> What's the most effective thing we can do as a community? Surely > something is better than ignoring it...
This sort of stuff is going on all over the world and except in Sweden nobody really seems to care about it. As long as the general public does not understand how dangerous censorship (not to mention wire tapping) is, you will not see any major demonstrations. Without that, the goverment will probably just go ahead and pass a law during another distracting crisis.
My guess is that the best way to deal with this is to educate the public on this issue and the best way to achieve that is if a massive scandal were to happen.
Given how insanely stupid the people behind this are, this is just a matter of keeping a list of every single blocked site. At some point during the censorship period, you present the false positives as dramatically as possible.
I am assuming the list of verboten sites will be public (if not, that would be even more scary), which means it effectively serves as a government endorsed name-and-shame list. If your website ends up on that list, you might face public humiliation. These cases need to be documented and preferably contrasted with the actual reduction in child porn creation.
Another approach might be to make the link with counties like Iran and China as obvious as possible. If it can be shown that government is using or even considering the exact same software that is used in Iran and China and are simply substituting "Tianan Square" with "naked babies" and "Holocaust" with "Windows Vista torrent", that should stir up some emotions.
Iran might even be willing to send Australia an offer to do the censorship at a lower price. Not sure if China would be in for such a diplomatic riot, although it would "support" their "case" for censorship; just different cultural sensitivities.
Either way, I agree the goverment is acting absolutely irresponsibly here and some public outcry is justified. A good start would be for the minister to resign for even considering national censorship, but that's just my five cents.
I've already submitted my request to get images.google.com.au banned
to ACMA. And if the list is public including reasons on why it's
blocked, wouldn't that become a really easy way to find all the
illegal stuff on the internet? Maybe we should let them do it, this
could be an interesting list and everyone knows you can't censor the
internet, we'll find a way around it. :P
Sorry, just being cheeky... waste of money though.
On Oct 25, 10:18 pm, bengrubb <bengr...@gmail.com> wrote:
It took me about six months to get a response to my first letter. The second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a slightly faster response (just under two months).
Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person (since he's a Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste of time anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And whether he'd bother responding to an appointment is another matter. Still, it might result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit spin he's responding with to the media.
I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems several of us are writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us anywhere. ISP employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either. If it gets rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's just not feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), then I guess we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to circumvent? I'm seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the issue... but getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so solidly behind is far from easy.
That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the controls would be, in a vocal way :) I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast how these 'repressed' people get away with things. It would be a good way to compare the approach to an authoritarian government, whilst at the same time showing how ineffective they are.
We could also put together short clips having people explain how easy it is to circumvent as well as working examples of exploitations of the holes.
Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to create awareness, I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack mates, who can ensure that our work is distributed to the right people within the party. And certainly, I've got some Liberal hack mates who would love to get behind this for the sake of creating a wedge issue.
Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e-mails that we have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, moronic arse-wipe politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic: flat out embaressment, with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad of social media distribution. At worst, we have a laugh and let the public know our industry is alive and kicking.
Thoughts?
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com>wrote:
> It took me about six months to get a response to my first letter. The > second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a slightly > faster response (just under two months).
> Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person (since he's a > Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste of time > anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And whether he'd > bother responding to an appointment is another matter. Still, it might > result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit spin he's > responding with to the media.
> I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems several of us are > writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us anywhere. ISP > employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either. If it gets > rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's just not > feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), then I guess > we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to circumvent? I'm > seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the issue... but > getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so solidly behind > is far from easy.
> Still, suggestions for action welcome :)
> -- > Pat
> On 26/10/2008, at 6:07 PM, Gary Barber wrote:
> > At least you got a response, I have yet to get that for any of the > > three > > emails I have sent over the previous months and several phone calls.
> > -- > > Gary Barber > > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
The one issue I can see with using Iran (and China) as examples though is that the Government repetitively states it's not like them. But definitely, the government needs to be embarrassed and pressured into seeing how stupid their idea is. Get the videos made, I'll definitely do my bit to promote them.
> That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the controls > would be, in a vocal way :)
> I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast how > these 'repressed' people get away with things. It would be a good > way to compare the approach to an authoritarian government, whilst > at the same time showing how ineffective they are.
> We could also put together short clips having people explain how > easy it is to circumvent as well as working examples of > exploitations of the holes.
> Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to create > awareness, I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack mates, > who can ensure that our work is distributed to the right people > within the party. And certainly, I've got some Liberal hack mates > who would love to get behind this for the sake of creating a wedge > issue.
> Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e-mails > that we have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, moronic > arse-wipe politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic: flat > out embaressment, with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad of social > media distribution. At worst, we have a laugh and let the public > know our industry is alive and kicking.
> Thoughts?
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan <pat@freelancing- > gods.com> wrote:
> It took me about six months to get a response to my first letter. The > second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a slightly > faster response (just under two months).
> Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person (since he's a > Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste of time > anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And whether he'd > bother responding to an appointment is another matter. Still, it might > result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit spin he's > responding with to the media.
> I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems several of us are > writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us anywhere. ISP > employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either. If it gets > rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's just not > feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), then I guess > we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to circumvent? I'm > seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the issue... but > getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so solidly behind > is far from easy.
> Still, suggestions for action welcome :)
> -- > Pat
> On 26/10/2008, at 6:07 PM, Gary Barber wrote:
> > At least you got a response, I have yet to get that for any of the > > three > > emails I have sent over the previous months and several phone calls.
> > -- > > Gary Barber > > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
Just a thought, if the filter passes into use - wouldn't the government make illegal any websites that have information on how to bypass the filter? Also wouldnt the govt also make it illegal to spread information about this and target individuals and corporations who do so?
This is obviously a flawed way of thinking, but given the flaws in the thinking that has got the government to this point, it really wouldnt be a suprise.
It would also be a logical extension that the using/creating of any technology that bypasses the filter would also be made illegal. (Not dissimilar to DMCA in the US).
I know this directly effects my company and many other tech companies.
While im sure we all strongly agree with Gilmores law - *"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."* - and that gives us some confidence. - it seems pretty scary that our government might turn a large percentage of its otherwise law abiding population into criminals.
The immediate question is how do you make Joe Public care? And, how do you get mainstream media to care?
Maybe there is something to learn from the anonymous/anti-scientology movement, maybe this is something anonymous could be steered to care about if we targeted their channels. Anonymous delivered in both getting media attention and simplifying the scientology message into something the public is happy to talk about.
Either way im sure we are all on the same page that this filter must not be passed into use - once this is in, we could speculate that the governement would never give it up.
