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.
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 …
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 …
The goal of copyright is to encourage production of creative works which
enrich society. This is achieved by granting authors temporary monopoly over
their work, at a cost to society. Society accepts this cost because it gains
new material from when the monopoly ends.
This is the arrangement copyright law …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …