Why Even Techies aren't Immune from the Filter

Of late I have seen statements from technologically inclined individuals along the lines of:

I am not worried about the filter. Even if they put it in it will just slow things down a bit but we all know how to get around it.

At first glance this seems reasonable, after all it is true. It however ignores the fact the filter is not just a mechanism for stopping "naughty" content. The government can easily abused the filter and use it monitor attempts to access blocked content. In other words the government will be able to construct a list of "naughty" people.

You might ask

What's the problem with that? Surely having a list of people who attempted to access child porn can only be a good thing

If you are asking this question, then you have been victim to Conroy's propaganda. The filter doesn't block just child pornography, it blocks all refused classification (RC) content. At least it is suppose to. The list of websites to be blocked will not be available for scrutiny. In other words, if the filter were to block content on such controversial topics such as abortion or euthanasia you won't know until you have attempted to access such content. By then it would be too late - the government now knows you tried.

The number of ways such a list of "naughty" people can be abused is beyond counting. Suppose the police needs a few child pornography arrests to look good. They just need to go through the list looking for a few poor souls who stumbled on their internet travels. Bang! A list of people whose privacy will be thoroughly violated as the police fishes through their background looking for dirt. God help them if they have actually broke some trivial law in our complex legal system.

But wait, you say,

Isn't attempting to access refused classification material wrong?

The answer is no, unless it is child pornography. The national classification code allows adult to read, hear, and see what they want:

Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:

(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;

RC material can not be shown, sold, and possession for the purpose of sale or display is illegal. But to consume it with in the privacy of your own home is no crime [1]. As an adult what you chose to read, hear and see is your own private business.

I am well aware this is a slippery slope argument, however I don't think it is outrageous or preposterous. Governments love to monitor what their citizens do [2], censor what they see, and control what they do. That is almost by definition. To imagine the government to pass up on abusing the filter mechanism is difficult to imagine. It would require integrity on their part, something that has been conspicuously absent thus far.

Hang on, I hear you say,

How does this affect me, who always uses an encrypted connection?

Because my dear Watson, the lack of clear text communication is in itself damning evidence to the government. It shows you are to hiding something. In next to no time they will bring out the old fallacy:

If you have done nothing wrong, what have you to hide?

Remember that Conroy is so incompetent he doesn't even know online banking is encrypted.

The bottom line is this: don't allow this invasion of our privacy the chance to snowball just because it doesn't inconvenience you (yet). Nib it in the bud.

At the next election, vote below the line and vote for the parties against the filter: the Greens [3], the Nationals [4], and if they make it in time, the Pirate Party Australia [5].

Cheers,
Steve

[1] They did try to make it a crime, but sanity prevailed. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19970515003

[2] Just see how much the UK loves their surveillance, despite no evidence it actually lowers crime. 

[3] Greens might trade a rainforest or two for the filter though

[4] Nationals recently passed a motion to block any mandatory Internet filtering

[5] PPAU by definition has to block the filter.

Open Letter to Silicon Chip Australia

Dear Silicon Chip,

I recently cancelled my print subscription. You are no longer a magazine I wish to support.

Political commentary on topics like the insulation scheme and global warming has no place in an electronics magazine. The editor(s) are using the mailbag section to push their own agendas and opinions on the rest of us. I can no longer tolerate such non-sense, and have no interest in financially supporting a magazine that is so set on disinformation and irrational discourse.

Let me be clear: I am not cancelling my subscription because of the beliefs of the people at SC. I am cancelling because SC is being used as a platform to spread those beliefs. Whether or not SC believes in global warming, or that the government is at fault for the deaths from the insulation scheme, commentary of these issues are best left to newspapers. They have no place in a publication about electronics.

On other thing, the filler article reviewing consumer electronics (e.g. MacBook) is most annoying. It lowers the standard of the magazine. If you really have nothing to write about, go find some interesting arduino variants, like the jeeNode, and review one of those.

You have lost your way SC, and it is a sad thing to have to let you go. Maybe we can get back together again.

Steve

Nice Work Australia Computer Society

You came to me during my first year in university, and sold yourself as the paragon of virtue and integrity - the kind organisation I would be foolish not to be associated with if I want to get anywhere in Australia doing software, or "Information Technology" as they call it now days.

