z1

http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-...orts/20081024-
Cheap-tricks-not-the-right-response-on-internet-filtering.html

Cheap tricks not the right response on internet filtering

Friday, 24 October 2008

Stilgherrian writes:

Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Child P-rnography is looking
increasingly desper… What? Sorry? Conroy is not responsible for child
p-rnography? No? “Cheap rhetorical trick,” you say?

Yes, it’s the very same cheap trick the Minister himself used in Senate
Estimates on Monday night when — just as he did in December last year —
he accused critics of Labor’s internet censorship policy of supporting
kiddie p-rn.

Senator Conroy: […] I trust you are not suggesting that people
should have access to child p-rnography.

Senator Ludlam: No. That is why I was interested in asking about
the law enforcement side of it as well.

Senator Conroy: No, we are working both angles at it. We are just
trying to use technology to enforce the existing laws.

Senator Ludlam: I am just wondering if I can put these questions to
you without being accused of being pro child p-rnography. That would assist.

Senator Conroy: I was wondering if I could get the questions
without being accused of being the Great Wall of China.

Well, Minister, stop supporting the idea of filters at the internet
service provider (ISP) which block an as-yet-undefined range of
“inappropriate” material, then maybe the comparisons with China will
stop too. Senator Conroy is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Prior to the 2007 election, the ALP committed to “ensuring all
Australian families can utilise ISP filters that block prohibited
content as identified by the Australian Communications and Media
Authority. Families should also be able to access filters that can be
customised to block more material if they choose.”

He also inherited a timetable for trialling ISP-level filters from his
Coalition predecessor, Senator Helen Coonan.

The problem is, ISP-level filters are the wrong way to go. As
anti-censorship campaigner Michael Meloni points out, “Is the Government
really in the best position to decide what [is inappropriate]? Does
inappropriate include information on s-xual health, breast-feeding,
drugs and abortion? The one size fits all approach of filtering at ISP
level causes problems because young children, teenagers and adults often
use the same family computer. Material inappropriate in one household
might be appropriate in another, but the Government’s scheme doesn't
allow for any fine-tuning. It’s a poor substitute for the discretion and
attention of parents.”

When the report on phase one of the trial was released in July, it
showed the filters simply aren’t good enough. They block too much
legitimate material. They can’t touch peer-to-per file sharing, which is
where most of the nasties live. And they degrade internet performance to
boot.

I reckon Conroy knows the filters are a dud. When that report dropped,
he “welcomed” it and was “encouraged” by it, but only The Australian
used the word “success”. Not Conroy — a fact his office confirmed to
Crikey this morning.

I reckon he’s just going through the motions with Coonan’s timetable to
keep Family First Senator Steve Fielding happy. Fielding’s Senate vote
is desperately needed for other matters, as is überpopulist Nick
Xenophon’s — a man who knows the value of words like “kiddie p-rn” in
stirring the voters’ emotions. Until that much-anticipated double
dissolution election, anyway, after which Conroy can renegotiate with
the somewhat-more-rational Greens.

Meanwhile, with all the evidence running against an evidence-based
policy for ISP-level filtering, Senator Conroy can only lash out and
threaten his critics. It’s not a good look.