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.
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 :)
Try our time tracking system: 88 Miles!
- Show youtube videos that are jumpy, and impossible to watch.
- Mock music downloads that say "your download should only take a couple
- Details of the Governments new "Won't somebody think of the children?"
- 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
(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
>> > Elias Bizannes wrote:
>> >> This issue really, really, really pisses me off.
>> >> I've already written to the minister, and got a lame response:
>> >> http://liako.biz/2008/07/internet-censorship-in-australia/
>> >> What's the most effective thing we can do as a community?
>> >> something is better than ignoring it...
>> > >
>> Elias Bizannes
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.
Freelance User Interaction Designer/ Information Architect
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
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
> <http://gary.barber.au>@gmail.com <http://gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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
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.
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.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Michael Specht <msp...@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.
Technical creativity has tended to rise and then fade dramatically at various times in various cultures, when social and economic institutions turn rigid and act against it.
Just had a chat with a guy at my Uncle's (Sentator Chris Ellison) office about people to target an possible actions to take. The following are the opposition ministers that would be worth talking to (F2F if possible)
Nick Minchin (SA) - Shadow for the digital economy Eric Betts (Tas) - Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Steven Troboe - Shadow Minister for Small Business, Tourism and the Arts
It might be worth trying to talk to Julia Bishop and Joe Hockey
Nick Xenophon would also be a good person to target, as he like to block things :)
We should also as an association contact WAIA, and chat to them about their stance - and also to get some actual concrete numbers - I'm sure they will know people how were involved in the research that has been done.
Finally, getting in contact with people involved in the roll outs in the UK, NZ etc to find out what speed implications they have (They have an optional opt-in system though).
I guess it comes down to how far we as an association we want to take it. End of the day, petitions and letters are good, but directly contacting politicians with some real information is the only way to make a change.
Oh, and the other thing he said was talk to the big players (News Limited, Fairfax etc) and find out how it will impact they business - basically the more impact we can show to Australian business the stronger our argument will be...
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 18:03
Yeah, me too - petition signed, now what?
Well a common need, based on the suggestions of creating entertaining media (where's that damn silicon beach distributed database when you need it!), raising awareness, and writing letters - is compelling content and arguments on why this matters.So maybe as a group we can start coming to consensus on why this matters. The more reasons and evidence we have, the better armed we are to do all the above and make an impact.Send in your facts, technical explanations, cultural interpretations, insider insights as they come to you. After a few days of robust discussion, that will give us more than enough material for a editor or producer to create something,
> Who wants to start?
> I will I suppose. Starting with language.
> As a very wise man said, "Linguistics shape your thought: Think about it: "Clean Feed" = "censored feed" which implies "Dirty Feed = what we have now".
> So I wish to start calling this something else, and indeed, a side benefit
> of coining our own name apart from reshaping the debate is it will show
> objectively what influence social media has in Australia.
> I want to associate negative images with this policy. Dirty can't be used
> because it invokes the current term currently. Filthy has potential. Big
> Brother? The 1984 feed? The $114million feed? The Stalin feed?
I was thinking about iCroc, i.e. The Great Digital Crocodile of Oz.
Gives a nice local feel to it.
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.
I think the most effective thing anyone could do is change the narrative.
Too many people who oppose this measure treat it as a 'technology' issue. As
a consequence, the broader population doesn't pay that much attention to it,
as they don't see it as something that does not actually affect them.
This story has been presented in the media as being a 'protective' measure
to block access to illegal materials. Positioned this way, it is very
difficult for opponents to argue their case without encountering the
inference that they are *for* allowing access to illegal materials (e.g.
child pron etc.) - a very effective tactic for shutting down debate.
Of course, 99.9% of the population have no interest whatsoever in accessing
this kind of material, so having it blocked is of zero concern to them.
Hence the lack of broader public interest.
Change the narrative, and you will get more attention. More attention = a
much less gung-ho approach by would-be regulators.
The way this issue needs to be positioned in the media (and thus for the
general population) is that it will have very real impact on a range of
freedoms that we currently take for granted. That it will allow some
faceless regulator or committee to decide what they can and cannot access,
read, do or discuss using electronic channels (the notion that this will
only affect the Web is also a red herring - if a service is reliant on IP
transmission at some level, then it may run afoul of the restrictions).
The debate that emerged over the Hensen artworks is a very recent and very
real example of what can happen when a small subset of community
representatives are empowered to decide what the 'community standard' is,
and how specific black-letter law provisions can be 'misinterpreted'.
The particularly insidious thing about digital censorship is the fact that
there ceases to be a human who can be held responsible. When the police
raided the gallery, the Commissioner was very quickly put under the
spotlight to explain why and on what basis the artworks were seized. There
was a human (physical) event, ordered by a real person, done in a manner
that created witnesses, which led to a story (a narrative) that the average
citizen could understand and form their own opinion of.
Contrast that to digital censorship, where there is very often not a
specific human act involved, and therefore no individual or authority figure
who can be held to account. And the very nature of digital censorship -
algorithms, blacklists, IP addresses etc. - makes it very difficult for the
average citizen to understand what really is happening and what is at stake.
The best thing anyone can do is change the narrative - give the story a more
human feel, with human vulnerabilities, human consequences, that everyone
can relate to.
Infolution Pty Ltd
'Beyond Strategy. Leading Change'
m: +61 (0)412 0417 29
Read my blogs --> www.infolution.com.au
Connect on LinkedIn --> www.linkedin.com/in/markneely
> The particularly insidious thing about digital censorship is the fact that
> there ceases to be a human who can be held responsible. When the police
> raided the gallery, the Commissioner was very quickly put under the
> spotlight to explain why and on what basis the artworks were seized. There
> was a human (physical) event, ordered by a real person, done in a manner
> that created witnesses, which led to a story (a narrative) that the average
> citizen could understand and form their own opinion of.
> Contrast that to digital censorship, where there is very often not a
> specific human act involved, and therefore no individual or authority figure
> who can be held to account. And the very nature of digital censorship -
> algorithms, blacklists, IP addresses etc. - makes it very difficult for the
> average citizen to understand what really is happening and what is at stake.
> The best thing anyone can do is change the narrative - give the story a more
> human feel, with human vulnerabilities, human consequences, that everyone
> can relate to.
This is so true! The slippery slope is where both the victim and the
perpetrator are 'anonymous'. Notice that even in the art story, the
Commissioner was known by name and phone number; if artwork had been
seized by The Police and brought to a Secure Location, it would have
been quite a different story. In the eyes the public, the art would
have just disappeared, and they would have to complain with Kevin
Rudd, who would then probably claim he had nothing to do with it.
The facts seem to be that the list of blocked sites will be secret, it
will be maintained by an 'anonymous' organization (ACMA) and
presumably the individual people who report sites are also anonymous.
If this does not remind anyone of the KGB, then they never went to