That Shape Shifting Australian Internet Mandatory Filtering Scheme or Ministerial Untruths Unchecked

Hardly a month goes past without some mention of government-sanctioned censorship occurring somewhere around the world.

On Wednesday 16 September 2009 Politikin in Denmark published an entire book in that day's edition of the newspaper. It did so to make sure that the government of the day (through its defence and treasury departments) did not manage to censor a new book by a former Danish commando.

The same day Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the Australian Federal Government, was caught out telling fibs about his 'past' intentions for the proposed mandatory national ISP-level Internet filtering scheme when he denied that he had ever considered censoring peer to peer traffic.

This is what the Minister personally said on a DBCDE official blog in December 2008 ( a similar statement was also attributed to him in a News Ltd report on 22 December):

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.
Stephen Conroy

and

This is what the Minster said last Wednesday:

As Senator Ludlam well knows, there has never been a suggestion by this government that peer-to-peer traffic would or could be blocked by our filter. It has never been suggested. So for you to continue to make the suggestion that we are attempting to do that just misleads the chamber and the Australian public, Senator Ludlam, and you know better than that. We are not attempting to suggest that the filter can capture peer-to-peer traffic. So for you to continue to make the suggestion that we are attempting to do that just misleads the chamber and the Australian public, Senator Ludlam, and you know better than that. We are not attempting to suggest that the filter can capture peer-to-peer traffic.

Perhaps Senator Conroy's fearless leader might quietly ask him why he chose to tell untruths to Parliament when he rose to his feet in Senate Question Time on 16 September 2009.

Is it any wonder that the Rudd Government is considered by many to have suspect motives when it comes to its Internet filtering plans?

Time to fess up - how many Tier 1, 2, & 3 Australian ISPs have signed up to trial the Great Firewall of Australia?

The issue of a national mandatory ISP-level Internet filtering system being introduced in Australia is of more than passing interest to North Coast Voices and many others in rural and regional areas.

Firstly, this blog is administered via a dial-up account and many of our contributors use the same type of Internet connection.

Secondly, all the blog contributors live in regional New South Wales where both broadband and dial-up speeds are already somewhat erratic.

Thirdly, any diminution in Internet function or speed is likely to cripple access to publication on this group blog.

Fourthly, it is beyond the financial capability of this blog to switch to a more expensive (and it must be said, regionally unreliable) broadband connection.

So before the Christmas Eve starting deadline for the Federal Government's trial of the Rudd-Conroy Great Firewall of Australia; would those ISPs who have lodged expressions of interest concerning participation in this censorship trial please put up their hands (I know that some ISPs will have approached the relevant government department because the 18 November EOI deadline has past).

For its own satisfaction North Coast Voices would like to identify those ISPs which think that:
a) the 475 online content complaints, acted on by ACMA in 2007-08 (which related to content that was prohibited or potentially prohibited under the Broadcasting Services Act and including some overseas online gambling sites ) are reason enough to introduce mandatory Internet censorship to this country;
b) indiscriminately blocking up to 10,000 sites identified by ACMA on a 'blacklist'( which may contain lawful content) is a reasonable thing to interpose between the ISP-User contract;
c) taking part in the trial of a filtering system which one of its supporters admits can only potentially block 30-40% of all p*rn sites (and won't block those who regularly access this type of online content) is justified at any level;
d) participating in a 6 week trial that will without consultation impose on the client a combination of dynamic analysis filtering, IP versus URL filtering and DNS poisoning etc., is in the best interests of their business;
e) existing ISP clients will meekly accept any additional account charge allowed under the trial's Draft Deed of Agreement;
f) customers who are negatively impacted by this trial are actually going to use snail mail to inform ISPs that their Internet connection is crippled, rather than just voting with their feet and moving to an ISP not taking part in Senator Conroy's madness; or
g) that Senator Conroy will still respect them in the morning.

