The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
And the war begins ...
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
V for Vendetta
And the war begins ...
A Micro Win for Civil Liberties
Anyone following my Twitter profile would know I was dealing with an issue at the Australian Tax Office in Northbridge. Here's how it was relayed on Twitter:
In reply to a Direct Message (DM) querying if it was a security guard:
I had walked into the ATO and complained to the security guard about the incident, but he was laissez faire about the whole thing, wouldn't give me the name of anyone to speak with, but told me to call in tomorrow (Wednesday).
I did call back Wednesday afternoon, but unfortunately missed the relevant person.Finally, I met with Property Operations Manager this morning and discussed the issues of law versus ATO policy, as well as civil liberties versus employee security.
polemicol OH: ATO staff warning tourists "you can't take a photograph - its a government building" #ohperth #lie 10:20 AM Apr 8th
In reply to a Direct Message (DM) querying if it was a security guard:
I had walked into the ATO and complained to the security guard about the incident, but he was laissez faire about the whole thing, wouldn't give me the name of anyone to speak with, but told me to call in tomorrow (Wednesday).
I did call back Wednesday afternoon, but unfortunately missed the relevant person.Finally, I met with Property Operations Manager this morning and discussed the issues of law versus ATO policy, as well as civil liberties versus employee security.
Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan
The Commonwealth Government has announced what is undeniably a bold and visionary project to replace our nation’s aging telecommunications system with a digitally robust optic fibre network. It is a scheme that is being touted as Australia’s largest ever infrastructure project, requiring major investment by both government and private enterprise to the tune of around $43 billion.
Let us not delude ourselves with the panacea of optical-fibre optimism just yet. While the broadband plan is a long-awaited and well-debated project many, including myself, will attest that despite it being a much-needed booster for the economy, the mere 25,000 jobs it will provide over eight years is of little consequence to the larger unemployment rates expected from the downturn.
Significantly, at the core of this plan are three fundamental truths that are being deliberately overlooked as well as one obscure potential outcome that conspires to further threaten privacy and civil liberties in Australia as well as our economic and national security.
Firstly we must recognise that Australia is becoming more reliant on high-speed telecommunications for government, business and households alike to transact, communicate, entertain and interact locally and globally. The speed with which we are expanding our desire for information technology and communications access will soon surpass our infrastructure’s capacity and capability to deliver.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and full credit to the current government for acknowledging what the previous one dusted under the carpet. However, a large proportion of critics have been citing the Government’s solution as being redundant even before the first cable is laid. Comments like “too little, too late” or “too old, too soon” are making headlines. It is hard to disagree.
Just like its copper predecessor, even optic fibre has a finite capability and lifespan. Only 10 years ago a common dial-up connection offered speeds of 14kbps to access the information super-highway, while today we expect 56kbps as a minimum and DSL speeds of between 512kbps and 1.5Mbps are seen as the standard for the contemporary mega-media highway. It is, therefore, easy to predict that by the time the final cable is connected in 9 years time, the highly acclaimed 100Mbps connections will be barely sufficient to appease our addiction to the terabyte-highway looming in our future.
Therein lays the second poorly calculated assumption; that it will only take 8 years to roll out high speed optic fibre into every household and office across this vast land and that it will come in on budget. The Snowy Mountains Scheme aside, the record of Australian governments to complete major infrastructure on time and on budget is almost non-existent.
One can only guess at the millions of kilometres of cable required for this initiative and the speed with which it must be laid and connected, let alone for a project of this size to be adequately funded through successive governments and a myriad of unknown economic and political hurdles.
I draw the analogy of a homeowner wishing to renovate. Unhappy with the proposals and quotes received from the experts, they instead choose the DIY method. We all know how easily that can end in tears, heartache, financial ruin and divorce. This leaves the house unfinished, sold at a bargain price to some entrepreneur who simply walks in, tidies up, puts on a coat of paint and resells for a major profit.
The proposed $43b budget is to be partly funded by a government cash injection of $4.7b with up to 49% owned by private enterprise. The issue of Government Bonds (aka debt) is anticipated to cover the shortfall of around $20 billion. At the end of the project, the taxpayers will encounter another telco sell-off that may put the T2 fiasco to shame. At this point, the new monopolistic National Broadband Network Corporation will want to start recouping its money back from subscribers and our reliance on this new corporate beast will render us unable to resist.
