[LINK] Green light for internet filter plans - ACS position

[Stephen Wilson]

Likening climate change to internet filtering as both being inevitable 
is not appropriate.  Not only are the problem domains dramatically 
different but the bases for skepticism in both cases are totally 
opposed.  Most climate skeptics are scientifically illiterate.  Most 
Internet filter skeptics are technologically sophisticated, and 
understand the realities of the network.

Cheers,

Stephen Wilson
Lockstep
www.lockstep.com.au


Philip Argy wrote:
> There are two ways of approaching the problem, Fred.  We can either join in
> with everyone else in simply opposing the proposal.  Or we can work on
> trying to get the least worst implementation given the determination that
> has been expressed by government to actually do this.
>
> We have chosen the latter approach because we think there is more to be
> gained by being at the table and trying to massage the outcome into
> something innocuous than there is by almost taunting the government into
> some more awful manifestation of the concept.
>
> The ACS has publicly opposed ISP level filtering since 1997.  There can be
> no doubt about our position.  But we have to be politically pragmatic
> sometimes and on this occasion have chosen to take a more constructive
> approach.
>
> As I said yesterday, I accept that not everyone will agree with the line we
> are adopting but if ISP level filtering is as inexorable as climate change
> there's no point staying in denial.  We have to do our best to ameliorate
> the consequences of a fundamentally ill conceived and promoted election
> promise.
>
> Philip
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pilcher, Fred [mailto:Fred.Pilcher at act.gov.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2009 08:58
> To: pargy at argystar.com; link at mailman1.anu.edu.au
> Subject: RE: [LINK] Green light for internet filter plans - ACS position
>
> Philip wrote: 
>
>   
>> The two key concerns of the ACS, as expressed in our report, are that 
>> the government not mislead people into thinking that somehow filtering
>>     
>
>   
>> will make the Internet 'safe', and that there be proper transparency 
>> and an independent overview of the black list mechanism.  The danger 
>> of creeping enlargement of the blacklist and the criteria for 
>> blacklisting are what we think needs vigilance, and that focus is lost
>>     
>
>   
>> by a broadbrush opposition to any kind of content regulation
>>     
>
> The problem is that by proposing transparency and independant overview
> of the blackist the ACS is accepting that government (or any other)
> censorship is an acceptable option.
>  
>   
>> because it allows the government to accuse us of supporting child 
>> abuse material, which we do not.
>>     
>
> That's disingenuous.
>
> We may be accused of eating live kitties and sacrificing babies on Mount
> Ainslie; that is no reason to accept the unacceptable or support the
> unsupportable. Worst, it shows that we've been cowed by these silly
> threats. The more outrageous the accusation (and it doesn't get any more
> outrageous than that), the more desperate the government appears and the
> less credible it becomes, other than to the tiny extremist element to
> which this proposal panders.
>
>   
>> I don't expect everyone to agree with our more finely targeted 
>> criticisms but I'd prefer that our approach was not misrepresented as 
>> being weak - it is our considered view of the most effective way to 
>> achieve protection against an excess of regulatory zeal, and a false 
>> sense of public security, in a context where there is an existing 
>> takedown regime and government determination to implement a blocking 
>> regime to 'fulfil' an unachievable
>> 2007 election commitment to 'ensure' online safety for minors.
>>     
>
> I suggest that the approach would be better based on sound technical
> advice. We know that the proposal is, as you say and as we all know,
> unachievable - and yet the ACS is suggesting how it should be achieved.
>
> I'd be sad to resign from the ACS, but I couldn't in good conscience
> remain a member of any organisation that either gave or implied anything
> less than outright rejection of this plan.
>
> My personal opinions, of course, not those of my employer.
>
> Fred 
>   
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all
> copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You
> should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any
> other person.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
>