Pic from Cleanfeed

• ACMA Annual Report 2007-08
  
• Internet Service Provider Content Filtering Pilot: Technical Testing Framework, November2008
  
• Draft Deed of Agreement for Filtering Pilot
• Filter supporters talk, Australia listens
  
• Cleanfeed at Whirlpool
  
• ACMA and filtering history at Libertus
  
• Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

Google Cache to save Australia?

On 25 January 2009 The Greens posted the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy's reply to four questions on notice submitted in November 2008.

Leaving aside the fact that Senator Conroy refused to answer seven vital questions in SQON0834 and gave nonsense answers in 831, 832 and 833 where it was politically convenient; one interesting fact emerged - Google Cache and Google Translate will not be subjected to ISP-level filtering according to the minister.

As most sites indexed by Google appear to be cached and all websites would have the ability to activate the cache function, this would virtually render most filtering ineffectual if one established a connection with an international version of a search engine.

So does this mean that the Rudd-Conroy plan to impose the Great Firewall of Australia is really an expensive piece of political theatre aimed at appeasing the religious right and certain lobby groups?
Or is Senator Conroy telling yet another political lie?

And why has the senator refused to give assurances that ISP-level filtering will not be used to block political, activist or creative content from view on the Australian Internet?

Answers to Questions On Notice:

sqon0831 Answer.pdf	395.8 KB
sqon0832 Answer.pdf	267.3 KB
sqon0833 Answer.pdf	488.45 KB
sqon0834 Answer.pdf	846.65 KB

Did Stephen Conroy's live trial of national ISP-level Internet filtering run into trouble?

These are images from a Wikileaks document which purports to be a 2009 Watchdog International white paper called List Management Issues When Filtering using URL Blacklists.

Watchdog technology was used within a live trial of the Rudd-Conroy mandatory national ISP-level filtering of the Australian Internet.

It would appear that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy may have run into a few problems in testing his ACMA blacklist if the white paper is to be believed.

Perhaps this hints at the reason behind Senator Conroy's reluctance to release the live trial report, which has now been twice delayed with no guarantee as to when it will be published.

Click on images to enlarge

Conroy's 'voluntary mandatory' national Internet filtering scheme

The Australian Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy appears to be finally losing it, if this exchange posted at Somebody Think of the Children is any indication.

"Mandatory ISP filtering would conceivably involve legislation … voluntary is available currently to ISPs," Senator Conroy said. "One option is potentially legislation. One other option is that it could be (on a) voluntary basis that they (ISPs) could voluntarily agree to introduce it."

In response Senator Minchin said he had never heard of a voluntary mandatory system. Senator Conroy responded with "well they could agree to all introduce it".

Stephen Conroy's all a-Twitter

Screenshot from PerthNorg

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, has an alter-ego on Twitter.

His profile reads like a strange phantasy.

Bio I'm a 45 year old politician who'll do anything to please you, baby. Don't worry girl, I gots "protection", and it'll degrade my performance all night long...

This other 'Stephen' was having a little fun at the Senator's expense this last week:

Today I received an I-Phone. The IT people tell me that it is biometrically activated, but no matter how much I lick it, it won't turn on. about 11 hours ago from web

stephenconroy Working on a form letter to send in response to the form letter Mark Newton and his seditionist allies have been sending. about 8 hours ago from web

stephenconroy Testing the content repair and truth-enhancement mechanism. about 17 hours ago from web

stephenconroy Dear journalists; please do not continue to report on my enormous p#nis and ability to please the ladies. My personal life is off-limits. about 18 hours ago from web [edited for filter friendliness!]

stephenconroy @efa_oz Of course the filter won't deliver children, deviant. Also, the children would need to be pureed to fit in the Internet Pipes. about 19 hours ago from web in reply to efa_oz

stephenconroy Talking to a Nigerian ISV about IP filtering. Apparently _they'll_ pay _us_ to use it, all they need is the Federal Reserve's account number 9:32 PM yesterday from web

stephenconroy I think my Googles are broken. "No results found for 'Stephen Conroy is a visionary; decades ahead of his time'." 4:04 PM yesterday from web

Stephen Conroy gets his ISP 'filtering' report

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, has just received the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) report on proposed censorship at ISP level. 

