The latest Essential Research survey has Labor’s lead at 58-42 for the third successive week. Also included are leadership approval ratings (Kevin Rudd predictably little changed on a fortnight ago; Tony Abbott with mediocre ratings, which is much better than Turnbull had been doing); Copenhagen (important, but unlikely to reach agreement); and “Christmas spending”. We’ve also had a 400-sample of Western Australian voters from Westpoll (see right) which has federal Labor’s lead in the state at 53-47 (compared with 53-47 against in 2007). The West Australian takes this to mean Abbott “has largely proved a turn-off for WA voters”, but it might equally be to do with Westpoll’s low-sample volatility, which has seen the score go from 55-45 in February to 50-50 in May to 53-47 in December.
[Truthy, that boat has sailed and the polls are still high]
[Hate to break it to you, but the boats are still coming.]
I didn’t say they weren’t. The voter reaction to them has changed. They are not figuring in the polls and really that’s what your little campaign is all about isn’t it, trying to muster votes for the Libs? It aint working sunshine.
Ratars went:
[An argument that says give up because it is too hard is no argument at all. It is just empty words and bluster.]
It’s not an argument that it is too hard so give up, it’s an argument that a filter will not solve the problem you are trying to solve, because it’s a framework designed for a different medium.
There are solutions – but ones where the bulk of the action takes place at the household level rather than from the government. The medium of the net requires solutions designed specifically for the internet because it is so vastly different from ordinary domestic print and broadcast media.
Of course there will be what you call a double standard – but we already have those same sorts of unavoidable double standards as a consequence of print and broadcast media being different. For instance, it’s illegal to broadcast someone reading a how to guide for euthanasia on Channel 7, but its not illegal to actually read the book yourself.
Double standard or simply the reality between two different types of media?
Well, now we have three different types of media – so it becomes even more complex. Unavoidably complex – because we have to deal with the reality that we find ourselves in. You cant fit a square broadcast media regulation peg into a round internet hole and expect it to work.
That will cause people all sorts of grief because they don’t like it when the world changes in ways that superficially makes it appear harder for them to control.
But it’s only superficial – it will actually give them more control, but control where they have to be an active participant. The question is how much futile damage we are willing to do along the way, before we accept the inevitable – that the internet has costs and benefits and that the costs are best ameliorated at the household and individual level with tailored solutions…. the very thing that brings the most benefits from the net (the tailored solutions for information) can also be deployed to deal with its costs.
Greeny went:
[As you would know, being the erudite econometrician that you are, throwing millions of people into the China argument, doesn’t really mean a lot statistically.]
It shows that anyone that wants to get around it can get around it – even in a brutal authoritarian system of heavy fines and imprisonment.What would a system be like with no heavy fines and imprisonment? Pretty pointless one would think.
Let’s take two cases – Australia under the filter, Australia without it.
Under both, anyone that wants to view any material – be it legal or illegal – can still do so.The filter does not prevent them because it can be bypassed in 30 seconds for HTTP content, and it doesnt even deal with non HTTP content.
So the filter carries costs without actually preventing those that are searching for such material from finding it.
Which makes the only practical purpose of the filter one which reduces the already very small chance of accidentally stumbling across material that has been refused classification – both legal and illegal material.
Yet there are cheaper, more effective mechanisms available to achieve the latter, which do not carry substantial tech costs for everyone else, and which can be tailored to each individual householders needs and requirements (youngens vs. teens vs. adults for instance).
So why go with the compulsory filter – the alternative that is the least capable, least effective, least flexible, most expensive option that carries the largest tech and economic costs?
[No-one would be happier than me if Rudd comes back from Copenhagen having signed us up to a legally binding international treaty to reduce CO2 emissions by 25%.]
And what would your reaction be if it was 24%?
GG
That’s a good one – ‘Let’s look to China to see how net filtering works’.
There are not 1.2 billion computer users in China. Currently estimated roughly at a small proportion of 137 million, even though the number will soon outstrip the US numbers.
For the vast majority though:
One farmer summed up the situation vividly: “To us farmers, a computer is no different from an aircraft carrier, because neither has a bearing on our life.”
Circumventing the net filters in China is dead easy (pun intended). Plenty of software has been developed for just that purpose. The reason the software is not taken up more enthusiastically is that 9as you would know):
* there are heavy penalties and therefore disincentives to non-compliance;
*there is a risk with some of the lesser quality circumvention programs that the government can identify the user;
* the government hunts down suspected circumventers in their homes.
* The majorty of Chinese are used to and are compliant with government decrees – not so Australians.
