[clug] [OT] Broadband clangers

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

Blocking RC material is, to my understanding, reasonable, as by law
it should not be distributed in any form. If one objects to this then
one should also apply the same logic to printed, optical etc.

Unfortunately, the secrecy surrounding the list is a major problem.
Accountability is critical, and most people do not trust governments
that intentionally hide information that is said to be in the law.

Also, the suggestion that the filter will protect children (an often
quoted story) is something I do not understand. Many will consider
hard core porn unsuitable for them yet it is legal (not RC).
So the filter will not protect here. The original idea of an optional
(opt-in) filter that families can apply can do a better job. A family
can add their own restrictions too, exchange block lists with friends
etc.

If the children story is about child porn abuse then the first
paragraph above already covers it, but I often hear people explicitly
suggesting that "material unsuitable for children" will be covered
by this filter. This is not right.

For supporters of the RC filter idea there is another problem - a
filter does not work. But it does make it more difficult to get
around so only the really eager souls will follow through. I guess
the idea of a filter comes from the expectation that it will be
easier to inspect all electronic material than physical media
where you need to tear the brown bag, put it in a player...

cheers

On 12/08/10 11:50, Ben Nizette wrote:
>
> On 12/08/2010, at 10:41 AM, steve jenkin wrote:
>
>> Ben Nizette wrote on 11/08/10 6:59 PM:
>>
>>> FWIW the Coalition has come out against the filter, they (say they) won't implement it.
>>>
>>> 	--Ben.
>>
>> The Howard Government was the first to be concerned about "filtering"
>> and started the "NetNanny" (or wahtever) give-away.
>>
>> For my money, we're not out of the woods yet.
>> Hopefully, as mentioned by Ivan, the Greens will put the kybosh on this
>> in the Senate whomever gets in.
>> If the Libs fail to win back their Rightful Role as Rulers, they'll be
>> anti-everything...
>>
>> I've never heard anything that explains why Sen. Conroy is so determined
>> to implement filtering.
>> I can think of two plausible Agendas:
>> - Capital-C conservative Christian values, violently anti-porn.
>> - He actually 'gets' that the Internet challenges the status-quo
>>    and has the potential to severely disrupt Business-as-Usual politics.
>>    [Would the Mexico Gulf oil-blowout have been half the story
>>     without the "live-feed" on the Net?]
>>    [Not to mention 'the drudge report' and Clinton.]
>>
>> Anyone got a better idea or insight??
>
> As far as I've been able to tell Conroy doesn't see the introduction of a filter as a new radical policy, he sees it as closing a loop-hole.  At the moment you can't get Refused Classification media by book, as a game at EB, as a DVD at Video Ezy etc etc.  He has always couched the filter not in terms of the filter itself but rather as a means to implement the same restrictions on internet-delivered media as any physically-delivered media.  I'm not convinced he expected such a huge outcry, after all (with the exception of R18+ games) no-one really objects to the restrictions on this material in physical form.
>
> There are then two main classes of objections to the filter.  The first relates to the policy: Should RC websites be banned from viewing?  If you class their content in the same way as books and DVDs then the answer is probably "why not", if you class their content in the same category as, eg, journalism then the answer is a resounding HELL NO.  I am of course in the latter camp but I kind of understand the former camp in this part of the argument (only).
>
> The other objection, the deal-breaker in the eyes of the technically-minded, regards the means of enforcement - the filter itself.  For starters, the fact that all his raving about consistency between media doesn't extend to, for example, the publicity of the blocked list (lists of RC books, dvds etc are publicly available, not so for websites).  This extra layer of secrecy means no-one trusts them to keep it to exactly RC material.  We all know the filter will be trivially avoidable and only cover a tiny subset of the actual RC material available on the 'net to which he generally responds something along the lines of "fixed speed cameras only cover a tiny area of the road network and are trivially avoidable but few people would argue they're worthless".  I know everyone on list can poke 100 holes in that analogy but that's kind of the point :)
>
> Call me optimistic or naiive but I honestly don't think Conroy's trying to implement this as any kind of hush-machine, he regularly and vocally explains that he knows that this is no substitute for NetNanny etc for families, I think he just simply sees this as closing a loophole in our classification system.  The fact he refuses to see it's technically unenforceable and won't let it go I think can just be put down to pig-headedness, stubborn-mindedness and a disconnect with reality that, while scary, are hardly unique attributes amongst politicians!
>
> 	--Ben.
>
>>
>> Something very powerful is driving this, and I really hope it's not The
>> Spooks wanting a home-grown version of 'Carnivore' or buying "NarusInsight".
>>
>> cheers
>> steve
>>
>> --
>> Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist.
>> 0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
>> PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA
>>
>> sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin
>> --
>> linux mailing list
>> linux at lists.samba.org
>> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>

-- 
Eyal Lebedinsky	(eyal at eyal.emu.id.au)