"This report investigates developments in internet filtering technologies and other safety initiatives to protect consumers, including minors, who access content on the internet. The report was prepared in response to a ministerial direction received in June 2007. ACMA will report annually on its findings for three years. This is the first report."

Not surprisingly the ACMA report points out that the mandatory ISP filtering that Senator Conroy, and his Coalition predecessor, wanted relies on a somewhat simplistic view of the Internet and goes on to list current Australian programs encouraging voluntary filtering by households and businesses.

In the end, this report is nothing more than busy work for bureaucrats, as legislated and regulatory mechanisms are already in place to deal with offensive content.

The Minister's own media release has more than a hint of embarrassment about it when he speaks of "no silver bullets".

Stephen Conroy ignores the elephant herd as it files through his office

Stephen Conroy's Digital Economy Future Directions departmental blog has been up and running for the last nine days or so.

In his welcome post Lindsay Tanner said:

We are also genuine about wanting to use online consultation to improve government-citizen relationships around public policy. We want real outcomes from online consultation, not a new channel to distribute a press release.

We hear you... posted this blog on 12 December.

Really? Then why does this particular post try to avoid mentioning the hundreds of anti-Internet censorship comments that were lodged on the blog.
According to Conroy's spin meisters all is rosy in the garden, despite most of the comments received being considered irrelevant by their calculations. Using a coy and corny tactic to inform us of the fact - FDB suggested.

The majority of the 744 comments on Minister Tanner's welcome were against mandatory national ISP-level filtering.

What does the digital economy encompass? What does it mean for Australians? post is littered with criticism of Internet filtering.

Open access to public sector information contains anti-censorship comment.

Everyone had given up by the time Setting the right regulatory framework was published - not a soul had commented by mid-afternoon last Tuesday.

Bjorn bags Rudd Government national ISP-level filtering - says plan 'completely politicised'

According to The Age today:

TRIALS of mandatory internet censorship will begin within days despite a secret high-level report to the Rudd Government that found the technology simply does not work, will significantly slow internet speeds and will block access to legitimate websites.

The report, commissioned by the Howard government and prepared by the Internet Industry Association, concluded that schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography are fundamentally flawed.

If the trials are deemed a success, the Government has earmarked $44 million to impose a compulsory "clean feed" on all internet subscribers in Australia as soon as late next year.

But the report says the filters would slow the internet - as much as 87 per cent by some measures - be easily bypassed and would not come close to capturing all of the nasty content available online. They would also struggle to distinguish between wanted and unwanted content, leading to legitimate sites being blocked. Entire user-generated content sites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia, could be censored over a single suspect posting.

This raises serious freedom of speech questions, such as who will be held accountable for blocked sites and whether the Government will be pressured to expand the blacklist to cover lawful content including pornography, gambling sites and euthanasia material.

The report, based on comprehensive interviews with many parties with a stake in the internet, was written by several independent technical experts including a University of Sydney associate professor, Bjorn Landfeldt. It was handed to the Government in February but has been kept secret.

It has also been revealed that Conroy's filtering trial commencing tomorrow has been expanded to include traffic using P2P and BitTorrent.

I think that one can almost call it official - the Rudd Government is doing all it can to ensure that the Internet is an issue at the next federal election, with at least a third of all potential votes in the Federal Labor seats of Page and Richmond now up for grabs and the hope of winning other NSW North Coast seats in 2010 fast slipping away because Internet use is a fact of life for many residents and businesses.