Tell me again how China helps the government’s case? How about using an example from a democtratic country? Yes, that’s right – there aren’t any.
Dario went:
[I think that would have to be the most laughable thing I’ve heard on this subject to date. The old ‘because’ argument.]
Well it is if you don’t actually deal with the explanation of ‘why’ that came next.
[No-one would be happier than me if Rudd comes back from Copenhagen having signed us up to a legally binding international treaty to reduce CO2 emissions by 25%.]
Typical of Killer Diog, he wants to play and toss the dolphin and then eat it too. 😛
[It shows that anyone that wants to get around it can get around it]
And people who want to buy drugs can still buy them. That doesn’t mean we get rid of drug laws or dump the Drug Squad and Customs. Next.
[Well it is if you don’t actually deal with the explanation of ‘why’ that came next]
The why that came next was as laughable as the preceding sentence
Dario
To be honest, I’d be happy enough with 15% as that would be an improvement which could be built on as CO2 levels rise.
[To be honest, I’d be happy enough with 15% as that would be an improvement which could be built on as CO2 levels rise]
Fair enough. I would say that’s more likely than 25%.
It looks like the G77 is starting to come apart. It has been evident for a while that it was in the hands of the spoilers, with the head negotiator from Sudan, which does not want a deal, and with a number of other countries, notably China and India effectively hiding behind the G77. Dozens of G77 countries have twigged that they are being led up the garden path on 1.5 degrees, and Kyoto or bust.
It will be interesting to see whether the breakaways are able to force a compromise on their spoilers before it is too late.
[BB, surely that piece by Imre is a tongue in cheek comedy routine??]
It’s hard to tell, isn’t it? Imre isn’t too bad when interviewed live… reasonably sensible, showing evidence he lives in the Real World. So maybe it’s a joke at his employer’s expense.
Then again, they don’t joke much at the OO when it comes to Liberals and their party.
So as far as I’m concerned, the jury’s out on this one being a comedy piece.
“Chinese Tennis Mums”… sort of the equivalent of “Latte-Sipping Lesbian Whales” isn’t it?
They’d be mah-jjong moms, surely?
[“Chinese Tennis Mums”]
If many have even heard of John Alexander I’d be surprised. And if they had, it wouldn’t have exactly been Rod Laver stuff.
Miranda got wet, Alison got wet, then Lady Jane and now Fran. But Fran got wet over a smudgie? Aiyaya.
[Apart from the fact that they think he’s just more likable, and more strategic than Latham, they are banking on one quality giving Tony Abbott the edge over Kevin Rudd: he’s unpredictable.
So was Latham of course, though erratic is the word usually applied to him, and that did wrong-foot John Howard for a few months. But Howard was a tough, seasoned, confident politician with a lot of victories under his belt.
Kevin Rudd, in contrast, is a relative political newbie. He’s also a more cautious personality and a less instinctive politician who likes to be in control of all the facts before he makes a move.
In Tony Abbott, he’ll face a moving target. Floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee? Already, in the three short weeks he’s been leader Tony Abbott has made an instant about-face on an ETS, jabbed with a sharp new slogan about a great big tax, ducked on climate policy and weaved on exactly where he stands on IR reform…….
Tony Abbott’s great strength – agreed by political admirers and enemies alike- is his authenticity. He’s engaging, upfront, straight-talking and smart.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/18/2775322.htm?site=thedrum
Jaundiced View -1926
Do you know :
a. How “government approved church” – is to be determined? Will it be done by regulation?
b. What steps I need to take to form myself into a church and how I apply to be a government approved church?
I can see there are advantages to be had in being a government approved church. I am prepared to take up god bothering if there is money in it.
:mr green: 🙂 😈
Dario went First:
[And people who want to buy drugs can still buy them. That doesn’t mean we get rid of drug laws or dump the Drug Squad and Customs. Next.]
Today’s high fire danger prohibits the public burning of such enormous strawmen.
Dario then responded to the claim that the internet is a different production and distribution system to print and broadcast media, calling it:
[…laughable…]
If only it were true Dario – I’d simply change your channel.
Good grief.
Since when has broadcast been pull? Since when has print been infinitely scalable? Since when has either consisted of effectively unlimited publishing and distribution sources?
Dario
[And people who want to buy drugs can still buy them. That doesn’t mean we get rid of drug laws]
Well, in fact that’s exactly what the experts say we should do in many instances, in conjunction with a lot of other measures, BECAUSE the outlaw ‘war on drugs’ approach demonstrably doesn’t work.
Neither will net filtering by government, as shown by the China experience. Those who wish to – who are not many in China, can avoid them, and do, despite draconian penalties.
