• Marketing Mag Website

  • Marketing Blogs

headshot

by David Gillespie

on Oct 31

An open letter to Stephen Conroy regarding the proposed changes in censorship of the internet

Advertise with us

Dear Mr. Conroy,

As the figure behind the Australian Government’s internet censorship endeavours, I am writing to express concern and disappointment with your plan laid out to date. While no person in their right mind can argue with the intent behind the moves, the actual methodology is futile, doomed to be thwarted by those seeking illicit material and will only harm the access of the wider, well-meaning population who do not use the internet for nefarious purposes.

The core of the issue is your Government seeks to recognise physical borders in a digital realm, a place where the notion of nationality means nothing beyond the suffix of a URL (i.e. .au, .co.nz and so forth). It is technologically impossible to permanently restrict the access of people to any corner of the web short of blocking the entire country in the fashion seen in North Korea - I trust the Labor Government does not wish to see that style of rule imposed upon the Australian populace.

The issues your Government is trying to confront are serious and require a focused effort to achieve the honourable aims. The methodology you are seeking to impose however is flawed and will not stop a trade in illicit materials; indeed it will do little to stem the flow of them either into or out of this country. What it will achieve is the censorship of a people who do not deserve it, who predominantly act within the boundaries of the law, and who, particularly among IT and knowledge workers, voted for your Government in part because of a spirited plan for increased broadband infrastructure across the country, something sorely needed in order for Australians to keep pace with our rapidly changing, increasingly digital world.

If this comes into effect, I can promise you - and please believe that this is a promise not a threat - that come the next election I will personally campaign for any party that seeks to roll these draconian measures back and put in charge of our nation's IT infrastructure a person who knows what they are doing. Mr. Conroy, you are, with all due respect, clearly out of your depth on the issue, and I do not look forward to the embarrassment of your Government, nor the embarrassment of our entire country as the world looks on at the most heavily censored nation in the developed world; a nation we have previously been so lucky to call our home.

I look forward to a revised program from your office designed to tackle the issue in a meaningful fashion, and the abolition of your current proposal which, while well-meaning, will achieve few, if any, of its stated aims.

Thank you for your time,

David Gillespie

Related Articles

11 Comments

mediamanoz
  • Wrote on 6 Nov, at 01:38PM
So the Australian Government is looking at internet censorship etc. What's with the likes of Family First, InterChurch etc. Where do they get off thinking they speak for all Australians, of even the majority? So, laws regarding porn are being looked at, then gaming... what's next? ... Negative articles on the government for example? Are we following the China model of internet and people regulation here? Next one won't be able to look up online casino, then Falun Gong, and you get the idea.

Journalists already have it tough enough with the FOI (freedom of information) laws that got snuck in, under John Howard I understand. Just ask Chris Masters, award wining journalist, about FOI. Environment groups such as Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace are being watched by the govt and police also, if you believe the numerous articles in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Are the James Bond Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace video games going to be banned also, since Bond does have a "Licence To Kill"?

The NRL footy teams are now securing sports betting sponsorship deals. Does the government intend to kill that off also? People will be people, so there's likely to always be one of two bad apples that will do the wrong thing, on the internet, or somewhere else. YouTube has been misused by a small percentage of people, but would the government be looking to shut down YouTube also? Then Facebook? Where will the madness stop? The current system of censorship in Australia via the web has been reasonably effective. Maybe the government is just preparing itself for a bigger slice of the porn and online gaming and casino pie, and will achieve this aim via more regulation and control? Control and censorship via "the law" appear to be at the heart of this. Let's hope that Stephen Conroy get it right. The stakes are high, and there's a lot more at stake then ones internet browsing habits.
Jaymez
  • Wrote on 7 Nov, at 12:28PM
Censorship of the internet is a waste of tax payer’s money. People will always find away around a Governments ‘nanny state’ oppression of their individual choice. I believe the answer is education of the dangers facing citizens and why they should avoid the behaviour. What about personal information filters and awareness campaigns rather than big brother having the authority to tell you what’s good for you. It seems freedom of intellect is no longer permissible, when the thought police can dictate that you are non conforming consumer unit and therefore not appropriate to fit their idealism. Isn’t this type of thinking the creed of the fanatics groups such as Al-Qaeda or the NAZI’s who are unable to accept any other point of view than their own?
divu
  • Wrote on 13 Nov, at 11:32AM
I cannot believe the narrow mindedness of the government when they say they want to censor the internet, according to wishes of the religious right, and other freedom limiting voices. Where do they think their votes came from? We voted out the previous government whose leanings towards fascism were getting evident, and now we get these "Goebbels in the making", pandering to organizations and individuals who want to speak for the rest of us. I certainly have not given my assent to these religious right organizations and individuals to speak on my behalf!
Does the Govt think we are idiots, who cannot decide for ourselves what is good for us? Why do politicians in power always feel the need to fulfill the wishes of the baser elements of opinion, rather than take a wiser role of allowing freedom, and the trust in their own constituents?
granleese
  • Wrote on 20 Nov, at 12:18AM
Why commence net censorship?