Want to tell Conroy where to go on Internet filtering? Phone Tim Marshall, Senator Conroy's office, 0408 258 457

Senator Conroy's Internet filtering gets another bad review

According to IT News last Thursday:

Cross "fighting terrorism" off the list of reasons Senator Stephen Conroy wants to introduce mandatory ISP-level Internet Filtering.

A new report penned by Tim Stevens and Dr Peter Neumann for the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) assesses the pros and cons of various types of Internet Filtering and finds them ineffective in the fight against terror.

"Most governments have focused on technical solutions, believing that removing or blocking radicalising material on the internet will solve the problem," the report states.

"Yet, this report shows that any strategy that relies on reducing the availability of content alone is bound to be crude, expensive and counterproductive."

The report went into some detail around the ineffective nature of most types of Internet Filtering.

IP filtering, in which the IP address of a questionable site is blocked, suffers from misfiring, the report said.

"Problems with this method of filtering arise because some web hosts - each with a single IP address - provide a variety of services or host many websites with different domain names, which means that all these acceptable services and sites will be blocked as well. While cheap and easy to implement, its propensity for 'over-blocking' makes IP filtering a very crude method of interdicting banned material."

In describing the role of the Internet, this report identifies what the Rudd Government (and government generally) probably fears most about cyberspace:

It has dramatically reduced the cost of communication, making the exchange and dissemination of information virtually free.

• It has enabled unlimited access to much of the world's knowledge and begun to organise it in systematic fashion.

• It has made it easier to find people and create networks among like-minded individuals, across great distances and beyond national borders.

Reporters Without Borders is also less than impressed with the Rudd-Conroy censorship plan and in its 12 March 2009 document Internet Enemies has placed Australia on the group's watch list.

Update on Communications Minister Conroy's plan to censor the Australian Internet

If the Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy gets his way and imposes a national mandatory ISP-level Internet filtering scheme on Australia, it won't just be the usual filtering software players who will be looking to make capital out of this censorship by encouraging function creep.

Perhaps this report on current day Iran gives some indication of who else might also want a piece of the commercial pie.

From the Wall Street Journal online 23 June 2009:

Interviews with technology experts in Iran and outside the country say Iranian efforts at monitoring Internet information go well beyond blocking access to Web sites or severing Internet connections.

Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts.

The monitoring capability was provided, at least in part, by a joint venture of Siemens AG, the German conglomerate, and Nokia Corp., the Finnish cellphone company, in the second half of 2008, Ben Roome, a spokesman for the joint venture, confirmed.

The "monitoring center," installed within the government's telecom monopoly, was part of a larger contract with Iran that included mobile-phone networking technology, Mr. Roome said.

"If you sell networks, you also, intrinsically, sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them," said Mr. Roome.

The sale of the equipment to Iran by the joint venture, called Nokia Siemens Networks, was previously reported last year by the editor of an Austrian information-technology Web site called Futurezone.

Meanwhile, this month a spokesperson for the Minister appears to have confirmed that video games suitable for adults will also be blocked online by ISPs under the national filtering scheme, as well as websites which offer downloadable versions or sell physical copies of these games.

Which according to The Orstrahyun means that the Rudd-Conroy filtering scheme will likely block eBay and Amazon.

Does Conroy realise just how many Australians of voting age make a bit of pin money using these sites? Has he even thought of the many in rural and regional areas who regularly use these sites to long distance shop?

Disquiet continues about the lack of defined goals for this proposed $44.5 million scheme.

Has Stephen Conroy just guaranteed that Labor will lose seats to The Greens in 2010?

Sometimes it's hard to believe just how far the ALP will go in order to lose seats in this year's election unless you track Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's chatter about plans to censor the internet.

Having slipped this scheme under the radar in 2007 he is now afraid to introduce it into law before the election in case votes walk, but intends to run yet another rigged investigation and then erect the Great Firewall by 2012 secure in the knowledge that he won't have to face the voters himself for another six years as a senator.

