[MTBlogBot2000]

This is an opinion piece by forum member Lutze. Agree, disagree? Tell us why in the forums!

With the government stubbornly ploughing through with the Clean Feed proposal, it seems that the future is nearly here for Australia as we’re all very close to having the ultimate parent watching over our shoulders as we browse the web. I decided that I’d look into the proposal as far as I could and put myself into the position of a normal, busy Australian family with two kids one approaching 10 and the other 14.

By the time a child is 14 they are expected to be doing at least a proportion of their school work on a computer, so the pressure is there from the start, that they have a computer in their bedroom where they can study in peace and quiet from their younger sibling. Though, that’s not to say that the younger child would not want a computer of their own, as is often the case.

As a technical minded person my response is to make sure that the computers are not put in bedrooms, but placed in open, public areas where supervision is possible. But as we’re reminded a lot these days, we simply cannot watch our kids 100% of the time. This is where the Governments mandatory filter will fit in with the vast majority of the populations life.

Governments do not pick a policy that they think will lose them the majority vote in the next election, so, the Minister and his team believe that this is a vote winner for the majority of parents. An assertion that has already been confirmed by various polls, among them the ABC commissioned McNair Ingenuity Research telephone poll of 1018 Australians in February this year. When the 1018 survey respondents were asked "Do we need Government regulation of content on the internet the same as other media content" - 62% said yes. When asked if "Having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia, to overseas websites that containing material that is Refused Classification" - a whopping 80% said yes.

As the McNair research shows, when you look deeper into it, the Government have got a lot of evidence to show they are right. The 62% for regulation represent 10.1 million Australian adults, in comparison to the 35% who make up 5.7 million. Further - the 80% who are in favour of the mandatory Government filter represent 13.1 million voters compared to just 3 million Australian voters against it.

Of course the Electronic Frontiers Australia group would have us believe that the results are entirely the wrong way around, based on a survey of a group of people on a popular internet forum, people for whom the filter is not particularly aimed at. The kind of person who hangs out on a web forum is, after all, almost always a crazed conspiracy theorist...

So put yourself in the government's shoes. They have technology that they have tested and shown, to their satisfaction, works for the job it’s being asked to do. This is a law that they can put into place that protects busy working parents children, while they try to do their best for the future of them. For the government, this is a win / win situation.

There are, of course, other ways that the Clean Feed system could be implemented, most of the negative comments are based around the censor in this case being protected from publishing it’s list of blocked sites and not being publicly accountable. An example of this method is currently being used by the UK’s largest broadband provider, BT.

Before I started writing this article I thought that it would be good to try to get the Minister’s answer to a range of questions about the Mandatory Internet Filter.

If you do some searching you can find a lot out about our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. He’s 46, though he won’t thank me for reminding people that he’s fast approaching 47. He’s from Cambridgeshire in England - his folks came here when he was 10. I can relate to him, his parents were probably fairly strict, he’s been brought up to be a Catholic and still seems to follow his principles on things where the church and the state converge like the abortion drug RU486 that he voted against. You can email him through senator.conroy@aph.gov.au and minister@dbcde.gov.au

These are the questions I sent to Senator Conroy:

1. Are you aware that it's extremely easy for the technically minded to bypass this filter in a way that completely hides the traffic from the system?


2. Who is the filter aimed at? For example, I have three internet connections at home that will be affected by this - however my partner and I are both adults and neither of us is particularly likely to accidentally head into the material that has been proposed as blocked. We therefore would gain all the negatives without any positives.


3. How was the decision reached to make the filter compulsory instead of opt-out?


4. How do you feel about the negative press, acts of cyber terrorism being staged against Australian Government sites and the E.F.A.'s view that the filter is a bad thing?


5. Is the filter technology replacing good parenting skills?


6. What do you feel the positive outcome of the filter will be?


7. From the trail that took place, what criteria was used to determine that it was successful?


8. What review process is there going to be in place to ensure that the impact is going to be minimal when the filtering ramps up to include the larger internet service providers? iiNet, for example, have been publicly skeptical about this.