With currently 8 million internet subscribers (covering government, businesses and households) nationally, the cost of this project calculates to an average value of $5,375 per subscriber. Even over 20 years, that equals an extra $268 pa to your access fees. This figure doesn’t even consider the additional investment by private enterprise or any losses resulting from movement of revenue away from traditional telcos as subscribers ditch the pay-per-call model in favour of the free Voice over IP (VoIP) options associated with their new ISP packages. Telcos will simply become ISPs, leasing bandwidth and reselling it to consumers.
The final truth, as proven by historical precedence, is that the privatisation of critical infrastructure only serves to increase costs for consumers as the commercial enterprise has a natural desire to chase greater profits. One needs only to look at the existing PSTN to understand that the majority of us are paying higher monthly line rentals for old copper infrastructure that should have been well and truly paid off by our forefathers. And simply look towards the increased cost of banking along with the decreased level of service – we now pay the banks higher fees while we do more of our banking online or via ATMs. Public transport, bridges, highways, the list of privatisation pitfalls is endless.
It is my conclusion that the “Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan” will insufficiently meet the needs of a future technology hungry Australia; it will be unable to meet its objectives within the proposed timeframe and budget, resulting in a greater financial cost than what is being purported today; and finally that Australia’s entire media, information and entertainment distribution and access will be left at the hands of a privately-owned profit-driven telecommunications behemoth.
And therein lays the final conundrum of epic proportions; a nation whose every act of communication will be required to go through a government-sanctioned commercial monopoly. Every packet of data, each phone call, email, tweet, download, upload; all syphoned through a single privately owned optic fibre network.
At this point, Stephen Conroy and the ACMA won’t need to be fussed with ISPs implementing his ill-fated Internet filter; he may simply attach it to the responsibilities of the National Broadband Network Corporation along with allowing widespread eavesdropping for ASIO, ASIS, DSD, or the AFP. All this for the protection of our national security, of course.
Just think Echelon on a grander scale only much more efficient. While it may seem unlikely, it is not out of the realm of possibility. After all, who would have correctly predicted the government assaults on truth and our civil liberties in the last 8 years?
Let us not delude ourselves with the panacea of optical-fibre optimism just yet. While the broadband plan is a long-awaited and well-debated project many, including myself, will attest that despite it being a much-needed booster for the economy, the mere 25,000 jobs it will provide over eight years is of little consequence to the larger unemployment rates expected from the downturn.
Significantly, at the core of this plan are three fundamental truths that are being deliberately overlooked as well as one obscure potential outcome that conspires to further threaten privacy and civil liberties in Australia as well as our economic and national security.
Firstly we must recognise that Australia is becoming more reliant on high-speed telecommunications for government, business and households alike to transact, communicate, entertain and interact locally and globally. The speed with which we are expanding our desire for information technology and communications access will soon surpass our infrastructure’s capacity and capability to deliver.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and full credit to the current government for acknowledging what the previous one dusted under the carpet. However, a large proportion of critics have been citing the Government’s solution as being redundant even before the first cable is laid. Comments like “too little, too late” or “too old, too soon” are making headlines. It is hard to disagree.
Just like its copper predecessor, even optic fibre has a finite capability and lifespan. Only 10 years ago a common dial-up connection offered speeds of 14kbps to access the information super-highway, while today we expect 56kbps as a minimum and DSL speeds of between 512kbps and 1.5Mbps are seen as the standard for the contemporary mega-media highway. It is, therefore, easy to predict that by the time the final cable is connected in 9 years time, the highly acclaimed 100Mbps connections will be barely sufficient to appease our addiction to the terabyte-highway looming in our future.
Therein lays the second poorly calculated assumption; that it will only take 8 years to roll out high speed optic fibre into every household and office across this vast land and that it will come in on budget. The Snowy Mountains Scheme aside, the record of Australian governments to complete major infrastructure on time and on budget is almost non-existent.
One can only guess at the millions of kilometres of cable required for this initiative and the speed with which it must be laid and connected, let alone for a project of this size to be adequately funded through successive governments and a myriad of unknown economic and political hurdles.
I draw the analogy of a homeowner wishing to renovate. Unhappy with the proposals and quotes received from the experts, they instead choose the DIY method. We all know how easily that can end in tears, heartache, financial ruin and divorce. This leaves the house unfinished, sold at a bargain price to some entrepreneur who simply walks in, tidies up, puts on a coat of paint and resells for a major profit.