In Australia, anyone who wishes to circumvent can too, and a far greater proportion than in China will.
So here’s a question for you: What penalties do you recommend in Australia for avoiding the filters? There will have to be some, won’t there?
[And people who want to buy drugs can still buy them. That doesn’t mean we get rid of drug laws or dump the Drug Squad and Customs. Next.]
People are taking a risk buying them, and the people selling them are taking much more of a risk. There’s no risk in getting around an internet filter and it’s dead easy to do. Would you still advocate a filter if 90% of those who would have seen the blocked material without the filter will still see it with the filter? How about 95%? How about 99.9% (i.e., have it as a symbolic “we disapprove of this material” measure even though it’s of minuscule practical use)?
The whole Conroy thing is like the government trying to apply road rules to airspace.
“Gov to Pilots: You have to drive in the left lane”
“Pilots to Gov: Dude, we don’t have roads.”
“Gov to internet: You arent allowed to broadcast content we havent sanctioned”
“Internet to Gov: Dude, we don’t broadcast”
At the moment, despite pages and pages of pollbludger discussion on this filter proposal, I am unconvinced that it has much merit or is much of a danger, or even worth worrying about at all.
The pro-filter arguers seem to realise that it will be only partially effective and don’t seem to say it is absolutely necessary.
However, some of the anti-filter posters seem to think that this is worth protesting vigorously about either the biggest waste of money ever undertaken by a government or that it is threat to civilization.
So I think I have more argument with the latter group and I am happy to hear of further justification for what seems to be their thrill approach.
Let me chuck something else in. I oppose censorship, eg restrictions on the import to Australia of information on euthanasia- either in books or via ISPs. That is worth protesting about and it seems to me it is the law about that content which is the problem here rather than the restrictions some of the media of import.
However, I think it is is not clear that the word censorship applies to some of the material that this filter will stop. There are people being harmed around the world to supply images for a market in Australia that seems to want some sort of entertainment from those images. I can not see that this is the communication of ideas or information. Thus, I can not see that stopping it is really censorship.
Most of this material is being supplied from overseas and from places out of the reach of effective law enforcement. Of course, it should be illegal to access this material and catching out people accessing it should continue but surely it is also
better to prevent any supplier thinking they are going to get deliberate or accidental consumers in Australia.
There seems to be some argument that trying to do this via a filter will not work but that has not been clearly settled one way or another.
There seems at Copenhagen to be a sudden rush at the end to climax with a deal. But is that deal sufficient?:
[“Leaked document says world will warm three degrees”
A document leaked from the UN secretariat says the world will warm by about three degrees this century if the greenhouse gas cuts being proposed at Copenhagen are followed through, exposing the huge gap between the rhetoric of world leaders at the conference and climate science.]
Especially when the result of +3 degrees means:
[The estimated impacts of a three degree temperature rise include half of the world’s animal species facing extinction and half a billion people threatened with starvation.]
The G77 must have seen the leaked document first.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/leaked-document-says-world-will-warm-three-degrees-20091218-l110.html
Conroy would be better served forgetting about the filter and getting his internet scheme off the ground.
Dr Good
Ask yourself this:
Q. Will Conroy’s filter stop “people being harmed around the world to supply images for a market” or “prevent any supplier thinking they are going to get deliberate or accidental consumers in Australia. ?
A. Not one bit.
Dr Good went:
[There are people being harmed around the world to supply images for a market in Australia that seems to want some sort of entertainment from those images. I can not see that this is the communication of ideas or information. Thus, I can not see that stopping it is really censorship.]
That material is already illegal, and I don’t think you’ll find anyone from the anti-filter side (at least none that I’ve seen) arguing that illegal material like that shouldnt be dealt with.
In fact, many of us arguing against the filter are also arguing for increased resources for law enforcement so they can enforce existing law.
Resources specifically for the Australian Federal Police – resources that Conroy cut!
Which really gets on my goat – if he cared so much for the little children, he wouldnt have cut funding to the Online Child S*xual Exploitation Team of the Fed police.
JV
Are you saying 1) that the Australian market for these images is only a small proportion of the world market so it doesn’t matter or 2) that even with a filter the Australian market will be just as strong?
[I didn’t say they weren’t. The voter reaction to them has changed. They are not figuring in the polls and really that’s what your little campaign is all about isn’t it, trying to muster votes for the Libs? It aint working sunshine.]
I think you will find that is more to do with the state of the opposition rather than anger regarding boatpeople.
We know from polls that 80% of Australians are concerned about boatpeople.
We also know that a majority think Australia is too soft on boatpeople, and this number is growing higher and higher with ever new boat arrival.