Unfortunately the Minister has, at time of going to post, not responded to, nor has he acknowledged the request I sent him on the 23rd of February.

[marc]

When the 1018 survey respondents were asked "Do we need Government regulation of content on the internet the same as other media content" - 62% said yes. When asked if "Having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia, to overseas websites that containing material that is Refused Classification" - a whopping 80% said yes.

When you stack the questions like that and you carefully choose who you ask, it's pretty easy to get the results you want. Also, the survey was conducted via phone.

"The poll, conducted by McNair Ingenuity Research, chose 1,000 Australian phone numbers to call regarding the Federal Government's proposed mandatory internet filter."

80% of Aussies support filter - News - Builder AU

I wonder if it was done during business hours. You can see where I'm heading... You'd only get results from retirees and stay at home parents. Not exactly representative of the population. Intentional? Of course.

I think that makes the survey results completely useless. I don't even think MacTalk should be quoting them as truth.

Survey participants were first read a definition of "Refused Classification" as follows:

Images and information about one or more of the following:

- child sexual abuse
- bestiality
- sexual violence
- gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; and
- detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs

Of course your average person is going to support filtering when you put it this way.

Why Conroy loves porn | Digihub Blog | digihub.theage.com.au

[Silver]

This article has a lot of poor research.

Lets look at the Hungry Beast poll. You missed a number of the most important points in it.

First, let us examine the 80% number you've thrown out. The question asked if people supported a filter of Refused Classification material. The definition of Refused Classification used (when people asked) was:

Images and information about one or more of the following:

- child sexual abuse
- bestiality
- sexual violence
- gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; and
- detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs

This is an incomplete and biased description of Refused Classification. The reality is that Refused Classification material is a unique category to Australia. No other country has a rating that is in anyway similar. It is not illegal to posses, purchase or view (but is to sell). It includes films like Ken Park that people like Margaret Pomeranz are big fans of. It includes the US release of Grand Theft Auto IV. It includes The Peaceful Pill Handbook (although contrary to popular mythology, this book was not banned because of euthanasia, but because it tells you how to make a prohibited drug).

If you polled people asking whether only child abuse images should be banned, you'd have really high percentage agreement as well. (Not me though. I prefer to delete child abuse images, rather than pretend they don't exist. This German study shows that it works. I also disagree in principle that simply looking at something should be considered a crime. If you have paid for or produced something illegal, then you should absolutely be nailed to wall. The act of looking, however, should not be a crime.)

You also missed the most important result of the survey. 91% of respondents are not in favour of a secret government blacklist. This is exactly what the government is proposing. It means a huge super majority of Australians are actually against what the government is proposing.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Whirlpool 2010 survey results either. You are talking about people who are technologically minded and well read on the technological issues. Bias is not necessarily a bad thing. When making medical decisions, a poll of the general population is not as useful as the expert opinion of a medial body.

Senator Conroy will not answer any of your questions. Part of the reason there is so much opposition to this policy among the technologically minded, is that the Senator, his department and indeed most ALP MPs refuse to answer questions of this type. When they do, they often give false or misleading information.

I have been interested in this issue since early 2008. I have written to the Senator on many occasions. He usually responds with his form letter. I have written to his department about obvious factual errors in a ministerial press releases, and the release has been changed. The level of technological understanding is not high. The level of familiarity with our actual current system is not high.

Recently, I wrote this article:
The consequences of filtering.

There should be another article published next week on Refused Classification. It truly is a bizarre category. Since its inception, it has been continuously added to. This used to require the agreement of all states and territories, but with the draconian anti-terrorism legislation, the Commonwealth can now force the Classification Board to find material Refused Classification on a whim. You can read more about it on the excellent resource, Libertus.

[teej]

My gripe distilled: I'd rather the government do what I can not. I can buy net filtering software. I can't track down and prosecute purveyors of illicit content.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Silver

I also disagree in principle that simply looking at something should be considered a crime. If you have paid for or produced something illegal, then you should absolutely be nailed to wall. The act of looking, however, should not be a crime.)