This consummate ministerial liar changed his tune in the space of 48 hours, because on Wednesday he was telling the press that "I expect it (the legislation) to be this year. I expect that we will table the legislation this year sooner rather than later."

In the meantime he's muscled some ISPs into introducing the filter by stealth as a supposedly voluntary feature and has the hide to say that this net will only catch baddies like child abuse, bestiality, crime, terrorism. Well last year we all saw his blacklist when it was leaked and it certainly blocked inoffensive websites.

So stuff you Conroy - even your Dad thinks you're a rightwing twit. I'm voting Green all the way!

Kellie
Grafton

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.

Placing censorship of Australian Internet on the backburner is a feint not a backdown by Rudd Government

Remember John Howard's very carefully crafted weasel words in 1996 about the possibility of his Coalition government introducing a goods and services tax in Australia?
Howard introduced GST legislation hot on the heels of the 1998 federal election didn't he?
After introducing a GST policy cloaked in the mantle of taxation reform in the lead up to that election, it subsequently took him less than four month to get 17 GST bills through the House of Representatives.

Well Prime Minister Rudd and Communications Minister Conroy have further refined lying to the electorate in an election year by attempting to disguise ongoing policy by seemingly placing it on the backburner while continuing to progress the same outside of public scrutiny.

Rather unobtrusively Conroy has been dragging his feet on presenting the federal parliament with legislation introducing mandatory national ISP-level filtering of the Australian Internet - thus leaving the policy in play but not at the forefront of the national election debate.

Should Labor be returned to government the way is then open for Rudd's authoritarian right-wingers to claim that the people gave Labor a mandate to introduce this information technology censorship.
Presumably argued on the basis that a vote for Labor covered every single one of its policies, even those it was attempting to camouflage because of sustained opposition from a significant numbers of Internet users.

As for Conroy's assertions that policy consultation is transparent or that filter circumvention will not become an offence under law - well I'd take that with a grain of salt.

While his claim that the intention is merely to block unlawful content or content ACMA deems refused classification can be seen to be by all to be a flat out falsehood, given information in North Coast Voices on 5 March 2010 and Delimiter on 9 February 2010 concerning filtering of senators' Internet access. Websites ranging from an online gay newspaper to political comment in the mainstream media are currently filtered out.

Delimiter on the current censorhip debacle.

Has the Australian Computer Society had a change of mind or is it acting as Senator Conroy's stalking horse now that Internet filtering opposition is growing?

On 18 November 2008 iTnews reported that:

The Australian Computer Society (ACS) has formed a new e-security task force to look into the Federal government's controversial ISP filtering scheme.

The task force, which meets on November 26, will be expected to take 'a leadership role, provide expert technical advice, and review e-security and ISP filtering proposals' with a view to assisting the ACS to develop its own policy positions.

These issues are of critical importance to the safety and security of Australian ICT infrastructure, on-line business models and internet users, according to Kumar Parakala, chairman of ACS.

The task force will be lead by Vijay Varadharajan, Professor and Microsoft chair in innovation in computing at Macquarie University and director of information and networked system security research.

"We are aware of ISP level filtering testing conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), and the recent calls for tenders in the live pilot testing of ISP content filtering. We acknowledge that there have been strong industry views on these proposals ," said Varadharajan.

"At this stage the task force will develop sound technical advice on the feasibility and governance of the various ISP filtering options being investigated."
The ACS was more welcoming of the Federal government's general action 'on e-security issues', particularly with the NBN RFP process coming to a head.

"Online business activities have potential for huge productivity gains for the community and business with the introduction the new National Broadband Network," said Parakala.

"Appropriate e-security frameworks and policies are necessary if we are to fully harness this potential."

One has to ask what and how big is this society, which to date appears to have an ambiguous position on mandatory national ISP-level filtering.

