In the past few months we have seen the highs and lows of our relationship with China on display.

Firstly we saw Australia avoid recession largely because of the strong demand by China for Australia’s resources. 

Then we saw a series of diplomatic incidents including the arrest of Australian businessman Stern Hu on grounds which are yet to become clear.  In addition it appears the Chinese Government has taken proactive action to show their displeasure at Australia for granting a visa to Chinese dissident leader Rebiya Kadeer.

A stark reminder of the differences existing between our countries is the fact that Australia is an open and free democracy whilst China is a one-party state run largely as a dictatorship.

Last week we saw again the positive aspect of our relationship when a Chinese Government owned energy giant purchased billions of dollars worth of natural gas from the north west of Western Australia, a project that will create an enormous amount of jobs and wealth for Australia.

The relationship with China is indeed a difficult balancing act.

But there is another area where the current Rudd Government is attempting to some degree to follow the lead of the Chinese Government.

During the Beijing Olympics there was some level of controversy when the Chinese Government controlled the access of the world’s media to the internet. 

It showed that it was indeed possible to control access to the internet or as some would put it, filter the internet.

Which brings us back to Australia and Senator Stephen Conroy’s plan to ‘filter’ the internet under the guise of protecting families from the nasties the internet contains.

My contention is that the so-called ‘Internet Service Provider (ISP) filtering’ plan is the first step in a dangerous path of censorship.

As a father of two young children I of course do not want them to be exposed to pornography or be subjected to attack from ‘cyber-predators’ while surfing the internet.

I understand there are people in the community who care very deeply about this issue and would like to prevent children from being exposed to the internet nasties.  In fact some of these people are colleagues of mine who I know care deeply about protecting our kids.  I don’t question their motives at all.

But the problem is there is only one way to safely truly ‘filter’ the internet and that way is being used in China today.

There are a range of home based filters that are either provided or commercially available.  They are not fool proof but neither is ISP based filtering.

Home-based filters are by far the best and most effective weapon against internet nasties and the grubs who roam cyberspace preying on children.

Proponents of ISP filtering claim it will make it safer.  Rubbish.  Indeed the ISP filter systems work by closing down access to web addresses after they have been launched.  Some claim that this will be as little as 24 hours after the website is launched.  Even in the best case scenario it is going to be the old dog chasing its tail.

The ISP filters fail to address online chat rooms, peer to peer connections and emails. 

What we have to ask ourselves here is how much are we sacrificing for additional ‘protections’?

The internet surely has dangers but they are so far outweighed by the enormous educational, economic and social benefits that we should be very wary of allowing our Government to attempt to regulate it.

If parents want to protect their children from the nasties, they should.  We should be telling parents, like not talking to strangers, that the Government cannot protect you from every danger in the world and that you must take responsibility for your children’s safety.

There is a massive risk with this false promise that we will start to walk down a very dangerous path of censorship that can’t end well.

The Government could indeed make the ‘internet’ safer but in doing so it will destroy the very freedom and liberty that the internet celebrates.

We have a difficult relationship with China managing our different approaches to society and government.  However we should never seek to implement restrictions on the internet that take us closer to the controlled state that their citizens endure.

22 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • pete b says:

      06:22am | 27/08/09

      I understand that Conroy & Rudd are pollies and ultimately not to be trusted. But where does this urge for control, totalitarian society,  and government secrecy come from in the Labor party? What is the root of their insecurity? I thought Rudd replaced Howard because of Howard’s backward, oppressive government - all we got was a younger, slicker Rudd as ‘Howard 2.0’. Who really voted for this kind of sly rat sneakiness from Labor?

    • Andy says:

      07:07am | 27/08/09

      This is a tremendous waste of money and wont stop people accessing whatever they wish to, i have two words for Conroy, Proxy server, now what? How about encrypted files? Wouldnt that be a legal pandoras box. If parents are that worried then let them opt in if they dont wish to take responsibility for their children using the net. Say no to the “clean” feed.

    • Simon says:

      07:13am | 27/08/09

      The elephant in the room now in the filter debate is with the government soon to supplant the current backbone with its own NBN (with $43 Billion dollars of Taxpayers money) they will effectively have state control of the Internet in Australia and may do as they please. Chinese style.

