The latest Roy Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead up to 58.5-41.5 from 56.5-43.5 a fortnight ago. Labor is up 2.5 per cent on the primary vote to 49 per cent, the Coalition is down 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent and the Greens are steady on 8.5 per cent.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
[91 – You know as well as I do that not all parents are that responsible. Nor are all parents in a position to constantly monitor their children.]
Than that is the fault of the parents. If the parents are too irresponsible and lazy to “protect” their children from things that they themselves don’t see as appropriate than the blame lies squarely on their shoulders. Not on the government and not the rest of the country.
[Nor are all parents in a position to constantly monitor their children. ]
The silly thing is, no matter what type of filtering you use, anyone will be able to bypass it. I’ve previously listed half a dozen methods of bypassing the governments proposed filtering system. So even if the filter does come into play parents are going to have to accept responsibility anyway. Except now they’re also going to have to accept far slower speeds, far more sites taken down than should be, a secret blacklist and the filtering of legal material as well.
Just a question of principles:
Are the anti-filter posters also FOR the removal of any censorship on books, film, television and art?
No – this is not a gotcha – I’m just interested in fleshing out the debate.
What is the principle, or are there in fact several?
“Things like “child pornography, depictions of bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence…..are already prohibited online.
AND
The filter is flawed for two reasons. It attempts to enforce those rules in a very naive way which will do very little in preventing access to things like child pornography, bestiality …”
You can not hav th argument both ways
Internet Access IS avaiulable to child pornography, bestiality so lets not cloud that fact Kids in this generation ar internet savy , they grow up with it
Queston is can parents 24/7 prevent such easy access Well in a perfect fantasy world yes , in a reel hectic world No
We hav numerous Laws to protect children …because they ar children Its governemtns role to do so and it does recognising Parents can not always be at a chiilds side every second
Those that want a censor ship free zone for kids to access porn etc , based on there objections against perceived “Censorship” , just say so and don’t hide behind red herrings
[Are the anti-filter posters also FOR the removal of any censorship on books, film, television and art?]
The proposed filter has a far broader scope than any Classification Board style censorship on literature and film. It’s an apples and oranges comparison.
[The only places it can be mediated, as I understand it, is by the ISP – which is what I understand Conroy is proposing.]
The first thing you need to understand is that you can’t “accidentally” stumble across child porn. Have you ever accidentally come across it? I’ve been on the internet for years, as have friends and colleagues, and no one has stumbled across child porn. The ACMA (the regulator) has a blocklist of 1300 sites. Out of the billions and billions on the web. But the government’s blocklist is expanded to over 10,000. What are those extra 9000 “unwanted sites”?
It is not simply the government’s goal to block child porn, though they enjoy hiding behind that argument. If the government was serious about child porn they’d spend the hundreds of millions this filter costs and find the people making it and distributing it.
To answer your question, a national mandatory ISP-level filter is NOT the only way to block porn, child or otherwise. As has already been stated software method and opt-in ISP services already exist.
Ron, I can’t understand a single thing you said.
However I did manage to notice that you failed to address my point that putting the computer in a public place, using a software filter or an opt-in filtering service providing by an existing ISP are all better options than a mandatory ISP-level filter.
Well they should take the computer of the power point and lock it up in the main bedroom if they can’t organise supervision.
We are all expected to accept slower net speeds because parents can’t find ways to take proper responsibility.
Ridiculous!
Oz, I’m not arguing for this internet censorship, I’m arguing against some of the arguments being used to oppose it. Some arguments are probably very valid, particularly the technical ones, but my limited knowledge makes it hard for me to comment on those. You seem to making some very good points on that.
[It is not simply the government’s goal to block child porn, though they enjoy hiding behind that argument. If the government was serious about child porn they’d spend the hundreds of millions this filter costs and find the people making it and distributing it.]
That to me seems to be unrealistic. Could it be done?
People are talking as though the sole issue is stopping children watching stuff. Children don’t want to watch child porn, or bomb-making instructions, or incitement to racial hatred – *adults* do. Adults do *not* have an absolute right to watch anything they like. It is illegal for them to watch this stuff on TV, and that law is enforced. The question is, how can the law be enforced on the internet?
[I’m arguing against some of the arguments being used to oppose it.]
Fair enough. I try and stay away from the “Rudd will censor the media and turn us into communists” lines because there are honestly so many real reasons why this such a terrible idea hyperbole isn’t necessary.
