big brother: January 2008 Archives
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the NSW Judicial Commission has rejected a complaint made by the head bureaucrat at the AG's department against a NSW judicial officer who found in a judgment that ASIO officers had unlawfully kidnapped and falsely imprisoned a suspect in a 'terrorism' case.
The news article, which gives details on the content of the complaint, says the complaint alleges that Adams J had made 'unjustified findings' which 'reflect adversely and very unfairly on the officers', and that '[t]he lack of concern the judge has shown for due process and natural justice in his comments about the officers' actions stand in complete contrast to the great care he took to determine that the officers had not complied with the applicable requirements.'
The grounds of the complaint are, and always were, bogus. Adams J's findings were entirely justified, there was plenty of evidence to support them. If those findings reflect adversely on the officers involved, then perhaps ASIO should stop kidnapping people. It should also be borne in mind that the identities of the ASIO officers were suppressed in the judgment -- all that the world at large knows is that ASIO officers B14 and B15 broke the law. Only people within ASIO or other government agencies who know the identities of B14 and B15 would know that they are the individuals who kidnapped Ul-Haque, and they're not likely to care.
As for the natural justice claim, even the news media can see the holes in that argument:
The news article, which gives details on the content of the complaint, says the complaint alleges that Adams J had made 'unjustified findings' which 'reflect adversely and very unfairly on the officers', and that '[t]he lack of concern the judge has shown for due process and natural justice in his comments about the officers' actions stand in complete contrast to the great care he took to determine that the officers had not complied with the applicable requirements.'
The grounds of the complaint are, and always were, bogus. Adams J's findings were entirely justified, there was plenty of evidence to support them. If those findings reflect adversely on the officers involved, then perhaps ASIO should stop kidnapping people. It should also be borne in mind that the identities of the ASIO officers were suppressed in the judgment -- all that the world at large knows is that ASIO officers B14 and B15 broke the law. Only people within ASIO or other government agencies who know the identities of B14 and B15 would know that they are the individuals who kidnapped Ul-Haque, and they're not likely to care.
As for the natural justice claim, even the news media can see the holes in that argument:
Late last year, the ASIO director-general, Paul O'Sullivan, complained the agents had not had a chance to rebut the charges. But the two ASIO officers - known as B15 and B16 - had in fact given evidence to Justice Adams, who found their testimony unconvincing and, at times, untruthful.They forgot to mention 'evasive', 'dishonest', and the other choice terms used by Adams J to describe the ASIO officer's evidence.
Today's issue of the 'Communications Day' newsletter (a very expensive trade newsletter, which has kindly given me a free trial subscription, because god knows I couldn't afford to buy it) contains a story which reads in part:
What Conroy describes as 'hysteria' has largely been the product of comments attributed to him and his spokespeople. A fair reading of those comments (e.g. 'filtering'; protecting children; blocking 'inappropriate' or 'offensive' content; the very use of the term 'clean feed'; etc) supports the inference that what Labor are proposing is a very wide-ranging filtering system based on content analysis of Internet material, rather than a more minimal solution such as a blacklist of confirmed child pornography. Indeed, the ability to 'opt-out' seems to be a key part of Labor's scheme -- and why on earth would they allow people to opt out of a blacklisting system that only targeted child pornography or other illegal content?
A fair reading of everything that Conroy and his spokespeople have said to date supports the conclusion that Labor have a much broader censorship scheme in mind -- one that could employ content analysis filtering which would block access to offensive/inappropriate material unless opted-out of. If this is in fact not what Labor have in mind, then their comments are equivocal at best, and at worst have unnecessarily caused the hysteria that they're now trying to quell.
Which brings me to my next point: if what me, EFA, and the media have been saying is 'hysteria', then why doesn't Conroy set the record straight now? If they know what they're proposing, intending, or considering implementing, why wait six weeks to tell us? The delay in announcing further details about their intentions will create the perception, rightly or wrongly, that they don't yet know what their intentions are. And if this is true, perhaps they shouldn't be making sweeping statements to the media which suggest a worst-case scenario?
In the absence of firm, announced details about Labor's intentions, the only thing that their critics can respond to is their comments to the media. The best way to quell the alleged hysteria is to release the details, and release them now. Then Labor's various critics can address the details of their plans, rather than what can be inferred from their published sound-bites.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of hysteria, ad hominem attacks such as "if people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree" aren't conducive to productive, reasoned debate, and arguably qualify as hysteria themselves.
Conroy promises to douse internet filter concernsThis raises a number of interesting points.
Communications minister Stephen Conroy will move to quell hysteria over internet content filtering plans and outline a full policy development strategy in late February.
...
Conroy's office confirmed yesterday that the minister will delay making more detail available until the IIA general meeting on February 21. He is expected to elaborate on ACMA's filtering trial to begin shortly in Tasmania, as well as a consultation and implementation timeline.
What Conroy describes as 'hysteria' has largely been the product of comments attributed to him and his spokespeople. A fair reading of those comments (e.g. 'filtering'; protecting children; blocking 'inappropriate' or 'offensive' content; the very use of the term 'clean feed'; etc) supports the inference that what Labor are proposing is a very wide-ranging filtering system based on content analysis of Internet material, rather than a more minimal solution such as a blacklist of confirmed child pornography. Indeed, the ability to 'opt-out' seems to be a key part of Labor's scheme -- and why on earth would they allow people to opt out of a blacklisting system that only targeted child pornography or other illegal content?
A fair reading of everything that Conroy and his spokespeople have said to date supports the conclusion that Labor have a much broader censorship scheme in mind -- one that could employ content analysis filtering which would block access to offensive/inappropriate material unless opted-out of. If this is in fact not what Labor have in mind, then their comments are equivocal at best, and at worst have unnecessarily caused the hysteria that they're now trying to quell.
Which brings me to my next point: if what me, EFA, and the media have been saying is 'hysteria', then why doesn't Conroy set the record straight now? If they know what they're proposing, intending, or considering implementing, why wait six weeks to tell us? The delay in announcing further details about their intentions will create the perception, rightly or wrongly, that they don't yet know what their intentions are. And if this is true, perhaps they shouldn't be making sweeping statements to the media which suggest a worst-case scenario?
In the absence of firm, announced details about Labor's intentions, the only thing that their critics can respond to is their comments to the media. The best way to quell the alleged hysteria is to release the details, and release them now. Then Labor's various critics can address the details of their plans, rather than what can be inferred from their published sound-bites.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of hysteria, ad hominem attacks such as "if people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree" aren't conducive to productive, reasoned debate, and arguably qualify as hysteria themselves.
It's pretty sad when an Australian political debate starts looking like an episode of South Park, but that's what is happening at the moment. Conroy's (fairly transparent) attempts to make Labor's Internet censorship plans bulletproof by playing the 'child pornography' card are having some effect, at least amongst 'save the children' campaigners.
The article Filters needed to battle child porn, appearing in yesterday's Australian IT, and written by Bernadette McMenamin, the CEO of 'Child Wise', begins: [emphasis added throughout]
Supporting freedom of speech as I do, I support McMenamin's right to express her opinion on this important issue, as it is my right to respond by labelling her position even more extreme and fanatical than those of the non-decent human beings (such as myself) that she is attacking.
McMenamin's position seems to be that the government should do anything which might have the effect of reducing the trade in child pornography, regardless of whether it will be effective, whether it is technically possible, the monetary cost, the practical consequences, and the cost to the civil liberties of every person living in Australia. A weighing of the benefits against the costs isn't required; we're talking about children here! If you don't support it, then you hate children.
Which brings me back to South Park. In episode 30 of South Park, called 'Gnomes', a television advertisement is aired in favour of Proposition 10 on a forthcoming public balot. Proposition 10 would kick a giant chain of coffee stores (Harbucks) out of town, and the South Park kids are enlisted for pro-proposition 10 propaganda. I couldn't find a video of the advert, but the audio is available here (have a listen!).
The TV ad concludes with 'Prop 10 is about children. Vote yes on prop 10, or else you hate children. You don't hate children.... do you?'
This is what McMenamin's argument boils down to. If you oppose Labor's censorship plans, you're in favor of child pornography, therefore you're a despicable human being and hate children. I think perhaps she needs to realise that Labor's proposal is not about child pornography, and accept that playing the 'child pornography' card does not exempt any proposal from an evaluation on its merits and weighing of the benefits against the costs.
