[LINK] Letter to Fielding about the filter

[James Collins]

Hi Craig,

> > our children/spouses/employees/other householders to access through 
> > our network connections.

> and there's a problem in itself - it ignores and denies the fact that 
> these OTHER people (children, spouses, other house-holders*) don't 
> have their OWN rights to access whatever information they want.

Not on our property. If WE want to place a restriction on our connection,
that is our own personal decision. When our children attain an age where
they gain their own rights to Yes or No, they too may make a choice on the
Protected Network. In fact, in one particular Protected Network family I can
think of, this particular situation occurred, and the child in question made
their own decision and got their own access id to the Protected Network,
under the guidance of the family council. But that's a personal decision,
not a technological issue. The Protected Network just provides the platform
to make the choice possible.

> spouses are not property. they get to make their own decisions about 
> what they want to read.

Spousal positions will always be a point of contention between them, when it
comes where they go and what they do. How many times have we seen a "Sit
Com" with someone badgering their spouse about where they are going and what
they are doing. The Protected Network isn't about solving their personal
problems, but it does provide accountability. From this point on, Spouses
will be accountable for their actions. What they individually want to do
with that is their own affair, as you point out. But if two people "Own" the
Network connection, or a whole family want to form their own little council
and have a family meeting about it, that is entirely a non-technological
problem. The Protected Network in this case merely gives them the choices
that they don't all have at this time. The right to say Yes, and the right
to say No, to whatever they choose. It also would provide the educational
component, but that's phase 2.

> similarly, children are not property, they also get to make their own 
> decisions about what material they wish to access, regardless of what 
> their parent or parents wish.

Once again, this is entirely a decision for the family to make. The
Protected Network simply gives them the choice. This steps well outside the
technological realm, but there are some interesting points to make about how
these situations change once the Protected Network comes into play.

> and while it's reasonable (even responsible) for parents to monitor 
> and > control the internet access (and tv, library, etc) of their 
> young children, as the children get older (certainly by the time they 
> are
> teenagers) they are capable of and have the human right to read about 
> and make up their own minds about various topics - even if they come to >
conclusions that disagree with those of their parents.

Which is the situation that I described above. It's actually quite
interesting how different people in families behave when it comes to usage
and control of the internet. Whereas once it was approached with
trepidation, the Network tends to become more pervasive throughout the
house. Far from being a restriction, it gives the freedom to put a network
throughout a house and have that first line of defence.

> (*) i'm deliberately excluding employees here because they don't have 
> a right to use their employer's networks for private purposes.  they 
> can get their own internet connection.  OTOH, employers have no right 
> to dictate what their employees do or read on their own time - or 
> punish them for not adhering to the employer's personal standards.

Employees do have an opinion though, and while in most cases one of the more
traditional and more totalitarian filtering solutions will remain the first
choice of the workplace, the Protected Network could well find its way in
there one day, as people start to realise that it really is worth it to have
a say in "Where will you go today?" :)

> craig

Thanks for your email Craig. I always love talking about the Protected
Network. I need to do it more. :) 

Perhaps we could see Phillip Argy could take something like these reasoned
thoughts to the Senator, instead of us destroying the operation of
government offices. :)


-- James :) Collins - Head Office * +61-7-3823-5150 *
   ,-_|\    Web Management InterActive Technologies
  /      *  Sydney Office      - +61-2-8011-3237
  \_,-._/   Canberra Office    - +61-2-6100-7721
        v   Fax Number         - +61-7-3823-5152
www.wmit.net - P.O. Box 1073, Capalaba, Qld, 4157