I ask once again. Are we arguing against internet censorship or are we arguing against the method being proposed?
[The question is, how can the law be enforced on the internet?]
The law is already being forced, exactly the same way as it is for videos, dvd’s, cd’s and literature.
If an adult is caught purchasing it or accessing it they are arrested. If they are caught in possession they are arrested.
The ACMA already blocks illegal websites when it finds them by working with the AFP and the internet hosts to shut them down.
[Are we arguing against internet censorship or are we arguing against the method being proposed?]
I am arguing against both the scope of the government’s proposed censorship and the way it is being implemented.
The delusion here is that the “filter” is actually going to stop people accessing child porn. Get that ridiculous notion out of your minds and you’ll understand that it’s a pathetic, knee-jerk reaction to appease conservatives within the Labor Party and shore up conservative votes.
[The law is already being forced, exactly the same way as it is for videos, dvd’s, cd’s and literature.]
No it isn’t, because those things are bought in shops, so the law can be enforced at that point. The internet goes straight from overseas producer to my computer.
[You know as well as I do that not all parents are that responsible. Nor are all parents in a position to constantly monitor their children. As I said if only it were that simple]
I agree. By the same logic, extremely violent and ‘adult’ TV programs should be allowed to run at any time of the day because it’s up to the parents to stop them watching it. I’m no fan of a mandatory filter, but for goodness sake an ISP level filter of some kind is needed as the pathetic software ones just don’t cut it, and far too many parents don’t have the know how to install or maintain it.
[No it isn’t, because those things are bought in shops]
Tell me what shops you can buy child porn in?
The police wiretap, bait and use surveillance to find people who are distributing or in possession of illegal material. The exact same methods are used online.
Gary Bruce @ 71, Hockey was just on the 10 news saying exactly the same thing word for word, it looks like thats going to be the attack of the weekend while Rudd is over there rubbing shoulders with the world leaders.
[but for goodness sake an ISP level filter of some kind is needed]
THEY ALREADY EXIST.
[and far too many parents don’t have the know how to install or maintain it.]
If they’re worried about their kids seeing naked women and they can’t be bothered finding out how to stop them seeing naked woman then they shouldn’t be letting their kids on the internet.
[Tell me what shops you can buy child porn in?]
None, because the law is being enforced. Thanks for confirming that point.
[The police wiretap, bait and use surveillance to find people who are distributing or in possession of illegal material. The exact same methods are used online.]
Not if it is being produced in Belarus they don’t. The internet flows directly from overseas servers into your computer – surely you know that.
*gone*
[THEY ALREADY EXIST]
THEN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
OK – i’ve worked out ‘that phone call’. This is what happened – trust me. Rudd goes to answer the phone and he says ‘hi George, its Kevin – let’s talk about G20’. And Bush has been flicking through a magazine while he waits for Kevin and doesn’t quite hear him properly and says ‘what’s that?’ (as in what’s that your saying). Then (stay with me here) Kevin has a bit of a chuckle to George and says ‘for a second there I thought you didn’t know what the G20 was but it was just a bad line…’ With just a bit of lateral thinking on the meaning of the phrase ‘what’s that?’ it turns a gaffe into a hearing problem.
[THEN WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?]
The government wants to make it mandatory. It’s currently opt-in.
[The internet flows directly from overseas servers into your computer ]
So does a mail-order.
My point is simple – If you want a stop child porn, beastiality etc. good on you. A mandatory ISP level filter will not achieve that goal and will have a lot of consequences that you don’t foresee.
His problem is that since ISP level filters exist people can choose to use them if they want. It shouldn’t be mandatorily forced onto the rest of us. Where is the research that shows there is a need or wide demand for this filter? What happened to evidence-based policy? Why should ACMA or the Minister have the power to determine what is acceptable for us to access?
For further information on the ridiculous filtering plan visit the blog of EFA Chairperson Dale Clapperton ( http://defendingscoundrels.com/ ) or visit the blog ‘Somebody Think of the Children’ (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/)
In particular, for discussion on the types of material that would be blocked by the filter, this makes for good reading:
http://defendingscoundrels.com/2008/10/conroy-misleads-the-senate-on-.html#more
what did you say ?
Extraordinary scenes at the Oppo Organ as Dennis Shanahan declares Julie Bishop to be hopeless:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24647513-17301,00.html
[The government wants to make it mandatory. It’s currently opt-in.]
