The Nannageddon approaches.

So. This is an entry I’ve been meaning to make for frickken ages. I feel bad for not posting sooner and more frequently. Hopefully now that Uni exams are over and the Christmas break is visible upon the horizon I can dedicate more time to being a little bit more committed to posting.

Anyway. As I said – this is something that, over the past few weeks has really caught my attention. Thankfully it is not something that has been subject to a good deal of change so I still feel that this entry will still be relevant. Over the last fortnight or so I’ve been gathering every scrap of information I could get my grubby hands on regarding the ALP’s clean-feed internet filtering policy which, if the Government has their way – will be implemented by February next year.

Now, while the policy seems to be all squeaky clean according to the Government’s official media report on the development of the cleanfeed. Unfortunately, if you scratch the surface – it seems like there is a lot that we’re not being told.

Having the technical skills of a bag of lemons, I consulted my good friend Peter who is a whizz in all things intarwubz related. He was kind enough to give me a crash course in ‘Clean-feed for Dummies’ and a list of a few sites to go to. Here is what I have been able to discover about the clean-feed in a nutshell.

1.  The cleanfeed works on two levels.  The first level filters out all content deemed unsuitable for children and will apply to every single Australian household and school. The second is the ‘opt-out’ level that will not filter adult content, but will still completely block out other sites that are considered inappropriate.

2. Rather than being an ‘opt-in’ system, users in child-free households will be obliged to ‘opt-out’ if they want to view adult content. This means that users have to contact the relevant authorities and request that they be granted the ability to do so, rather than households that do not want their children accessing particular sites opting to have the clean-feed installed individually.

3. The clean-feed filter will be mandatory for all Australians.

OK. If you aren’t already bellowing at your computer monitors after reading that- let me explain just precisely why you should be.

The net filtering system is being championed by Communications Minister Senator Steven Conroy (with Family First Senator Steven Fielding trotting merrily along at his heels..) as a way to remove child-pornography and other illegal material from the internet. Unfortunately, it seems that it is anything but.

Starting with the technical details: Firstly, the clean-feed will be stupidly easy to bypass. Either using a VPN (Virtual Private Network), or a TOR system, it seems that a few bits of well-placed code will be enought to encrypt your way to non-filtered browsing. According to Government testing programs of the clean-feed earlier this year, It also wrongly identifies one out of every 10,000 sites as containing illegal content. The only way of rectifying incorrectly censored material is by going through every single site on a case by case basis. Therefore, not only will there be thousands upon thousands of sites that are over-blocked (wrongly restricted – Kitty is learning new words every day!) that need to be individually cleared, but the efficiency of the net will be drastically degraded and the costs for ISPs (and, therefore – users) will skyrocket.

It’s also worth mentioning that the clean-feed does not take into account the use of bit-torrent downloads and chatrooms for accessing child-pornography. Neither does it completely remove all child pornography available from websites - blocking only 30-40% of genuinely illegal material.

Oh – and did I mention? It’s going to cost approximately $44 million. Taxpayer funded of course.

However – this is where I really get my teeth into the argument. The issue of censorship.

As I mentioned before, the filter is intended to filter out child-pornography and other potentially harmful, inappropriate material. All fine and dandy – but unfortunately, Senator Conroy and the other supporters of the clean-feed have been silent on the subject of what will and what won’t be restricted material. Indeed, it seems that there is an enormous grey area as to the definition of ‘inappropriate.’

Subjectivity apparently isn’t a word in Conroy’s vocabulary.(I suggest reading the above article, as it summarises my feelings on this subject succinctly.)

However, it appears that depictions of actual sex between consenting adults and pro-euthanasia and pro-anorexia sites will be among the first to get the chop. Again, here there is a very worrying blurring of definitions and distinctions – as it is quite likely that completely innocent sites that deal with issues of sexual health, sexuality and even breastfeeding could get caught up in this censorship frenzy. To put a Queer spin on things for a moment, it’s also likely that websites that deal with same-sex attraction, trans* or GLBTI health issues could be blocked.

To my mind this is extremely dangerous for a number of reasons: The first and most obvious being that there are thousands upon thousands of sites that may be providing useful – if not lifesaving information to the people that access them. To block them would have an extremely negative impact upon those that may be severely disadvantaged by the lack of accessible information available.

The second, and more sinister concern I have is how Orwellian this whole situation is becoming. Any material that is deemed inappropriate will be blacklisted. However – not only do we not have a clear definition of the grounds under which sites will be blocked, but there is no way of knowing what sites are on the blacklist or who has access to this information. (Which, if leaked could provide access to genuinely illegal, harmful material such as child pornography).