I didn't join then, because I didn't have the money. I didn't join later because my career focus shifted away from software. I won't join now ever, because you have sold out.

I am referring to the honorary membership you awarded to none other than one Stephen Conroy, Internet Villain of the Year, 2009.

You had such nice things to say about him too:

“We are very pleased to honour Senator Conroy’s contribution and support of the significance of ICT to the economy and the key role of ICT professionals in Australia’s future,” said Mr Wells.

If I am so inclined as to read between the lines, I can't help but get the feeling you are thanking Mr. Conroy for pushing the Internet filter scheme, and in the process provided jobs for the programmers and technicians involved in the various trials and consultations.

“Senator Conroy has always encouraged the ACS in its role as the independent voice of the ICT profession, welcoming our input to various enquiries and working groups, and regularly attending key ACS events. We are grateful for his on-going support,” Mr Wells said.

I don't think Mr. Conroy is listening to your input, or learning from your events - he continues to believe filtering the Internet is doable, and not a waste of time and resources.

I reject you, Australia Computer Society, as "voice of the ICT profession". Your actions are deplorable and shows a lack of integrity. If I was a member, I would be ashamed.

Cheers,

Steve

Dear Steve Conroy,

You can’t be serious.

You wants to filter all Internet connections now, without the option of opting out?! You want every Australian to be on a list so you can see who is “naughty” and who isn’t?!

You can’t be serious.

You wants to filter all illegal material on the Internet?!

You can’t be serious.

How on earth do you propose to classify the contents of more than 181,000,000 websites (Sept. 2008, Netcraft)!? Assuming a government worker can classify a site as illegal or legal in 1 minute, that person will have to work non-stop every day for 344 years to classify 181,000,000 websites.

You can’t be serious.

How on earth do you propose to even filter that many sites without rendering the Internet useless?!  

You can’t be serious.

How can we be sure the site blocked really is illegal, when we can’t access it!? How do you stop the system from abused? How do you correct the system’s mistakes? Why isn’t any of these described in detail?!

You can’t be serious.

How on earth are you planning on preventing people from circumventing your flitters using encryption?!

You can’t be serious.

Get a fucking clue Steve Conroy. The Internet doesn’t work like that. You have a background in the broadcast industry, and the Internet is nothing like it. You should leave technical decisions to people who know what they are talking about and stop pissing off every Internet literate Australian.

DIAF,

Steve

R18+, do want

Perhaps I am naive, but I expect those people in Government to have some resemblance of intelligence and be able to apply this very useful thing called logic. Michael Atkinson obviously isn't one such person. His recent reply to the demand for R18+ classification for Electronic Games [1] demonstrates a lack of intellect and foresight.

Firstly, Michael Atkinson can not see how have R18+ classification would a) stop parents from making bad choices and b) stop children getting hold of a game for their friend of sibling. Lets address these one at a time. Point a): MA15+ doesn't send a strong enough message to parents. If you are allowing children to purchase these games in the company of a parent or adult guardian, you are not sending a clear strong message that such games are not for children, at all. R18+ classification is a very strong message: these are prohibited to children, and it is illegal to make it available to them. Even the minimally functional or responsible parent will not purchase pornography for their children, and even the most apathetic cashier will not sell R18+ material to a minor. R18+ classification, if it existed, would an unmistakable message: DO NOT SELL OR EXPOSE TO MINORS.

Point b) can’t be any simpler. No cashier who wants to get paid, and no business which wants to stay in business, will sell to a child. If a child can not get hold of a R18+ game, it makes it impossible for said minor to get hold of it for their friends of siblings.

Secondly, Michael Atkinson believes introducing R18+ classification will increase the amount of inappropriate material for sale, and this will mean increased exposure of children to such material, since more of such material is for sale. What Michael Atkinson fails to realise is that introducing R18+ classification increases the volume of inappropriate material only very very slightly, while allowing the current volume of slightly less inappropriate material, namely games with MA15+ classification, to be reclassified as R18+ and thus have their exposure to children significantly reduced. Further, MA15+ restrictions only apply at the point of sale - it places no restrictions on whether the game must be played in the presence of an adult. R18+ classification will make it illegal to for a child to buy and play games considered inappropriate. In not having a R18+ classification for games, the Australian public is being done a disservice whereby the most restrictive classification is trivially circumvented.