This issue will be much like Workchoices in that it is hugely unpopular, yet Rudd’s numbers will remain high while the opposition is weak, just like what happened under Beazley in 2006.
The real problem for Labor is this is an ongoing issue that they seem incapable or unwilling to fix and while continue on until a point of climax, at which point the walls will begin to crumble in and they will be in real trouble,
Why don’t the far left lead by example and cut their own damn emmissions??
Oh thats right.. because as usual it’s about telling people do as they say, not as they do!
Finns quoting Their Fran:
[Kevin Rudd, in contrast, is a relative political newbie. He’s also a more cautious personality and a less instinctive politician who likes to be in control of all the facts before he makes a move.]
What is Fran smoking? Kevin a political newbie? I’m not quite sure why being in command of the facts would put him at a disadvantage.
Dr Good
[2) that even with a filter the Australian market will be just as strong?]
It’s 2) that I meant. Especially with niche sicko stuff, afficionados and suppliers will be the first to circumvent the filters. By the way, that stuff doesn’t involve “accidental” exposure. No-one not already an afficionado is going to get hooked on, say, nude babies with nazi tattoos, just because they accidentally see a picture of one.
Poss
[Which really gets on my goat – if he cared so much for the little children, he wouldnt have cut funding to the Online Child S*xual Exploitation Team of the Fed police.]
That’s a pretty damning observation. Why am I not surprised?
Possum
Children can be victims and also consumers (usually accidental) but there are also adult victims and accidental adult consumers so it can be emotive to just mention kids.
I am not sure exactly how some of this material is really illegal at the moment. If a Ukranian woman is deprived of her liberty and hurt to make some sort of film in some autonomous region of Russia, we would hope that this was illegal locally but I am not sure of this or if this is enforced effectively. If that film is put on the internet and supplied by Telstra to a casual viewer in Sydney, I am not sure what the law is that has got broken and where this law is enforced.
I can see that under the filter proposal that this might no longer happen as much as it probably does now.
JV 1979
I think people may well accidentally find sites involving images of compromised (non-consenting) adults or older teenagers at the moment, without knowing
that that is the case.
To be fair Dio, Conroy was part of the government that cut that funding, but he was also an interested third party considering his Ministry.
Dr Good
The only people watching that sort of material are those searching it out. You just don’t stumble upon that sort of stuff by innocently reading News.com.au or whatever.
Because the filter can be so easily bypassed (and only deals with http:// addresses anyway, not bit torrents and other peer to peer platforms), anyone that wants to see that material will still be able to.
So it wont reduce demand at all.
Dr Good.
Tell you what, I have this cure for kiddie cancer. You give me $128 million dollars and we’ll see if it works. I mean, hey, it’s for the kiddies right? And if it works in just a few cases it’ll be worth it no?
On a serious note
[If a Ukranian woman is deprived of her liberty and hurt to make some sort of film in some autonomous region of Russia, we would hope that this was illegal locally but I am not sure of this or if this is enforced effectively.]
The filter won’t solve this. At present if someone saw that on the intertubes, could they not report it to the AFP who could then take it up with the Ukranian police. It would happen WITHOUT the filter. The filter is an unecessary waste of money.
re 1976:
On the issue of boat people while it can still generate public angst the difference from 2004 is that: 1. the current Government will not demonise them to the extent and in the way that the previous government did (note the difference in public rhetoric between Chris Evans and Phillip Ruddock) 2. the opposition has some fractures on this issue and will never be able to run a full blodded attack without bringing those fractures to public view 3. there has been a long period of community activitism, engagement and education on the issue below the radar of the media over the past five years that will act to put a dampener on it as a major vote changing issue.
Possum
So you do think that some material on the internet should be dealt with (or “censored”).
Does dealing with it mean stopping it coming in to Australia if that is possible, if it is impossible to deal with it at source?
“Leaked document says world will warm three degrees”
A document leaked from the UN secretariat says the world will warm by about three degrees this century …” (SMH qv #1971)
An honest/ ethical release would have the computer modelling we accept indicates that between world and will warm It would also footnote (a) the results of other rigorously conducted computer modelling (b) argue why they chose one specific model.
But then again, this is a political/ bureaucratic document, not rigorous research meeting WBP ethical standards. Its aim, therefore, is to persuade on Machiavelli’s The end justifies the means grounds – and whipping up public hysteria to achieve political ends has been a fave political tool since … in democracies, C6 BC Greece, if not before. Hannibal ad portas, bonfire of the vanities, Reds under the beds, WMDs …
BTW, some papers/ reports I’ve read propose more than 3 degrees, some as low as 1-1.5. Guess what. The credible ones are all based on equally well defended computer models, all based on the same available data (no credible report cherry-picks) – though interpretations of that data differ.