Devil's advocate: What happens if you look at a site and it has ads on it? Does that equate to paying for it?

[chrish3677]

Unfortunately, those against the Filter, over simplify their argument to "parents' responsibility"

Three problems with that:

1) Parents cant be with their children 24/7
2) Some parents are lax
3) It's not just about what kids can access. It's what adults shouldn't access too.

As a parent of teens and primary aged children, I do everything I can to prevent them accessing unfavorable content, but as soon as they walk out the door, I am depending on every other parent to make the same effort as I do. And that just doesn't happen.

For instance, I know my kids have played MA15+ games that I would never let them, but some other parents have.

The Filter can't block everything, kids will still find a way to access unfavourable content, and adults will still find a way to access illegal content. But that shouldn't be an argument against filtering. Because then you may as well argue why bother with any societal controls.

e.g. Why have police when crime still happens? Why have porn mags in plastic bags in newsagents when kids still find a way to get hold of them? Should all crime and bad behaviour prevention be the responsibility of parents?

It's better to do what we can to limit kids' access to unfavourable material, and adults' access to illegal material, than just throw it in the too hard basket. Something is better than nothing.

Will it slow the internet down? Try OpenDNS and see how much it slows your internet access down. It serves BILLIONS of requests a day with no noticeable impact on internet performance.

OpenDNS is very good and proves that filtering can work and make a difference.

Raising kids is not just the responsibility of the parents, it's a responsibility of the community as a whole. Our kids are your responsibility too. Are you going to make sure they don't access unfavourable material?

Societies need government enforced controls because some people do the wrong thing. And it's easy to police that in public (e.g. speeding), but in the privacy of a house, it's impossible to police, so instead, we must do what we can to prevent.

The Filter is a great opportunity for us all to make it much more difficult for our kids to access unfavourable material and for adults to access illegal material.

As a community, we should be giving it our wholehearted support.

[mab]

We will have to set up a roster to search chrish3677's house once a month just to make sure his/her kids are doing nothing illegal, as it is our responsibility. Maybe all their snail mail should be opened and inspected as well, oh and don't forget to bug the phone connection you never know what's been said by deviate kids these days.

[MissionMan]

I think the biggest reason we're producing reprobates at the moment is because parents feel its not their responsibility to take care of their own kids and the government has to do everything for them. Fuck that! Lets make them responsible for their actions. Bad kids are generally as a result of bad parenting and there is no reason bad parents should get away with it, or we should have to pay to clean up their mess.

Schools and the government have some responsibilities but lets not take away the fact that parents need to be parents as well.

[marc]

chrish3677, a harsh dose of reality for you:

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Unfortunately, those against the Filter, over simplify their argument to "parents' responsibility"

Your children are your responsibility until they turn 18.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

As a parent of teens and primary aged children, I do everything I can to prevent them accessing unfavorable content, but as soon as they walk out the door, I am depending on every other parent to make the same effort as I do. And that just doesn't happen.

Your children aren't other parents' responsibility. The filter won't actually help you with the situation you've described.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

For instance, I know my kids have played MA15+ games that I would never let them, but some other parents have.

The filter has nothing to do with MA15+ games.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

The Filter can't block everything, kids will still find a way to access unfavourable content, and adults will still find a way to access illegal content. But that shouldn't be an argument against filtering. Because then you may as well argue why bother with any societal controls.

It's a very, very important point when any child who is remotely tech savvy will be able to get around the filter. It's the equivalent of placing a 1 metre high fence around a prison and saying "that should do it". You're kidding yourself if you think this is anything other that a waste of time and money.

The filter is ludicrously stupidity on a technical level alone. The list of things it can't and won't filter is massive.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

It's better to do what we can to limit kids' access to unfavourable material

The absolute best way to do this would be a router-level white list of websites. Do some research and get it happening in your house if that's what you want.

I don't have any need or desire for that in my house and I'll be very upset if I have to pay for your filter AND lose my freedom in the process.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

and adults' access to illegal material

RC content isn't illegal. You should spend more time reading up on the definition of RC.

