Australian internet filter dead in water

Forners may not be aware of an extremely boring federal election in Australia right now. Indeed, few Australians seem aware of this. This is as it should be. Elections that are Interesting usually turn out to be Dangerous. But there is one good that has come out of this. The Coalition of conservative parties has decided not to support the mandatory internet filter. Given that the party most likely to hold the balance of power in the upper house, the Greens, is opposed to it, the filter is dead no matter who wins the election. Excellent, outcome I hear you say in my head. And yes, it is. But there remains a deeper problem: Australian censorship is among the most draconian and pervasive in the western world, and both major parties have reiterated their devotion to it. This means that any attorney general can refuse a classification to a game, a book, a video that they dislike for no stated reason, and it becomes a crime to own it then and there. And right now, the religious own both major parties. Even though 70% of Australians want no censorship apart from violent and child exploitative material, there is no option. We will be treated like criminal children until proven innocent. This is why I am voting for the Australian Sex Party. Not because I am a major consumer of pornography or terrorist materials, but because, if it harm none, nobody has the right to tell me what I may or may not see as an adult citizen. The ASP is the only party whose priorities are in the right order: freedom, secularism, and humour. Forgive my suggesting to my six Australian readers that they vote this way too.

The first casualty

The increasing intention of western and non-western governments to censor the internet is usually put in terms of "child protection", although it is very unlikely to be affected by censorship, merely by using uncensorable techniques like Torrents. But one has to wonder if the real reason is more to do with preventing this sort of thing. It turns out that we have been lied to about civilian casualties and targeted assassinations in Afghanistan, two things that any civilised society should repudiate. Aeschylus is supposed to have said that in war, truth is the first casualty. Governments and militaries who prosecute wars do so for their own reasons, which are almost never the reason they give to their populace. Controlling information is crucial. We went into Iraq on a lie, and it looks like we are behaving in Afghanistan in ways that are contrary to what we are being told. This is not the fault of those on the ground, but it is the fault of governments. Without services like Wikilinks, we would never know these lies until it was too late to act on them. So, of course, governments wish to block access to information about the lies. I note also that Wikileaks is providing a service for whistleblowers to notify the media securely. Whistleblowers are usually well motivated individuals with a civil conscience, and so they are usually the only ones blamed and punished for the things they blow the whistle on, despite supposed protection laws. This is a marvellous idea. Media outlets can put a form to notify them on their own websites, and Wikileaks will anonymise the posts. Wikileaks is available from here. It's under a heavy strain right now, for obvious reasons, but I wouldn't put a DDoS attack out of the question either. In any even I expect that the Australian internet filter will include Wikileaks. If it does, I'll post a way around it. Think about why people are criticising Wikileaks: they are providing us, the people, with the truth about things that governments and vested interests do not want exposed. Why would anyone think that was wrong? Nobody who is open and honest could. Yes, I mean you Conroy, you weasel.

A letter to the PM

It turns out you can write to the Prime Minister via an online form, Roger Lamb pointed out to me and others via Twitter. Here's what I wrote:

Policies that will make me not vote Labor

Dear Prime Minister

Congratulations on your accession to the office. I am impressed that you eschew faux religiosity and do not apologise for your marital state. It's about time we had such honesty in our politics. But I wish to express my concern, both as a voter and as an academic (I teach philosophy at Bond), about some existing Labor policies and statements you have made in recent times

1. Internet filtering: this is a regressive and paternalistic policy that will, incidentally, not work. Drop it immediately. I would also suggest that Senator Kate Lundy is a good person in this discussion. That is, if you are unable to appoint Senator Ludlam to the ministry.

2. Gay Marriage: Some 10% of Australian citizens or so are discriminated against. You may not like gay relationships, but they deserve the same protection of law as every other citizen.

3. Asylum seekers. Must we really defer to xenophobia here? Asylum seekers are a minuscule problem in population growth (and you have adopted the right slant on that matter); say so and make the process more humane.

These policies as they stand are deal breakers for me. I know they are deal breakers for many others who might be classed as "swinging voters". You won't change the minds of the entrenched, but you can for those who are social progressives, who were once the constituency of Labor.

With respect

John Wilkins

Cardinal Fang gives notpology, and evades real problem

Cardinal Fang, also known as George Pell the Ignorant, has avoided an apology (at least his Melbourne colleague gave one) for child abuse by priests int he Catholic Church, on the grounds that he did that already, and isn't it time to move on?

George, if you have any decency at all, open up the Church's correspondence on pedophilia. Let us know what the Church knew, when and who. Hide no details. Don't act like the Mob does, as the Church is doing in Belgium. Full and frank disclosure is the only way to rescue the reputation of the Church, if anything will. Go on, I dare you.