*"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. Reed * ** *"Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth ever afterward resumes its liberty."* - Walt Whitman
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com>wrote:
> The one issue I can see with using Iran (and China) as examples though is > that the Government repetitively states it's not like them. But definitely, > the government needs to be embarrassed and pressured into seeing how stupid > their idea is. Get the videos made, I'll definitely do my bit to promote > them.
> -- > Pat
> On 26/10/2008, at 7:14 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:
> That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the controls would > be, in a vocal way :) > I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast how these > 'repressed' people get away with things. It would be a good way to compare > the approach to an authoritarian government, whilst at the same time showing > how ineffective they are.
> We could also put together short clips having people explain how easy it > is to circumvent as well as working examples of exploitations of the holes.
> Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to create awareness, > I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack mates, who can ensure that > our work is distributed to the right people within the party. And certainly, > I've got some Liberal hack mates who would love to get behind this for the > sake of creating a wedge issue.
> Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e-mails that we > have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, moronic arse-wipe > politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic: flat out embaressment, > with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad of social media distribution. At > worst, we have a laugh and let the public know our industry is alive and > kicking.
> Thoughts?
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com>wrote:
>> It took me about six months to get a response to my first letter. The >> second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a slightly >> faster response (just under two months).
>> Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person (since he's a >> Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste of time >> anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And whether he'd >> bother responding to an appointment is another matter. Still, it might >> result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit spin he's >> responding with to the media.
>> I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems several of us are >> writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us anywhere. ISP >> employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either. If it gets >> rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's just not >> feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), then I guess >> we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to circumvent? I'm >> seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the issue... but >> getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so solidly behind >> is far from easy.
>> Still, suggestions for action welcome :)
>> -- >> Pat
>> On 26/10/2008, at 6:07 PM, Gary Barber wrote:
>> > At least you got a response, I have yet to get that for any of the >> > three >> > emails I have sent over the previous months and several phone calls.
>> > -- >> > Gary Barber >> > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
From: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nick Holmes a Court Sent: Sunday, 26 October 2008 22:25 To: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering
Just a thought, if the filter passes into use - wouldn't the government make illegal any websites that have information on how to bypass the filter? Also wouldnt the govt also make it illegal to spread information about this and target individuals and corporations who do so?
This is obviously a flawed way of thinking, but given the flaws in the thinking that has got the government to this point, it really wouldnt be a suprise.
It would also be a logical extension that the using/creating of any technology that bypasses the filter would also be made illegal. (Not dissimilar to DMCA in the US).
I know this directly effects my company and many other tech companies.
While im sure we all strongly agree with Gilmores law - "The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - and that gives us some confidence. - it seems pretty scary that our government might turn a large percentage of its otherwise law abiding population into criminals.
The immediate question is how do you make Joe Public care? And, how do you get mainstream media to care?
Maybe there is something to learn from the anonymous/anti-scientology movement, maybe this is something anonymous could be steered to care about if we targeted their channels. Anonymous delivered in both getting media attention and simplifying the scientology message into something the public is happy to talk about.
Either way im sure we are all on the same page that this filter must not be passed into use - once this is in, we could speculate that the governement would never give it up.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. Reed
"Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth ever afterward resumes its liberty." - Walt Whitman
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com> wrote:
The one issue I can see with using Iran (and China) as examples though is that the Government repetitively states it's not like them. But definitely, the government needs to be embarrassed and pressured into seeing how stupid their idea is. Get the videos made, I'll definitely do my bit to promote them.
-- Pat
On 26/10/2008, at 7:14 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:
That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the controls would be, in a vocal way :)
I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast how these 'repressed' people get away with things. It would be a good way to compare the approach to an authoritarian government, whilst at the same time showing how ineffective they are.
We could also put together short clips having people explain how easy it is to circumvent as well as working examples of exploitations of the holes.
Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to create awareness, I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack mates, who can ensure that our work is distributed to the right people within the party. And certainly, I've got some Liberal hack mates who would love to get behind this for the sake of creating a wedge issue.
Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e-mails that we have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, moronic arse-wipe politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic: flat out embaressment, with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad of social media distribution. At worst, we have a laugh and let the public know our industry is alive and kicking.
Thoughts?
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com> wrote:
It took me about six months to get a response to my first letter. The second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a slightly faster response (just under two months).
Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person (since he's a Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste of time anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And whether he'd bother responding to an appointment is another matter. Still, it might result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit spin he's responding with to the media.
I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems several of us are writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us anywhere. ISP employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either. If it gets rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's just not feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), then I guess we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to circumvent? I'm seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the issue... but getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so solidly behind is far from easy.
To get the normal person interested, we've got to show how it will effect them - but make it something they want to read. Perhaps a satirical website that shows off how bad the internet experience could be if the filter came into existence - but with a bit of humour to help it get traction:
- Show youtube videos that are jumpy, and impossible to watch. - Mock music downloads that say "your download should only take a couple of hours". - Details of the Governments new "Won't somebody think of the children?" fridge magnet. - A mock-up of a Government Intranet site that shows all the websites someone has visited in the past month. - A link to a rival political site, that when clicked says "Blocked for your safety" ... - A video of someone using P2P to get their illegal downloads without being blocked.
(I'm not that funny, but you get the idea. Perhaps if we could get the Chaser team to write it :)
If we can show how it will adversely effect the average internet user, and still not achieve any of it's goals (apart from the political one of being perceived to actually be doing something useful) no-one in their right mind could approve of it.
> Just a thought, if the filter passes into use - wouldn't the > government make illegal any websites that have information on how to > bypass the filter? Also wouldnt the govt also make it illegal to > spread information about this and target individuals and corporations > who do so?
> This is obviously a flawed way of thinking, but given the flaws in the > thinking that has got the government to this point, it really wouldnt > be a suprise.
> It would also be a logical extension that the using/creating of any > technology that bypasses the filter would also be made illegal. (Not > dissimilar to DMCA in the US).
> I know this directly effects my company and many other tech companies.
> While im sure we all strongly agree with Gilmores law - /"The internet > interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."/ - and that > gives us some confidence. - it seems pretty scary that our government > might turn a large percentage of its otherwise law abiding population > into criminals.
> The immediate question is how do you make Joe Public care? And, how do > you get mainstream media to care?
> Maybe there is something to learn from the anonymous/anti-scientology > movement, maybe this is something anonymous could be steered to care > about if we targeted their channels. Anonymous delivered in both > getting media attention and simplifying the scientology message into > something the public is happy to talk about.
> Either way im sure we are all on the same page that this filter must > not be passed into use - once this is in, we could speculate that > the governement would never give it up.