Distribution of child pornography is an abhorrent crime, to be sure, but even accused child pornographers enjoy the same civil liberties as every other person in this country. If you subscribe to McMenamin's theory that no price is too high to reduce the prevalence of child pornography, perhaps we should do away with some other civil liberties while we're at it. After all, people accused of child pornography offences don't really deserve the right to a presumption of innocence. Making the government prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt isn't really necessary, and requiring the police to have search warrants before they kick in somebody's door looking for child pornography is just unnecessary paperwork. This is about saving the children! Sacrifices need to be made! I don't understand how any decent human being could support a child pornographer being innocent until proven guilty!
As I conclude this little exercise of my free speech rights, rights which McMenamin, Conroy, and their ilk seem only too happy to sacrifice on the altar of 'saving the children', I'll point out that McMenamin's own website -- www.childwise.net -- would probably be blocked by the automated content filters that she is so keen to force upon the rest of us. It contains references to delightful terms such as 'child prostitution', 'child pornography', 'child porn', 'sex with children', 'pedophile', 'child sex tourism', 'sex trafficking', 'child sex trade', and so forth. Content filters aren't good at determining context; such as telling the difference between a website which is promoting 'child sex tourism' and a website which opposes it.
But I'm sure that having her own website blocked to most Australians is a small price to pay. After all, this is about saving the children, people!
The article Filters needed to battle child porn, appearing in yesterday's Australian IT, and written by Bernadette McMenamin, the CEO of 'Child Wise', begins: [emphasis added throughout]
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.There you have it. If you oppose Labor's plan, you are not a decent human being, or you might be an 'extreme civil rights group' (I'm guessing she means EFA), or you care more about profits than the protection of children. If not for the fact that I'm a fairly thick-skinned individual, who happens to care about civil liberties such as freedom of speech, I'd probably sue McMenamin for defamation.
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.
...
In 2005 the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children revealed that 40 per cent of arrested child pornography possessors sexually abused children. The most disturbing trend is that the demand for sexual images of babies and toddlers and images of children being sexually tortured is increasing. This is the reality and I cannot comprehend how any decent human could oppose any initiative that aims to curb this evil trade.
...
So what could possibly be the arguments against ISP filtering from elements of the ISP industry and extreme civil rights groups. Well they have stated that it may "slow down the internet", "is expensive to use" and the clean feed system which is being used in the United Kingdom has faults, despite blocking access to hundreds of thousands of child pornography images. Do they care more about profits than the protection of children?
Supporting freedom of speech as I do, I support McMenamin's right to express her opinion on this important issue, as it is my right to respond by labelling her position even more extreme and fanatical than those of the non-decent human beings (such as myself) that she is attacking.
McMenamin's position seems to be that the government should do anything which might have the effect of reducing the trade in child pornography, regardless of whether it will be effective, whether it is technically possible, the monetary cost, the practical consequences, and the cost to the civil liberties of every person living in Australia. A weighing of the benefits against the costs isn't required; we're talking about children here! If you don't support it, then you hate children.
Which brings me back to South Park. In episode 30 of South Park, called 'Gnomes', a television advertisement is aired in favour of Proposition 10 on a forthcoming public balot. Proposition 10 would kick a giant chain of coffee stores (Harbucks) out of town, and the South Park kids are enlisted for pro-proposition 10 propaganda. I couldn't find a video of the advert, but the audio is available here (have a listen!).
The TV ad concludes with 'Prop 10 is about children. Vote yes on prop 10, or else you hate children. You don't hate children.... do you?'
This is what McMenamin's argument boils down to. If you oppose Labor's censorship plans, you're in favor of child pornography, therefore you're a despicable human being and hate children. I think perhaps she needs to realise that Labor's proposal is not about child pornography, and accept that playing the 'child pornography' card does not exempt any proposal from an evaluation on its merits and weighing of the benefits against the costs.