Later: See these letters regarding Archbishop Rabbit's "apology", in the Melbourne Age.

Parenting and the law

Sydney Morning Herald has a couple of well expressed opinion pieces about legal aspects of adoption by homosexual parents and on abusive fathers and the Family Law Act. Both are sensible and you should read them.

On preventing illegal content

Stephen Collins of EFA has a nice post to follow up Scott Ludlam's excellent speech to Parliament, in which he notes that the filter will not prevent child porn, and that there are more effective ways to deal with it. Here's my one-line summary:

The mandatory filter is a way to avoid having to do anything substantive about porn, because that would take effort, money and not get politicians a public profile.

The way to deal with illegal content is to prosecute, after police investigation. If that content is overseas, then contact the host nation. We all have pretty much the same goals.

This takes money, time, personnel, and will not get headlines in the Murdoch press, but it is the only way to deal with these crimes. It is also the only way that has worked in the past. If Conroy and Rudd really want to do this properly, then appoint more police and fund the states to have more police aimed solely at this sort of crime. Prosecute these crimes. Enact sensible laws against them. And most of all, stop hiding behind the Censorship Board. In fact, I think we would as a community be a lot better off if we abolished the Censorship Board entirely. It has shown itself to be easily manipulated by both political and special interests for decades.

Australia has become one of the most draconian of all democracies in its paternalistic control over what we can and cannot do and say. I am ashamed of my country's placing style over substance and passing off responsibilities to government and bureaucracies that should be taken up by individuals.

On bogans

When I was a lad, before colour television or unleaded petrol, a "bogan" was an entirely unknown beast. Now, there's a guide. I strongly recommend it to watchers of this exotic fauna...

Filtering to be run for the Christians?

Over at the EFA site, Colin Jacobs points out some worrying facts, like the Australian Christian Lobby getting briefed where the Rest of Us cannot be, about the Internet Filter. Here's what he said:

One of the reasons EFA so opposes the Government’s mandatory ISP-level filtering scheme, of course, is that once it’s in place, special interests will be knocking on the Minister’s door seeking to have their own bugbears addressed by the blacklist. Even if, on day one, the list is limited to the “worst of the worst” of violent, illegal material – which it won’t be – how long do you think it would be before AFACT’s lawyers are lobbying for BitTorrent trackers to be added? Even members of Parliament have gone on record with their own ideas of what should be banned, such as racist Flash games, Bill Henson photography or “pro-anorexia” forums.

Now, before the results of the pilot have even been released for public discussion, the Australian Christian Lobby are crowing about how they received a special briefing from the Minister himself on the filtering scheme. Although they say the pilot’s results were not discussed, they clearly received an update on the scheme’s planning, something the rest of us have long been denied. (When was the last time detailed policy information was made available to the public?)

We’ve written before about the confused nature of this policy. Will it act like a home-based filter, keeping age-inappropriate material from children? No. Will it prevent the trade in illegal child pornography? Not that either. We’ve been assured that the list will contain “almost exclusively” RC (refused classification) material, whatever that may mean. Could all adult material be grist for the blacklist? Previous indications have been that this is not the case, but with anti-filth crusaders receiving a special briefing in the Minister’s office, one might have doubts about whether the list might have more puritanical applications than have been disclosed so far.

After all, why should the minister be giving the Australian Christian Lobby, of all the possible stakeholders, a special briefing? They have a right to lobby for their members’ wishes, certainly, but they do not represent a very broad section of the community, and have demonstrated on many occasions an inability to grasp the policy and technological issues surrounding mandatory filtering. Even looking at it cynically, the ACL is hardly a bastion of ALP supporters. Is it because the ACL’s view on how the Internet should ultimately look is in line with the Minister’s?

The Greens have called for an explanation, but sadly if the Government stays true to form we probably won’t be getting one soon.

The Australian electorate demands transparent and evidence-based policymaking that represents broad community interests. EFA will be contacting the Minister’s office in order to get a meeting and again put our concerns with the plan on the record.

I warned you all this was coming. Now that Tony Abbott, the Catholic mouthpiece, is leading the Opposition, we are officially in a nation that is Christianised, and our politics will increasingly marginalise anyone who doesn't meet their religious standards. We are going to have to protest and take legal action to protect our freedoms.

Well that kills the Greens for me

The father of the modern attempt to censor the internet in Australia has, in a stunning case of hypocrisy, attacked the Labor government for its secrecy over internet filtering. Yep, Clive Hamilton! But there's worse to come! The Greens have made him their candidate for the Higgins by-election!

Fuck 'em, I say. I will no longer touch or trust the Greens as a party if they can take that paternalistic religious fool as a candidate. I hereby take back every recommendation I have made about the Greens. He is the enemy of free speech and indeed of freedom in general. Ergo, so are they.