> /"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the > evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. Reed / > // > /"Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth ever > afterward resumes its liberty."/ - Walt Whitman
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com > <mailto:p...@freelancing-gods.com>> wrote:
> The one issue I can see with using Iran (and China) as examples > though is that the Government repetitively states it's not like > them. But definitely, the government needs to be embarrassed and > pressured into seeing how stupid their idea is. Get the videos > made, I'll definitely do my bit to promote them.
> -- > Pat
> On 26/10/2008, at 7:14 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:
>> That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the >> controls would be, in a vocal way :)
>> I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast >> how these 'repressed' people get away with things. It would be a >> good way to compare the approach to an authoritarian government, >> whilst at the same time showing how ineffective they are.
>> We could also put together short clips having people explain how >> easy it is to circumvent as well as working examples >> of exploitations of the holes.
>> Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to create >> awareness, I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack >> mates, who can ensure that our work is distributed to the right >> people within the party. And certainly, I've got some Liberal >> hack mates who would love to get behind this for the sake of >> creating a wedge issue.
>> Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e-mails >> that we have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, moronic >> arse-wipe politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic: >> flat out embaressment, with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad >> of social media distribution. At worst, we have a laugh and let >> the public know our industry is alive and kicking.
>> Thoughts?
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan >> <p...@freelancing-gods.com <mailto:p...@freelancing-gods.com>> wrote:
>> It took me about six months to get a response to my first >> letter. The >> second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a slightly >> faster response (just under two months).
>> Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person (since >> he's a >> Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste of time >> anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And >> whether he'd >> bother responding to an appointment is another matter. Still, >> it might >> result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit >> spin he's >> responding with to the media.
>> I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems several of >> us are >> writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us anywhere. ISP >> employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either. >> If it gets >> rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's just not >> feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), then >> I guess >> we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to circumvent? I'm >> seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the issue... but >> getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so solidly >> behind >> is far from easy.
>> Still, suggestions for action welcome :)
>> -- >> Pat
>> On 26/10/2008, at 6:07 PM, Gary Barber wrote:
>> > At least you got a response, I have yet to get that for any >> of the >> > three >> > emails I have sent over the previous months and several >> phone calls.
>> > -- >> > Gary Barber >> > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
Great ideas. So how I see this evolving is
- audience: general consumer
- method: short, entertaining clips, content and merchandise
- goal: communicate the following messages
1) It will degrade our already degraded internerz experience -->
impact on consumers, on startups, on the experience
2) It has the potential for scope creep beyond saving the children -->
impact on privacy, on civil liberties
3) It technologically will be ineffective in addressing the policy
goal --> impact on treasury, agency resources - likely to make some
developer firm rich at the cost of the tax payers for no good reason
I think we need to get behind existing efforts like the nocleanfeed
brand (http://nocleanfeed.com/ - thanks @preds) or create our own -
and just channel our energies across the community and media. Common
brand means common message which means more pronounced political
pressure.
I can't help but think this is a trojan horse policy. Surely, the
minister isn't that stupid to think with 98% public opposition, this
is a smart move. There has to be an ulterior motive such as using it
as a bargaining tool for other policy or appealing to a core
constituency that helps him directly like a campaign donation.
On Oct 27, 10:45 am, Chris Carpenter <chrisca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To get the normal person interested, we've got to show how it will
> effect them - but make it something they want to read. Perhaps a
> satirical website that shows off how bad the internet experience could
> be if the filter came into existence - but with a bit of humour to help
> it get traction:
> - Show youtube videos that are jumpy, and impossible to watch.
> - Mock music downloads that say "your download should only take a couple
> of hours".
> - Details of the Governments new "Won't somebody think of the children?"
> fridge magnet.
> - A mock-up of a Government Intranet site that shows all the websites
> someone has visited in the past month.
> - A link to a rival political site, that when clicked says "Blocked for
> your safety" ...
> - A video of someone using P2P to get their illegal downloads without
> being blocked.
> (I'm not that funny, but you get the idea. Perhaps if we could get the
> Chaser team to write it :)
> If we can show how it will adversely effect the average internet user,
> and still not achieve any of it's goals (apart from the political one of
> being perceived to actually be doing something useful) no-one in their
> right mind could approve of it.
> Nick Holmes a Court wrote:
> > Just a thought, if the filter passes into use - wouldn't the
> > government make illegal any websites that have information on how to
> > bypass the filter? Also wouldnt the govt also make it illegal to
> > spread information about this and target individuals and corporations
> > who do so?
> > This is obviously a flawed way of thinking, but given the flaws in the
> > thinking that has got the government to this point, it really wouldnt
> > be a suprise.
> > It would also be a logical extension that the using/creating of any
> > technology that bypasses the filter would also be made illegal. (Not
> > dissimilar to DMCA in the US).
> > I know this directly effects my company and many other tech companies.
> > While im sure we all strongly agree with Gilmores law - /"The internet
> > interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."/ - and that
> > gives us some confidence. - it seems pretty scary that our government
> > might turn a large percentage of its otherwise law abiding population
> > into criminals.
> > The immediate question is how do you make Joe Public care? And, how do
> > you get mainstream media to care?
> > Maybe there is something to learn from the anonymous/anti-scientology
> > movement, maybe this is something anonymous could be steered to care
> > about if we targeted their channels. Anonymous delivered in both
> > getting media attention and simplifying the scientology message into
> > something the public is happy to talk about.
> > Either way im sure we are all on the same page that this filter must
> > not be passed into use - once this is in, we could speculate that
> > the governement would never give it up.
> > /"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the
> > evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. Reed /
> > //
> > /"Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth ever
> > afterward resumes its liberty."/ - Walt Whitman
> > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com
> > <mailto:p...@freelancing-gods.com>> wrote:
> > Elias - love the ideas, definitely got some merit - the initial
> > idea wasn't mind though, I'm just echoing Mark Pesce:
> > http://twitter.com/mpesce/status/974762216
> > The one issue I can see with using Iran (and China) as examples
> > though is that the Government repetitively states it's not like
> > them. But definitely, the government needs to be embarrassed and
> > pressured into seeing how stupid their idea is. Get the videos
> > made, I'll definitely do my bit to promote them.
> > --
> > Pat
> > On 26/10/2008, at 7:14 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:
> >> That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the
> >> controls would be, in a vocal way :)
> >> I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast
> >> how these 'repressed' people get away with things. It would be a
> >> good way to compare the approach to an authoritarian government,
> >> whilst at the same time showing how ineffective they are.
> >> We could also put together short clips having people explain how
> >> easy it is to circumvent as well as working examples
> >> of exploitations of the holes.
> >> Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to create
> >> awareness, I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack
> >> mates, who can ensure that our work is distributed to the right
> >> people within the party. And certainly, I've got some Liberal
> >> hack mates who would love to get behind this for the sake of
> >> creating a wedge issue.