    • warb says:

      08:41am | 27/08/09

      I cannot believe they are still pushing for this ISP filtering.. I also have kids, and we plan to educate them about the real world and not bring them up in a government enforced bubble…. we all know getting around these so called filters is a simple as using a proxy or opening up a tunnel..  This imposed censorship will only succeed in slowing down the honest users and giving the undesirables just one more thing to get around..  Wish they would just move on and do something constructive with their time and our money.. (until someone again screams ‘somebody think of the children!’)

    • Verity Pravda says:

      09:22am | 27/08/09

      What outright cant and rubbish.  Jamie says;
      “My contention is that the so-called ‘Internet Service Provider (ISP) filtering’ plan is the first step in a dangerous path of censorship.”

      If Briggs wants to have a fight about censorship then have it.  Argue that the existing concept of Refused Classification should be abolished and that no content should be prohibited from distribution or sale in Australia.  But don’t dress up a political argument as a moralistic one; the opponents of filtering websites (actually filtering URLs - not the internet - e-mail isn’t going to be filtered, ftp isn’t going to be filtered, peer-to-peer isbn’t going to be filtered and no one is proposing dynamic filtering baed on examination of content) aren’t running a libertarian line.  They are running a disreputable campaign of clothing themselves as defenders of free speech to simply insist on the application of inconsistent laws.

    • Phill says:

      09:28am | 27/08/09

      Internet filtering should be a personal thing.  By all means, subsidise “Net Nanny” type programs for purchase by families but do not apply your filtering to the entire country.

    • joe says:

      10:26am | 27/08/09

      Oh well it all goes along with Labor’s big government mantra. Big spending, big debt. Now big brother.

    • Christina says:

      10:32am | 27/08/09

      Simon, that is a very valid point and should be of concern to all Australians.

      Good article Jamie smile

    • Grant says:

      10:37am | 27/08/09

      I couldn’t agree more…

      The interenet censorship plan is fundamentally flawed and a slippery slope to further censorship.

      Stephen Conroy has shown he is incapable acting as a minister in best inerests of the Australian people and does not deserve the title of ‘the Honourable’.

    • AD says:

      11:07am | 27/08/09

      Simon - Interesting point.
      But I’m not sure that the plan is to build and then MANAGE the national broadband network. My understanding is that the government aims to privatise the network once it is completed, like a form of delayed PPP. However, that doesn’t make it a good idea, and in my opinion it’s a complete waste of money.

      With regard to the internet filter, if you haven’t yet added your signature to the petition against the filter at GetUp! - perhaps you should do so.

      By the way, our beloved Steven Conroy and the Australian Government were recently crowned the “Internet Villain of the Year” by the UK Internet Industry awards.  http://www.ispaawards.org.uk/page/home

      The blame doesn’t solely rest on Conroy - the ALP is also responsible (and that coming from a historically staunch labour supporter - who now intends to cross the floor at the next election if the filter isn’t dropped and Conroy isn’t sacked).

    • DJG says:

      02:06pm | 27/08/09

      “......Steven Hu arrested for reasons that remain unclear. ” What guff, from the people who condoned Hicks lenghty incarceration. The hypocracy often leaves me gasping. When reading a line like that, it is hard to take the rest of the article seriously. I shouldnt really expect substance from the reputed architect of that fairer work place system Workchoices.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:14pm | 27/08/09

      Spend billions to spend up the internet in australia, ISP filtering to slow it down. Wish the ALP would make up their minds. I’d vote for the other mob (Liberals) but they want to censor the internet as well. (who can forget the infamous net nanny software provided by the previous government that was cracked in a few hours flat….)

    • jim says:

      04:29pm | 27/08/09

      I’m only voting Liberals, after voting labor in for over a decade, only because of Conroy.

      The NBN is a joke, filtering is a joke, and supporting AFACT only shows to the Australian Public that Conroy is not for the Interest of Australians, but multinational corporations that donate generously to the ALP

    • AD says:

      04:51pm | 27/08/09

      Shane From Melbourne -

      I guess that leaves the Greens then!

    • Reg says:

      07:54pm | 27/08/09

      Verity Pravda, the existing laws are already hopelessly inconsistent. ISP-level web filtering will not improve this.