[I think people may well accidentally find sites involving images of compromised (non-consenting) adults or older teenagers at the moment, without knowing
that that is the case.]
For God’s sake get real. Can everyone here put up their hands if they have accidentally come across kiddie porn or a snuff movie?
Astro
A casual consumer in Australia might not know that the material has been made in that way involving a non-consenting participant.
Dr Good
[I think people may well accidentally find sites involving images of compromised (non-consenting) adults or older teenagers at the moment, without knowing
that that is the case.]
How does a filter change that? If no-one knows the provenance of a site, or the consent or otherwise of the subject, then how does the government justify putting the suspected site on the banned list?
Even where it appears the subjects of porn may be under age, who decides? And how?
And by the time that decision is made there a 3 million more sites just the same and the original one has been moved.
This demonstrates, as has been shown many times here now, that the proposed filter will not in any way meet its stated aims.
Diogenes
[Can everyone here put up their hands if they have accidentally come across kiddie porn or a snuff movie?]
Good point.
Much of my work is online and has been for many years, but I have never seen either.
Another (nude) straw man is snuffed. 🙂
I hope that whatever “gets on your goat” does it no harm. And that the getting is not filmed and distributed via the web.
But seriously, where is Conroy going to keep the blacklist? In his underpants?
I feel sick.
Dr Good
[A casual consumer in Australia might not know that the material has been made in that way involving a non-consenting participant.]
The arguments just get lamer and more fatuous. Now all porn should be banned because Dr Good can’t be sure all the participants are willing.
The synchronised swimmers are out in force today.
In a final act of abrogation of its core functions, WA Treasurer Troy Buswell admitted on ABC radio today that the State Liberal Government was considering the sale to private enterprise of the police revenue raising arm, the operation of Multanova Cameras throughout the State.
Thus in WA we will have a private company interpreting and enforcing the law, running law enforcement procedures at its own whim and discretion for profit making purposes, and having the delegated ability to send people to prison for non payment of its arbitrarily imposed fines.
You guys are concerned about internet filters.
I’m concerned about fundamental principles of law enforcement and the administration of justice in the community in which I live.
This State Government’s potential actions are destructive ideology gone mad.
More on the christian lobby’s impetus behind Conroy’s folly:
[Ludlam was able to publicly confirm that the results of the trial were in, and that Conroy had already backgrounded the Australian Christian Lobby on them.
We all wanted to know what this meant. Why hadn’t Conroy backgrounded all the other major stakeholders? Why was he showing preferential treatment to the Australian Christian Lobby? Why not just release the results to the entire public? After all, it’s the public who is footing the bill for all this.]
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/conroy-will-be-censoring-people-not-the-internet-20091217-kzxl.html
Also from the above article ar einteresting comments form experts about why the filter will fail dismally
[The irony is that it is children and young people who will be most likely to get around the blocks.
Children are more computer-savvy and literate than any other generation, precisely because they have grown up with computers. This was demonstrated in 2007 when a 16-year-old, Tom Wood, took just 30 minutes to crack the Government’s super-filter that cost a whopping $84 million to develop.
What a shame the Government hasn’t learnt from that embarrassing bungle.]
But I want to know what the criminal sanctions for filter-crimes are going to be. No mandatory system goes without such sanctions. How many will end up in jail for circumventing the filter or distributing ‘filter cracks’ as a matter of principle?
This could be fun! Line up to be one of “Conroy’s Martyrs”. And there will be many ready to defy the filter and share the ways to avoid it. Maybe the Chinese model will end up being the correct one, after all … 🙂
What will happen to those who circumvent the filter to access one of the sites erroneously* included in the blacklist?
* E.g. Queensland dentists, animal carers and school canteen consultants.
TTH:
[The real problem for Labor is this is an ongoing issue that they seem incapable or unwilling to fix and while continue on until a point of climax, at which point the walls will begin to crumble in and they will be in real trouble,]
What exactly was your proposed solution again?
IW:
[But seriously, where is Conroy going to keep the blacklist? In his underpants?]
He can try keeping it there, but plenty of people will have their hands…Okay, I’ll ditch that metaphor right there. Anyway, he won’t keep it secret. Plenty of people will know the sites most likely to be on it and will simply try them out and if they can’t get there they’ll know it’s on the list. And there will no doubt be sites dedicated to publishing all known sites on the list, and these will naturally attract a lot of attention, as well as attention for the sites on the list that many people might not otherwise have known existed.