> >> Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e-mails
> >> that we have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, moronic
> >> arse-wipe politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic:
> >> flat out embaressment, with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad
> >> of social media distribution. At worst, we have a laugh and let
> >> the public know our industry is alive and kicking.
> >> Thoughts?
> >> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan
> >> <p...@freelancing-gods.com <mailto:p...@freelancing-gods.com>> wrote:
> >> It took me about six months to get a response to my first
> >> letter. The
> >> second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a slightly
> >> faster response (just under two months).
> >> Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person (since
> >> he's a
> >> Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste of time
> >> anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And
> >> whether he'd
> >> bother responding to an appointment is another matter. Still,
> >> it might
> >> result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit
> >> spin he's
> >> responding with to the media.
> >> I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems several of
> >> us are
> >> writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us anywhere. ISP
> >> employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either.
> >> If it gets
> >> rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's just not
> >> feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), then
> >> I guess
> >> we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to circumvent? I'm
> >> seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the issue... but
> >> getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so solidly
> >> behind
> >> is far from easy.
> >> Still, suggestions for action welcome :)
> >> --
> >> Pat
> >> On 26/10/2008, at 6:07 PM, Gary Barber wrote:
> >> > At least you got a response, I have yet to get that for any
> >> of the
> >> > three
> >> > emails I have sent over the previous months and several
> >> phone calls.
> >> > --
> >> > Gary Barber
> >> > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in Conroy's trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless the gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens have been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so perhaps we're safe, at least until another election.
> Great ideas. So how I see this evolving is > - audience: general consumer > - method: short, entertaining clips, content and merchandise > - goal: communicate the following messages
> 1) It will degrade our already degraded internerz experience --> > impact on consumers, on startups, on the experience > 2) It has the potential for scope creep beyond saving the children --> > impact on privacy, on civil liberties > 3) It technologically will be ineffective in addressing the policy > goal --> impact on treasury, agency resources - likely to make some > developer firm rich at the cost of the tax payers for no good reason
> I think we need to get behind existing efforts like the nocleanfeed > brand (http://nocleanfeed.com/ - thanks @preds) or create our own - > and just channel our energies across the community and media. Common > brand means common message which means more pronounced political > pressure.
> I can't help but think this is a trojan horse policy. Surely, the > minister isn't that stupid to think with 98% public opposition, this > is a smart move. There has to be an ulterior motive such as using it > as a bargaining tool for other policy or appealing to a core > constituency that helps him directly like a campaign donation.
> On Oct 27, 10:45 am, Chris Carpenter <chrisca...@gmail.com> wrote: >> To get the normal person interested, we've got to show how it will >> effect them - but make it something they want to read. Perhaps a >> satirical website that shows off how bad the internet experience >> could >> be if the filter came into existence - but with a bit of humour to >> help >> it get traction:
>> - Show youtube videos that are jumpy, and impossible to watch. >> - Mock music downloads that say "your download should only take a >> couple >> of hours". >> - Details of the Governments new "Won't somebody think of the >> children?" >> fridge magnet. >> - A mock-up of a Government Intranet site that shows all the websites >> someone has visited in the past month. >> - A link to a rival political site, that when clicked says "Blocked >> for >> your safety" ... >> - A video of someone using P2P to get their illegal downloads without >> being blocked.
>> (I'm not that funny, but you get the idea. Perhaps if we could get >> the >> Chaser team to write it :)
>> If we can show how it will adversely effect the average internet >> user, >> and still not achieve any of it's goals (apart from the political >> one of >> being perceived to actually be doing something useful) no-one in >> their >> right mind could approve of it.
>> Nick Holmes a Court wrote:
>>> Just a thought, if the filter passes into use - wouldn't the >>> government make illegal any websites that have information on how to >>> bypass the filter? Also wouldnt the govt also make it illegal to >>> spread information about this and target individuals and >>> corporations >>> who do so?
>>> This is obviously a flawed way of thinking, but given the flaws in >>> the >>> thinking that has got the government to this point, it really >>> wouldnt >>> be a suprise.
>>> It would also be a logical extension that the using/creating of any >>> technology that bypasses the filter would also be made illegal. (Not >>> dissimilar to DMCA in the US).
>>> I know this directly effects my company and many other tech >>> companies.
>>> While im sure we all strongly agree with Gilmores law - /"The >>> internet >>> interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."/ - and that >>> gives us some confidence. - it seems pretty scary that our >>> government >>> might turn a large percentage of its otherwise law abiding >>> population >>> into criminals.
>>> The immediate question is how do you make Joe Public care? And, >>> how do >>> you get mainstream media to care?
>>> Maybe there is something to learn from the anonymous/anti- >>> scientology >>> movement, maybe this is something anonymous could be steered to care >>> about if we targeted their channels. Anonymous delivered in both >>> getting media attention and simplifying the scientology message into >>> something the public is happy to talk about.
>>> Either way im sure we are all on the same page that this filter must >>> not be passed into use - once this is in, we could speculate that >>> the governement would never give it up.
>>> /"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the >>> evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. >>> Reed / >>> // >>> /"Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth ever >>> afterward resumes its liberty."/ - Walt Whitman
>>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing- >>> gods.com >>> <mailto:p...@freelancing-gods.com>> wrote:
>>> Elias - love the ideas, definitely got some merit - the initial >>> idea wasn't mind though, I'm just echoing Mark Pesce: >>> http://twitter.com/mpesce/status/974762216
>>> The one issue I can see with using Iran (and China) as examples >>> though is that the Government repetitively states it's not like >>> them. But definitely, the government needs to be embarrassed and >>> pressured into seeing how stupid their idea is. Get the videos >>> made, I'll definitely do my bit to promote them.
>>> -- >>> Pat
>>> On 26/10/2008, at 7:14 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:
>>>> That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the >>>> controls would be, in a vocal way :)
>>>> I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast >>>> how these 'repressed' people get away with things. It would >>>> be a >>>> good way to compare the approach to an authoritarian >>>> government, >>>> whilst at the same time showing how ineffective they are.
>>>> We could also put together short clips having people explain >>>> how >>>> easy it is to circumvent as well as working examples >>>> of exploitations of the holes.
>>>> Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to >>>> create >>>> awareness, I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack >>>> mates, who can ensure that our work is distributed to the right >>>> people within the party. And certainly, I've got some Liberal >>>> hack mates who would love to get behind this for the sake of >>>> creating a wedge issue.
>>>> Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e- >>>> mails >>>> that we have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, >>>> moronic >>>> arse-wipe politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic: >>>> flat out embaressment, with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad >>>> of social media distribution. At worst, we have a laugh and let >>>> the public know our industry is alive and kicking.