The proposed $43b budget is to be partly funded by a government cash injection of $4.7b with up to 49% owned by private enterprise. The issue of Government Bonds (aka debt) is anticipated to cover the shortfall of around $20 billion. At the end of the project, the taxpayers will encounter another telco sell-off that may put the T2 fiasco to shame. At this point, the new monopolistic National Broadband Network Corporation will want to start recouping its money back from subscribers and our reliance on this new corporate beast will render us unable to resist.
With currently 8 million internet subscribers (covering government, businesses and households) nationally, the cost of this project calculates to an average value of $5,375 per subscriber. Even over 20 years, that equals an extra $268 pa to your access fees. This figure doesn’t even consider the additional investment by private enterprise or any losses resulting from movement of revenue away from traditional telcos as subscribers ditch the pay-per-call model in favour of the free Voice over IP (VoIP) options associated with their new ISP packages. Telcos will simply become ISPs, leasing bandwidth and reselling it to consumers.
The final truth, as proven by historical precedence, is that the privatisation of critical infrastructure only serves to increase costs for consumers as the commercial enterprise has a natural desire to chase greater profits. One needs only to look at the existing PSTN to understand that the majority of us are paying higher monthly line rentals for old copper infrastructure that should have been well and truly paid off by our forefathers. And simply look towards the increased cost of banking along with the decreased level of service – we now pay the banks higher fees while we do more of our banking online or via ATMs. Public transport, bridges, highways, the list of privatisation pitfalls is endless.
It is my conclusion that the “Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan” will insufficiently meet the needs of a future technology hungry Australia; it will be unable to meet its objectives within the proposed timeframe and budget, resulting in a greater financial cost than what is being purported today; and finally that Australia’s entire media, information and entertainment distribution and access will be left at the hands of a privately-owned profit-driven telecommunications behemoth.
And therein lays the final conundrum of epic proportions; a nation whose every act of communication will be required to go through a government-sanctioned commercial monopoly. Every packet of data, each phone call, email, tweet, download, upload; all syphoned through a single privately owned optic fibre network.
At this point, Stephen Conroy and the ACMA won’t need to be fussed with ISPs implementing his ill-fated Internet filter; he may simply attach it to the responsibilities of the National Broadband Network Corporation along with allowing widespread eavesdropping for ASIO, ASIS, DSD, or the AFP. All this for the protection of our national security, of course.
Just think Echelon on a grander scale only much more efficient. While it may seem unlikely, it is not out of the realm of possibility. After all, who would have correctly predicted the government assaults on truth and our civil liberties in the last 8 years?
Cyber safety research may miss the mark
The good people over at Australian eDemocracy alerted me to the recent report that the Federal Government will spend some of the $125.8 million cyber safety plan funding to engage an Edith Cowan University research team to "review current research on matters such as the nature and prevalence of cyber-safety issues, such as cyber-bullying, online predators and the disclosure of personal information."
They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."
All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.
On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
I disagree!
Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.
I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.
Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".
At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?
We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.
They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."
All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.
On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
“...much good work has been done by researchers to assess the prevalence of the bullying problem but virtually no research has been conducted to investigate empirically what can be done to address this problem.”It seems she has found a way to get this important research funded by convincing the government that it is a cyber safety issue.
I disagree!
Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.
I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.
Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".
At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
“Many young people say that they wouldn’t report cyber bullying because most adults don’t know that they have a cyber life ... But parents have a moral, as well as a legal, responsibility to ensure that their children engage in safe and responsible behaviour – including online behaviour.”Precisley the point that Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and his team just don't seem to get, which is why they are insisting on imposing Internet Censorship via a secret filter on all ISP activity to ban black-listed sites.
Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?
We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.
Absolving responsibility - updated
The previous post has been updated with further debate ensuing.
I will keep updating the original rather than make any new posts, as this will maintain the debate in one place for ease of reference.
I find it funny that while I was debating the ridiculousness of censoring the Internet to ensure that someone can use it as their personal babysitter, Sara rallied her child protection claptrap to label me as a supporter of paedophiles.
It is reminiscent of the current campaign by supporters of Senator Conroy's "internet filter" - apparently anyone who does not support government imposed censorship must therefore support sex predators.