Michael Atkinson then touts statistics like 79% of Australian house holds have a gaming device, and 62% of these Australians say classification of games has no influence on their buying decision. Seemingly solid statistics against introducing R18+ classification, except it is never mentioned which of these households have children under 15 - a household where all members are over 15 would care little for the classification of games they purchase. Further, given the current classification scheme’s weak delineation of games, it is not surprising that people ignore them.

The “violent games make violent children” card is of coursed played too. This is of course true - to say children is not affected by violent media would be a blatantly lie. However, the effect of violent video games compared to violence in television and magazines is not provably more or less. Michael Atkinson’s concerns are valid, but they are no more or less than concerns of any parent when it comes to violence in the media. If it is the basis on which Michael Atkinson voting against installing a R18+ classification, then I trust he is equally hard at work at removing R18+ classification for all other media as well.

Michael Atkinson then gives several examples of games that would supposedly be available under R18+ classification featuring strong themes of drug use and abuse. Ignoring the fact that thus far he has been arguing video games are bad because they lead to violence, there are two problems with this assertion. One is how Michael Atkinson knows these games will be classified under R18+ classification, when no such classification yet exists; and two, why we can’t demand the games be modified to fit R18+ or alternatively refuse classification of such games. Michael Atkinson suffers from the common fallacy that R18+ classification equates “anything goes” This is demonstrably false, as films have X18+ classification, and some films are still refused classification. Having R18+ classification does not rob us of the power to refuse classification for inappropriate games - in fact it only gives us more power to restrict exposure of such games to a greater degree than current classification scheme allows. This is especially true when Michael Atkinson says “What the present law does is to keep the most extreme material off the shelves” - R18+ classification will still allow the law to keep the most extreme material off the shelves.

There are several more flawed arguments in Michael Atkinson’s letter. One is the argument that if games can be made into MA15+, then obviously there is no need for R18+ classification. This is akin to saying that just because any film, television show, or magazine can be modified to be rated G, there is no need for anything over G. Another is the argument that film classification is different to video game classification because the age of moviegoers can be regulated. This is a blatant lie. The age of moviegoers is as well regulated as the age of video game purchasers, and just as ineffective. The only time when age of moviegoers is “well regulated” is when the film carries a R18+ classification. Michael Atkinson further differentiates film and games because “Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore games are easily accessible to children”. At this point I don’t know whether or not he is being serious - film classification extends to films on DVDs and on TV, where access in the home also cannot be policed.

Michael Atkinson expresses dissatisfaction with the current scheme - “I do not consider that allowing a child to play an MA15+ game is reasonable given the content set out in the National Classification Code...in South Australia effectively that does not prevent such a classification being purchased for the child or with the parent’s (or guardian’s) permission. It also does not stop a child from borrowing a game from another person or family member” What is stunning about this admission is that this is a problem which is helped by introducing a R18+ classification and reclassifying the more extreme MA15+ games as R18+ games. It would prevent such games from being purchased for a child, and it would make it illegal to lend or expose such a game to a child, say by allowing them to watch while you play. Even more amazingly, Michael Atkinson says he will “consider the merit in preventing MA15+ games to under 15 year olds, even with guardian or parental permission or assistance”. If he added another 3 years, he would effectively be considering R18+ classification to games.

Michael Atkinson in short presents no coherent or solid argument against R18+ classification for games. Despite his claim his decision was not conservatism for the sake of conservatism, it is precisely that - there is no more conservative argument than censorship “protecting the children”, and in this case, the children and vulnerable adults, whoever they are..

Cheers,

Steve

Cost of leadership

There is a lot of complaining over the Federal Government’s various schemes to reduce our carbon emission. Some of these are valid concerns, yet others are nothing more than short-sighted yapping of the unwashed. Here is a typical example of such a thing:

“if Australia cuts or carbon emissions by 50% it will not make any difference either as we contribute 1% and China and India are growing at a rate of 10% per year. They produce more Carbon in a day then we produce in a year. So why are we going to destroy our economy exactly again?”

This typified the majority opinion in my encounters with the Australian public online and off. It shows a marked lack of foresight and more than a little scare mongering. Firstly, our economy is hardly going to be destroyed because of emission trading. The European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) was implemented in 1st of January 2005 with the then 15 countries of EU as participants. Today 23 EU [1] members are participating in EU ETS. Do you really think the number of participants of EU-ETS would increase if emission trading destroyed economies?