I realise this and am against that, however the arguments that are seemingly trotted out include that there is client software available, and that parents should be more responsible etc, which IMO are complete rubbish
Umm, I know bugger all about the technical operation of the WWW, however, I have recently heard that the current WWW is about near to bursting and there is work nearing completion that will render the current WWW a thing of the past. Oz, do you know anything about this? And wouldn’t such a development render the filter legislation redundant?
As far as I can make out, the proposed legislation looks like government trying to keep up with a technology advancing more rapidly than they can understand. A position with which I have some sympathy.
HSO, I assume you are referring to IP addresses running out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
I think you’re talking about a shortage of IP addresses, Harry, which Dario is linked too.
Brief summary:
Every computer, mobile phone, PDA or server connected to the internet has a unique IP address that identifies them. IP addresses are currently assigned using a method called IPv4, This has been around for a while but people are a bit worried because it is limited to 4.5 billion addresses.
Because so many people are using the internet these days, they’ve come up with a replacement called IPv6 which has a possible 3.4×10^38 (a lot) of addresses.
That doesn’t have much to with directly with the filter. However you asked:
“And wouldn’t such a development render the filter legislation redundant?”
The filter itself is already redundant. The technologies and methods that the government is going to use in implementing the filter are already being used by countries with far more resources than Australia, like China. Chinese people bypass the filter everyday. There are free ways to do it and more effective ways that cost < $10 a month.
The millions of Chinese and Iranians bloggers and jouranlists are bypassing the filter everyday why is the government pretending that this is going to deter those in search of child porn etc.
So Robb is saying Australian Prime Ministers should be seen but not heard. Or that when we go overseas we should cringe because we are simply not good enough to have the right to express our own position.
Robb is living in past; well not really he only says what he says to try and undermine Rudd’s performance and trip.
Thank Robb for
1. drawing attention to Rudd’s trip
2. drawing attention to the fact that Rudd will be putting his own ideas to the forum
3. that Rudd has the strength and courage to put these positions (as Robb is implying that we are all too lowly to have a position)
4. that Rudd is still dealing with the financial crisis
You would think they would change the subject to something like fuel watch or grocery watch rather than highlight Rudd’s deeds.
Robb us a bit like Homer Simpson on this. I expect to hear ‘doh!’ any minute now.
[ Robb & hockey etc are saying Australian Prime Ministers should be seen but not heard]
Thats right. But if they did that he would then say they should have spoken up and that they are duds etc.
Robb is just about at the end of his race. His best days and ideas are long gone. Robb is of the same vintage of ruddock, he of the living dead of berowra. They represent the past of the “pig-iron” bob party and are blocking new blood and new idea which may see the fibbers get back into government.
There are very few people less technically competent than me, but nonetheless I would like to add my cents worth to the discussion of the ISP filter.
Currently there are laws against several classes of sites on the WWW and their access by adults, and there are genuine concerns in the (predominantly technically illiterate) general community about childrens access to some sources of information, predominantly but not confined to, porn. There is also concern in the general community, and in Police/Security services about access to sites that assist and or incite terrorism and lawlessness.
When cases go to trial under current leglislation to prosecute a case against a person for unlawfully accessing a site such as a kiddyp##n site, a great deal of effort must be expended on proving that the access was not accidental, and proving it to a jury that is made up of people as technically illiterate as me. Perhaps a side consequence of this legislation is a purposefull attempt to sidestep the necessity of this burdensome element of proof.
There can be little doubt that the vast majority of adults with children under about 19 yoa would be firmly convinced that the legislation is a good thing, and would see it in the terms of Adams outline above. There can also be little doubt that the technologically savvy and the Libertarian will hate it, but I suspect that in Macarthur, Limdsay, Eden Monaro etc there are many more of the former than the latter, who will be dismissed as inner city godless greens.
I stil find it amazing that anyone would believe a word Robb says after his inelligible candidate scam in the past election. As Keating said of Howard “He has form”.
Well said Socs
I’m sort of watching the hit n giggle cricket having a beer and watching the european stockmarkets atm, but you raise excellent points.
The feature I cannot get out of my mind is how the likes of robb gets to babble, attack and carry on in media interviews etc but I cannot recall in recent times where he is ever challenged on ANY of the nonsense he pumps out.
Why is that? All of the political players should be given access to spruke and then be grilled. That is just not happening.
