In the debate over compulsory Internet censorship in Australia since Kevin Rudd came to power, arguments repeatedly advanced against the proposed mandatory ‘filter’ by technically-savvy observers have been consistently ignored or deflected by the scheme’s key public advocates.
Stephen Conroy
It’s rather like playing tennis with opponents who don’t hit the ball back across the net; instead, they use a dead racket or flick the ball off to the side.
It makes for a very one-sided ‘debate’.
Almost the entire IT industry says: “what about X,Y or Z reasons why this policy won’t work and may prove counter-productive”.
They (Conroy, Hamilton et al) reply: “Well at least we’re trying to do something! It may not work perfectly, but at least we’re doing somethingl“.
They dismiss concerns such as the potential for back-door political censorship as a ‘red herring‘. But they won’t say why.
All in all, debating the advocates of compulsory Internet censorship is worse than playing tennis with a defective robot. It’s like wrestling eels.
URL Convert
With that in mind, I wonder if anyone has brought this little web ad to Minister Conroy’s attention?
URLConvert will convert an IP address into a longer, numeric address with no dots (called “DWORD” format). It can also convert either an IP address OR a domain name into hexadecimal format, for example, phplabs.com becomes %70%68%70%6C%61%62%73%2E%63%6F%6D You can use this capability to bypass some content filters and also to prevent your network administrators from knowing the real URL’s you’re visiting.
As far as we know this form of url encoding works with every browser type out there.
URLConvert can be all yours, folks, for US$39.95. But you may choose to wait. Doubtless open source versions will follow.
Clive Hamilton
What is Conroy/Hamilton’s repsonse likely to be to this bit of news?
On past performance, they”ll shrug, look very pious and explain that no scheme is perfect. At least they’re trying to stop child abuse. At least they care. If they’re in a feisty mood, they may add something like this: “blccking some child porn is better than blocking none at all! What – do YOU support child abuse…?!!”
The unwillingness of compulsory ‘filter’ proponents to give serious answers to critics who point out how easily the ‘filter’ can be circumvented strengthens my suspicion that this plan is not really what it’s claimed to be.
Proponents of the compulsory filter know it won’t block access to pornography – or anything else, for that matter – to those keen to access forbidden fruit. What’s more, they don’t seem to care.
What the mandatory ‘filter’ will do is extend the type of content censorship to the web that currently applies to mainstream media.
Martin Bryant: patsy?
That would mean, if you wish to read the full range of perpectives on historical matters such as World War Two, 9-11, the London bombings of 7th July 2005, the Port Arthus massacre or the 1978 Sydney Hilton bomb atrocity – over time you may not be able to do so without taking deliberate action to evade Government censorship.
It would mean that anyone in school, university, using a library computer, working in a public institution or large company – or a home user who doesn’t take specific action to get round the filter – will only find a limited range of views on some crucial debates about history and current affairs.
Controlling information access for ~95% of the population is well worth doing, if you have an agenda you’d rather not expose to public scrutiny. It makes your ‘problem’ a lot more manageable. 100% censorship would be even nicer, of course. But you can settle for less. Over time, you may be able to tighten up.
Kevin Rudd and Friend
It’s my opinion that this is why there’s a push to censor our internet. It is a push that’s evident not only in Australia, but throughout the so-called ‘western’ world. It’s taking different forms in different juridictions.
In the USA, commitment to the First Amendment remains a bulwark the would-be censors have yet to overcome. In Australia, we have no equivalent constitutional protection.
Having lost their near-monopoly over the media, various interest groups with undue power, who hanker over yet more power, would rather like their quasi-monopoly back.
If we let them, they’ll get it. But we won’t.
If I’m right about this, a raft of flow-on questions arise. For instance, is Minister Conroy himself aware of this underlying agenda?
It’s possible, but I have some doubts. Conroy may well believe the nonsense he sprouts. He looks to me like a front man for irrational policies. In that respect, he reminds me of George W Bush – and unsurprisingly, his popularity is trending in a similar downwards direction.
Kevin '84
It was Prime Minister Rudd, I suspect, who cut deals to implement this Internet censorship policy with persons unknown before the last election.
If that’s untrue, Mr Rudd can doubtless deny it.
But it’s hard for me to believe Rudd dreamt up this political nightmare for his Government on pure whim.
Kevin Rudd may be many things to many stakeholders.
But he’s no fool.
