ISP filtering

22 views
Skip to first unread message

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 3:56:08 AM10/25/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
This issue really, really, really pisses me off.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/how-government-tried-to-gag-censor-critics/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html

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? Surely
something is better than ignoring it...


Sjors Provoost

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 5:14:34 AM10/25/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

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.

Sjors

bengrubb

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 7:18:17 AM10/25/08
to Silicon Beach Australia

Bart Jellema

unread,
Oct 25, 2008, 9:24:03 AM10/25/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
http://www.efa.org.au/

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:
> I've done interviews of which have raised awareness of the issue:
>
> http://techwiredau.com/2008/10/interview-with-media-contact-for-senat...
>
> http://techwiredau.com/2008/10/interview-with-mark-newton-of-internod...
>
> http://getup.org.au/is also looking in to the issue.
>
> Regards,
> Ben Grubb

Gary Barber

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 7:07:12 AM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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

Web: radharc.com.au
blog: manwithnoblog.com

Pat Allan

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 7:49:04 AM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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).

http://freelancing-gods.com/posts/internet_censorship_in_australia
http://freelancing-gods.com/posts/correspondance_on_censorship

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

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 8:14:05 AM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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?
--
Elias Bizannes
http://liako.biz

Pat Allan

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 8:35:01 AM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Elias - love the ideas, definitely got some merit - the initial idea wasn't mind though, I'm just echoing Mark Pesce:

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

Nick Holmes a Court

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 9:24:54 AM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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
 

Myles Eftos

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 9:26:24 AM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Sure, but if you are going to be circumnavigating the filter for illegal purposes, the illegality of actually doing the bypassing is academic.
 

----------------------------------------------
Myles Eftos
Mobile: +61-409-293-183

MadPilot Productions
URL: http://www.madpilot.com.au
Phone: +618-6424-8234
Fax: +618-9467-6289

Try our time tracking system: 88 Miles!
http://www.88miles.net

 


From: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nick Holmes a Court
Sent: Sunday, 26 October 2008 22:25
To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering

Chris Carpenter

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 6:45:13 PM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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

>> > Web: radharc.com.au <http://radharc.com.au/>
>> > blog: manwithnoblog.com <http://manwithnoblog.com/>


>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Elias Bizannes wrote:
>> >> This issue really, really, really pisses me off.
>> >>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/how-government-tried-to-gag-censor-critics/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html
>> >>
>> >> 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?
>> Surely
>> >> something is better than ignoring it...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Elias Bizannes

>> http://liako.biz <http://liako.biz/>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> >

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 7:05:58 PM10/26/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
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.
> >>        http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/how-government-tried-to...

Pat Allan

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 11:02:22 PM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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

Andrew Barnett

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 11:28:35 PM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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.


Andrew



2008/10/27 Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com>

Gary Barber

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 11:45:11 PM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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

Warren Seen

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 11:49:36 PM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Lobbying the "Family First" Senator Fielding to vote against internet filtering? That sounds like a new definition of futility :-)

Gary Barber

unread,
Oct 26, 2008, 11:57:55 PM10/26/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com


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
> <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
>

> Web: radharc.com.au <http://radharc.com.au>
> blog: manwithnoblog.com <http://manwithnoblog.com>

Warren Seen

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 12:17:46 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Speaking of Fielding: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/27/1224955916155.html

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.

Pat Allan

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 12:32:36 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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...

-- 
Pat

Michael Specht

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 12:36:35 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

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-bea...@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pat Allan
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 3:33 PM
To: silicon-bea...@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.

Nick Holmes a Court

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 1:28:08 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
I've emailed Charles Firth at the Chaser and am awaing a reply :)

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 1:38:19 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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."

Michael Specht

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 1:46:24 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 2:06:31 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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.

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 2:46:39 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
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 (Australia)
 Deb Watson (Australia)
 Sascha (Australia)
 Rachel Cobcroft (Australia)
 patricia muller (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 (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 (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 (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)

Michael Specht

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 2:56:31 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Yep I reckon we could build off this, use our contacts etc to get some real noise going. Does anyone have contacts with the company doing the tests?