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan >>>> <p...@freelancing-gods.com <mailto:p...@freelancing- >>>> gods.com>> wrote:
>>>> It took me about six months to get a response to my first >>>> letter. The >>>> second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a >>>> slightly >>>> faster response (just under two months).
>>>> Sometimes I consider going to harrass Conroy in person >>>> (since >>>> he's a >>>> Victorian senator), but I wonder if that's just a waste >>>> of time >>>> anyway, given his attitude as reported by the media. And >>>> whether he'd >>>> bother responding to an appointment is another matter. >>>> Still, >>>> it might >>>> result in a somewhat more human response than the bullshit >>>> spin he's >>>> responding with to the media.
>>>> I'm not sure what we can do as a community - seems >>>> several of >>>> us are >>>> writing to him, and that's not (visibly) getting us >>>> anywhere. ISP >>>> employees' opinions don't seem to carry much weight either. >>>> If it gets >>>> rolled out (although the trial results give me hope it's >>>> just not >>>> feasible enough even for Conroy to go through with it), >>>> then >>>> I guess >>>> we do what we can to publicise how easy it is to >>>> circumvent? I'm >>>> seeing a lot of pissed off tweets lately about the >>>> issue... but >>>> getting a Government to drop a policy they've been so >>>> solidly >>>> behind >>>> is far from easy.
>>>> Still, suggestions for action welcome :)
>>>> -- >>>> Pat
>>>> On 26/10/2008, at 6:07 PM, Gary Barber wrote:
>>>> > At least you got a response, I have yet to get that for >>>> any >>>> of the >>>> > three >>>> > emails I have sent over the previous months and several >>>> phone calls.
>>>> > -- >>>> > Gary Barber >>>> > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information >>>> Architect
Everything I have read so far is a good idea. Switching ISP's is only good for as long as your ISP is taking part of Conroy's trial. If it gains support, and does become mandatory, no matter who you sign up with you will be "under the blanket" so to speak.
If it does come into force, I would probably end up finding access to a VPN outside of Australia, assuming I could access them to start with from "under the blanket".
All I know is that this seems to be a whole lot of money being spent by the government I oppose, just to satisfy the minority groups. If they simply want to block porn for their children, let them buy NetNanny or other such program, or even better, educate your children about the dangers of pornography. Education goes a lot further then hiding it under the carpet. This simply sounds to me like people are using the governments money to look after their children. Looking after your children is a much better, and smarter idea, than getting the government to spend millions of dollars on a program that interupts the majority of internet users who are responsible adults.
From what I have noticed in the recent years, net-savvy children will ultimately be bypassing the protection setout by the government, probably hours after they "feature" is introduced.
It just seems to me to be a huge waste of tax payers money. Ultimately I should have a say in where it is spent, and I dont think that this is necessary, and is ultimately a waste of time.
> Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in Conroy's > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless the > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens have > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so perhaps > we're safe, at least until another election.
> -- > Pat
> On 27/10/2008, at 6:05 AM, Elias Bizannes wrote:
> > Great ideas. So how I see this evolving is > > - audience: general consumer > > - method: short, entertaining clips, content and merchandise > > - goal: communicate the following messages
> > 1) It will degrade our already degraded internerz experience --> > > impact on consumers, on startups, on the experience > > 2) It has the potential for scope creep beyond saving the children --> > > impact on privacy, on civil liberties > > 3) It technologically will be ineffective in addressing the policy > > goal --> impact on treasury, agency resources - likely to make some > > developer firm rich at the cost of the tax payers for no good reason
> > I think we need to get behind existing efforts like the nocleanfeed > > brand (http://nocleanfeed.com/ - thanks @preds) or create our own - > > and just channel our energies across the community and media. Common > > brand means common message which means more pronounced political > > pressure.
> > I can't help but think this is a trojan horse policy. Surely, the > > minister isn't that stupid to think with 98% public opposition, this > > is a smart move. There has to be an ulterior motive such as using it > > as a bargaining tool for other policy or appealing to a core > > constituency that helps him directly like a campaign donation.
> > On Oct 27, 10:45 am, Chris Carpenter <chrisca...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> To get the normal person interested, we've got to show how it will > >> effect them - but make it something they want to read. Perhaps a > >> satirical website that shows off how bad the internet experience > >> could > >> be if the filter came into existence - but with a bit of humour to > >> help > >> it get traction:
> >> - Show youtube videos that are jumpy, and impossible to watch. > >> - Mock music downloads that say "your download should only take a > >> couple > >> of hours". > >> - Details of the Governments new "Won't somebody think of the > >> children?" > >> fridge magnet. > >> - A mock-up of a Government Intranet site that shows all the websites > >> someone has visited in the past month. > >> - A link to a rival political site, that when clicked says "Blocked > >> for > >> your safety" ... > >> - A video of someone using P2P to get their illegal downloads without > >> being blocked.
> >> (I'm not that funny, but you get the idea. Perhaps if we could get > >> the > >> Chaser team to write it :)
> >> If we can show how it will adversely effect the average internet > >> user, > >> and still not achieve any of it's goals (apart from the political > >> one of > >> being perceived to actually be doing something useful) no-one in > >> their > >> right mind could approve of it.
> >> Nick Holmes a Court wrote:
> >>> Just a thought, if the filter passes into use - wouldn't the > >>> government make illegal any websites that have information on how to > >>> bypass the filter? Also wouldnt the govt also make it illegal to > >>> spread information about this and target individuals and > >>> corporations > >>> who do so?
> >>> This is obviously a flawed way of thinking, but given the flaws in > >>> the > >>> thinking that has got the government to this point, it really > >>> wouldnt > >>> be a suprise.
> >>> It would also be a logical extension that the using/creating of any > >>> technology that bypasses the filter would also be made illegal. (Not > >>> dissimilar to DMCA in the US).
> >>> I know this directly effects my company and many other tech > >>> companies.
> >>> While im sure we all strongly agree with Gilmores law - /"The > >>> internet > >>> interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."/ - and that > >>> gives us some confidence. - it seems pretty scary that our > >>> government > >>> might turn a large percentage of its otherwise law abiding > >>> population > >>> into criminals.
> >>> The immediate question is how do you make Joe Public care? And, > >>> how do > >>> you get mainstream media to care?
> >>> Maybe there is something to learn from the anonymous/anti- > >>> scientology > >>> movement, maybe this is something anonymous could be steered to care > >>> about if we targeted their channels. Anonymous delivered in both > >>> getting media attention and simplifying the scientology message into > >>> something the public is happy to talk about.