So why should we implement emission trading when China, India, and the rest of South-East Asia (SE Asia) account for so much of the world’s carbon emission? The answer is two fold. First is the fact we are a First World country, an Enlightened Society, a World Leader. If we don’t do what we can do cut back on carbon emission, then how can we expect developing countries like China and India to do so? Secondly, countries like China and India have such large manufacturing bases because of us. First World citizens demand and consume products which are produced in factories based on South-East Asia. It is our demands which creates industries in in SE Asia, our demand that China and India account for such large percentage of global carbon emissions. United States of America emits more carbon dioxide per capita than any other nation, followed by Saudi Arabia and you guessed it, Australia [2]. In other words, Australians are the world 3rd largest carbon dioxide emitters. So when you combined add two and two together, it becomes absurd to suggest we simultaneously demand cheap products from countries like China and India and that they cut back on carbon emissions, while we do nothing ourselves.

The Kyoto protocol is often branded as a toothless tiger because of lack of political will. Yet when political will is exercised, the masses complain about the cost. Wake up people of Australia - only First World countries like ours can afford to exercise political will on such a scale and on this subject. As consumers we are the ultimate cause of carbon emissions, and as a world leader we need to be the ones who take the first step. Emission trading will cost us - see it as the cost of leadership, the cost of doing something proactive to ensure our future on this planet. If we balk at the cost, then we are in no position to ask China or India to cut back on their carbon emissions and absorb the resulting losses.

Cheers,

Steve

Science, its not part of economics

The Australia 2020 summit is a great idea, but at the same time it goes to show why Australia isn't a great country for developing revolutionary technologies or making breakthroughs in science. There are 10 special interest groups in australia2020, and not one of them dedicated to Science/Technology. Sure it is within the scope of the Economics interest group, but only in the context of keeping and attracting highly skilled people - and throwing more money at them, the economics solution, isn't going to cut it.

This illustrates a fundamental problem within Australia - the economics driven agenda. We are not willing to do science for science's sake, nor develop technology which don't yield economic returns. Our universities are ran like businesses, responding to what business of today want, not what the world of tomorrow demands. As a result, most of what we do is refine current methods and ideas to increase the bottom line. Short term economic gain rules our thinking, blinding us to the shining prospects in the future.

No one body can be blamed for this. It is a fundamental attitude that needs to be changed from the bottom-up. Our government and universities needs to fund projects and courses that are revolutionary, support educators who are willing to explore new ideas and directions, and not merely respond to economics developments around the world, but act decisively to anticipate future trends.

An example of anticipating the future is MIT's Centre for Bits and Atoms. They are not reacting to the digital divide, but anticipating that it will heal itself and acting to anticipate a future where everyone has access to the internet and what it means for personal fabrication. To this end they have facilitated the development of fab-labs where one can make almost anything by manufacturing custom parts in one-off quantities. This is the kind of revolutionary technology Australia needs to nurture and develop in order to become a country to scientists flock.

Until then, we can only hope that those chosen for the economics specialty group realise this also, and push for an Australia whose science and technology centres are places where the future is built, not just places to making better mouse traps.

Cheers,

Steve

YAITM - Yet Another Incompetent Telecommunications Minister

It seems a competent telecommunications minister is hard to come by in Australia. Our new telecommunications minister, Senator Conroy,recently demonstrated that he does not understand a) the Internet; b) freedom of speech; c) the concept of the slippery slope.

Firstly, Senator Conroy’s lack of understanding of the Internet:

Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material. - ABC news, 31/12/2007

I would like Senator Conroy to explain how exactly ISPs are going do the above for sites which feature mixed content, such as many forums and discussion boards, youtube, and many other sites where content is primarily generated by users. If a discussion board is white-listed, what happens when inappropriate content is posted by a rouge party? There is no technically feasible way to block content on a per-page basis because of encryption and the difficulty automatically classifying content. For example, how can software tell the difference human anatomy and pornography? Further, the Internet is not just websites. There are non-http traffic such as IRC, bittorrent, newsnet, p2p, MSN, jabber, etc. How are ISPs expected to policy those?