From: Elias Bizannes <elias.b...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 5:46 PM

To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering

[The entire original message is not included]

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 3:10:46 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Anyone interested in a quick conference call tonight so we can push some ideas together and get organised?


Geoff McQueen

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 3:31:11 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Hi everyone,
 
Travelling at the moment, and was just in China. Was interesting that their filtering methods appear to be mostly achieved through DNS poisoning, and well as maintaining very strict import controls on products that can provide a proxy service.
 
I wonder whether the AU feds are going to be cracking down on proxy software?
 
Geoff
 

From: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com [silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Elias Bizannes [elias.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, 26 October 2008 11:14 PM

To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering

dekrazee1

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 4:56:29 AM10/27/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
I have what might be a stupid question - I am not a citizen. Will
calling Conroy or my local member make a difference? ie does my voice
count? Or do they not ask who you are?

Already signed the petition, but I wanna make more noise :P

Thanks!
Rai

Ash Angell

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 4:58:00 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, me too - petition signed, now what?

Ash

Pat Allan

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 5:02:50 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
On 27/10/2008, at 1:06 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:

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.

Depends what you want it to mean. Going by your draft, your focus was very much on voting implications for those who support the bill. The one linked above is a more generic 'We really _really_ don't like this.'. Value in both, definitely, but not convinced another petition is going to help that much.

Is it worth focusing on other avenues? Perhaps making it clear to the ISPs that they'll lose customers if they sign up on the trial (mind you, it sounds like Internode and iiNet aren't fans of Conroy already - and they're probably the third and fourth biggest ISPs after Telstra and Optus). Or spend the time getting those short video clips happening?

There's a bit of grass-network concern happening on this list, on Twitter, etc (the activity today has been awesome) - but we're deep tech people. How do we draw non-technical minded people in, without seeming too radical?


Also, another issue to raise in letters, petitions, meetings etc: this filter will slow down the net. The trials have shown that. And this will severely impact the tech businesses here. Quoting Richard Florida, who in turn is paraphrasing Joel Mokyr:

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.

Pushing the business side of things will help to show it's not just a civil rights issue. I'm sure you business-minded people can do a better job than me :)

-- 
Pat

Myles Eftos

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 5:06:15 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Repost from the same discussion we are having on the Australian Web Industry Association list:
 

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...

----------------------------------------------
Myles Eftos
Mobile: +61-409-293-183

MadPilot Productions
URL: http://www.madpilot.com.au
Phone: +618-6424-8234
Fax: +618-9467-6289

Try our time tracking system: 88 Miles!
http://www.88miles.net

 

Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 18:03

To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering

dekrazee1

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 5:37:29 AM10/27/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
Here's a well written letter, full of compelling points, from
Internode's Mark Newton to Kate Ellis: http://users.on.net/~newton/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf
(thanks to @stilgherrian for the link)

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 6:15:10 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Ash Angell <ash...@faradaymedia.com> wrote:
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[1], "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? 



 
 

Pat Allan

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 6:38:33 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
On 27/10/2008, at 5:15 PM, Elias Bizannes wrote:

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,

- Restricted Feed is almost certainly going to have false positives
- Restricted Feed means Slow Internet
(Same link as above)

- Slow Internet means less Australian businesses online - current speeds are holding us back as it is.

- Government-controlled filter will get used as a policy bargaining chip

- Opt-out was promised, and now has been taken off the table

- People will find ways around it

- Therefore, it's a waste of money and time

- There are existing government-supported solutions for those people who want a restricted feed


We can go into the whole bullshit around Conroy's 'think of the children' red flag, and that it's on par with China and Iran - but that's loaded language. I think putting the emphasis on the fact that it's costing us money and time - both now, and in the long term - and it's going to be ineffective is what's needed.

Some food for thought, anyway

-- 
Pat

Sjors Provoost

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 7:09:59 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Elias Bizannes
<elias.b...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Who wants to start?
> I will I suppose. Starting with language.
> As a very wise man said[1], "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.