As I mentioned before, the clean-feed operates on a two-tiered system where users can ‘opt-out’ for the slightly less censored version of the internet. There are problems with this as well. How many Australians will actually overcome their state of apathy and just accept their watered-down state net nannying?

Furthermore, I find the concept of having to actually contact your service providers to ask permission to look at adult content ridiculous. “Hi there, I’d like to look at pornography please.”

It would be funny if it wasn’t such a gross invasion of privacy. Call me paranoid – but what are the chances that as soon as you request to opt-out of the PG-version of the internet, awkward questions will be asked and the likelihood of your web-browsing being monitored by Big Brother will increase significantly. If this legislation goes through, Australia will join China, Burma, Cuba and Iran in the list of countries that instigate net censorship. Makes ya all patriotic don’t it?

Speaking of Orwell – how’s this for some government propaganda?

A direct quote from Senator Conroy:

“Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road,” [Telecommunications Minister Stephen] Conroy said yesterday. “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.”

Wow. Just. Wow… It doesn’t get any clearer than that. ‘If you don’t like censorship, you are a child-molester.’

Straight from the horses mouth.

It seems that Conroy is quite happy to resort to bullying critics of the clean-feed system to shut them up.

Ironic, really that the Government is going to such lengths to stifle dissent, given how firm a lecture Rudd gave to China only this year on the very subject of censorship. I guess integrity only counts when gold medals are at stake…

A letter from a chap called Matthew Newton who works as an ISP engineer details this attempt by the Government to silence him. I found the following quote very enlightening:

” The passing of time has shown that 1990 Senate’s concerns were completely wrong: Almost 20 years have passed since that enquiry, and Australians have enjoyed uncensored Internet access for the entire period. Society has not fallen apart, there is no emergency, children are not being raised in moral vacuums and turning into rapists and axe-murderers, parents are diligently and capably excelling in their efforts to raise their children into fine, upstanding citizens. Today’s parents are comfortable with ubiquitous access to unfiltered Internet, having grown up using Google to assist with homework assignments, publishing blogs and websites, using email to stay in touch with friends and family, and treating the Internet in its current unfiltered form as a valuable resource for the education and social engagement of their children.”

Newton continues:

“It is thoroughly insulting to Australian parents to undermine their efforts by asserting that the way to prevent societal decay is for the Government to step in and make decisions about the appropriateness of online content. That is a parent’s role, not Senator Stephen Conroy’s role.”

That quite summarises my entire feelings on the subject. We do not need our Government intervening and telling us what we can and can’t access.  We do not need to be nannied and patronised. Of course, material like snuff and child pornography should be removed from the internet and all measures taken to protect children from potential abuse. But child pornography is already illegal. We already have systems in place to ensure a zero-tolerance of illegal content on the net.

The good news is that it does not appear that it is likely that the legislation will pass. Oddly enough, the Coalition opposes the motion, so the ALP will require the votes of every single other Senators including the Greens, Family First Senator Nick Fielding and Independent member Nick Xenophon  to get the legislation through. With the exception of Senator Fielding, it looks as though our net access is safe for now. But I will still be keeping a watchful eye on this, as the simple fact that it has been proposed is beyond unnerving.

I am intensely angered by having the right to decide for myself what is and what isn’t appropriate content taken away. I am frustrated by this blanket situation that will do more harm than good in an attempt to mollycoddle and patronise the Australian people. Hoisting children up on a pedestal and then waving the pedophile bogeyman in the face of any and all critics is the perfect way to distract from what is really going on here;  censorship and control. Pure and simple.

As Matt Newton correctly stated, it is the responsibility of the individual parents to monitor children’s internet usage and to determine what is and what is not appropriate material for them to be exposed to not politicians. Australians are intelligent enough to work such issues out for themselves – we do not need a Nanny-state that pats us on the head and force-feeds us sanitised pap. If I want to look at two consenting adults fucking, then I’ll look at two consenting adults fucking thank you very much! I do not need to be spoonfed and I will not have my right to access information restricted because a prude in a suit (I’m looking at you Senator Fielding..) seems to think that it’s inappropriate.

What the ALP lacks here is subjectivity. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ morality, and attempting to force that upon an entire, diverse population is as dangerous as it is ineffective. As much of a cliched as it may well be – knowledge really is power – and an attempt to remove or hinder the pursuit of knowledge by our leaders is an attempt to maintain disempowerment. It is, by far  – the worst betrayal of our trust possible.

Always question. Always think independently and always remember that there is usually more to what you are being told. The alternative is powerlessness, assimilation and irrelevance.

~ by soverysmall on November 21, 2008.