Secondly, freedom of speech, a concept which the Senator does not appear to comprehend:

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

Here Senator Conroy equates freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then declares that since child pornography is evil, freedom of speech must also evil. This technique is called a Strawman Argument. It is at best a misleading way of arguing a point. Freedom of speech in no way justifies nor sanctions the creation or distribution of child pornography. Freedom of speech is not a free ticket to anarchy. I would have imagined a Senator would know this. In addition, Internet filtering you can opt-out of can not combat child pornography. Those who are going to look at child pornography are either going to a) subvert the system; or b) opt-out of it. Despite the fact Senator Conroy is using child pornography as a justification for censoring the Internet, it will do nothing whatsoever to curtail child pornography.

Finally we come to the slippery slope which Senator Conroy is happy to slide down:

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," - Senator Conroy

If Labor is making no apologies for going down the Chinese road with regards to Internet filtering, what else is Labor not going to make apologies for? Will Labor also make no apologies to those who argue that governments which do not listen to their civil liberty groups’ concerns is heading down the despot road?

The Senator is, despite his failings, a politician. He is not without his tricks. He seeks to placate those of us concerned with our civil liberties both now and in the future by allowing us to opt-out. Except opting-out means our names end up on a list somewhere, a list some people will interpret as a list of naughty-people who look at naughty-things. Further, it creates a state of affairs where the average citizen only has access to parts of the Internet allowed by the Government. In North Korea a similar state of affairs exists, bought on by decades of suppressing free press and communication. It has led to the citizen of North Korea to regard their oppressed and dreary lives in a third world country the height of human civilisation, a paradise on Earth. Are citizens of Australia so trusting of the government that we will accepted censorship without seeing what is being censored first?

All in all, Senator Conroy is Yet Another Incompetent Telecommunications Minister. I wish that just for once the Telecommunications Minister has a degree in engineering. Then perhaps he or she will understand the futility of attempting to censor the Internet.

Cheers,

Steve

Fitting A Round Peg Into A Square Hole

The Australian Government is busy fitting an outdated concept into the modern world - they want to censor the Internet the same way TV and movies are censored. The Communications Legislation Amendment (Content Service) Act 2007 (Content Service Act) was passed on 20th of July 2007. This Act inserts a new schedule for regulating all content services delivered via carriage services. This includes:

1. Prohibiting access to X18+ and RC content;


2. Prohibiting access to R18+ content, unless access is restricted;


3. Prohibiting access to MA15+ content, unless access is restricted;


4. Providers of hosting services, live content services, link services and commercial content services to have in place access restrictions if providing R18+ and commercial MA15+ content;


5. ‘take down’, ‘service cessation’ and ‘link deletion’ notices to remove content or access to content that is the subject of a complaint; and


6. A co-regulatory approach that provides for the development of industry codes to address issues including the classification of content, procedures for handling complaints about content and increasing awareness of potential safety issues associated with the use of content services.

I would like to draw attention to point 4, which suffers a severe departure from reality and shows that the legislators behind this Act is out of touch with the modern world.

Firstly, in order for Internet Service Providers (ISP) to determine of R18+ or MA15+ content is being accessed via their network, they would need to monitor in real time the activities of its customers, which is a severe violation of customer privacy.

Secondly, ISPs would need a system which can classify terabytes of information, in a hundred different formats and languages in real time. There are two major problems:

1. To create such a system would require breakthroughs in image processing, computer linguistics, voice recognition, expert systems, communication and many other fields. It is not to say it can’t be done - it certainly can be done, but at great expense and almost certainly not in the immediate future.


2. Such a system would be rendered impotent by encryption.

Encryption is Achilles’ heel of this and similar legislations. Encryption allows two parties to securely exchange information i.e. between a website and a web browser. Against encryption even the most sophisticated monitoring systems will fail because they can not access the information being exchanged. There is no way for an ISP to know if the encrypted information they are carrying is R18+ or G rated.

Sure one can block communication based on its point of origin, but there is at the last count more than 108 million websites. The cost of setting up a new website in terms of cost and time is minimal - web hosting and domain name registration costs less than 10usd per month, in others words peanuts. I sincerely hope the futility of doing this is evident. Further the origin of information is no guarantee as to its content. Such a blacklist will inevitably render many innocent websites inaccessible.

Before any one points to the Great Firewall of China as a triumphant example of Internet censorship done right, please consider for a moment the kind of country China is. There is a reason China is one of the two lowest ranking countries in Privacy International’s 2006 International Privacy Ranking, and amongst the Top 20 offenders in The Observer’s Human Right Index 2000.