Sjors

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 7:20:46 AM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
I'm putting forward chicken feed[1] because even if we don't settle on that name, it does several powerful things
1) It's funny. Pure and simple. Funny is catchy and offers the best chance to displace a common term.
2) It implies stupidity. If we want to attack idiots, we need to make them look stupid. A term like that achieve it.
3) It implies control & manipulation. A chicken walks around in the yard, at he beckon of its owner laying eggs all day only for the owner to take them for their own purposes
4) It's short. The reason why 'clean feed' works is because they are mono-syllable words. Chicken is two but that's still in the boundaries of workable
5) It's visual. Visual generates better reactions in people. They remember it, the attach more meaning.

So don't mean to rain down other suggestions but maybe that can give some ideas.

I really agree that a new term is critical. And in fact, if we can come up with one and propogate it, that's half the battle one. The term will shape perception, and that's exactly what we aim to do.

[1] http://twitter.com/barrysaunders/status/977209448

IanWoolf

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 7:46:43 AM10/27/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
I agree the language is important. How about "fiddled feed"? Not only
will they block stuff, but they may substitute stuff, like China -
what's to stop them?
The real "clean feed" is one that hasn't had the grubby hands of
government pawing all over it. A government that doesn't trust its
citizens is one that itself cannot be trusted.
Thanks to Elias for suggesting I post here.

Ian
http://www.hereswhy.tk

On Oct 27, 10:20 pm, "Elias Bizannes" <elias.bizan...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Geoff McQueen

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 2:40:31 PM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Re: Fielding: How about on the basis that:

1. The list of 'illegal' will be defined in regulation, not legislation. Ammending an Act to add a new site or class of site to the list will be to onerous, so bureaucrats will be the ones deciding what's in and out of this list.

2. Perhaps we'll have a future govt that declares creationism to be worthy of filtering out (or pick any other religious belief you fancy)

3. Thus religious freedom of expression isn't too hard to see excluded by this sort of system.

Seriously, I was in Dachau, Germany's fist concentration camp two days ago. A western, educated nation in tough economic times set down a path of state control and interference that killed millions. I'm not equating clean feed with haulocaust by any means, but what struck me most was that a lot of very small in incremental steps made it possible for something like that to happen. Fear & simplicity let the politicians sell it to people who were doing it tough economically. And we're a society about to do it tough economically for the first time in 18 years.

Lets never let the state tell us what to think (or download) and lets never ever ever let them restrict our right to read, communicate, learn and think for ourselves.

This is a very big deal.

My 2cents.

Geoff



From: Warren Seen <warre...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2008 2:10 PM
To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com <silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering

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@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

Web: radharc.com.au
blog: manwithnoblog.com

raena

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 7:46:47 PM10/27/08
to Silicon Beach Australia


On Oct 26, 10:49 pm, Pat Allan <p...@freelancing-gods.com> wrote:
> 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.

Where's his office?

Whether he sees you or not, his office's staff will. A pile of
letters or emails can easily be put out of sight, out of mind. You
can't.

I think the trick is to also get Ordinary Australians™ to see what's
going on here.

People blogging about it and whathaveyou is really positive but it
needs to get the hell out of this echo chamber. Yes, *we* all
understand, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned it's
something 'sensible' the Government is doing to 'protect the kiddies'.

I would really like to see some sort of awareness exercise, in person,
someplace obvious (I'm in Melbourne, so Southbank or Flinders St Stn)
where everyday people can see us complaining. If a bunch of 4chan
kids in masks can get decent coverage when protesting against
Scientology there's no reason why that can't happen again.


-Raena

Tim Bull

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 7:47:47 PM10/27/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
I saw this last week again and was surprised after hoping it would of
dissappeared. I wrote to Sentor Conroy and my local member. Based on
the comments in here I guess I won't get a response anytime soon.

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 7:52:03 PM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Would it be an idea that everyone that has written a letter before, sends a soft-copy to someone in Melbourne - and they can reprint it, bound all the letters, and attached some additional criticism? A head delivered version of this, might get some attention. Making the minister aware that we have now all found each other, and are actively working on initiatives, might make him more conscious of reality that we are not the typical 99% nut bags that write in to reps.