ACMA Blacklists Iran Protest Video & Boing Boing

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Will it slow the internet down?

Yes, it will. OpenDNS is not a good reference.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Raising kids is not just the responsibility of the parents, it's a responsibility of the community as a whole. Our kids are your responsibility too. Are you going to make sure they don't access unfavourable material?

Unfavourable material? No, I'm not going to try and impose my moral position on anyone else. The term "unfavourable material" is incredibly loaded.

I'll gladly help out another citizen if they need it, but there's no way your kids are my responsibility. Certainly not for yawn-inducing, legal-but-unfavourable behaviour.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

The Filter is a great opportunity for us all to make it much more difficult for our kids to access unfavourable material and for adults to access illegal material.

As a community, we should be giving it our wholehearted support.

You really don't seem to understand the technical or social repercussions of the filter. What we're doing is entrusting the current and all future governments with a secret list of websites we can't access in Australia. That's a VERY, VERY dangerous thing to do.

The potential for abuse and corruption should be an essential part of any debate about the filter.

Even without the filter, as a parent, you have many options.

With the filter, as a citizen trying to ensure Australia remains able to communicate and hear about the world, I have no options.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

[MissionMan]

Preventing access to lists does prevent people from being or becoming pedophiles. If the government were smart about it, they would allow open access and simple require ISP's to provide the IP's of those who visit the black listed sites for investigation. It would be easy to identify repeated offenders vs accidental offenders and simply place those guilty parties on a list of people to be investigated.

[mab]

Originally Posted by MissionMan

Preventing access to lists does prevent people from being or becoming pedophiles. If the government were smart about it, they would allow open access and simple require ISP's to provide the IP's of those who visit the black listed sites for investigation. It would be easy to identify repeated offenders vs accidental offenders and simply place those guilty parties on a list of people to be investigated.

Isn't that basically what happens now? The police watch who connects to the band sites then ask the ISP who had that IP at the time. I shoudn't be the ISP doing the monitoring.

[brawlster]

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Unfortunately, those against the Filter, over simplify their argument to "parents' responsibility"

Three problems with that:

1) Parents cant be with their children 24/7

I'm not a parent so maybe I'm a bit naive here, but why on earth SHOULD you be with your children 24/7 ?

I like to think that growing up, even at a young age, I had a pretty good idea of what was right or wrong, instilled by parenting, to be able to make my own decisions about what's right and wrong. Now I certainly didn't always make the right decision, and of course it's always better to be able to have your parents around to support it, but at what point do you stop making these decisions for your children ? Who here hasn't shoplifted as a kid ? Who here hasn't looked at porn online ? Children are always testing boundaries aren't they ? I know I did.

There is already such a fearful hysteria about the corruption of children, but the flip side surely is bringing up someone that isn't self determining.

I'd like to think my 8 year old nephew would instinctively know that he shouldn't be looking at those kinds of images if he came across them accidentally. He already reminds me when I suggest seeing a film that is beyond his age in terms of classification.

Now he may well decide for himself that he wants to seek out images that we would consider inappropriate for someone of his age. I bet he could find a way to do it that wasn't supervised. If I was to learn this, I'd be looking at what was going on in the rest of his life as to why he felt he had to seek these kinds of things out.

Porn exists and it's out there. Should we shelter children from it till they're 18 ? 21 ? 12 ? Should we pretend it doesn't exist ? How is it different to when I was a 12 year old sharing a penthouse around at school, or borrowing an older brothers prono collection ?

Kids will seek this stuff out when they get curious about their sexuality. Just like illicit drugs. Do we really thing that an accidental glimpse of a hardcore porn image is really that corrupting ? Any more than violence of a video game, or even the news ?

Any parent concerned about this could easily take other more effective measures to reduce accidental exposure, especially for the very young.

When the last Bond film QOS came out during the school holidays i was surprised to see in the session I went to, many FAMILIES bringing little kids of 5 and 6 into a cinema to watch a film that has murder, violence and very realistic depictions of rape.