> >>> Either way im sure we are all on the same page that this filter must > >>> not be passed into use - once this is in, we could speculate that > >>> the governement would never give it up.
> >>> /"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the > >>> evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." - Thomas B. > >>> Reed / > >>> // > >>> /"Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city of this earth ever > >>> afterward resumes its liberty."/ - Walt Whitman
> >>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing- > >>> gods.com > >>> <mailto:p...@freelancing-gods.com>> wrote:
> >>> Elias - love the ideas, definitely got some merit - the initial > >>> idea wasn't mind though, I'm just echoing Mark Pesce: > >>> http://twitter.com/mpesce/status/974762216
> >>> The one issue I can see with using Iran (and China) as examples > >>> though is that the Government repetitively states it's not like > >>> them. But definitely, the government needs to be embarrassed and > >>> pressured into seeing how stupid their idea is. Get the videos > >>> made, I'll definitely do my bit to promote them.
> >>> -- > >>> Pat
> >>> On 26/10/2008, at 7:14 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:
> >>>> That's a brillaint idea Pat - showing how ineffective the > >>>> controls would be, in a vocal way :)
> >>>> I've got some contacts in Iran and they could help us broadcast > >>>> how these 'repressed' people get away with things. It would > >>>> be a > >>>> good way to compare the approach to an authoritarian > >>>> government, > >>>> whilst at the same time showing how ineffective they are.
> >>>> We could also put together short clips having people explain > >>>> how > >>>> easy it is to circumvent as well as working examples > >>>> of exploitations of the holes.
> >>>> Whilst we can make this content targeted at the public to > >>>> create > >>>> awareness, I also (as I am sure others) got some labour hack > >>>> mates, who can ensure that our work is distributed to the right > >>>> people within the party. And certainly, I've got some Liberal > >>>> hack mates who would love to get behind this for the sake of > >>>> creating a wedge issue.
> >>>> Clearly, English doesn't work in the form of letters and e- > >>>> mails > >>>> that we have sent to these short-sighted, opportunistic, > >>>> moronic > >>>> arse-wipe politicians. Maybe it's time we try another tactic: > >>>> flat out embaressment, with a touch of crowd sourcing and a tad > >>>> of social media distribution. At worst, we have a laugh and let > >>>> the public know our industry is alive and kicking.
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Pat Allan > >>>> <p...@freelancing-gods.com <mailto:p...@freelancing- > >>>> gods.com>> wrote:
> >>>> It took me about six months to get a response to my first > >>>> letter. The > >>>> second letter (as an email, since I wasn't in Aus) got a > >>>> slightly > >>>> faster response (just under two months).
If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens and Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making sure their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can leverage to win their vote.
-- Gary Barber Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
Pat Allan wrote: > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in Conroy's > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless the > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens have > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so perhaps > we're safe, at least until another election.
> If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens and > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making sure > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can > leverage to win their vote.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> Web: radharc.com.au > blog: manwithnoblog.com
> Pat Allan wrote: > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in Conroy's > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless the > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens have > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so perhaps > > we're safe, at least until another election.
Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up this really can have an effect.
I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these factions.
Warren Seen wrote: > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
> If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens and > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making sure > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can > leverage to win their vote.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> Pat Allan wrote: > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in Conroy's > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless the > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens have > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so > perhaps > > we're safe, at least until another election.
-- Gary Barber Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group that hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to EXTEND the filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the Internet? And so it begins...
So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed with the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems to me that when you start talking about blocking legitimate business interests overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should worry that they'll be next.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get > Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up > this really can have an effect.
> I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these > factions.
> Warren Seen wrote:
> > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet > > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
> > If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens > and > > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making > sure > > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can > > leverage to win their vote.
> > -- > > Gary Barber > > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> > Pat Allan wrote: > > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in > Conroy's > > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> > > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless > the > > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens > have > > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so > > perhaps > > > we're safe, at least until another election.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
While several of us have sent Conroy letters, has anyone met with him in person? Or their local Labor rep (if you're in a Labor seat - otherwise, find a Senator for your State)? Gotta mix the web activism with offline interactions.
As for the Libs, sounds like Minchin isn't all that positive about the plan, which is promising...
> To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group > that hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to > EXTEND the filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, > correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the > Internet? And so it begins...
> So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor > faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed > with the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems > to me that when you start talking about blocking legitimate business > interests overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should > worry that they'll be next.
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber > <gary.barber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get > Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up > this really can have an effect.
> I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these > factions.
> Warren Seen wrote:
> > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against > internet > > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
> > If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant > greens and > > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. > Making sure > > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor > can > > leverage to win their vote.
> > -- > > Gary Barber > > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> > Pat Allan wrote: > > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your > ISP, tell > > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in > Conroy's > > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll > filter > > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very > least.
> > > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: > unless the > > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens > and > > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. > Greens have > > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so > > perhaps > > > we're safe, at least until another election.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
I just got off my arse and did something, emailed a friend of mine about this shitty plan. He happens to be the Member for Werriwa and the Whip, Chris Hayes. While I don't expect much at least it is another email.
Rgds
Michael
From: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pat Allan Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 3:33 PM To: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering
While several of us have sent Conroy letters, has anyone met with him in person? Or their local Labor rep (if you're in a Labor seat - otherwise, find a Senator for your State)? Gotta mix the web activism with offline interactions.
As for the Libs, sounds like Minchin isn't all that positive about the plan, which is promising...
To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group that hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to EXTEND the filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the Internet? And so it begins...
So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed with the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems to me that when you start talking about blocking legitimate business interests overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should worry that they'll be next.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up this really can have an effect.
I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these factions.
Warren Seen wrote: > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
> If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens and > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making sure > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can > leverage to win their vote.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> Pat Allan wrote: > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in Conroy's > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless the > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens have > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so > perhaps > > we're safe, at least until another election.
-- Gary Barber Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Michael Specht <mspe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi,
> I just got off my arse and did something, emailed a friend of mine about > this shitty plan. He happens to be the Member for Werriwa and the Whip, > Chris Hayes. While I don't expect much at least it is another email.
> Rgds
> Michael
> *From:* silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto: > silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Pat Allan > *Sent:* Monday, 27 October 2008 3:33 PM > *To:* silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering
> While several of us have sent Conroy letters, has anyone met with him in > person? Or their local Labor rep (if you're in a Labor seat - otherwise, > find a Senator for your State)? Gotta mix the web activism with offline > interactions.
> As for the Libs, sounds like Minchin isn't all that positive about the > plan, which is promising...
> To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group that > hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to EXTEND the > filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, correct me if I'm > wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the Internet? And so it > begins...