Heck - maybe even distribute all these letters to every representative in parliament, or at least the senate.

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 27, 2008, 11:23:59 PM10/27/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

Pat Allan

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 2:54:45 AM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
I'm not sure of the value in hassling the Opposition - it already sounds like they're not fans of the proposed legislation. I think speaking to other Labor MPs and Senators is where the real value is, because Conroy's not going to back down to the Liberals, but he might to his colleagues.

Also, it seems Xenophon's a fan of the filter - he's pushing for it to block out overseas gambling sites.

All this said, I just read about politics, I'm not involved in it, so what I'm thinking could be completely off the mark :)

-- 
Pat

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 3:12:01 AM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Schisms within a party work just as well as attacks - divide and conquer. :) 

Andrew Barnett

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 4:52:51 AM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Even though the opposition is opposed to the legislation, contacting your local Liberal parliamentarian, expressing your concern, and possibly petitions from your area, and a recommendation to gather all the petitions provided to the Liberal members, and then basically getting the opposition to provide it to the government, thus showing the huge support of people against this piece of legislation. 

Contacting your local Labor member, means that your request, may ultimately be swept under the carpet by them until after the legislation is passed, particularly if that member is pro clean feed. Providing it to the opposition will give them even more reason to stand up against the legislation, and have your say counted.

Although we should still contact the Labor MPs and senators showing our disgust for this piece of legislation.


Andrew



2008/10/28 Elias Bizannes <elias.b...@gmail.com>

Elias Bizannes

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 6:46:53 AM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Caught up with a mate who works in senator faulkners office. Some tips:
- don't target liberals. They may be sensitive to a public stance as family first are effectively political rivals forbthe same support base. Given family first supports the restricted chicken feed (my new name for it now!) in an extreme way, this might alienate some of the liberal support base. So liberals might not risk it despite being opposed to it policy wise 
- greens might make better allies in this fight
- best approach is to do some research into the original policy during the election, what the other parties are saying - and then contrast it with the current proposal
- he said essentially all movements are about the media. Use mainstream and social media to get the message across.     

Sent from my iPhone

Bart Jellema

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 6:46:00 PM10/28/08
to Silicon Beach Australia
http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,24569656-2,00.html - Featured
on the homepage around 9:00AM when people come into work... 76
comments so far

On Oct 28, 9:46 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Caught up with a mate who works in senator faulkners office. Some tips:
> - don't target liberals. They may be sensitive to a public stance as  
> family first are effectively political rivals forbthe same support  
> base. Given family first supports the restricted chicken feed (my new  
> name for it now!) in an extreme way, this might alienate some of the  
> liberal support base. So liberals might not risk it despite being  
> opposed to it policy wise
> - greens might make better allies in this fight
> - best approach is to do some research into the original policy during  
> the election, what the other parties are saying - and then contrast it  
> with the current proposal
> - he said essentially all movements are about the media. Use  
> mainstream and social media to get the message across.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 28/10/2008, at 7:52 PM, "Andrew Barnett" <andrewjbarn...@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
> > Even though the opposition is opposed to the legislation, contacting  
> > your local Liberal parliamentarian, expressing your concern, and  
> > possibly petitions from your area, and a recommendation to gather  
> > all the petitions provided to the Liberal members, and then  
> > basically getting the opposition to provide it to the government,  
> > thus showing the huge support of people against this piece of  
> > legislation.
>
> > Contacting your local Labor member, means that your request, may  
> > ultimately be swept under the carpet by them until after the  
> > legislation is passed, particularly if that member is pro clean  
> > feed. Providing it to the opposition will give them even more reason  
> > to stand up against the legislation, and have your say counted.
>
> > Although we should still contact the Labor MPs and senators showing  
> > our disgust for this piece of legislation.
>
> > Andrew
>
> > 2008/10/28 Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com>
> > Schisms within a party work just as well as attacks - divide and  
> > conquer. :)
>
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Pat Allan <pat@freelancing-

Mark Neely

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 8:13:43 PM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Elias,

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.