The classification was MA15+ but the actual classification still allows for someone under the age of 15 if they are accompanied by an adult. Being school holidays, there were more families with young kids in there than regular adults. I'm more concerned about the fact that children are watching these kinds of dramatic scenes than someone having sex.

What worries me most about clean feed is the charged notion of protection children is really just a cover for censorship, condoned and determined by government in a way that is secret and seemingly beyond redress. Was it not the case that sites that would fit within the existing classification framework as being permitted, blacklisted ? And they were only outed by a leaking of the list ?

All clean feed will do is *perhaps* reduce the accident viewings of some pornographic material. As we know it certainly won't defeat the trade in seriously disturbing and illegal images for those with even a minimal IT understanding and yet that's how it's packaged and sold to the public. Of course we want to protect children ! So to argue against it makes it appear you somehow condone pedophiliac images.

The emotionally charged issue of childrens innocence clouds common sense in most of the public debate about this.

There are other forms of protection that already exist if parents want this, that can be done at the ISP and Desktop level, let alone just simply monitoring their usage and changing your parenting approach.

jb

[teej]

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Will it slow the internet down? Try OpenDNS and see how much it slows your internet access down. It serves BILLIONS of requests a day with no noticeable impact on internet performance.

OpenDNS is very good and proves that filtering can work and make a difference.

In simple terms DNS provides name to IP resolution. Filtering at this level is both trivial and ineffective since there's nothing preventing you from using another DNS server or one of many other trivial work arounds. Forced HTTP based filtering which is a significant step up in difficulty to circumvent (although still quite flawed) does incur amongst other issues throughput problems at any kind of significant scale. I can safely say this having been involved in providing a filtered HTTP service to over one thousand schools.

Originally Posted by MissionMan

Preventing access to lists does prevent people from being or becoming pedophiles. If the government were smart about it, they would allow open access and simple require ISP's to provide the IP's of those who visit the black listed sites for investigation. It would be easy to identify repeated offenders vs accidental offenders and simply place those guilty parties on a list of people to be investigated.

Although the specifics allude me right now, Australian ISPs are already required to provide an intercept capability to law enforcement by way of the Telco Act.

[glacierdave]

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Unfortunately, those against the Filter, over simplify their argument to "parents' responsibility"

Those for it also over-simplify. This is NOT a simple thing. When you get beyond the rhetoric on both sides of the debate it quickly becomes highly technical. There's also a body of evidence that it just won't work effectively.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Three problems with that:

1) Parents cant be with their children 24/7
2) Some parents are lax
3) It's not just about what kids can access. It's what adults shouldn't access too.

1) The government can't update the block list 24/7.

2) The government is lax - the current blocking measures include blocking the website of a dentist and various political groups. (Link here).

3) Your definition of something that should be banned may not agree with mine. Who are you, or the government, to decide if I should be permitted to view content that isn't illegal in any way other than because someone added it to the block list?

Originally Posted by chrish3677

As a parent of teens and primary aged children, I do everything I can to prevent them accessing unfavorable content, but as soon as they walk out the door, I am depending on every other parent to make the same effort as I do. And that just doesn't happen.

So, you're expecting every other parent to agree with you on what's appropriate and what's not? You're expecting every parent to agree that because you wouldn't approve of a particular MA15+ (or any MA15+) game and to KNOW that's how you feel?

Isn't that a little unreasonable? What happens when they don't share the same religion as you? Or the same political affiliations? Or support the same football team?

Originally Posted by chrish3677

The Filter can't block everything, kids will still find a way to access unfavourable content, and adults will still find a way to access illegal content. But that shouldn't be an argument against filtering. Because then you may as well argue why bother with any societal controls.

It's illegal to drive faster than 100km/h so lets put speed limiters in EVERY vehicle on Australian roads. Oh, but wait, in some areas the speed limit is 80km/h, or 60km/h or 40km/h! Let's put a 'smart' speed limiter in every care instead. Or better yet, just to be safe, lets just limit speeds to 40km/h in every car. I never go faster than that anyway so why should anyone else?