"you are with me, or against me" is a tired mantra that was overly used during the 'war on terror'. It didn't stick then and it doesn't stick now.
NOTE: Final update completed - I'll let the public be the judge of which party got the wrong end of the stick in this debate.
I will keep updating the original rather than make any new posts, as this will maintain the debate in one place for ease of reference.
I find it funny that while I was debating the ridiculousness of censoring the Internet to ensure that someone can use it as their personal babysitter, Sara rallied her child protection claptrap to label me as a supporter of paedophiles.
It is reminiscent of the current campaign by supporters of Senator Conroy's "internet filter" - apparently anyone who does not support government imposed censorship must therefore support sex predators.
"you are with me, or against me" is a tired mantra that was overly used during the 'war on terror'. It didn't stick then and it doesn't stick now.
NOTE: Final update completed - I'll let the public be the judge of which party got the wrong end of the stick in this debate.
Absolving responsibility
The following is a copy of a discussion that I was involved with on Facebook. It started with my comment in response to someone joining a cause titled Keep Sex Offenders Off the Internet
I feel that type of group does not do any good. It unfairly utilises the term "sex offenders" when they are really targeting paedophiles (if you don't know the difference, get educated!) and takes its members down the road of "society is to blame, I am not responsible for my children, I am helpless, the Government must do something".
Collin Mullane at 23:24 on 15 February
(this is not directed at you, but at the group)
... and keep them out of parks too, and they shouldn't be using telephones either, or driving cars, or allowed in shopping centres or on sporting fields.
Hell, let's just ban them from getting on with their lives after they've paid the penalty for their actions. (insert sarcasm)
Collin Mullane at 11:24 on 16 February
Sarah - if you wish to absolve yourself of responsibility and instead place it firmly on the shoulders of society, you fail as a parent and as a citizen (in my arrogant opinion).
Your argument is no different to another parent allowing their child to fend for themselves alone at home while they go out to work and then blaming society when the house burns down.
It _IS__YOUR__RESPONSIBILITY to know what your children are watching on tv, what books they are reading, the friends they hang with, AND what they do on the Internet.
As with the television and DVDs, the Internet is NOT designed to act as your free babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:32 on 16 February
As for the offenders:
According to your argument we should also restrict all murderers from watching murder movies or going to forensic or news websites in case they get ideas! Perhaps recidivist speeders or car thieves should be banned from going to the speedway or playing Grand Theft Auto? I could make an endless list of similar ridiculous suggestions.
No-one can truly know if someone has been rehabilitated in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or as a result of lengthy therapy sessions - the same applies to addicts (drug, gambling, other) as it does to sex offenders or any other criminal. We must allow justice to prevail and for offenders to either redeem themselves (as most do) or re-offend, in which case we try again.
Censorship and nanny-state regulation will not stop crime. Education, understanding and helping to provide equity and equality across society WILL.
Collin Mullane at 09:48 on 17 February
LOL ... you missed my point entirely (or deliberately evaded it) and your condescending tone, decision to argue odd points, and attempt to paint me as a supporter of child abuse simply detracts from the debate and is a poor attempt to wriggle out of the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for your children.
Are you Australian? Felony Murder is a term commonly used in the USA, but no longer in most of Australia. Perhaps you watch too much imported TV ;-)
I choose to simplify arguments because most of the populace can't deal with complex issues, particularly where fundamentalism and conservatism reign. Thank you for demonstrating that point.
I do not need to give my credentials on debating this matter, suffice to say that I advocate for (holistic) justice, not simply retribution as you would seek out. You appear to have a personal hatred for sex offenders, likely due to being a victim or being close to one. I'm sorry to see that has clouded your judgement.
.... (cont)
Collin Mullane at 10:03 on 17 February
I think your final comments are offensive and technically libellous. Again another attempt to discredit me and shift focus away from the debating the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
If you wish to attack my points, do so carefully and specifically, rather than to alluding to some contradictions that don't actually exist, but which the casual reader may accept as truth because they would rather follow a mantra of "you're with me, or against me". than risk being labelled as you have done to me. Classic bully tactics.
However, if you wish to debate my original points I'll be glad to respond.
The debate is about censorship of the internet for specific people. The Internet is a medium very much like television and press, with the exception that it relies on openness and accessibility. With that comes the need for respect and responsibility. You cannot abrogate your duties as a parent to someone else. The Internet is not a babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:34 on 17 February
To bring the debate to a fine point, my argument stems from this comment of yours:
"Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child."