The Australian Government needs realise that the Internet is a vastly differently beast compared to traditional media. It is the preverbal square hole to the round peg of censorship. Traditional media can be censored relatively easily because its distribution is bounded by location - that is to say the points of distribution, i.e. cinemas, stores, and radio towers, are all on Australian soil and operated by Australian companies. This makes it easy to enforce Australian law and to censor material. New media on the other hand is delivered over the Internet, and has no such limitations. Anyone, either an individual or an organisation, can distribute any material they wish to anyone in the world over the Internet encrypted if needed. In short, Australian law can not be applied to distributors of new media outside Australia, and there is no way determine the nature of encrypted content in order to censor it.

There are of course more problems with this new legislation. One is the requirement to restrict access to contents based on a person’s age. The Government seem not to have learnt from its failure to enforce such restrictions on traditional media. How exactly they hope to achieve it with new media has not been made public - they have only made it known they want it to be so. Perhaps they will require you to present 100 points of ID to a Government representative to purchase a Government approved computer with which to access the Internet, then get council approval of your new “Internet Room” which is shielded from electromagnetic and audio eavesdropping, locked to your fingerprint and retina. It is to protect the children you see.

All in all, the new legislation and the Australian Communication and Media Authority’s new rules are a nothing more than unrealistic wish lists. Wishing for something however doesn’t make it true.

Am I worried about the Government’s attempt at censoring the Internet? No at all. I am quietly confident that it will fail. I am worried what this will cost the Australian people, and whether its inevitable failure will be used as justification to pass more draconian laws all in the name of “protecting the children”.

Cheers,

Steve

Mmmm, guns

If you don't want to defend yourself, it is your right not to. To say that I cannot defend myself is to say that I don't matter, and those who would violate me do. I respectfully disagree.

The right to violent self-defense is essential to freedom, because if you are forbidden to defend yourself anyone can do their will to you.

Also, statistically, 100% of unarmed people are unable to repel boarders with arms.

Cheers,

Steve

You can't swing both ways

Australia's equal opportunity law specifically says you can not be discriminated against based on your race, religious beliefs, or sexuality. Yet thats exactly what Peel Hotel is doing: they are banning people who are not gay.

Surprisingly, the courts have allowed them to do so, which is in my opinion an extremely stupid thing to do. These laws were put in place to protect the minority, not for them to use it to further segregate our society based on sexuality. You can't have laws which protect the minority against discrimination, and yet allow the minority to discriminate!

With the recent news of Scruffy Murphy's banning patrons based on race it appears our country - once so proud of its multiculturalism, acceptance and tolerance - is quickly becoming intolerant, inconsiderate and increasingly prejudiced. Rather than working out proper strategies to deal with undesirables - something all pubs, hotels, and other entertainment venues need to do - people are choosing instead to tar every one with the same brush: heterosexuals are abusive, people of Middle Eastern or Islander background are trouble makers, etc.

My religion teacher in high school once told me how his grandfather went on the payroll as Smith, not O'Donald because he would have been fired otherwise. I would like to think our society has progressed since those times. Our country is about embracing our differences and celebrating them, for it is these differences which lends vibrance and culture to our society and way of life. It is through understanding our differences that we live in harmony - not only with ourselves but also others on the world stage.

What Peel's Hotel has done, as Scruffy Murphy's has done, is send the message: You will not be judged by your actions, but by the actions of those who happen to have something in common with you - a minority who is noted only because they are trouble some. This is the essence of prejudice, the seed of racism - a slippery slope towards a sign on our borders saying "Not Welcome".

Cheers,

Steve

Rudd has it right

Refreshing to see a politican who is putting the environment before economics:

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has defended Labor's plan to intercept Japanese whaling vessels after the Government said the idea was doomed to fail.

Under Labor's plan, unveiled yesterday, Australian Navy ships would be sent to intercept and board whaling vessels in the Southern Ocean.

Labor would also make formal representations to Japan about its whaling program and take the country to international courts such as the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

While the current government is pussy footing around the issue because:

it could damage relations with Japan - an important trading partner, ally and investor

Pathetic display of priorities and motives. Can't wait for Rudd to become Prime Minister of Australia

Cheers,

Steve