Originally Posted by chrish3677

It's better to do what we can to limit kids' access to unfavourable material, and adults' access to illegal material, than just throw it in the too hard basket. Something is better than nothing.

Of course we should try and limit exposure to illegal material. By the same token, lets not get taken away with the 'ease' of doing it and take it to extremes.

Like it or not, we're going to be exposed to things we don't like or don't agree with. If we're continually protected from ANY exposure to such things how do we learn to exercise self-control? How do we learn to think for ourselves? How do we learn to 'do the right thing'?

Should we construct a society where it's impossible to do the wrong thing?

Will that help us?

Who decides what the wrong thing might be?

(Mind you, isn't that how fundamentalist moslem countries kinda work?)

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Will it slow the internet down? Try OpenDNS and see how much it slows your internet access down. It serves BILLIONS of requests a day with no noticeable impact on internet performance.

Honestly? I don't know for sure. I doubt anyone does. Nobody's really tested the implementation the government would like to use in the way the government wants to use it.

For a certainty, it will cost significant dollars. For a high likelyhood, it WILL impact internet performance. Will there be unintended casualties? Almost certainly.

Originally Posted by chrish3677

Raising kids is not just the responsibility of the parents, it's a responsibility of the community as a whole. Our kids are your responsibility too. Are you going to make sure they don't access unfavourable material?

Sure, are you going to hang around and define, for me, what you're expecting me to consider as 'unfavourable material'?

Is inappropriate material going to include use of LimeWire to download music or BitTorrent to download TV shows? Or only the music/TV shows you don't approve of? Am I expected to know what you consider appropriate in this situation? Would it not be more appropriate to teach your children what YOU consider inappropriate and then check up on them and educate them when needed as to why? e.g. Isn't it as effective to place speed signs on our roads and expect people to, largely, adhere to them? Then we can check up on things from time to time and bust those who've not stuck to the limits. Or should we ask EVERYONE to install a device in their car that limits their speed because some people can't do it for themselves?

This is a very complex debate and I'm exceedingly wary of anyone touting absolute solutions to far from absolute problems.

There just isn't a simple and effective solution to this. Even worse, we already have laws about what's illegal - we don't need a firewall to tell us that kiddie porn is illegal. It already is and the police are already working to bust anyone involved in it. Trading in illicit drugs is illegal. We don't need more legislation to deal with it.

The danger, though, is that by implementing a solution the non-technical man in the street will think everything's fine.

"I don't have to worry about what my kids are doing on the Internet. The government took care of that for me."

Except, they haven't. The risks are still there, still (almost) as easily accessed, still just as nasty as before.

I already see this attitude every day - it's not my fault I have a virus-infected computer. I have antivirus software. I can download whatever I want from where ever I want because I installed this antivirus software.

It just ain't so. Sometimes I wonder if we'd be better off if there wasn't any AV software - for a certainty, computer users would be far more careful.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by marc

Devil's advocate: What happens if you look at a site and it has ads on it? Does that equate to paying for it?

What company would advertise on a site that had truly illegal material on it?

All clean feed will do is *perhaps* reduce the accident viewings of some pornographic material.

It won't even do that. Sexually explicit material is not (necessarily) Refused Classification.

The emotionally charged issue of childrens innocence clouds common sense in most of the public debate about this.

This is true. Well over 90% of rapes and child abuses are done by someone known and trusted by the victim. The idea of the dirty old man in a trenchcoat hiding in the bushes may be popular, but has very little relevance to reality.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Silver

What company would advertise on a site that had truly illegal material on it?

Lots of advertising networks serve ads to sites they don't monitor too closely, so it's not inconceivable that ads could be served to a site that has illegal material on it. I agree that the people who stumble on something dodgy shouldn't be breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Silver

It won't even do that. Sexually explicit material is not (necessarily) Refused Classification.

Absolutely. There's plenty of filth that would scare the pants off a church mother's group that's not even remotely Refused Classification or illegal. Should that be blocked too?