> So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor > faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed with > the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems to me that > when you start talking about blocking legitimate business interests > overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should worry that they'll be > next.
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get > Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up > this really can have an effect.
> I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these > factions.
> Warren Seen wrote:
> > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet > > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber.au
> > If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens > and > > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making > sure > > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can > > leverage to win their vote.
> > -- > > Gary Barber > > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> > Pat Allan wrote: > > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in > Conroy's > > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> > > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless > the > > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens > have > > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so > > perhaps > > > we're safe, at least until another election.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
Anyone want to suggest wording for an online petition? Nice and easy thing we can start now, until all our contacts and other ideas come into play. My first go, but not sure if this is too drastic that will reduce support from people.
"I am a voter in the State of [state specific petition], and I am outraged by the actions of the Rudd Government to adopt the Clean Feed. I will support efforts that prevent the adoption of the policy, including voting against current representatives who vote in support of the policy."
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Nick Holmes a Court <nick...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I've emailed Charles Firth at the Chaser and am awaing a reply :)
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Michael Specht <mspe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I just got off my arse and did something, emailed a friend of mine about >> this shitty plan. He happens to be the Member for Werriwa and the Whip, >> Chris Hayes. While I don't expect much at least it is another email.
>> Rgds
>> Michael
>> *From:* silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Pat Allan >> *Sent:* Monday, 27 October 2008 3:33 PM >> *To:* silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering
>> While several of us have sent Conroy letters, has anyone met with him in >> person? Or their local Labor rep (if you're in a Labor seat - otherwise, >> find a Senator for your State)? Gotta mix the web activism with offline >> interactions.
>> As for the Libs, sounds like Minchin isn't all that positive about the >> plan, which is promising...
>> To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group that >> hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to EXTEND the >> filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, correct me if I'm >> wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the Internet? And so it >> begins...
>> So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor >> faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed with >> the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems to me that >> when you start talking about blocking legitimate business interests >> overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should worry that they'll be >> next.
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get >> Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up >> this really can have an effect.
>> I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these >> factions.
>> Warren Seen wrote:
>> > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet >> > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
>> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber.au
>> > If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens >> and >> > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making >> sure >> > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can >> > leverage to win their vote.
>> > -- >> > Gary Barber >> > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
>> > Pat Allan wrote: >> > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell >> > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in >> Conroy's >> > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll >> filter >> > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
>> > > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless >> the >> > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and >> > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens >> have >> > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so >> > perhaps >> > > we're safe, at least until another election.
>> -- >> Gary Barber >> Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
From: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Elias Bizannes Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 4:38 PM To: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering
Anyone want to suggest wording for an online petition? Nice and easy thing we can start now, until all our contacts and other ideas come into play.
My first go, but not sure if this is too drastic that will reduce support from people.
"I am a voter in the State of [state specific petition], and I am outraged by the actions of the Rudd Government to adopt the Clean Feed. I will support efforts that prevent the adoption of the policy, including voting against current representatives who vote in support of the policy."
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Nick Holmes a Court <nick...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've emailed Charles Firth at the Chaser and am awaing a reply :)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Michael Specht <mspe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I just got off my arse and did something, emailed a friend of mine about this shitty plan. He happens to be the Member for Werriwa and the Whip, Chris Hayes. While I don't expect much at least it is another email.
Rgds
Michael
From: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pat Allan Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 3:33 PM
To: silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering
While several of us have sent Conroy letters, has anyone met with him in person? Or their local Labor rep (if you're in a Labor seat - otherwise, find a Senator for your State)? Gotta mix the web activism with offline interactions.
As for the Libs, sounds like Minchin isn't all that positive about the plan, which is promising...
To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group that hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to EXTEND the filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the Internet? And so it begins...
So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed with the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems to me that when you start talking about blocking legitimate business interests overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should worry that they'll be next.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber...@gmail.com> wrote:
Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up this really can have an effect.
I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these factions.
Warren Seen wrote: > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
> If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens and > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making sure > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can > leverage to win their vote.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> Pat Allan wrote: > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in Conroy's > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless the > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens have > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so > perhaps > > we're safe, at least until another election.
-- Gary Barber Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
I agree and think we should support the EFA's efforts. However nocleanfeed's petition links to the one above, and in my eyes, that's not an effective one to get the point across. It needs to be state based to indicate that voters will threaten their representatives position in the future, rather than a lump all.
For a petition to mean anything, its needs to be targeted.
> Anyone want to suggest wording for an online petition? Nice and easy thing > we can start now, until all our contacts and other ideas come into play.
> My first go, but not sure if this is too drastic that will reduce support > from people.
> "I am a voter in the State of [state specific petition], and I am outraged > by the actions of the Rudd Government to adopt the Clean Feed. I will > support efforts that prevent the adoption of the policy, including voting > against current representatives who vote in support of the policy."
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Nick Holmes a Court <nick...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> I've emailed Charles Firth at the Chaser and am awaing a reply :)
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Michael Specht <mspe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I just got off my arse and did something, emailed a friend of mine about > this shitty plan. He happens to be the Member for Werriwa and the Whip, > Chris Hayes. While I don't expect much at least it is another email.
> Rgds
> Michael
> *From:* silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto: > silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Pat Allan > *Sent:* Monday, 27 October 2008 3:33 PM
> While several of us have sent Conroy letters, has anyone met with him in > person? Or their local Labor rep (if you're in a Labor seat - otherwise, > find a Senator for your State)? Gotta mix the web activism with offline > interactions.
> As for the Libs, sounds like Minchin isn't all that positive about the > plan, which is promising...
> To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group that > hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to EXTEND the > filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, correct me if I'm > wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the Internet? And so it > begins...
> So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor > faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed with > the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems to me that > when you start talking about blocking legitimate business interests > overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should worry that they'll be > next.
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get > Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up > this really can have an effect.
> I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these > factions.
> Warren Seen wrote:
> > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet > > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber.au
> > If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens > and > > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making > sure > > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can > > leverage to win their vote.
> > -- > > Gary Barber > > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
> > Pat Allan wrote: > > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell > > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in > Conroy's > > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll filter > > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
> > > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless > the > > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and > > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens > have > > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so > > perhaps > > > we're safe, at least until another election.
