Next year's must see movie!

Click on poster to enlarge

Kevin Rudd gets anti-censorship mail from Paris

From Reporters Without Borders:

The Hon Kevin Michael Rudd

Prime Minister

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600 Australia

Paris, 18 December 2009

Dear Prime Minister,

Reporters Without Borders, an organisation that defends free expression worldwide, would like to share with you its concern about your government's plan to introduce a mandatory Internet filtering system. While it is essential to combat child sex abuse, pursuing this draconian filtering project is not the solution. If Australia were to introduce systematic online content filtering, with a relatively broad definition of the content targeted, it would be joining an Internet censors club that includes such countries as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy announced on 15 December that, after a year of testing in partnership with Australian Internet service providers (ISPs), your government intended to introduce legislation imposing mandatory filtering of websites with pornographic, paedophile or particularly violent content.

Reporters Without Borders would like to draw your attention to the risks that this plan entails for freedom of expression.

Firstly, the decision to block access to an "inappropriate" website would be taken not by a judge but by a government agency, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Such a procedure, without a court decision, does not satisfy the requirements of the rule of law. The ACMA classifies content secretly, compiling a website blacklist by means of unilateral and arbitrary administrative decision-making. Other procedures are being considered but none of them would involve a judge.

Secondly, the criteria that the proposed law would use are too vague. Filtering would be applied to all content considered "inappropriate," a very slippery term that could be interpreted very differently by different people. In all probability, filtering would target "refused classification" (RC) sites, a category that is extremely controversial as it is being applied to content that is completely unrelated to efforts to combat child sex abuse and sexual violence, representing a dangerous censorship option. Subjects such as abortion, anorexia, aborigines and legislation on the sale of marijuana would all risk being filtered, as would media reports on these subjects.

The choice of filtering techniques has not been clearly defined. Would it be filtering by key-words, URL text or something else? And what about the ISPs that are supposed to carry out the filtering at the government's request? Will they be blamed, will they be accused of complicity in child sex abuse if the filtering proves to be ineffective, as it almost certainly will?

Your government claims that the filtering will be 100 per cent effective but this is clearly impossible. Experts all over the world agree that no filtering system is effective at combating this kind of content. On the one hand, such a system filters sites that should not be affected (such as sites about the psychology of child sexuality or paedophile crime news). And on the other, it fails to filter targeted sites because their URLs contain key-words that are completely unrelated to their content, or because their content (photo and text) is registered under completely neutral terms. Furthermore, people who are determined to visit such sites will know how to avoid the filtering by, for example, using proxy servers or censorship circumvention software or both.

The Wikileaks website highlighted the limitations of such as system when it revealed that the ACMA blacklist of already banned websites contained many with nothing reprehensible in their content. According to Wikileaks, the blacklist included the Abortion TV website, some of the pages of Wikileaks itself, online poker sites, gay networks, sites dealing with euthanasia, Christian sites, a tour operator's site and even a Queensland dentist's site.

The US company Google has also voiced strong reservations. Google Australia's head of policy, Iarla Flynn, said yesterday: "Moving to a mandatory ISP filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information."

As regards paedophilia, the most dangerous places on the Internet are websites offering chat and email services. So if this project were taken to its logical conclusion, access to sites such as Gmail, Yahoo and Skype would also have to be blocked, which would of course be impossible.

There are more effective ways to combat child pornography, including tracking cyber-criminals online (by means of cookies, IP address comparison, and so on), combined with police investigation into suspects and their online habits. Why did your government end the programme launched by the previous government, which made free filtering systems available to Australian families? This procedure had the merit of being adapted to individual needs and gave each home the possibility of shielding its children from porn.

A real national debate is needed on this subject but your communications minister, Stephen Conroy, made such a debate very difficult by branding his critics as supporters of child pornography. An opportunity was lost for stimulating a constructive exchange of ideas.

We also regret the lack of transparency displayed by your government as regards the tests carried out in recent months using procedures that have been kept secret. Your government paid some 300,000 Australian dollars to ISPs to finance the tests. Australian taxpayers have a right to be given detailed information about the results.

Finally, you must be aware that this initiative is a source of a concern for your compatriots. In a recent Fairfax Media poll of 20,000 people, 96 per cent were strongly opposed to such a mandatory Internet filtering system, while around 120,000 Australians have signed a petition against Internet censorship launched by the online activist group GetUp. The withdrawal of this proposal would therefore satisfy public opinion as well as prevent a democratic country from introducing a system that threatens freedom of expression.

I thank you in advance for the consideration you give to our recommendations.

Sincerely,

Jean-François Julliard
Secretary-General

Stranger than fiction.......