Distribution of child pornography is an abhorrent crime, to be sure, but even accused child pornographers enjoy the same civil liberties as every other person in this country. If you subscribe to McMenamin's theory that no price is too high to reduce the prevalence of child pornography, perhaps we should do away with some other civil liberties while we're at it. After all, people accused of child pornography offences don't really deserve the right to a presumption of innocence. Making the government prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt isn't really necessary, and requiring the police to have search warrants before they kick in somebody's door looking for child pornography is just unnecessary paperwork. This is about saving the children! Sacrifices need to be made! I don't understand how any decent human being could support a child pornographer being innocent until proven guilty!
As I conclude this little exercise of my free speech rights, rights which McMenamin, Conroy, and their ilk seem only too happy to sacrifice on the altar of 'saving the children', I'll point out that McMenamin's own website -- www.childwise.net -- would probably be blocked by the automated content filters that she is so keen to force upon the rest of us. It contains references to delightful terms such as 'child prostitution', 'child pornography', 'child porn', 'sex with children', 'pedophile', 'child sex tourism', 'sex trafficking', 'child sex trade', and so forth. Content filters aren't good at determining context; such as telling the difference between a website which is promoting 'child sex tourism' and a website which opposes it.
But I'm sure that having her own website blocked to most Australians is a small price to pay. After all, this is about saving the children, people!
It's been a busy week.
The media have gone into a feeding frenzy over Labor's election commitment to 'save the children' by forcing ISP-based Internet filtering upon everybody in the country, unless they specifically opt out of it. Nothing in particular seems to have precipitated this feeding frenzy. I have it on good faith from Senator Conroy's office that there have been no new announcements (apart from some new comments to the media equating freedom of speech with watching child pornography), and nothing has changed since they announced this before the election. It looks like one journo decided to write a follow-up article, which started a chain-reaction of scathing scorn and condemnation.
I find it somewhat amusing how media outlets feed of each other in this way. For instance, I can pretty much guarantee that if I'm quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald about anything remotely topical and newsworthy, I'll be getting phone calls from ABC radio stations throughout the country wanting to do interviews. It's somewhat ironic that an EFA media release doesn't have the impact that one story on smh.com.au does.
Anyhow, the media are really laying the boot into Labor's plans. They weren't this critical back in 1999 when the Coalition were proposing more or less the same thing. Perhaps with FOI becoming a waste of time and money, civil liberties increasingly going down the tubes, and the growth of a culture of secrecy at the Commonwealth level, the media outlets are taking the adverse potential of this scheme seriously.
A random assortment of media coverage:
The media have gone into a feeding frenzy over Labor's election commitment to 'save the children' by forcing ISP-based Internet filtering upon everybody in the country, unless they specifically opt out of it. Nothing in particular seems to have precipitated this feeding frenzy. I have it on good faith from Senator Conroy's office that there have been no new announcements (apart from some new comments to the media equating freedom of speech with watching child pornography), and nothing has changed since they announced this before the election. It looks like one journo decided to write a follow-up article, which started a chain-reaction of scathing scorn and condemnation.
I find it somewhat amusing how media outlets feed of each other in this way. For instance, I can pretty much guarantee that if I'm quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald about anything remotely topical and newsworthy, I'll be getting phone calls from ABC radio stations throughout the country wanting to do interviews. It's somewhat ironic that an EFA media release doesn't have the impact that one story on smh.com.au does.
Anyhow, the media are really laying the boot into Labor's plans. They weren't this critical back in 1999 when the Coalition were proposing more or less the same thing. Perhaps with FOI becoming a waste of time and money, civil liberties increasingly going down the tubes, and the growth of a culture of secrecy at the Commonwealth level, the media outlets are taking the adverse potential of this scheme seriously.
A random assortment of media coverage:
ITWire, New Australian Government tries totalitarian Net censorshipEFA's press release is here and an earlier analysis of their policy is here.
The Australian, Net-nanny state worth watching
AFP, Australia's plans to filter Internet under fire
Australian IT, Labor online strategy slammed
Al Jazeera (yes, seriously), Rudd's 'clean web' plan criticised
The Courier Mail, Censorship must be left to parents
ITWire, One small but significant step towards Internet censorship
Scopical, Plan to filter Australian internet a 'dud' says EFA
IT News, EFA attacks Labor's 'clean-feed' Internet proposal
