[LINK] Crikey: The lies of the internet censors: Your. Filter. Won’t. Work.

[Rick Welykochy]

[cc'd to: office at childwise.net since I could not find an email
  address for Bernadette McMenamin on the ChildWise website]

Stilgherrian wrote:

> I've just had a piece published in Crikey, NOT behind the paywall so  
> it's free for all to read.
> 
>      http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20081217-The-dishonesty-of-internet-censorship-proponents-.html
>      or
>      http://is.gd/c4f8
> 
>      Gloves-off time. The purveyors of pervasive internet censorship
>      -- handful that they are -- have burned their goodwill. It's time
>      to call them out on their lies and demand to know why they're
>      not advocating the real solutions to child sexual abuse.
> 
>      Bernadette McMenamin of ChildWise, you've crossed the line,
>      defaming everyone who's protested the government's plans. "Most of
>      these people are not fully aware of the facts and secondly, those
>      who are aware are, in effect, advocating child pornography," you
>      said. How dare you!
> 
>      Ms McMenamin, to really stop child abuse we need to spend our
>      resources efficiently. Let's run through it one more time. And
>      let's skip those hysterical, made-up "statistics" you still peddle.
>      Child abuse is bad enough without heading into your paranoid
>      fantasyland.

Excellent posting to Crikey.
And some excellent resource material is cited in the article.

Ms McMenanim isn't fully aware of the facts and seems to be lobbying
in her own interests. Her claims simply do not add up. And she
should get acquainted with internet filtering facts before promolgating
that which she does not understand.

<http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html>

Regarding the P2P numbers of detected cp data transfers around
April 2008 by the State of Wisconsin project alone:

   "We have exceeded 624,000 unique serial numbers that
    we can trace to the United States..."

Regarding the number of cp web sites the IWF has blocked:

    "during the period 2005 to 2007: approx. 2,800-3,100
     domains/sites"

keeping in mind that in the UK "the age of a child, for the purposes
of determining whether material is an 'indecent photograph of a
child', was increased from 16 years to 18 years" in May 2004.

How does that compare to the cp problem on the Internet in Australia?

Does Australia think that an indecent image of a 17 or 18 yr old
is cp?

How many of the 3100 estimated cp websites have anybody accidentally
stumbled across?

How many P2P connections share cp in Australia?

How many ftp connections? How many Usenet connections?

BTW: the filter is targeted only at the 3100 websites.

Keep in mind, Ms McMenanim, that this means that those opposed to the
filter are opposed to (a) its inaccuracy and (b) its inability to
stop cp transmitted by any other of the hundreds of protocols that
are not the web.

Ms McMenanim: the Internet is not just the web. Get the technical
facts straight.

Claiming that those opposed to the filter are in support of cp
is defamatory and ignorant in the same breath. We are opposed to
the filter as proposed since it is an ineffective and wasteful
solution that will give stakeholders a false sense of security.

In fact, the filters do not address the problem of cp data transfers
on the internet. How can they? Most of the traffic is demonstrably
sent using protocols that are not being filtered.

Now, I could carry on and discuss the technical difficulties and
traffic impacts that the filters would physically impose on the
Internet in Australia, but that is beyond the purview of this
particular reply.


cheers
rickw





-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air
and water that are doing it.
      -- Al Gore, Vice President