    • Reg says:

      08:06pm | 27/08/09

      Shane From Melbourne, I’m not denying that the Liberals want to control the Internet as much as the ALP does; but the NetAlert scheme was, at its heart, the correct way to go. Parents who WANTED TO could download the software FOR FREE, to “protect” (if that’s how they felt) their families.

      And it wasn’t actually cracked - the teenager in question simply deleted the program, or part thereof (something he was only able to do because he had administrator access). In any case, most people would have realised that such a filter is not an appropriate “solution” for an older teenager.

    • no-filter says:

      08:06pm | 27/08/09

      But the problem is there is only one way to safely truly ‘filter’ the internet and that way is being used in China today.

      You do know that their filter gets circumvented, right?

    • ST says:

      09:40pm | 27/08/09

      Verity Pravda. How nice to see you again. Once again failing to disclose the conflict of interest you have when discussing this issue and making a claim on synonyms for “truth”. The opponents of this scheme to censor the internet are mostly educated, literate and have technical expertise. They object in their own names and take responsibility for their views. I suppose the fear and scare campaigns run by the ACL are somehow not disreputable and that secret unaccountable lobby groups with no published membership or sources of income are somehow reputable.  There are 16 million odd Australians that probably don’t realise the ACL are behind this proposal or that they arranged for the petitions to the Senate being used by the moronic Conroy as his justification. Those 16 million law abiding adults haven’t been asked what they think. Opponents are not hiding under a secretive lobbying group umbrella. Australia has a repressive, puritanical censorship system in place. The law already applies to the internet. Put the money into educating those that are scared of the internet so they use computers with confidence. There is no reason to implement nationwide, mandatory, unaccountable censorship just to please some extremist religious nutjobs.

      Ask yourself why this is the almost the only social issue that the Labor government has not asked for submissions from the public or opened up for public comment?

    • orange tree says:

      12:49pm | 28/08/09

      I believe everything including freedom has its limitation. Otherwise, it is called extreme.

    • omk says:

      04:57pm | 28/08/09

      >Argue that the existing concept of Refused Classification should be >abolished and that

      This and the next point sound a bit like a straw man. Few, if any, are suggesting that the existing classification system should be abolished.

      The question is whether it is appropriate to apply it to the internet (whereas effectively it is not applied to the internet today) and whether it is practical to apply it to the internet (balancing the success rate v. the cost in all its forms).

      It should not simply be assumed that because we have classification of free-to-air TV, we should have classification of the internet.

      The Krudd government has not even attempted to justify its proposals (other than accusing anyone who disagrees with its proposals of being a pedophile).

      >no content should be prohibited from distribution or sale in Australia.

      This is quite a different question. Whether something is legal to distribute is not the same as whether the government pre-emptively stops the distribution.

      It should be your decision, as an adult, to obey or break the law.

      Needless to say there is plenty of room to argue about what should and should not be legal to distribute e.g. euthanasia material.

      >e-mail isn’t going to be filtered

      And you know this how?

      It is true that under current law email receives some protection that other traffic does not but ... look out for that clause quietly disappearing if and when Conjob introduces a bill into parliament.

      Anyway the distinction is a tricky one. Think how many people access their email via the web.

      >ftp isn’t going to be filtered

      And you know this how?

      It makes very little sense to filter HTTP but not filter FTP, given that a content provider could make content available under an identical URL other than changing http: to ftp: (and update the link to the content) and you and your web browser may not even notice.

      >peer-to-peer isn’t going to be filtered

      And you know this how?

      >noone is proposing dynamic filtering based on examination of content

      That is probably the only way to filter out *all* adult material i.e. where a household in which children live chooses to do so (essentially what the then opposition talked about prior to the 2007 election). Since then we have heard almost nothing about that “commitment”, and a lot about something that was not disclosed until after the election.

    • Aaron552 says:

      05:56pm | 28/08/09

      >>peer-to-peer isn’t going to be filtered

      >And you know this how?

      It’s not possible to “filter” peer-to-peer traffic. It’s certainly possible to identify and block peer-to-peer traffic, but not what that traffic contains. So the only way to “filter” peer-to-peer is to block it entirely. I can see that going down well…

    • Henrietta says:

      05:33pm | 25/07/11

      That’s way more clever than I was expeitcng. Thanks!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter