Senate Estimates digs up some disturbing facts
Reposting from Larvatus Prodeo:
Questioning in committee by Scott Ludlam of the Greens [transcript] has revealed that Senator Conroy’s plan has not set target parameters for overblocking and underblocking benchmarks (does he even know what they are?) to evaluate the effectiveness of the filtering software, let alone acceptable/unaccaptable benchmarks for slowed access speeds. The promise that Australians would be able to opt out was apparently non-core, too – Conroy confirmed he’s planning a two-tier system, and only one is opt-out. He also has no answer for how his plan is incapable of filtering peer-to-peer networks (60% of file-sharing on the internet is via P2P). Lauredhel has more at Hoyden About Town, and The Age today reports instances of Senator Conroy’s office allegedly attempting to suppress dissenting opinions from ISPs, experts and private individuals.
Conroy’s answer to nearly any objection that points out that the only effective outcome of his plan will be slower internet speeds for everybody, including businesses and public services, appears to be to accuse the objectors of aiding paedophiles (who will all be merrily avoiding the filters via P2P anyway).
More information than you can shake a stick at regarding objections to the internet filtering plan can be found at nocleanfeed.com
Pretty disgusting, hey? The Government wants to introduce internet filtering but it has absolutely no way to tell just how well it’s performing. What’s more, the “opt-out” filtering regime one can choose to be on wasn’t even in the terms of reference of the report into mandatory internet filtering. Yup, your rights at work. Rudd’s certainly better than Howard in a lot of respects but when it comes to the internet he’s still got the idea that the internet is everything that’s wrong with society rather than everything that’s potentially right with it.
While this is a horribly misguided and ham-fisted approach to ISP level net filtering, I’m not opposed to the concept on a general level. This should surprise anyone that knows me and my previous comments regarding net filtering.
Filtering child porn at the ISP level is a good thing, giving the keys to said filter to the government – horrible idea.
I agree. Stamping out child pornography is a worthwhile goal and the AFP should be given more resources to combat it at it source rather than crippling the rest of the internet in an attempt to block it at potential points of consumption.
Using technology in this way is like trying to kill a thousand flies at 100 yards with a shotgun loaded wtih solid shot. You might get one or two but the vast majority will be untouched.
Or like trying to stop road fatalities by forcing everyone to drive with their brakes on. Those at fault will continue to act outside the law while the remainder are punished for someone else’s behaviour.