Sorry Bob Brown, you totally messed up, and the only thing that would redeem you is if you dropped him before the election is held.

Conroy's memory lapse

Usually, when someone forgets on the stand some crucial bit of information, we call it evasion. A convenient lapse of memory has now been had by Stephen Conroy, who now says (in the Senate, no less) that he never intended to filter peer-to-peer internet traffic. Since this is how the child pornographers he is using as a convenient justification for government control over the internet in Australia will share their illegal pornography, what's the frigging point?

I don't usually quote entire articles, but this one is too good not to, from Zeropaid News:

Aussie Minister: “I Never Wanted to Filter P2P”

Written by soulxtc

Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy responds to criticisms that the proposed “mandatory voluntary” Internet filter would try to block BitTorrent and other P2P programs, though is a complete reversal from earlier statements.

Opposition to Australian Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy’s plan for a “mandatory voluntary” scheme of filtering the Internet to “protect the children” is taking another beating these days with criticism from the Green Party over his refusal to release data on what proportion of illegal net traffic the government’s filter would actually block.

In Senate Question Time last week, Greens Communications Spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam asked Minister Conroy to what degree his plan would filter BitTorrent and P2P traffic. For after all, it was he who said last December that “technology that filters P2P and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial.”

Minister Conroy, apparently suffering from a case of amnesia, denied any pans to filter file-sharing traffic.

“As Senator Ludlam well knows, there has never been a suggestion by this government that peer-to-peer traffic would or could be blocked by our filter. It has never been suggested. So for you to continue to make the suggestion that we are attempting to do that just misleads the chamber and the Australian public, Senator Ludlam, and you know better than that. We are not attempting to suggest that the filter can capture peer-to-peer traffic,” he said.

Senator Ludlam said the Minister was either trying to hide some quiet goalpost-shifting or was simply unaware he had contradicted himself.

“Maybe the minister doesn’t read his own blog,” Senator Ludlam suggested.

He also said that if that’s the case then the whole “mandatory voluntary” scheme is more pointless than ever.

“We received another vivid demonstration yesterday of why people are right to be suspicious of this pointless waste of $44 million,” Senator Ludlam said.

“The Greens support measures that will achieve better protection for children from objectionable online material, but Minister Conroy reminded us again that the mandatory internet filtering scheme started out as ill-conceived and has just gone downhill from there.”

Stay tuned.

Shock jocks on radio and decency

"At long last, sir, have you no decency?" That was the question that finally brought down that weasel Joseph McCarthy in his vile campaign to make anyone who was not right wing and equally vile isolated and marginalised in the US. His success can be seen in the present American vile right wing.

So Kyle the Vile Sandilands has been suspended for four weeks. Whooptifuckingdoo. Why hasn't he been banned from being on the media? For that matter, why wasn't John Laws, and why isn't Alan Jones and why aren't all the little Lawsies and Jonesies throughout the land?

Where's ACMA? Is it too busy telling adults what they can and can't play on their computers even if it's lawful? Why haven't they censored Jones, who initiated the race riots on air? Why? Well let's not forget that these guys get politicians into power and out, and the politicians know this. It's all about lobbying for influence. It's all about money.

ACMA ought to immediately revoke the license of any broadcaster or on air personality or producer that breaches the rules of democratic decency. When laws are broken, they should be charged and if at all possible jailed. But we'll never see that in this brave new lobbocracy. They have no decency. Just money.

Anonymous threaten dDoS against the federal government

It looks like the hacking group that attacked the Scientologists are going to do the same thing to Labor's government websites. I don't approve of this, because it means that Labor on the one hand will retreat into their shell and blame the hacking community for the ills of the internet. The best way to win this is for people to vote and protest. And on the other hand it is, after all, illegal, and the technology to do this will be used for both good and bad purposes; it ought not to be encouraged.

Meanwhile, the Christian lobby that is fronting this censorship proposal fails to respond to criticisms, as expected.

On preventive censorship versus punishment

In the last few years, there has been an increasing tendency of so-called democratic governments to increase the amount of control they have over their population, under the guise of various "emergencies": terrorism, child pornography and of course a slightly more honest concern over property rights. Just today, the Australian attempt to mandatorily censor all internet feeds to eliminate child pornography has been attacked as ineffectual.

It is, of course, due to the technical nature of the internet, but that is, I fear, the wrong objection.

Cast your mind back to the end of the nineteenth century. The new communications technology then was the post and the telegram. Now, telegrams were sent, as it were, "in the clear" and so senders tended to be circumspect, but the mail then, as now, was private.

Suppose, in the light of terrorism from the anarchists and revolutionaries active at the time, the government said that it would open all mail and read it to ensure that no untoward things were being communicated, and what is more, the censors were not accountable to anyone but the presently elected minister, and in practice not even then.