It called on government to resist calls to censor online content in 1997, welcomed Internet content management by federal government in 1999, was very happy about the NSW backdown on planned Internet censorship in 2002, couldn't decide if government or parents should police the Net in 2003, has been in favour of e-security and real time monitoring since 2006 and supported the introduction of government distribution of the free filtering software, Net Nanny, in 2007.

Then in May this year the society came out in favour of Conroy's internet censorship plan:

Australian Computer Society president Kumar Parakala responded to the plan by saying that the ACS welcomes Senator Conroy's targeted plan to create a safer online environment for Australian children.

"I think it is an excellent initiative and as the use of cyber-technology increases among young children, something like this is a necessity," he told ZDNet.com.au.

Parakala said he doesn't expect ISP filtering to create a major overhead on broadband capacity.

Aw tell me it ain't so, Stevo! You haven't gone and nobbled a government website?

This is the content of the very small tag cloud found on the Dept. of Broadband, Communications, Digital Economy and Compulsory National Censorship webpage Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy,Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate:

NBN Broadband
National Broadband
Network ABC
Broadcasting National Broadcasters
SBS Digital Switchover
Digital Television Youth Advisory Group
Cyber-Safety
Internet Budget E-Health
Mobile Services

Looks unexceptional don't it?
Then someone on a Whirlpool forum asked themselves a question. Why isn't the search term "ISP filtering" or similar up there somewhere?
After all that term is found in about 63 media releases archived on the website and presumably cyber visitors go looking.

Oh noes! came the answer, the word cloud has been nobbled!

Filtering already begun! :)

User #185532 8 posts Rupple Forum Regular

I find this one rather humorous, on Conroy's website, if you take a look at the right hand side there is the "cloud" for searched items, the more searched the phrase or word is, the larger the item is. Looking at the source code of the site, there is the entire list of words that the script uses to determine the cloud words and how prevelant they are. Basically breaks it down to an array, counts and then sets the size based on how frequent it is etc... In the script that generates the cloud, there is a line that says basically if the seach term is "ISP Filtering" to skip and go onto the next. In the time I was on the site, there were about 16 instances of "ISP Filtering" in the cloud, and only about 5 instances of E-Health, though ISP Filtering did not show in the cloud.... Anyway just a funny, and some food for thought! :) //for(var i=0; i<unique.length; i++) for(var i=0; i<=15/*<-Important! increase this value by 1 everytime a keyword is excluded below*/; i++) { var z=0; for(var j=0; j<split.length; j++) { if (unique[i]==split[j]) { z=z+1; } counts[i] = z; } var size = getTagClass(z); //Customise the tag-cloud to display what shows up if (unique[i] == "ISP Filtering") { continue; } document.write('<a class="'+size+'" href=\"http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/search?q='+unique[i]+'">'+unique[i]+'</a> '); } document.write('</p>'); document.write('</div>'); } EDIT: Thought I should add the URL of the site, incase people get confused with stephen-conroy.com :) This is on the minister for broadband and other random crap that he has no idea about site.... URL: http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/

Go O'bama! Kick those Aussie pollies some more

Teh Oz reported on Wednesday:

"Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is believed to have been summoned to a meeting with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week after media reports revealed the US was concerned that this ran contrary to its policy of encouraging an open internet to promote economic growth and global security. One senior cabinet minister is said to have responded to the US reaction by telling Conroy: "With internet censorship you won't need a national broadband network."

So that's what it finally took to get Rudders interested in what Conroy is doing as he builds the Great Australian Firewall - a stern word from Obama & Co.

Selective deafness? Won't hear us but will hear the Yanks. ;-)

Are we there yet? Senator Conroy's neverending search for an ISP-level filtering trial

It seems that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy is still having trouble herding enough ISPs into his Internet filtering trial and we are about to enter February without any clear indication of when the trial will actually begin.

An unidentified spokesperson for Senator Conroy reportedly tells us that the trial is imminent, will involve up to 16 applicants and ISPs will be clustered in the trial, which will mean that the original six-week test period is likely to drag on over months.