Regards,

Mark

-----
Mark Neely
Master Strategist
Infolution Pty Ltd
'Beyond Strategy. Leading Change'

e: m...@infolution.com.au
m: +61 (0)412 0417 29
skype: mark.neely

Read my blogs --> www.infolution.com.au
www.neelyready.com
Connect on LinkedIn --> www.linkedin.com/in/markneely

Mark Neely

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 8:37:35 PM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Elias,
 
This kind of approach is very rarely successful.
 
There is not a single software-based Internet filter/blocker (e.g. NetNanny etc.) that has not been proven to be easily defeated by the very people (i.e. kids) they are designed to protect. That hasn't stopped various governments and education organisations from mandating their use.
 
On the broader front, whenever there is a new security measure of any kind (e.g. airport security), there is always a couple of journalists who will develop a story about how they managed to defeat the new measures. It makes for a few days of sensationalist headlines, the relevant body says they will investigate, and then the issue just disappears.
 
Also, demonstrating how a proposed security measure can be defeated can have negative consequences. First, it just hardens the position of those who advocate it. Second, it will demonstrate for some people why those very same measures are needed ('Gee, if a bunch of journos can smuggle a gun on board the plane for a joke, imagine what some highly-motivated, highly-trained terrorists could smuggle aboard! Maybe the government isn't doing enough!').
 
Rather than demonstrate how the control measures would not work, a better form of demonstration would be to give people a very real taste of just how they *could* work. Demonstrate Search Engines with only limited results. Social networks with censored images and conversations. Educational resources that have large slabs of historic 'fact' removed because it goes against the official government views of the day. Blogs with no readers because the topic is not sanctioned. Artistic sites now blocked etc.
 
Helping people to understand just how these measures would impact their daily lives, and encouraging them to make their concerns known to regulators and politicians, is the best way to ensure the government doesn't overstep the will of the community.
 
Regards,
 
Mark
 
-----
Mark Neely
Master Strategist
Infolution Pty Ltd
'Beyond Strategy. Leading Change'
 
e: m...@infolution.com.au
m: +61 (0)412 0417 29
skype: mark.neely
 
Read my blogs --> www.infolution.com.au
                            www.neelyready.com
Connect on LinkedIn --> www.linkedin.com/in/markneely
 
 

From: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Elias Bizannes
Sent: Sunday, 26 October 2008 11:14 PM
To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: ISP filtering

Sjors Provoost

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 9:11:52 PM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Mark Neely <mark....@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> 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
school.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil

Cheers,

Sjors

Sriram Panyam

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 9:42:22 PM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
Hi All,

   I was wondering if we are overlooking corporations?  What does corporate australia (CA) gain or loose (monetarily ofcourse) from the filtering?  Why is there silence from CA?  How about publishing/emphasising the economic/monetary effects of the filtering on both corporates as well as individuals (80% reduction and hence a much lower value for money being the most obvious one)?

Cheers
Sri
--
Blog: http://panyam.wordpress.com
URL: http://www.geocities.com/spany_1

Sjors Provoost

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 9:52:24 PM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Sriram Panyam <sri.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I was wondering if we are overlooking corporations? What does corporate
> australia (CA) gain or loose (monetarily ofcourse) from the filtering? Why
> is there silence from CA? How about publishing/emphasising the
> economic/monetary effects of the filtering on both corporates as well as
> individuals (80% reduction and hence a much lower value for money being the
> most obvious one)?
>
> Cheers
> Sri

That might actually backfire, because it would seem 'evil corporates'
are behind us and 'evil corporates' don't care about our children.
Needless to say, employees of such corporates don't have children...

Then again, they do know how to lobby properly.

Sjors

Sriram Panyam

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 9:56:38 PM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
True but no political party would want to incur the wrath of a lobby right?  I mean unless the government has a benefit (eg votes from the public and/or votes from the lobbies), it wouldnt give a damn about filtering (or any other policy for that matter right?  This is just my elementary political knowledge talking.

Cheers
Sri

Michael Specht

unread,
Oct 28, 2008, 10:11:30 PM10/28/08
to silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com