The point I am striving to drive home is that you DO and SHOULD have to worry. Leaving your child unattended on the Internet amounts to neglect, and is not dissimilar to allowing them to watch porn or R rated movies, let alone leaving them alone in a shopping centre to talk to whomever approaches.
If you can show me the difference, you may just win a part of the argument.
Collin Mullane at 11:54 on 17 February
My god, woman! YOU brought your children into the debate, not me.
For friggin sake - go back and read your response to my original posting.
In the meantime I will produce a clear analysis of the debate pathway and repost so that you don't get lost in the future. Don't have time now, but will try to do so this afternoon.
Collin Mullane at 17:01 on 17 February
Indeed
I feel that type of group does not do any good. It unfairly utilises the term "sex offenders" when they are really targeting paedophiles (if you don't know the difference, get educated!) and takes its members down the road of "society is to blame, I am not responsible for my children, I am helpless, the Government must do something".
Collin Mullane at 23:24 on 15 February
(this is not directed at you, but at the group)
... and keep them out of parks too, and they shouldn't be using telephones either, or driving cars, or allowed in shopping centres or on sporting fields.
Hell, let's just ban them from getting on with their lives after they've paid the penalty for their actions. (insert sarcasm)
Sara --------- at 10:50 on 16 February
The physcology required to commit sexual offences against children, is not something which can be asumed rectified after the serving of sentence, the autonomy offered by the internet and the potential for inappropriate and deliberate targeting of children for perverse pleasure is something the community should do more to prevent. Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child.
Any access to internet by convicted child offenders ought to be limited by security software to general sites and their pornographic activities limited to sites which are monitored by appropriate authorities for any material which might be considered to be of concern.
Sara --------- at 11:00 on 16 February
In regards to Prison visit rooms, the dept of corrections and the countrys legislative policy regarding the same are considered to be in keeping with the priority of child protection. My understanding is that those prisoners who are considered of concern in terms of children are not able to have visitors attend the prison on those visits which are accepting of kids. There are specific child accepting visits and non child accepting visits available at all dept of Corrections facilities. In addition to this specific method of Child protection, I and I know I speak for many other of the beautiful girls who visit partners reguarly, have the sort of personal protection available to me in this forum that would intimidate any potential problem to my child. For anyone who isnt sure what I just said, my partner is sufficently fit, healthy, and capable to be a deterant to any person that might be a problem to me or any member of his kin.
Collin Mullane at 11:24 on 16 February
Sarah - if you wish to absolve yourself of responsibility and instead place it firmly on the shoulders of society, you fail as a parent and as a citizen (in my arrogant opinion).
Your argument is no different to another parent allowing their child to fend for themselves alone at home while they go out to work and then blaming society when the house burns down.
It _IS__YOUR__RESPONSIBILITY to know what your children are watching on tv, what books they are reading, the friends they hang with, AND what they do on the Internet.
As with the television and DVDs, the Internet is NOT designed to act as your free babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:32 on 16 February
As for the offenders:
According to your argument we should also restrict all murderers from watching murder movies or going to forensic or news websites in case they get ideas! Perhaps recidivist speeders or car thieves should be banned from going to the speedway or playing Grand Theft Auto? I could make an endless list of similar ridiculous suggestions.
No-one can truly know if someone has been rehabilitated in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or as a result of lengthy therapy sessions - the same applies to addicts (drug, gambling, other) as it does to sex offenders or any other criminal. We must allow justice to prevail and for offenders to either redeem themselves (as most do) or re-offend, in which case we try again.
Censorship and nanny-state regulation will not stop crime. Education, understanding and helping to provide equity and equality across society WILL.
Sara --------- at 08:29 on 17 February
Colin - Good morning.
In regards to Murderers and the watching of violent crime, the length of sentence in these cases is far higher than it is for sexual and predatory but passive (phsycological) crime. Often the offenders of violent crime, do not infact see the light of day again. And here I speak of the crime of Murder (denoting premedatation) not felony murder, unlawful killing, manslaughter, the lesser crimes where a definate intention to kill can not be substanciated.