Along the way the Minister appears to have decided to rename his trial as the ISP-level objectionable content filtering trial, if Suzanne Tindal reporting on ZNet yesterday is any indication.
An obvious expansion of his original title which was the plainer Internet Service Provider level filtering trial.

Meanwhile..........

• GOOGLE has unveiled a plan aimed at letting computer users determine whether ISPs are inappropriately blocking or slowing their work online.
  
  
• On the last day of 2008 the Bergman Institute for Internet & Society at Harvard University released the Final Report Of The Internet Safety Technical Task Force To The Multi-State Working Group On Social Networking Of State Attorneys General Of The United States.
  
  While all investigations of this nature will have flaws, there are three telling statements in the Executive Summary that Senator Stephen Conroy should note as he and the Prime Minister relentlessly drive Australia towards a national Internet censorship scheme.
  
  Bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, both online and offline.
  and
  The Internet increases the availability of harmful, problematic and illegal content, but does not always increase minors' exposure. Unwanted exposure to pornography does occur online, but those most likely to be exposed are those seeking it out, such as older male minors.
  and
  Minors are not equally at risk online. Those who are most at risk often engage in risky behaviors and have difficulties in other parts of their lives. The psychosocial makeup of and family dynamics surrounding particular minors are better predictors of risk than the use of specific media or technologies.

Stephen Conroy nominated for UK Internet Villain Award

Image from LOLConroy

Click to enlarge

The UK Internet Industry Awards sponsored by ISPA will be announced at a gala black-tie event on 9 July 2009 in London.

The Australian Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy has been nominated, but not for an Internet Hero award.
The award category he is included in is Internet Villain.

Internet Villain
The Internet Villain category recognises individuals or organisations that have upset the Internet industry and hampered its development - those who the industry loves to hate. The ISPA Council will select the shortlist and eventual winner of the Internet Villain award.

2009 Nominees
European Parliament - "For supporting an amendment to the Telecom Package on cookies which could yet bring the internet to a standstill"
President Nicolas Sarkozy - "For his continued commitment to the HADOPI law, which advocates a system of graduated response, despite repeated arguments suggesting the law is disproportionate from a number of important groups including the European Parliament"
Baroness Vadera - "For excluding a number of ISPs and Rights Holders in agreeing a Memorandum of Understanding that was exclusive and ineffective in progressing relations between the two industries"
Stephen Conroy and the Australian Government - "For continuing to promote network-level blocking despite significant national and international opposition"

Senator Conroy's *@#**@* dodgy digital Xmas present

The Register reports that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy will start live trials of the Rudd-Conroy Great Firewall of Australia on Xmas Eve.

Just in time to b*gger the festive season for the blogosphere.

It's so on the nose that iiNet Australia said to The Sydney Morning Herald:

"They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help," he said.

"Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicising it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicising it."

Malone concluded: "This is the worst Communications Minister we've had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed."

While the whole world can see Stevo's dismal attempt to defend his censorship trial at YouTube:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OUohfIhFET8

What's that Skip? Ya Mum sez?

A call to arms in support of Our ABC

The Guardian, 17 May 2018:

The announcement in last week’s budget that the ABC’s funding indexation will be frozen for three years from July 2019 is the latest in a series of extraordinary attacks by a government that displays an unprecedented level of hostility to the national broadcaster. It represents a real cut to the broadcaster’s operating costs of $84m.

Added to the $254m cut over five years announced by then-communications minister Malcolm Turnbull in November 2014, and a $28m cut to the enhanced newsgathering service in the 2016 budget, this brings the money taken out of our national broadcaster since the election of the Coalition government to over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Contrast this with the former Labor government’s approach. In 2009, when I worked in the office of communications minister Stephen Conroy, the ABC was awarded the largest funding increase since its incorporation in 1983, with $136.4m in new money to fund the creation of the ABC Kids’ channel and 90 hours of new Australian drama. Four years later, the ABC was given $89.4m to set up the newsgathering service and enhance the digital delivery of ABC programs.

