ISP Filtering: An evidence-based scam
Posted on April 22, 2009 by by madepercy
I get a little fired up about the use of the term ‘evidence-based policy’ (ever played buzzword bingo?), especially when all the evidence points to a simple fact: Australians do not want ISP filtering! More on my blog: http://tinyurl.com/djoa6r
Cheers,
Michael.
Tweet
Comments RSS Feed
13 Comments to “ISP Filtering: An evidence-based scam”
"Leave a Comment"
Typeboard uses automatic spam filters, sometimes comments are sent to moderation
Please read our Code of Conduct
ISP filtering, its a waste of money and time, isn’t it?
(Report comment)
Evidence-based policy has nothing to do with what Australians want. And if you like policy based on evidence, you’d be supportive of Senator Conroy’s filter trial.
(Report comment)
What’s the evidence supposed to be of?
L
(Report comment)
Senator Conroy stated that the trial was to see whether the filter worked. Trials are about getting evidence. Which allows evidence-based policy to be formulated.
On the flipside, Michael de Percy’s not shown us any evidence either here or on the link he included to prove anything at all.
Evidence based policy is the only way policy should be done. To base policy on anything other than evidence is absurd.
(Report comment)
Australians don’t want the government to be able to censor their activities and stymie the expression of the individual in the world wide community. But, they do want some sort of protection for their children.
In the past government, a set of tools were discussed as being made available to all concerned citizens who wanted free protection. NetNanny was one.
All that the current government has suggested is to take away that freedom of choice and apply a blanket filter.
This is inherently wrong, considering that the current censorship system is not basing their decisions on popular belief or social acceptance, but, rather, the previous standards of over 20 years ago.
The censorship system for both film and literature should be opened to a 12 person jury system. all australians must participate in jury duty. It should be the same for internet filtering.
a trial built by the government for the express requirement of the public should include consultation by that public. otherwise, we will be entering into a system whereby words that are innocuous in daily language are found to be blocked, for example, “breast”.
even though the context will block this word, what about legitimate searches for chicken ******, ****** Cancer, ****** Feeding, ****** augmentation?
(Report comment)
I think what we need evidence on is not so much whether or not the filter will “work”, but what the definition of “work” (in this context) is …
As for evidence-based, yeah, I have to agree. Basing policy on anything except evidence would be ultimately foolish.
As a writer, I have to step in about the “buzzword” comment too. Most “buzzwords” come about because a word is needed where one previously didn’t exist. Consider “videoconference” and “cloud computing” for instance. Language is an ever-evolving thing. Get used to it.
L
(Report comment)
oh, come on L, buzzwords are there for us to get a buzz out of using them. even when we don’t know what they mean…
(Report comment)
That’s just gratuitous buzzword abuse, peterh. You should be ashamed!
L
(Report comment)
Never!! now that i am back to full form, I am buzzing away!
(Report comment)
@Dermott et al, thanks for the comments. The point I am making is that evidence-based policy is spin in this instance – in effect, it is policy-based evidence-making. See, for example: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2008/opinion/fuelwatch-evidence-runs-on-empty
Why do we need evidence on a policy which nobody wants? Check out the music the Minister for Broadband faced on ABC’s Q&A: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm
Cheers,
Michael.
(Report comment)
See also the results of Netspace’s customer poll on compulsory ISP filtering: http://www.netspace.net.au/filtering/results.php
One final point, it is difficult for citizens to gather evidence when even the federal opposition needs to use FOI laws to get access to the government’s information: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/fatal-flaws-in-website-censorship-plan-says-report/2008/12/22/1229794328860.html?page=3
Cheers,
Michael.
(Report comment)
Michael, If your point is that it is “policy-made evidence-making”, you haven’t shown that, here or on your blog. All I see is rant. And not very well structured rant at that.
(Report comment)
Thanks Dermott, I shall put more effort into my structure and use a recognised referencing style in future rants, too!
(Report comment)