December 15, 2009

• Open Letter to Minister Conroy re: Internet censorship policy

  Minister Conroy,

   

  I am writing in response to your much publicised plans to apply content filtering on Australian IP based networks.  I am opposed to this direction for a number of reasons, many of which you will either have already heard, or are about to be inundated with.  These include (at a summary level):

  1.       The fact that I am an adult living in a home not frequented (or even “occasionallied”) by children.  I have no interest in kiddie-porn, snuff and other materials that would be considered illegal, but I also see no reason why I should not be able to download adult material that is freely available in other jurisdictions.

  2.       The fact that I am an adult, with the right to go to a video store, adult-shop or game store and buy/hire any number of games, videos and other materials which could be classified as inappropriate for children on the basis of:

  a.       Sexually explicit content

  b.      Graphic violence

  c.       Emotional content inappropriate or confusing for children

  My understanding is that there would be nothing in the legislation that makes it illegal for me to obtain these materials from a retail store-front, so why should internet delivery of this content be considered any different from a legislative perspective?

  3.       The proposed content filtering solution is going to be difficult to administer, practically impossible to enforce and do harm to the performance of Australian broadband infrastructure to the extent that there would be little point in proceeding with the much-vaunted broadband infrastructure refresh proposed by the Labor Party not long after its election.  Note that a very significant percentage of broadband content streamed to homes is downloaded using tools such as Bit-Torrent and peer-to-peer file-sharing tools.  Unless you are going to ban these tools (also impractical from an enforcement perspective) you are going to miss a lot of the illegal content, and most of the stuff that would be inappropriate for children.

  4.       As far as I can tell, the primary driver for implementing this policy is the hysteria of quasi- or overtly-religious parent groups, who want to abdicate their parental responsibilities to the government.  To me, there are inherent issues with falling in line with these kinds of groups:

  a.       They do not speak for the entire electorate.

  b.      Their points are made with the voice of brute electoral force, not with a view to identifying a solution that meets the needs of all parties.

  c.       They are effectively bullies.  The people who speak loudest and longest get the biggest share of the attention.  If they also have the ability to slap you at election time, this makes them even more dangerous.

  d.      You have been elected to represent your entire electorate, which – once you take on the mantle of a federal government ministry – means the whole country.  The rest of us didn’t get a chance to vote the parental advocacy groups into a position of influence, but we DID elect you.  Kow-towing to single-issue groups such as these is undemocratic.

  e.      While we may have voted Labor in this time, you should also remember that this was a vote AGAINST the Howard administration, and Labor was simply the next best thing.  Roll in legislation like this and we might change our mind.

  f.        This approach provides the Libs with an easy chance to trump you with a more comprehensive approach that looks less like it got put together on the back of a matchbook.  While that might not bother you right now, it might by the time the next election rolls around – especially if Tony Abbott successfully woos die-hard conservatives and small business operators back to the Liberal side at the ballot-box.

  g.       Don’t forget that many of the people who will be furious at this policy are swinging voters who take the time to educate themselves on policy and issues using (amongst other things) the Internet as a means to rapidly index and aggregate information.  If you disenchant the swinging vote, you’ll need to beef up your base.  Just between you and me, conservative parental and religious groups are not a traditional Labor Base.

  5.       There are transparency issues in your policy as currently stated:

  a.       Who defines “inappropriate”

  b.      Who decides what content is “inappropriate”

  c.       Who chooses the content reviewers

  d.      Quis custodiet – “who watches the watchers?”

  e.      Where are the advocacy and appeal points? 

  f.        Are you going to appoint an ombudsman to respond to complaints/issues with this policy?

  g.       If so (to f.), how will this office be funded, and to what degree will it be resourced?

  6.       This whole policy is basically constructed to give parents a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card for failing to provide adequate supervision to their children, and putting technology in their child’s hands that they are either too ignorant to understand the impacts of, or too lazy to review with a critical eye.  Of course, critical thinking is the enemy of faith, so this approach also meets broader objective of faith-based groups advocating this policy.  Wouldn’t it be more equitable and democratic (and possibly cheaper) to create a policy which endorses the following?

  a.       Technology education for parents (compulsory if you really think that’s necessary, or perhaps if parents are proven to have failed in their own obligations to protect their children)

  b.      A system of fines, tax disincentives (e.g. loss of family allowance, baby bonuses, etc) and other penalties for parents that fail to fulfil their obligations to supervise their child’s use of electronic communications systems (including -but not limited to - the internet, mobile phones, file-sharing via removable storage media, eBooks, MP3 players and gaming devices such as the PSP or Nintendo DS.

  c.       Legislative support for parents to allow them to inspect storage devices used or owned by their children without the need for probable cause

  d.      Legislative support for human services and education departments to confer on educators and family/youth services staff the same right of inspection as conferred on parents above.

  This could result in parents:

  a.       Taking responsibility for the upbringing of their own children.  God forbid, they might even learn what they’re up to!

  b.      Detecting inappropriate content and reporting of illegal content sources to authorities

  c.       Identifying cyber-bullying being perpetrated either against or by their children

  d.      (and gods forbid...) Actually getting a clue about what’s going on in their children’s lives, rather than expecting governments and educational institutions to do it all for them.

   

  I understand that we are currently being governed by the Labor Party, and that Labor historically moves towards centralized control in situations where complexity is involved (e.g. Banking, Utiltiies Management, etc) – however, this is a step too far.  Through this policy, you are trampling on individual liberty and choice.  I am certain that there will be consequences if you do not come back with a more measured and practical approach in the future.

   

  Regards

   

   

   

  Jeremy Huppatz

  Proud IT professional, blogger, long time internet user and libertarian

  Federal Electorate of Adelaide

  SA State Electorate of Ashford

   

  • 3:07 am
  • 1 Comment