Stumbled across this as I tiptoed through the tulips in Yahoo! ANSWERS.
Seems someone's done a variation on an Einfield recently:

"I've just received a speeding infringement notice form Victoria Police, Australia - although I have never been to Australia! They have my correct name, correct street name (not number) and a postcode from a few streets away. I believe I know who has given these details, and old acquaintance who moved to Australia a year or so ago - they lived in the street which the postcode on the notice had. So my question is, what should I do with this? Go to the police in the UK? Ignore it? Or will they chase it up? Also, what is likely to happen to the person who gave the false details?"

Mr. Disspain sinks his fangs in....

I think the creator of www.stephenconroy.com.au (later http://stephen-conroy.com) might think himself lucky that Chris Disspain CEO of .au Domain Administration Ltd at least endeavoured to be a little polite in correspondence, as he summarily booted the spoof site off the Australian Internet with only glancing reference to any AuDA dispute resolution policy.

Mr. 'I'm endorsed by the Federal Government' Disspain is not always polite.

Here is a sentence found in one his own company emails sent during a dispute with Larry Bloch's Netregistry: Rebelling against an 'over-zealous' regulator or just plain media whoring?

Now that's very proper executive officer language that is!
This is the man who has day-to-day control over domain registration of at least 6 million Australian websites?

Just another example of how rural & regional NSW is being let down

The Daily Examiner editor points out the inequity in energy service delivery costs across New South Wales.

Comment from The Daily Examiner, 21 December 2009
Click on image to enlarge

Obama's baby brother is a movie star named Marx?

Much of this Monday 14 December article from the Chinese media mentioning Obama's younger brother, Jiang joined the new film "Let the bullets fly," more and more powerful lineup, may be lost in awkward translation but the picture tells the story.
American conspiracy wingnuts must be ecstatic over the half-brother's first name, "Marx"!

Send Stephen Conroy an anti-censorship gift this Christmas via Electronic Frontiers Australia

A ‘blacklist’ of thousands of websites.

Click on The Gift of Censorship for Christmas and send short e-message to the Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
For every thousand anti-Internet censorhip messages sent to Electronic Frontiers Australia for delivery to Senator Conroy, EFA will also send a Christmas stocking containing coal.

The fool's playing with us, right?

In the Herald Sun last Friday from one barking mad pollie:
BIBLE classes should be compulsory so children have a fundamental understanding of Christianity on leaving school, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.
"I think everyone should have some familiarity with the great texts that are at the core of our civilisation," Mr Abbott said. "That includes, most importantly, the Bible.
"I think it would be impossible to have a good general education without at least some serious familiarity with the Bible and with the teachings of Christianity.
"That doesn't mean that people have to be believers."

Bible classes, Tones? Next you'll want all school kids to have a compulsory Christian baptism before they leave pre-school!

I wonder how many more people can you alienate before New Year - you appear to be going for a national record.

Pic from the Herald Sun article

Australia you've been Gherkin'd!

Clarence Valley teens have launched their own interactive website for youth called Gherkin.

Those deadly rappers JACCAS have a great song This is where we're from playing on the home page.

Go there!

Our Kev not so bright and shiny anymore

Being an Aussie prime minister must be a b*gger of a job, but compared to some others who've been at the top of the pollie pile Kevin Rudd has had a dream run in the public opinion polls since November 2007.
The UN shenanigans in Copenhagen this month have put a bit of a dent in that bright and shiny image......

ABC The Drum poll results at 6am on 21st December 2009

Stewart Franks quite frankly puzzles

I must confess that until fairly recently I had not heard of Associate Professor Stewart Franks.

Franks swam into view when his name become associated with Family First's Senator Steve Fielding and the now notorious Assessment of Penny Wong's Response to My 3 Questions on Climate Change.

Now I do not call into question this academic's record, but I do wish he wouldn't misspeak concerning possible conflicts of interest arising from his research funding.

The Australian online states in Rebels of the Sun:

While not interviewed for Channel 4, hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks at Newcastle University in NSW is one such scientist. Like all other scientists quoted in this article, he says he has never received any funding from any industry, but is increasingly uneasy about the dangerous path the debate is taking, where alternative views are discouraged and reputations attacked and discredited. [my emphasis]

However, in 2007 Stewart Franks received a two-year project grant from Macquarie Generation worth $85,000.

Macquarie Generation is a state-owned corporporation with a core business producing and wholesale selling electricity on the National Electricity Market in Australia.
This corporation operates two of the largest coal-powered stations in New South Wales (consuming a combined total of 13 million tonnes of greenhouse gas producing coal per annum) and is part of the national energy industry.

Therefore, this academic did indeed receive funding from industry.

Which does give one pause for thought when Associate Professor Franks goes into print asserting that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not driving climate change.

EFA publishes Takedown Hall of Shame

See full details here and submit your own candidates for this list here.

I understand that the recent takedown of an Australian political spoof site has already been sent to EFA.

Nature's canvas

NASA photograph of The Northern Lights