Simplifying the argument like you have is the equivelant of sensationalism, not uncommon in a media savvy, over educated middle class ruled society. Bearing in mind that you yourself have brought the subject up within a public forum you need to be prepared for the inevitability that many people with a wider reaching knowledged of the subject matter may just have something to say. The problem here is that it may be necessary for you to expand your understanding versus make unchallenged propegatory statement.
Sara --------- at 08:38 on 17 February
In your second paragraph you made the statement that Justice must prevail. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point. Justice is not the process by which the offending serve terms of punishment toward reinstated freedom. Justice is the term applied to a procedure which best serves the society/community interests after the commiting of an offence against the interest of that same group.
Your arguments are somewhat transparent and if I was going to cast a critical literary eye apon them I would say, unplanned and largely unresearched. You seem to shift intermitantly between arguments as the subject matter in places is directly contridictory. This can happen when a definate position is not held and a secondary motive for your statement or work is its primary reasoning.
Clearly you have a definate interest in the advocacy of child sex offenders that is an interesting position.
Sara --------- at 08:48 on 17 February
As stated in the first response to your initial posting, it is my personal beleif, that the offender of child sex offenses does commit an act against a physically and mentally inferior person and indeed a minor which as group the community has declared unable to adequately protect itself. They are targeted because they are physically too insignificant to protect themselves. These acts are usually by virtue calculated, prolonged and therefore quite definately premediated and unprovoked.
I feel the entrapment of children for perverse pleasure is a crime far exceeding any normal physcological pattern. Whilst I and im sure you may have thrown a slap or abusive word in a heated moment, an undeniable similar thread to violent crime. Personally I myself do not entertain any ideology which incorporates the victimisation of children.
Sara --------- at 08:52 on 17 February
Colin - have a nice day.
All the best for your Child Sex Offender Advocacy, im sure that particular minority feels the less isolated for your friendship and support.
Meanwhile - my position - stay away from my child coz like I said, violent crime is something I think all persons with enough motivation are capable.
Cheers
Collin Mullane at 09:48 on 17 February
LOL ... you missed my point entirely (or deliberately evaded it) and your condescending tone, decision to argue odd points, and attempt to paint me as a supporter of child abuse simply detracts from the debate and is a poor attempt to wriggle out of the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for your children.
Are you Australian? Felony Murder is a term commonly used in the USA, but no longer in most of Australia. Perhaps you watch too much imported TV ;-)
I choose to simplify arguments because most of the populace can't deal with complex issues, particularly where fundamentalism and conservatism reign. Thank you for demonstrating that point.
I do not need to give my credentials on debating this matter, suffice to say that I advocate for (holistic) justice, not simply retribution as you would seek out. You appear to have a personal hatred for sex offenders, likely due to being a victim or being close to one. I'm sorry to see that has clouded your judgement.
.... (cont)
Collin Mullane at 10:03 on 17 February
I think your final comments are offensive and technically libellous. Again another attempt to discredit me and shift focus away from the debating the real issue ... YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
If you wish to attack my points, do so carefully and specifically, rather than to alluding to some contradictions that don't actually exist, but which the casual reader may accept as truth because they would rather follow a mantra of "you're with me, or against me". than risk being labelled as you have done to me. Classic bully tactics.
However, if you wish to debate my original points I'll be glad to respond.
The debate is about censorship of the internet for specific people. The Internet is a medium very much like television and press, with the exception that it relies on openness and accessibility. With that comes the need for respect and responsibility. You cannot abrogate your duties as a parent to someone else. The Internet is not a babysitter.
Collin Mullane at 11:34 on 17 February
To bring the debate to a fine point, my argument stems from this comment of yours:
"Personally my child should be free and safe to enjoy the internet and I as a parent should be free to get on with peeling potatoes or vaccuming without worrying whether or not someone is attempting to target the child."
The point I am striving to drive home is that you DO and SHOULD have to worry. Leaving your child unattended on the Internet amounts to neglect, and is not dissimilar to allowing them to watch porn or R rated movies, let alone leaving them alone in a shopping centre to talk to whomever approaches.
If you can show me the difference, you may just win a part of the argument.
Sara --------- at 11:43 on 17 February
How my children became the real issue of a debate/discussion on "Sex offender access to the internet" is something only you could explain I am sure. It would appear to be a change of topic and it would not be difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind such an attempt.
In regards to the almost stage performance accusation of their being a American television watching illiterate, sorry again - wrong.
