[LINK] Blacklist scope creep

[Philip Argy]

I don't agree that the chances of preventing scope creep to innocuous
material are lower than the chances of preventing filtering of child abuse
material.  The media and public attitude would be quite different. The
Government's statements implicitly concede that.  Senator Fielding has
already flagged his interest in protecting the balance.

 The ACS task force report (http://www.acs.org.au/ispfiltering/) called for
strong independent oversight and increased transparency of the blacklist.
Senator Conroy has promised to deliver that.  We await with interest to see
how that promise is reflected in the draft of the legislation and in the
administrative arrangements proposed to implement it.  You can expect us to
be vocal if the promises are not met.

Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au
[mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of rene
Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 14:34
To: link at mailman1.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [LINK] Green light for internet filter plans

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:22:29 +1100, Philip Argy wrote:

> For 'watching' read "Watch, see, take appropriate action"!

Can you suggest any "appropriate action" that concerned members of the 
public, or non-gov organisations, could take to *effectively* prevent/stop 
future scope creep. I suggest there are *none*. The only means of stopping 
future scope creep, is to stop implementation of mandatory filtering in the 
first place. If it turns out that concerned members of the public cannot 
stop it in the first place, then there is *zero* chance that they can stop 
future scope creep.

Irene

_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link