When you can't even believe what you read about the Internet censorship debate

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 the SBS TV program Insight ran a debate/group discussion called Blocking the Net.

Whirlpool forums in their turn have been discussing this program with surprising results:

Conroy, McMenamin and Pillion simultaneously popped arteries and started shouting when I pointed out that Norway, Denmark, Finland, Thailand and Australia had all had their lists leaked and the UK had been shown to be vulnerable to reverse engineering; then asked what kind of idiots would take that data then say, "I know! Stunning idea! Lets make an extra-special-uber-bad list of the worst of the worst child porn material! This time we'll be able to keep it secret for sure!"

I think they edited it out because Insight likes to present reasoned debate and the debate became distinctly unreasonable for about ten seconds after that point. Total meltdown from the "pro" side.

– mark (Newton)

It was an unfortunate and rather ironic lapse on Insight's part to censor the discussion on Internet censorship.

However, it was sheer idiocy for Senator Conroy (probably the most monitored federal minister in the Rudd Government right now) to blank out parts of his CommsDay Summit 2009 speech as delivered and post an amended version on his ministerial website.

This is a ZNet report on what Senator Conroy decided to omit:

"I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies," he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. "Stunning defence, stunning defence," he continued in what appeared to be a sarcastic comment.

"I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode."

As for the Minister's assertion reported on Monday:

Senator Conroy said other forms of technology could be used to crack peer-to-peer pedophile rings.
"If I stood up anywhere and said 'hey, this filter will block peer-to-peer' then rightfully I should be ridiculed,'' he said.
"I've never said that ... it is not designed to deal with peer-to-peer.''

That flatly contradicts what he said officially on the short-lived official DBCDE blog:

The Government understands that ISP-level filtering is not a 'silver bullet'. We have always viewed ISP-level filtering as one part of a broader government initiative for protecting our children online.

Technology is improving all the time. Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial.

On Insight Senator Conroy complained that he was misunderstood and his intentions misrepresented.
If that were to be the case he would only have himself to blame.

Sadly, the fact of the matter is that the Minister is erratically surfing a strong public opinion wave and desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out.
He tweaks his narrative whenever it suits or whenever the debate becomes politically uncomfortable for him.
There is no truth reliable information coming from his office.

Suicide: Monsanto blames it on the weather and ........

Monsanto according to Monsanto, the official blog of that monolithic U.S. bio-tech multinational corporation, has decided to tackle those posts out in the blogosphere which draw a correlation between an increase in suicides amongst Indian farmers and the introduction of GMO cotton seed into that country in 2002.

In its post Indian Farmer Suicide - The Bottom Line Monsanto has decided that these suicides are due to a number of factors including the weather, but finally plumps for personal debt as the chief cause; A variety of third-party studies have proven that personal debt is the historical reason behind an Indian farmer's decision to commit suicide, not biotech seed.

The company blog points to an article in The Financial Express, which it implies exonerates biotech crops (such as cotton) from culpability.
However, this article points out that; "Increased liberalisation and globalisation have in fact led to a shift in the cropping pattern from staple crop to cash crops like oilseeds and cotton, requiring high investment in modern inputs and wage labour. This increases credit needs. But when the prices declined farmers have no means to supplement their incomes,".

Not quite the clean report card for biotech multinationals as Monsanto according to Monsanto would have us believe.
Modern inputs for an Indian farmer with a GM cotton crop in the field can include recurring annual seed costs and Monsanto's technology fee as part of seed price.

Nor does a 2008 study cited by Monsanto undertaken by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPR) give unqualified support for Monsanto's assertion that the introduction of GMO cotton was benign; in specific regions and years, where Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted. We close the paper by proposing a conceptual framework for empirical applications linking the different agricultural and institutional factors that could have contributed to farmer suicides in recent years in certain districts of Central and Southern India.

The Monsanto blog goes on to mention the Virdabah district as being an area where GM cotton was a great success, but neglects to mention that according to that same IFPR paper ; The largest number of reported cases [of suicide] was concentrated in districts of northeast Maharashtra (Vidharba District).

According to a March 2008 3D paper on intellectual property rights asserted by biotech companies in India;
Owners of IPRs can prevent others from producing or selling the seeds or plant varieties over which he or she owns the rights, which makes farmers dependent on the owner of the intellectual property to supply the seeds. The IPR owners (usually private corporations) are free to set high prices or royalties on the seeds, and they retain a degree of control over how seeds are used or reused. With increasing corporate concentration in the agricultural sector, the seed owners have the power – which they already use – to raise prices of seeds and other agricultural inputs. In India the introduction of genetically-modified cotton has already had devastating effects. In addition to increasing the cost of food, jeopardizing the ability of farmers to derive a livelihood from farming when seed prices increase, and slowing down public-interest-oriented agricultural research, the ownership of IPRs on seeds goes counter to traditional practices of exchanging and saving seeds, thus undermining community and cultural rights.

The Indian Journal of Psychiatry in 2007 confirmed a rise in official suicides rates over the last twenty years, that the 'real' rate is probably somewhere in the vicinity of six to nine times the official rate and, that there has been a recent spate of farmer suicides.

Monsanto according to Monsanto is right when it points to the complexities surrounding suicide, but that doesn't mean that it can ignore the fact that the economics of growing GM cotton may place an onerous burden on poor, marginal farmers in India.

Neither can it chose to ignore the fact that in India in 2006 Monsanto through its joint venture Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (MMB) went to court in an effort to force an increase in GM cotton seed prices or the fact that Monsanto is also accused of profiting from bonded child labour on that continent.

Australian consumers need to decide whether buying products containing GM ingredients is supporting biotech companies truly committed to environmentally sustainable and socially responsible agriculture production or is just supporting companies who put such sentiments on their websites and forget these principles thereafter.

Public Information Centre set up to take inquiries about NSW North Coast flooding

*

A public information inquiry centre has been opened to take calls from members of the public about the flood affected areas on the North Coast.

Members of the public are informed that they contact the information inquiry centre on 1800 227 228.

Advice for Senator Conroy on freedom of expression

I was watching "Insight" on SBS last night and then went online later to look at the discussion.
There were some very good points made, but I really got a chuckle out of this!

Artistic Expression

When the musical 'Hair' was released in 1968 it was the subject of intense debate. In Australia there were threats of official sanction, and in New Zealand the actors were arrested and tried. Senator Conroy, you are reaping the benefits gained by the eventual acceptance of that musical. You can only get away with your exceptional haircut because of the boundaries that those brave thespians crossed. Please remember that the next time you ask your hairdresser for 'the usual'.

Maudie's Ex

Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

A little pre-emptive tit for tat......

Click image to enlarge

Good morning, Mr. Rudd....

*

*