Simple questions – so what is your policy ? How would that work? Where is the detail and costings ?
Old fashion ideas indeed.
I can’t believe people are still banging on about the “Internet Filter” – guys it’s pure politics as I have stated before.
The Govt. don’t give a toss about legislation being passed or not. In fact they hope that other parties will oppose it. Why have the Libs been so mute on the issue? They know a wedge when they see it.
The Greens on the other hand are being played for suckers, its about time they realise what politics is all about. 😛
lefty e
The OO have been hammering Bishop for a while now. They know they (the Libs/OO) don’t have much chance with her as Treasurer. There is someone in the Libs with considerable experience with the economy who would make the voters think the Libs were credible. I’ve forgotten his name, it’s been repressed, but that’s who the OO want back. He’s underemployed at the moment.
That is going to win the Liberals stacks and stacks of votes. Telling people that we should participate in a world conference, but not TALK, just LISTEN!
Yep, the Fibs are going sensational!
I think we’re stuck with the Internet Filter. It’s pure Howard Gold. Rudd gets to play out his puritanical urges, which are even more highly developed than Howard’s, and anyone who disagrees with him is a kiddie porn sympathiser. It’s also anti-elite intellectuals. It’s a wedge combined with a straw man and finished off with a twist of dog whistle.
[That is going to win the Liberals stacks and stacks of votes. Telling people that we should participate in a world conference, but not TALK, just LISTEN!]
At least it is slightly more relevant than Ron Boswell’s idea of the Coalition regaining power by talking about abortion.
Diogenes, Cossie will only take the leadership, in two more years preferably IMO.
For the record, on the internet filter, I am 100% with Oz and Ltep on this one.
[ There is someone in the Libs with considerable experience with the economy who would make the voters think the Libs were credible. I’ve forgotten his name, it’s been repressed, but that’s who the OO want back. He’s underemployed at the moment. ]
ha ha ha the fibbers have probably forgotten his name as well.
They have forgotten everything thing else , had it genetically removed viz :
– Loyalty to country
– Loyalty to party its members and self
– honesty (spelt with small h in the party of “pig-iron” bob.
– integrity
– humanity (children overboard and detention centres still stain their so called brand
name and the so called journos who were compliant in these crimes)
– many acts of omission and commission by failing to act in the national good.
OZ “The first thing you need to understand is that you can’t “accidentally” stumble across child porn.”
Get reel , kids know there is porn , kids look for th forbidden
OZ “It is not simply the government’s goal to block child porn, though they enjoy hiding behind that argument.”
That’s conspiracy theorist nonsense Where’s your evidence
OZ : “a national mandatory ISP-level filter is NOT the only way to block porn, child or otherwise”
Its th only National way , covers all , and that is subject to th people , to Parliament
Th questions of transparency , accountability , standards levels , technical issues , independence , no of sites blocked , filters ar subsidiary issues requiring resolution
Instead you ar using these details to camouflage your reel objections: Govenemtn involvement , blaming Parents and objection to censorship (as if kids hav such “rights’) , rather than th over riding principal of protection of kids
[Instead you ar using these details to camouflage your reel objections: Govenemtn involvement , blaming Parents and objection to censorship (as if kids hav such “rights’) , rather than th over riding principal of protection of kids]
Blaming parents is political poison.
I think the government should take all the money they are going to spend on this, and give it to the Australian Federal Police so they can hire another 50 people to look for online crime.
Whatever system is invented, hackers will figure out a way to get around it, and will sell the information to those who want it.
ShowsOn @ 143
At least it is slightly more relevant than Ron Boswell’s idea of the Coalition regaining power by talking about abortion.
Yeah, its a bit late for that. Now if the Senator’s parents (and those of his dead wood colleagues) had considered it the Coalition just might have had a show in 2010! 😉
[Yeah, its a bit late for that. Now if the Senator’s parents (and those of his dead wood colleagues) had considered it the Coalition just might have had a show in 2010! ;)]
LOL! 😀 You’re lucky you made this abortion joke BEFORE internet filtering starts.
There would be several ASIO officers at your house now if the filter was in place.
😀
That’s a problem in our society. Kids are not taught any discipline. What’s wrong with setting up the computer in an open room, like the main living area or the family room? Nobody is going to check out porn sites in front of their parents.
What’s wrong with taking some responsibility (instead of the government doing everything) and wheeling the computer off into a locked room if an adult is not home?