Comments on: Angry geeks: “Don’t waste money on internet filters”

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:16:28 +0000

It's now more than a year since this post was written. Yet in the video of the ISP Filtering debate at Kickstart 09 on the weekend -- a year later -- ChildWise's Bernadette McMenamin is still saying she doesn't understand why there's opposition to the government's plans to "filter the Internet". Bernadette, what's not to understand? The argument is so simple that it fits in a single sentence.

We only have a finite amount of money, so we'd like it to be spent on projects which actually achieve results, like the Australian Federal Police's OCSET team, rather than wasted on an ill-defined IT project which is highly unlikely to have any real effect on the distribution of child sexual abuse material and which has the potential for serious side effects.

Need a shorter sentence?

Please spend our limited funds on things which work, as opposed to things which don't work.

You admit yourself that you don't understand the technology. That's fine. So why don't you have the common decency to respect the opinions of those who do understand the technology? Why, instead, do you slur their reputations and infer there's some "hidden agenda"? Actually, it's not fine, Bernadette. You've had an entire year to come up to speed on these issues. The Internet didn't suddenly pop up overnight: some of us have been using it for more than 20 years. How it works isn't a secret. It's very well documented, and while no-one expects you to become a network engineer you could at least make an effort to get your head around the basics. Instead, you're still running the argument that we have to try everything, even things we know don't work, and that you don't understand why that's wrong. Bernadette. What's. Not. To. Understand?

By: Video of the Kickstart 2009 ISP filtering debate: McMenamin still doesn’t get it - Somebody Think Of The Children

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:35:44 +0000

[...] still doesn’t understand why so many are opposed to mandatory ISP filtering if they know it doesn’t work. “If it doesn’t [...]

By: Stilgherrian · Crikey: Internet filters a success, if success = failure

Stilgherrian · Crikey: Internet filters a success, if success = failure — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:56:58 +0000

[...] particular, in Angry geeks: “Don’t waste money on Internet filters” six months ago I wrote: Real-world experience in everything from spam filters to the record [...]

By: Mike Minutillo

Mike Minutillo — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:03:11 +0000

Flying Spaghetti Monster style I think we should definitely demand that the government also install motion sensors into the bumper-bars of all road-legal vehicles which automatically brake the car if a child is spotted. And perhaps mandatory security guards for parks where children play to ensure they aren’t snatched away. If we’re going to have crack-pot schemes, let us do it properly.

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:53:30 +0000

Wow, comments from Extremely Important Übergeeks Alastair Rankine and Simon Rumble in the same piece! I am seriously humbled!

@Simon Rumble: Thank you! I was imagining a cross between Homer Simpson and Yes Minister.

@Alastair: Thanks for the pointer. Pimp away! I’ll do the same to you.

@Bernard: The John Birmingham piece really is a hoot. But sorry, I can’t become that shiny-suited salesman. My sense of ethics simply wouldn’t allow me.

By: Bernard

Bernard — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:07:34 +0000

This sort of policy is for punters who get their political analysis as well as their tech info from the same source; in Sydney that would be the Terrorgraph…

Rather than be an angry geek, why not become that Rich Geek and be that “shiny-suited salesman”…

Just make sure that the specs u negotiate with the contract are flexible enough to work say 85% of the time? That gotta be better than the current, huh?

Hey — what is wrong with that? Prostitution and lying are age old habits.

Not linked through to Birmo’s commentary on this, but for hells sake — an easier way of getting this sort of “nanny state” protection would be to encourage scared parents to just bloody well buy NetNanny or some such and offer them a tax rebate.

Sigh…

By: Alastair

Alastair — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:45:32 +0000

Hmm, I would argue that the current generation anti-spam filtering *is* quite effective. This is possibly not the comparison we want to draw; ministers may look at the huge flood of spam in their Junk folder and the relative scarcity of it in their Inbox, and conclude that nasties can be filtered from the internet using similarly advanced magic/technology.

The big problem I have with this proposal is that the government is outsourcing the regulation of behaviour on the internet. It is handing control of what people can and can’t see to private interests. Private interests that, crucially, are not accountable to the general public. More here, pardon the blogpimping.

By: Simon Rumble

Simon Rumble — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:09:36 +0000

Love the bit about the shiny suited salesman.

By: Michael Meloni

Michael Meloni — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:49:04 +0000

For anyone who wants to do some further reading on why mandatory ISP filtering is such a ‘technically bad idea,’ check out EFA’s analysis of the ALP plan: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/mandatoryblocking.html

It is based on the 06 announcement, but the majority of it still applies.

A lot of you have probably already read it, but hey, for those who haven’t…

- Mike

By: Somebody Think Of The Children » Blog Archive » Geeks fuming over filtering

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:40:51 +0000

[...] latest article in Crikey explains why Child Wise’s Bernadette McMenamin got hammered for her comments in The [...]