Chairman KRudd and his social engineers at the ALP believe 'it is the right thing to do'.

Just because the ALP was democratically elected last year does not mean what they are doing is representative of the Australian majorities needs and wants. Especially when their policy to censorship has changed (to the extreme) since the 2007 election.

Read my full opinion here: http://openpolitik.blogspot.com

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: The Nanny-State.
mediamanoz
  • Wrote on 26 Nov, at 10:10PM
Censorship of the internet enjoyed lively and passionate discussion on the first day of CAP Down Under in Sydney. Jamie Nettleton of Addisons spoke on the matter with great insight with his Gambling in Australia – The Law presentation to an audience of what looked to be close to 200 people comprised of largely online gaming affiliates and insiders. Mr Hugh Taggart of Betfair and Mr Luke Brill of Centrebet also discussed how decent and better internet speeds are important to their business and that basically slowing down the internet in Australia would be a step backwards. The word on the street and in news media is basically that Australians do not want the internet censored.
Editor | Kate
  • Wrote on 26 Nov, at 10:35PM
Perhaps there needs to be a virtual rally or something organised? Bloggers and Twitterers unite! :-)

It seems like such a waste of the government's time pursuing the censorship; don't they have enough on their plates at the moment with the state of the economy and general planet?
martiro33
  • Wrote on 28 Nov, at 09:46AM
Theres an argument the governments intentions are good, but are definitely misguided in this case. From what I understand, the public was misled in terms of the governments original intentions around filtering - had the public known the full extent this would have easily become an election issue. The social implications are large, and I believe this is one of those issues that stirs in the passive hopefully making the inactive active

I believe the best option is to establish dedicated family friendly ISPs. These could be subsidised to encourage families to take up the services, and incentives offered to ISPs to move part or all of their services to this model. This would achieve the Governments aim of protecting childrens exposure to illicit content, which everyone would agree should be the primary objective of this policy. More work should be done to track down those that participate in the exchange of illegal content via file sharing activities, however this is a different problem to what the government is attempting to address as under the current model of censorship, peer to peer exchange is left unchecked.

For the remainder of the public which dont need the governments well intended protection, we can continue with our law abiding lives unhindered by the governments imposition of moral choices.
Cubbyhole
  • Wrote on 3 Dec, at 05:48PM
Kate, there is an online movement being organised by Get Up

http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/campaign.php?alias=SaveTheNet&id=442

It's a start, and they are very good at mobilising people.
Your Domestic Bliss
  • Wrote on 3 Dec, at 07:56PM
This Conroy is a wonderful example of how a politician should not act.
He will push this filter despite the emerging facts, about figures endorsing the filter being exposed as fake, about how ineffective any filter will be, about what a waste of tax dollars this filter is.

One has to wonder at the agenda as it obviously isnt protecting kids.
johninmarketing
  • Wrote on 12 Dec, at 01:03PM
All censorship should be questioned. An excellent post David. I read that prior to the internet, pornography in Australia was all distributed through the ACT and was just under 9 billion dollars per year revenue. Once the internet gave access to pornography, this dropped to 320 million per year. Perhaps this is the real reason the government wants to regain control. John.
morganiseit
  • Wrote on 29 Jun, at 11:52AM
I have never personally seen censorship as a solution - it's more just a big carpet that everything can be swept under - I think what is most appalling (despite the fact the whole proposal is appalling) is that the Government has to date decided not to share with the Australian Public (who they supposedly represent and serve) exactly what they will be censoring... (errr... filtering - if we must use soft language to describe what they are doing).

I urge all Australians to check out the following websites to get full information on this matter and to speak out if you have any objection whatsoever. Aussies often sit back and say, she'll be right - and it's not always the case. Check out:

* No Clean Feed Campaign - http://nocleanfeed.com/
* Electronic Frontiers Australia - http://www.efa.org.au/ (The EFF/EFF protects and fights for digital rights and has up to date news and information on the filtering/censorship of the Australian Internet)
* Get Up Australia's Save the 'Net Campaign - www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet

By visiting either the 'No Clean Feed' or 'Get Up Australia' campaign websites you can let the Government know you aren't happy about this proposal - and it will take you less than five minutes. Those who feel very passionate about the issue can, of course, do more... and you'll find advice and information on these websites to help you... but if you are short on time... five minutes or less is all you need to have your say.

  • Both the above fields are required for unauthenticated comments. * indicates a required field.


    *

    * This email will not be available or visible to anyone.
    (optional)