In addition to record funding boosts, Conroy, arguably the best friend in government the ABC has ever had, also ensured the ABC charters were amended to specifically require them to deliver digital services; overhauled the board appointment process to put it at arm’s length from the government of the day; and, in a move that enraged the Murdoch empire, created legislation that specified that any international broadcasting service funded by the government could only be delivered by the ABC. This came after the government’s refusal to award carriage of the Australia Network to News Corp in 2011, a decision that was regarded both at home and internationally as common sense by everyone other than the owners of Sky News.

All this is now under attack. The Turnbull government seems determined not only to undo every measure of financial and legislative support implemented by the last Labor government, but to undermine the ABC’s operations so thoroughly that its ability to provide the services its charter requires will likely be devastated.

The legislation passed in early 2013 prevented the incoming Coalition government from reopening the tender process to award the Australia Network to Sky – so they shut it down entirely instead.

Five years later, the Lowy Institute laments that “[o]nce a significant player in what the British Council calls the Great Game of the Airwaves, the ABC’s purpose-designed, multiplatform international services have suffered near-terminal decline”.

"We must rise up against this concerted campaign of funding cuts and attempts to limit the activities of our national broadcasters"

As far as the board appointment process goes, Turnbull as prime minister and his communications minister Mitch Fifield are doing their best to ignore it: two recent appointees, Minerals Council boss Vanessa Guthrie and Sydney Institute Director Joseph Gersh, were not recommended for appointment by the independent selection panel. Fifield is relying on clauses in the legislation governing the appointment process that allow the minister to appoint from outside the recommended list in exceptional circumstances, but has publicly offered no reason why these candidates were more urgently required on the ABC board than those recommended as more qualified by the selection panel.

It’s also impossible to discover whether the minister has tabled the statement to parliament giving his reasons for ignoring the advice of the selection panel, as required by the legislation. If he has, perhaps those statements explain why Guthrie and Gersh are the most qualified candidates to provide governance of our most trusted source of news.

Despite the selection criteria set out in Conroy’s legislation, the ABC board now includes no one other than the staff-elected director and the managing director, Michelle Guthrie, with media experience and, despite the full board having been appointed by this government, they seem unable to make a case to maintain the ABC’s funding.

But the biggest danger to the ABC is the government’s agenda to reduce its digital services, and it’s here where the ABC – and, in this case, SBS as well – face a truly existential threat. The so-called “competitive neutrality inquiry” into the national broadcasters, currently underway, has ostensibly been launched to satisfy Pauline Hanson’s demands for an inquiry into the ABC in return for her support for last year’s appalling package of media “reforms”, which will reduce diversity and local content across the commercial broadcast media.

Don’t believe it for a second. While Hanson’s hatred of the ABC will assist any future government moves to neuter the broadcaster’s digital activities, this inquiry is yet another gift to News Corp and the commercial media organisations, who have been baying for the ABC’s blood since it arrived on the airwaves more than three-quarters of a century ago.

The $30m of government money given, apparently with few strings attached, to Foxtel last year was really just “compensation” for the fact that the commercial TV operators got a windfall gain with the abolition of their broadcast licence fees and replacement with spectrum fees. This saves the broadcasters around $90m per year (money which is forgone government revenue, by the way) so, of course, Foxtel had to be similarly rewarded for … running a commercial business in a competitive market.

Read the full article here.

North Coast Voices, 12 May 2018,"Time to show support for the ABC"

The ABC provides vital local news services, as well as things like emergency and bushfire warnings. Every time the Liberals cut the ABC’s funding they hurt local communities.

SIGN THE PETITION ⬇️https://t.co/pNIFrLik2q

— Bill Shorten (@billshortenmp) May 18, 2018