Suppose that no rules as to what were prohibited were published, so as to not excite the population about forbidden fruit. Suppose that someone's mail could be intercepted and prevented from being received by agents of the government, and the sender would not even be told of this.

Would this be acceptable? I suggest it wouldn't, then or now, and the Kafkaesque nature of such draconian censorship would not be ameliorated by the claim that it was in order to protect the innocent. One can envisage an Edwardian Labor minister of the day holding his coat like a barrister as he accused opponents of the censoring of mail of not wanting to protect the children.

The fact is, even if mandatory filtering were possible technically, this is a kind of Stalinist statism, or a fascism. It suggests that the population is not able to make choices properly, and that it is up to the politicians and administrative arms of government to do it for us. It also suggests that one should punish before the act that is sanctioned is committed, like a Minority Report style interdiction.

If an act is rightly condemned – such as murder – it is the government's duty only to punish those who transgress. When the crime is committed, then the law comes into effect. If there is no crime, the law has no role to play in the lives of citizens going about their lives. What mandatory censorship does it invert this: before there is a crime, you will be held accountable.

Worse, powers held by governments must be balanced and checked to prevent abuse. But this is completely unchecked. We are expected to think that not only this minister (who I personally wouldn't trust to run a chook raffle), but all subsequent ministers and prime ministers and lobbyists and police and bureaucrats and indeed anyone who might prejudice the process is honest and competent.

Did we not learn anything from the past three centuries? Star Chambers? Monarchical absolutism? Special Branch? Intelligence agency failures? Does none of this ring any bells? No? Then get the hell out of power, because you have no right to be doing this, Conroy.

I would once have expected those who are on the conservative side to protect individual freedoms from such statism, but these days they are as much at fault, in Australia as anywhere else, of abuses of power and control as the other sides of the political paddocks. I applaud that Senator Minchin (no relation to this guy, I think) is on the ball about the technical stupidity of filtering, but I really want to see him follow the Greens and attack it for being wrong in principle.

And non-Australians? Watch out. This is coming your way. The UK is already highly controlled, and other countries are going to try it if it works anywhere. The Chinese have dropped the mandatory aspect of their Green Bank filtering, but Malaysia is trialling it now, and it's not a long leap to European and New World countries doing it. All it takes is a little bit of paternalism.

Won't somebody think of the children when they grow up?

Oppose the anti-gays on marriage

The current Senate Inquiry into Marriage Equality has just been swamped by thousands of anti-gay submissions from the Religious Right. The inquiry is just about to close for submissions. It aims to gauge the level of public support for marriage equality across Australia. Does anti-gay discrimination have any place in our secular laws? If you think not, go here and register your PoV. Hat tip to Jason Ball.

Who should be the next advertising face of Australia?

This guy:

Just mail me my $20 million, please.

Corby and the media

Are we supposed to feel sorry for Corby now? Is the media's continuing obsession over her "plight" (but not the less camera-friendly Bali Nine) another beatup by a family that has been pretty good at manipulating it? Let's face it, if Corby looked like the woman who is looking after her, Renae Lawrence [see pic], she'd be ignored just as much as they are. But Lawrence is taking it like an adult.

I wouldn't wish the conditions of the prisoners in an Indonesia jail on anyone, but let's face it. She's a drug trafficker, and probably part of an extensive criminal network. She shouldn't have her rights taken away, but she did surrender a few of them when she decided to try to smuggle drugs. I don't think that drugs should be criminalised (it's a sop to the law enforcement industry of America) as this merely encourages criminal activity, but given that it is criminal activity, how pretty someone looks shouldn't modify our concern over the rights of criminals.

As it is, Indonesia has reduced the life sentences and death sentences to reasonable lengths. We shouldn't allow style to impose a subtle racism against the Indonesians.

More funding for Brethren schools

This is pretty fucking disgusting, but it only highlights the wrongness of funding religious schools any differently to state schools. If you fund a Catholic school you have no argument against funding all religious schools, including the cults.

We should insist upon funded schools following a tight secular curriculum and not proselytising. That would sort 'em out.

The great Australian Starhunt

My mate Ian Musgrave, who is too clever for six ordinary people, has sent me this:

The Big Aussie Starhunt is well underway! I did my survey tonight, the first chance I've had with the clouds and kids. The Big Aussie Starhunt is a Australia wide event to get people more familiar with our wonderful night sky, and to raise awareness of light pollution so it's well worth participating . All you have to do is count how many stars you can see in Scorpius during Science Week (15 – 23 August 2009). The 23rd is coming up fast, so get out and have a go!

You can get to the Aussie Starhunt here or go directly to the survey page.

Use SkippySky to get cloud cover predictions.