I’ve just written a piece for Crikey on this Internet filtering malarkey, combining my original post and the follow-up. It’ll probably be published around 2pm today.
Bernadette McMenamin’s logical fallacies
Actually, I shouldn’t have bothered giving Bernadette McMenamin even the slightest attention because even in her first two paragraphs she commits logical fallacies. First, “It is beyond belief that…” is the fallacious argument from personal incredulity. And “there exists a small but vocal group” is an assertion that because an opinion is held by a “small” number (asserted without evidence) that it’s inherently wrong. While her cause — fighting against child abuse — is a good one, she does herself no credit by using such corrupt techniques. So, Ms McMenamin, are you a puppet of The Australian or a puppet of Senator Conroy’s office?
Bill’s last day at Microsoft
This video about Bill Gates’ last day at Microsoft would be even funnier if it wasn’t for Bono’s pathetic attempt at relevance. Still, nice to see Mr Gates manages to self-promote to the very end.
Those magick child porn filters…
Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise, has entered the debate on Internet filtering waving the “stop child pornography” banner.
It is beyond belief that some representatives of the Australian internet service provider industry are reluctant to install filters that would prevent access to child pornography.
Surely any decent person would do all they can to protect children. However there exists a small but vocal group in Australia which is opposed to the federal Government’s proposal to introduce mandatory ISP filtering to block child pornography and other illegal content.
I must admit, I always start worrying when I see appeals to “decency”, because it usually flags that I’m about to see an appeal to Victorian middle-class “family values” and a distinct lack of logic. Nevertheless I’ve posted a comment thusly, which The Australian may or may not publish:
Bernadette McMenamin is obviously a hard-working and committed woman “fighting the good fight” against child pornography and other abuses of children. Excellent. If only there were more like her.
It’s a shame, however, that in her eagerness she’s fallen for Senator Conroy’s trap.
If his proposal was only about child pornography then it’d be a good thing. Indeed, if such magic devices as “filters that would prevent access to child pornography” existed I’d buy three. I’d also buy a perpetual motion machine and an elixir of youth while I was at it.
The fact that Ms McMenamin is willing to hand the government a comprehensive online censorship mechanism while chasing this chimera of a Magick Filter only shows how naive her understanding of the Internet is, and how her passion has clouded her understanding of the bigger picture.
To which I would now add, the very premise of your essay is faulty. The proposal is not about filtering illegal content. It’s about filtering material which is legal for adults to view but which is “inappropriate” (another Victorian-values word!) for children — and making adults register in some as-yet-to-be-defined process to view what it legal for them to view.
I’m also wondering… What proposal have you actually seen which makes you so confident that you want to support it? Or do you just respond in a knee-jerk reaction when someone does the “Won’t someone think of the children?” fallacious argument trick?
[Update: The Australian has published my comment online, without the last paragraph.]
Privacy laws haven’t kept up
By happy coincidence, just as I posted about the Privacy Manifesto for Web 2.0, I found Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja’s article saying that privacy laws have failed to keep up with the information revolution.
Privacy Manifesto for Web 2.0
As everyone pours their personal lives into Facebook et al, what happens to it? Some companies reckon they own it all. Others reckon they can change the rules at any time, and just tell you afterwards.
Alec Saunders has proposed a Privacy Manifesto for the Web 2.0 Era (and you can follow that link for some discussion of the why):
- Every customer has the right to know what private information is being collected. That rules out any secret data collection schemes, as well as monitoring regimes that the customer hasn’t agreed to in advance. It also rules out any advertising scheme that relies on leaving cookies on a customer’s hard disk without the customer’s consent.
- Every customer has the right to know the purpose for which the data is being collected, in advance. Corporations must spell out their intent, in advance, and not deviate from that intent. Reasonable limits must be imposed on the collection of personal information that are consistent with the purpose for which it is being collected. Furthermore, the common practice of inserting language into privacy policies stating that the terms may be modified without notice should be banned. If the corporation collecting data wishes to change its policy then it’s incumbent upon the corporation to obtain the consent of customers in advance.
- Each customer owns his or her personal information. Corporations may not sell that information to others without the customer’s consent. Customers may ask, at any time, to review the personal information collected; to have the information corrected, if that information is in error; and to have the information removed from the corporation’s database.
- Customers have a right to expect that those collecting their personal information will store it securely. Employees and other individuals who have access to that data must treat it with the same level of care as the organization collecting it is expected to.
Hat tip to Peter Black.