Posts Tagged 'nocleanfeed'

Spare change?

Stephen Conroy is currently for sale on eBay.

In case the listing gets removed, here’s a screenshot courtesy of APC magazine.

Conroy disappoints again

SBS’s Insight programme tonight was good, but not great. Conroy for once had to stand up to his critics, but as usual, his responses were lacking.

He did manage to expand on a point he made last week on Q&A. He talked non-specifically about reforming the way classifications are made to ensure public “confidence” in the system. I won’t bother talking too much about the implied admission that the current regime isn’t suited to classifying websites (even though it’s been doing it for the past nine years, as Conroy loves to remind us so often), as I’d much prefer to talk about these reforms in terms of the way they could change our debate.

As it stands at the moment, those of us campaigning against Conroy’s filter know exactly what we’re fighting against: a mandatory scheme which will attempt to block all kinds of material from some MA15+ to child porn and everything in between. Individuals who have had their websites blacklisted will have no recourse, as the list will be held under lock and key.

With these reforms Conroy has hinted at, he is essentially asking us to support a scheme without telling us how the classifications will be made, even in the short/medium term. One of my deepest held concerns is that there is no way to know how the proposed mandatory filter will be (mis)used in the years and decades into the future. Conroy has brought this concern forward, and it now applies to the coming months.

newtonpattenI have to commend Mark Newton of Internode and Fiona Patten of the Australian Sex Party. Both were extremely knowledgeable, and took it to Conroy on all levels. In particular, Mark destroyed the idea of the filter having any shred of efficacy, and Fiona exposed Cornoy’s “refused classification and illegal material” doublespeak.

All in all, the Insight format was far better than Q&A, even though they did spend a lot of time on what I would consider topics inconsequential to the current debate. Check it out.

Stephen Conroy announces mandatory home monitoring

Senator Stephen Conroy, who has headed a plan to implement a mandatory Internet filtering scheme in Australia, has today announced sweeping new requirements for the Australian Government to monitor Australians’ homes.

Under the mandatory scheme, cameras will be installed in every room of every Australian home. The camera feeds will be monitored by a secret group of bureaucrats who live under Stephen Conroy’s house.

“Anyone could be a child rapist,” Stephen Conroy told a group of reporters at the policy’s announcement this morning.

“If we aren’t keeping an eye on these Godless bastards (the Australian public), we could be letting child abuse just happen.

“This is not an issue of privacy, this is an issue of protecting children. Labor makes no apologies for wanting to protect children.”

The Australian Christian Lobby has supported the move as a way to micro-manage the population.

“I really didn’t think he had the balls to do it. I sent Conroy an email last April 1st suggesting this, and the cunt didn’t even reply,” the Christian Lobby’s Grand Poobah, Geoffrey Jeffries, told SCiaC.

“He stole my fucking idea, but despite that, ACL supports this policy because it’s an effective way to stem the moral decay in Australia. Now I… errr… I mean, other people, won’t be able to masturbate without begging for God’s forgiveness. Not without Conroy knowing, at least.”

Civil liberties groups were contacted for comment, but none have replied. They are all feared to have committed suicide, or worse, moved to New Zealand.

Backflip

Straighty has done a one-eighty. Let’s have a look at some of Conroy’s recent comments.

I contradict myself THIS much!

[Conroy] has also resorted to unedifying inferences against those who dared question his plan. When a Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, asked some perfectly reasonable questions during a senate estimates hearing last October, Senator Conroy responded: “I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.

If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree.”

These comments, to me, strongly imply that Conroy believes the filter will stop the spread of child pornography. Am I right? Apparently not:

Senator Conroy said the Government had never claimed the filter itself would stop child pornography.

We’ve never tried to pretend that this was a silver bullet, we’ve never tried to suggest this was the sole solution,” Senator Conroy said.

The aim of the proposed filtering is to block material that is already illegal and is refused classification, he said.

So he is trying to juggle several opinions at once here:

  • If you don’t support the filter, you support child pornography (ie., the filter will stop child pornography).
  • The filter won’t actually do much at all, we need to use other methods to crack child porn rings.
  • Wait, wait, the filter will block illegal material (including child porn) and refused classification material.

If you have any ideas on how Conroy could reconcile these contradictory opinions, let me know in the comments. I sure can’t work it out.

As a side note, I love how Conroy is now talking about blocking both illegal and refused classification material. I can’t wait until someone confronts him about wanting to block material that he knows is legal.

How much will your online freedom set you back?

About USD $6.77 a month.

Why not save your $900 stimulus payment and use it to evade Conroy’s filter for over seven years?

An oldie, but a goodie

Just in case anyone hasn’t yet seen it:


Downfall was a great movie, but this beats it hands down.

Don’t get too worried about Optus

Optus has renewed its wish to be included in Conroy’s mandatory filter trial.

My understanding is that Optus and Conroy have always been in “negotiations”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Conroy now starts trying to push Optus to get in on it. He is in desperate need of a large ISP to add credibility to his trial.

There’s no reason for Optus customers to overreact just yet. What they’re saying still sounds reasonable:

  • Optus is participating in order to accurately gauge the impact this type of technology would have on our network.
  • Willingness to participate in the trial does not necessarily indicate support of mandatory filtering.
  • It’s a trial – and designed to test the effectiveness and impact of such filters on a network environment.
  • Optus wants its customers to have a safe experience on the internet and considers cyber-safety an important issue for all internet users.
  • Optus would rather be a ‘part of the conversation’ than not be involved if the Govt decided to mandate filtering.

The only problem I can see is in the answer to the last question, “What about other content like adult content and things the government might like to stop people viewing?“. Optus answers:

  • Optus will NOT be filtering this type of content.

As I’ve previously reported, some of the most popular pornographic websites in Australia do appear on the ACMA blacklist. I think Optus customers should be notified that this is the case, as the current answer is very misleading.

Such are the difficulties for a PR department trying to answer questions about a secret blacklist.