Being offended by content is not enough reason to block it.

Showing images of dead bodies in a war zone might be very important for society (Tiananmen Square etc). If that kind of thing is difficult to swallow, then I suggest you build yourself a padded room, grab some supplies and lock the door. I'd much rather have access to important news and events like that than not. It's how the world holds it's leaders accountable.

Should we lose that just because you don't want Johnny to see a video of a woman being spanked (which is RC)?

Originally Posted by Silver

The idea of the dirty old man in a trenchcoat hiding in the bushes may be popular, but has very little relevance to reality.

+1

File dirty old man myth under: scaremongering, FUD.

[Lutze]

I don't think that many of you have really addressed the problem when it's viewed the way that the government is trying to push, and that is why we're not having much success in getting it through their thick skulls that this is a bad idea.

However, some replies are due:

@Marc - addressing your first post regarding stacking the questions and the probability of the timings to get the result wanted. I looked at that quite deeply and you notice that they make mention that as you get older your view tends to increase towards this filter being a good idea... however, the starting point is, in my view, an impressive 71% of 18-29 year olds being for it.

The breakdown on the poll for age groups was this:
18-29 (25%)
30-39 (26%)
40-54 (21%)
55+ (28%)

Remember, I'm not for this - I'm just trying to show where we are going wrong with our negativity towards this. Tech heads on a web forum (as shown by the wingepool questionnaire show) do not count for much because we're in a minority.

I think that there are some key points in the research carried out, that have not been picked up much - that could probably be used to nudge the government towards a more sensible solution. The majority do want a government body to deal with this (50%), but they want to know what is being blocked (91%!), they also want the choice on what is blocked (92%!!)

These are the arguments that can still be won.

Amazing info from the poll, only 25% of parents have software on their computer to protect their kids! This, to me, is evidence for government action - 18% believe that their ISP filter for them, and 40% believe that parental supervision is enough.

Finally - I missed a link in the thread that shows that this kind of thing can be done quite well - at least from a technical viewpoint. The BT filter has provided some quite interesting points to mull over.

Again, I'm not for this, in it's current method. But I believe that until we start to tackle the problem in a way that politics understands we've already lost.

[teej]

Originally Posted by Lutze

Amazing info from the poll, only 25% of parents have software on their computer to protect their kids! This, to me, is evidence for government action - 18% believe that their ISP filter for them, and 40% believe that parental supervision is enough.

That the previous government gave away internet filtering software for free and that there's such a low installed base indicates to me that perhaps parents aren't really worried about filtering.

Originally Posted by Lutze

Finally - I missed a link in the thread that shows that this kind of thing can be done quite well - at least from a technical viewpoint. The BT filter has provided some quite interesting points to mull over.

I'm glad you linked to that as I hadn't been paying too much attention to the progress of the filter and it seems it's changed quite a bit since it was first proposed. For anyone else who like me has been in a cave — the BT filter works roughly as follows: traffic destined to flagged destinations is rerouted through the filter rather than all traffic. To illustrate the difference in less vague terms, that means traffic to 10~15 thousand addresses are filtered rather than traffic to the billions of addresses on the internet. The former is what the current proposal looks like rather than the later which is what was originally proposed. I'm not going to comment any further on it.

I will say though that if you're a parent and you support filtering to protect your child, this is going to lull you into a false sense of security. This is not going to stop some pervert chatting to your child, it's not going to stop online bullying and the tiny amount of content that is filtered will be accessible to them before they hit their teens if they have either of smarts or a social life. What you want to prevent these sorts of things is necessarily much more draconian and consequently should be made available on an opt-in basis.

[marc]

Originally Posted by teej

What you want to prevent these sorts of things is necessarily much more draconian and consequently should be made available on an opt-in basis.

That's exactly what should happen. It'd shut up those who oppose the filter and it would actually help parents.

[Lutze]

Again you are missing the point.

Opt out should be the way, opt in is simply not practical as this is mostly aimed at those who are perhaps not the model parents that most Mac users seem to be.

I just think opt out is the fix that's really required.