sw’as

There’s been an issue that’s near and dear to my heart hanging around like a bad, expensive smell and it just won’t die the death it deserves: Government enforced ISP level internet filtering.

Censorship of the internet is a bad idea for very many reasons. While censorship per se is somewhat a question of ideology, I suspect most Australians would feel strongly that Government censorship is, by-and-large, something to be avoided. Regardless of that, there are many non-ideological reasons why centralised internet filtering - specifically - is a bad idea. Here are some to get you started:

1. Cost - The proposal currently being pursued by the Government is very expensive. Many millions of tax payer dollars are being spent to trial - and ultimately implement - an ineffective solution which will degrade the internet for all of us.
2. Cost - Not only is the Government directly spending everyone’s money on a flawed concept, it will also end up costing internet users more as our ISPs pass on the significant costs of implementation to their subscribers.
3. Ineffectiveness - The solution is ineffective. None of the proposed technologies have performed well in testing. In fact, they’ve performed so badly that it seems like there’s a good chance the whole thing could be a more expensive (if that’s even possible) version of the now infamous NetAlert fiasco. Anybody who actually wants to access illegal/blocked content will still be able to do so with a bare minimum of technical knowledge (the kind of knowledge most highschoolers have these days). Somebody Think of the Children highlights the Government’s ability to engage in doublethink^[1] when it looks at the differences between the report into the trails and Senator Conroy’s press release.

By allowing the government to implement this policy, we are effectively degrading the internet for everyone and lining the pockets of equipment vendors. The way to stop this happening is by making your feelings known to your representatives in parliament - put some pressure on them.

If you’re interested in this issue (and you should be if you enjoy the free flow of information available on the internet^[2]), Somebody Think of the Children is a good place to keep up to date with all the goings on. You can also find out more about what you can do to help stop the madness by visiting http://www.nocleanfeed.com.

I suggest you write to your local MP and state senate representatives about this issue and help spread awareness (i.e. tell your friends and family) about what a poor piece of government policy (and spending) this is. Then encourage them to contact their MPs as well. If you’d like any help, I’ll be happy to do what I can if you get in touch with me.

1. I say doublespeak because this goes well beyond simple ‘spin‘. [↩]
2. Who doesn’t love Wikipedia? [↩]

I can’t help but make an entry about the ‘credit crunch’^[1] and the financial, and maybe social catastrophe it’s very quickly accelerated into. It’s almost certainly that for the US, and probably going to be that for of the western world. I’m really intrigued as to how it’s playing out in Australia’s MSM which is really hard to gauge from afar.

I’ve been quietly observing - taking in the arguments as they filter through to me via different types of media - and thinking about this, trying to decide what I think the best approach for a solution is.  While I’m generally in favour of letting the market sort out its own mess, it’s clear there are reasons why we might not want to let that happen here; good reasons, which are artifacts of how the system has operated up to this point.

There have been many good articles in the online media^[2] with insightful and intelligent comment on the situation, but I believe Bitter Harvest by Ingolf at Club Troppo deserves to be highlighted. Aside from it being an excellent piece of opinion writing, it lines up very well with my still formative opinion on the topic.

My natural inclination is also to trust the market to sort out most problems. Indeed, had they been allowed to do so over recent decades, we wouldn’t be in this mess. As Shostak rightly says, it was a persistent unwillingness to suffer short term and necessary pain (in other words, to allow creative destruction to do its job) that over time utterly distorted risk perceptions and so enabled things to reach such a state.

These are hard questions which even very smart people get wrong^[3]. While popular opinion about what should be done must necessarily play a part in devising a strategy, hopefully any optimum solution that might be devised isn’t compromised by popular opinion of the unqualified^[4] masses. Yeah right.

1. I’m betting that ‘credit crunch’ will be 2008’s most used new term in the media. Surely there’s no phrase more used world wide. [↩]
2. Blogs and mainstream media obviously both included. [↩]
3. Are there even correct answers? Probably not, but there sure are better answers and worse answers. [↩]
4. Myself included - obviously. [↩]

Despite professing that I’m some kind of liberal, I tend to find myself in regular disagreement with articles posted over at the Thoughts on Freedom, the Australian Libertarian Society Blog. This week there have been a few articles posted there which I thought were worth pointing out.

I’ve posted before on guns and how I think they’re generally a Bad Thing. Temujin posted a really good roundup of the research into the relationship between guns and crime. His conclusion comes in two parts: (a) there’s not really enough evidence to conclude strongly in either direction, and (b) given the lack of evidence the only way to conclude is that gun laws should be less restrictive.

At the risk of putting a dent in my libertarian cred^[1], I’m going to say I agree with (a) but not with (b). Preferring greater availability of something which provides deadly force, simply because you can’t conclude given the available evidence whether it creates a positive or negative externality (the effect on the crime rate is an externality), in my opinion, is the wrong conclusion. Deadly Force is bad, mmmmk.

Another good article over there points out some ALP silliness which I hope stops very soon.

1. Like I had any to begin with. [↩]

Unlike cowbell, you can have too much Coonan. Why won’t they learn?

New Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull … promotes Julie Bishop and Helen Coonan to two of the highest profile jobs in politics…NSW Senator Helen Coonan was the surprise choice as foreign affairs spokeswoman…

What a freakin’ disaster. Hopefully Helen Coonan won’t be able to do as much damage to Australia’s international reputation in opposition as she did as the country’s startlingly ignorant communications minister while in government.