[LINK] Conroy going ahead

[Richard Chirgwin]

I was wrong. We didn't even need a new statement by Conroy for a media 
outlet to keep playing "pin the tail on the Senator". Mumbrella did it 
all by itself.

http://mumbrella.com.au/stephen-conroy-our-sneering-sarcastic-patronising-grudge-bearing-minister-for-filtering-the-internet-26889#more-26889

RC

Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> Adrian - I completely agree.
>
> Not only is the "filter=Conroy=filter" a completely simplistic way to 
> view what's going on; it's bad tactics. It leads to the widespread 
> conviction that "if we can just get rid of Conroy the filter will go away".
>
> The personification suits Conroy. It turns the entire debate into a game 
> of "pin the tail on the Senator", and everybody who matters falls for it 
> - in particular, most of the press, GetUp, EFA, the IIA and so on. I 
> will make a couple of predictions:
>
> 1. Conroy will say something this week designed to troll his opponents.
> 2. The opponents will fall for it.
>
> RC
>
>
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>   
>> Why is it that people persist to say the filter is due to Conroy?
>>
>> Is there some kind of Conroy-is-the-only-one-driving-it agenda that
>> I've just missed in all of this?
>>
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> On Sun, May 30, 2010, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> [not sure if this is really news or when he said it, but worth 
>>> getting in the Link archives]
>>>
>>>
>>> Filter goes ahead regardless
>>>
>>> http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html
>>>
>>>
>>> SARAH WHYTE
>>>
>>> May 30, 2010
>>>
>>>
>>> Poll: Should the government filter the internet?
>>>
>>> Poll form
>>>     * Please select an answer. Yes
>>>     * No
>>>     * 
>>> <http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html#viewResult>View 
>>> results Yes
>>>
>>>     4%
>>>     No
>>>
>>>     96%
>>>
>>>     Total votes: 4910.
>>>     Would you like to vote?
>>>
>>>     You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.
>>>     Would you like to vote?
>>>
>>>     You will need Javascript enabled to use our Voting Feature.
>>>
>>>     Poll closes in 7 days.
>>>
>>>     Vote now: 
>>> <http://www.theage.com.au/polls/technology/technology-news/facebook-privacy-uproar/20100524-w56b.html>Facebook 
>>> privacy uproar
>>>
>>>     Disclaimer:
>>>
>>>     These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of 
>>> visitors who have chosen to participate.
>>>
>>>     MINISTER for Communications Stephen Conroy has vowed to push on 
>>> with his controversial internet filtering scheme, despite a barrage 
>>> of criticism.
>>>
>>>     Senator Conroy told The Sun-Herald that internet advocacy groups 
>>> such as GetUp! were ''deliberately misleading'' the Australian public 
>>> about the scheme, which will refuse classification to illegal and 
>>> socially unacceptable web pages. The legislation, which was expected 
>>> to be passed before Parliament rises in June, has been delayed until 
>>> the second half of the year while the government fine-tunes it.
>>>
>>>     The government's $128.8 million Cyber Safety policy includes 
>>> forcing internet service providers to block access to a secret 
>>> blacklist of website pages identified as ''refused classification'' 
>>> by the Australian police.
>>>
>>>     Web pages will be nominated for blacklisting by Australian 
>>> internet users who come across illegal or ''unacceptable'' websites.
>>>
>>>     ''This is a policy that will be going ahead,'' Senator Conroy 
>>> said. ''We are still consulting on the final details of the scheme. 
>>> But this policy has been approved by 85 per cent of Australian 
>>> internet service providers, who have said they would welcome the 
>>> filter, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iinet.''
>>>
>>>     Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that 72 per 
>>> cent of Australian households have home internet access and more than 
>>> 2 million children regularly use computers.
>>>
>>>     The scheme has attracted broad opposition from communications 
>>> experts, search-engine companies Google and Yahoo!, the federal 
>>> opposition and members of the nation's intellectual elite.
>>>
>>>     Critics claim the policy will not result in any meaningful dent 
>>> in the availability of harmful internet content, will create 
>>> significant freedom-of-speech issues and will be prone to abuse by politicians.
>>>
>>>     ''The scope of filtered content is so broad that it could block 
>>> content that would inform political and social debate,'' Google 
>>> spokeswoman Lucinda Barlow said.
>>>
>>>     Former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has also condemned the 
>>> proposed filtering scheme as a ''white elephant''. ''This system will 
>>> not be effective,'' Mr Turnbull said. ''This policy will run the risk 
>>> of false impressions [of security], when there should be parental 
>>> responsibility.''
>>>
>>>     Executive director of GetUp! Brett Solomon said the Prime 
>>> Minister should step in to ditch the scheme. ''The government would 
>>> be better off developing policies to ensure the privacy of 
>>> Australians is better safeguarded rather than pursuing the filter. 
>>> This should be a promise that Kevin Rudd should break.''
>>>
>>>     GetUp! national director Simon Sheikh said a online petition by 
>>> the activists had received support from 120,000 people and raised 
>>> $100,000 to stop the legislation. An additional opinion poll by 
>>> research firm Galaxy showed 86 per cent felt that parents, not the 
>>> government, should have the primary responsibility for protecting 
>>> information on the internet.
>>>
>>>     ''Consistently the Australian people are saying that they don't 
>>> want it,'' Mr Sheikh said.
>>>
>>>     But Bernadette McMenamin of the child protection group Child Wise 
>>> said it was 100 per cent behind filtering illegal material. ''Sites 
>>> are going to be blocked that should be blocked, and it's absolutely 
>>> essential every parent is taught about the dangers of the internet.''
>>>
>>>     The Australian Privacy Foundation, however, said the cost of the 
>>> filter would be better directed to more internet education.
>>>
>>>     Yet Senator Conroy said ''blocking material is not considered to 
>>> be censorship''.
>>>
>>>     ''This filter is really not changing much, except that the 
>>> blacklist of website pages will be mandatory.''
>>>
>>>     The fourth Cyber Security Awareness Week starts next week to help 
>>> raise awareness of internet privacy issues.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
>>>     jwhit at janwhitaker.com
>>>     blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
>>>     business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
>>>
>>>     Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint 
>>> or sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
>>>     ~Madeline L'Engle, writer
>>>
>>>     _ __________________ _
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Link mailing list
>>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>>     
>>>       
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>