong for homosexuals to marry or adopt children?"

That first one would not have changed if it were not for addressing the issue. If nobody ever talked about it, nothing would change. The second one, the government has entered these debates as have many people I know. I don't see how they are particularly contentious.

"The perps are not "cured" by jail time, and mostly not by old age. So many people debating this issue simply prefer to forget or ignore the damage done, as that always put a price on supposed "freedoms" we so cherish..."

Are you saying we are fighting for the rights of paedophiles? If you are, you're no better than Conroy in this debate. We're fighting for free information which seems to have worked out just fine since the Internet was invented.

"Any moves that can inhibit this violent and brutal trade and these depraved activities involving kids needs to carefully explored in all it's aspects. Flat denials that there is any pedo or pedo supporting activity on the web, or denials that any beginnings of control methods now would"

I 100% agree. However the only proven effective way to do that is through police work. Filters just don't work. Don't believe me? Believe Australian Federal Police Commissioner Neil Gaughan who said in regards to ISP filters in stopping child abuse material: "They don't work at all."

That wasn't a qualified "They have some benefit", it was none. Zero. Not one iota of a benefit.

You bring up the co-operation with UK police and IWF. I'm yet to see any statements from the police over there that it is actually effective. Co-operation does not mean that it achieves anything meaningful. Even the IWF admits it does not stop anyone actually wanting to view the material, but only 'accidental views' of child porn. Which I think is completely bogus and statistically next to impossible to occur, but I digress.

Plus don't ya think that the people wanting these filters would have heard of the simplest means of bypassing the filters? Upon realising how much of a failure these systems are and how easy they are to bypass, what's your solution?