> -- > Gary Barber > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
Twitter's currently very noisy with protest avatars, links to information and since Michael posted this petition about an hour ago, several others have retweeted and 110 people signed it. That to me is a pretty good indication that if we get a bit more organised, we could light up a fire with not at all much effort. Michael Specht (Australia) Andrew Barnett (Australia) Nick Holmes a Court (Australia) Jason Stirk (Australia) Tom Voirol (Australia) Jonathan Crossfield (Australia) Jarryd Strafford (Australia) graeme wilson (Australia) ben laurence-rogers (Australia) Rob C (Australia) Penny (Australia) Brad Dratson (Australia) Peter Reynolds (Australia) Nick s (Australia) David Coombs (Australia) Trevor (Australia) Stephen Collins (Australia) Donna Spencer (Australia) Simon Sharwood (Australia) Steph Dyhin (Australia) Jacob Roberts (Australia) Mathew Packer (Australia) Michael A (Australia) Tim Moreillon (Australia) Michael Wawn (Australia) Pat Allan (Australia) *Michelle* <http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/mishy101> (Australia) Deb Watson (Australia) Sascha (Australia) Rachel Cobcroft (Australia) *patricia muller* <http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/dice99> (Australia) Kathleen McLeod (Australia) Sebastian Conn (Australia) Luke McCormack (Australia) Teresa (Australia) Rai (Australia) Simon Loffler (Australia) Kate Rodgers (Australia) Alex Gibson (Australia) Steve Sammartino (Australia) Hunter Nield (Australia) Brad Giblin (Australia) Andrae Muy (Australia) Brad (Australia) Georgia (Australia) Luke Matthews (Australia) Matt Fisher (Australia) Matthew Hickey (Australia) Anna Harris (Australia) Craig (Australia) Gavin Heaton (Australia) Samantha Peters (Australia) Tammy (Australia) Geoff Kim (Australia) Oliver Kennedy (Australia) Mark Aitken (Australia) Justin (Australia) Steven Brown (Australia) Nick Crowther (Australia) Leah Maclean (Australia) John Thompson (Australia) Taimor (Australia) Drew (Australia) Ted Russ (Australia) *princejohnson* <http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/2696> (Canada) George Bobkins (Australia) Joannah K (Australia) Michael Lancaster (Australia) Ricky Telen (Australia) Erland Howden (Australia) Christian Schladetsch (Australia) Manna Hoy (Australia) Cameron (Australia) Cameron McCalman (Australia) Matt Tubs (Australia) Kevin Millar (Australia) Barry Copter (Australia) Kylie Lewis (Australia) Nathan Brooks (Australia) Joel Cluff (Australia) Cassandra Grant (Australia) Nicola Crook (Australia) Christopher Jordan (Australia) Daniel (Australia) Daniel de Lafoix (Australia) *Sandra Arico* <http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/sandraarico> (Australia) Adz (Australia) Graham Blackmore (Australia) Jonathan (Australia) Daniel Hourigan (Australia) Chris Chesher (Australia) Liam Kesteven (Australia) Callum Little (Australia) Lou Veyret (Australia) Steve McDonald (Australia) Damian Lund (Australia) Tim Butler (Australia) Patrick McCabe (Australia) Monica Barratt (Australia) Justin Ness (Australia) Micheal (Australia) *Jan Stewart* <http://profiles.takingitglobal.org/janstewart> (Australia) Barry Saunders (Australia) Adrian Millington (Australia) Andrew Muller (Australia) Rowan Payne (Australia) Anthony Dzioba (Australia) esther vida (Australia) Stefan Urlus (Australia) Daniel Boud (Australia) Deni (Australia)
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I agree and think we should support the EFA's efforts. > However nocleanfeed's petition links to the one above, and in my eyes, > that's not an effective one to get the point across. It needs to be state > based to indicate that voters will threaten their representatives position > in the future, rather than a lump all.
> For a petition to mean anything, its needs to be targeted.
>> *From:* silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Elias Bizannes >> *Sent:* Monday, 27 October 2008 4:38 PM
>> Anyone want to suggest wording for an online petition? Nice and easy thing >> we can start now, until all our contacts and other ideas come into play.
>> My first go, but not sure if this is too drastic that will reduce support >> from people.
>> "I am a voter in the State of [state specific petition], and I am outraged >> by the actions of the Rudd Government to adopt the Clean Feed. I will >> support efforts that prevent the adoption of the policy, including voting >> against current representatives who vote in support of the policy."
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Nick Holmes a Court <nick...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> I've emailed Charles Firth at the Chaser and am awaing a reply :)
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Michael Specht <mspe...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I just got off my arse and did something, emailed a friend of mine about >> this shitty plan. He happens to be the Member for Werriwa and the Whip, >> Chris Hayes. While I don't expect much at least it is another email.
>> Rgds
>> Michael
>> *From:* silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> silicon-beach-australia@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Pat Allan >> *Sent:* Monday, 27 October 2008 3:33 PM
>> While several of us have sent Conroy letters, has anyone met with him in >> person? Or their local Labor rep (if you're in a Labor seat - otherwise, >> find a Senator for your State)? Gotta mix the web activism with offline >> interactions.
>> As for the Libs, sounds like Minchin isn't all that positive about the >> plan, which is promising...
>> To make things worse, Nick Xenophon (another senator in that group that >> hold the balance of power) seems to think that he's going to EXTEND the >> filter to cover online gambling sites overseas. Now, correct me if I'm >> wrong, but isn't that an entirely legal use of the Internet? And so it >> begins...
>> So we're left with the Greens, and scratching around to find a Labor >> faction with enough guts to stand up in caucus. Has anything changed with >> the libs stance on the issue under Turnbull's leadership? Seems to me that >> when you start talking about blocking legitimate business interests >> overseas, those based in Australia (eg Betfair) should worry that they'll be >> next.
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> Okay then why not lobby the factions within the Labor party to get >> Conroy to bury this crusade. If you get right factions stirred up >> this really can have an effect.
>> I bet there are people on this list with at least contacts into these >> factions.
>> Warren Seen wrote:
>> > Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet >> > filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)
>> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Gary Barber <gary.barber.au
>> > If this is the case then we should be lobbying the relevant greens >> and >> > Fielding hard, and making damn sure they vote against it. Making >> sure >> > their are no other issues they have in the pipeline that labor can >> > leverage to win their vote.
>> > -- >> > Gary Barber >> > Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
>> > Pat Allan wrote: >> > > Another possible action to add to the list: Contact your ISP, tell >> > > them you you'll switch to someone else if they take part in >> Conroy's >> > > trial. I just told iiNet that by twitter. No idea if that'll >> filter >> > > through, so I really should send them an email at the very least.
>> > > Also, for those looking for some hope: at this stage (ie: unless >> the >> > > gov calls a double dissolution), Labor need both the Greens and >> > > Stephen Fielding of Family First to agree on the policy. Greens >> have >> > > been strongly against it (and rarely agree with Fielding), so >> > perhaps >> > > we're safe, at least until another election.
>> -- >> Gary Barber >> Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
|