Actually I am a student of law and assure you felony murder is still a sentencing title in this country. It is employed in all states of Australia as a product of case law/precedent argument. It is used to argue where they may not have been a direct premeditated intent to kill, but where it was a known likelihood of a personal decission to commit offence.
You refer to the wider populace as not being capable to deal with complex issues. If you deny them the opportunity by simplifying complex issues, then certainly they can not.
Sara --------- at 11:51 on 17 February
If you however inform any reader throughout your presentation of the facts then a contentious issue is most certainly within their understanding and capability to reason.
My response was not meant to aggrevate you Colin but rather to suggest that in a world which increasingly utilizes the internet for everyday activities, including school education, we as a community have reached a stage where the protection of those unable to necessarily protect themselves should be given consideration, specifically in regards to those persons previously convicted of sexual offense.
Studies of Criminal Behaviour and in particular Child sex offender, have a startling rate of re-offense. The fact that we the empowered society and its institutions are aware by analysis that the likelihood of re offence is considerable (and considerably higher than the other offences you have chosen to highlight) do you not think some supervision of their internet activity is appropriate?
Collin Mullane at 11:54 on 17 February
My god, woman! YOU brought your children into the debate, not me.
For friggin sake - go back and read your response to my original posting.
In the meantime I will produce a clear analysis of the debate pathway and repost so that you don't get lost in the future. Don't have time now, but will try to do so this afternoon.
Sara --------- at 12:01 on 17 February
I agree with you Colin that consideration should be given to the fact that the serving of sentence should afford the opportunity to rehabilitate, it is one of the foundations of Common Law. Unfortunately not all crimes can be considered like and when we come to the advances of society like the internet the law needs to be amended to do that which it is employed to, protect. If the liberties of a previously convicted persons of crimes considered predatory need to be restricted to best serve the wider interests of the community, then whilst I can sympathise with a minority I can not put their interests before the "group - humankind"
So I guess we agree to disagree, I feel that restriction in the case of Sexual offense is appropriate and that those persons to which it would apply should not be given access to public speaking forums where they might be able to have inappropriate relations with a child in any school class room accross the country. Where the internet is now a part.
Sara --------- at 12:06 on 17 February
Colin please accept my apologies for anything I may have included which you found personally offensive. I realize your arguments are in reality aligned with some of my own. The serving of sentence should afford those who are the minority an opportunity to re enter society.
But where this poses a threat which is more likely than it is just possible, then, I think further consideration/restriction/policy is needed.
Im sorry you thought my comments were condescending - your a bit pompus yourself.......:-)
Sara --------- at 12:14 on 17 February
Colin, Colin, Colin, I bought children into the topic as a direct user of the Internet and therefore a potential target of those persons being discussed. You utilized to begin a debate about parents using the internet as a babysitter. (Which I consider rude in the extreme.) You are suggesting by virtue of your argument that childrens use of the internet (which is educational no matter what it is being used for) should be restricted and limited to accomodate sex offenders. Mate that is what you said. And you think my use of the word advocate is inaccurate.
As I stated in the previous, it was not my intention to aggrevate you into an argument. As discussion could not be said to be possible as you keep refencing issues outside the topic, I think the exchange has run its course. I wont be make further comment and feel that all stated prior speaks for itself.
Good day to you sir!
Collin Mullane at 17:01 on 17 February
Indeed
Censorship or Backdown?
[update 2: The Age have reinstated the article ... no explanations]
My previous post about the "Forest Fire Jihad" warning needs an update. The Age has removed the article from its site. WHY? Because of all the publicity it has received in the last 24 hours, or because it was asked by the Government, and an embarrassed Attorney-General, Robert McClelland?
[update 1: It is possible that The Age just decided to cash in by charging $2.20 access for everyone who wanted to read it, however no other Australian news sources are reporting what the rest of the world have regurgitated in the last 24 hours. Why so silent?
A Daily Mail report (UK) states: Police say they have seen no indication that the Victorian blazes were a 'forest jihad', launched by a group of Islamic extremists using fire as a form of terror against Western communities - despite South Australian Premier Mike Rann labelling the perpetrators as 'terrorists'.]
Fortunately there are other sources and I link them below as well as copy the article for posterity.
Check out all the links through Google here.
Other Sources:
Jihad Watch
Western Institute for Study of the Environment News
Clipmarks
Canada Free Press
Hillary's Village
My previous post about the "Forest Fire Jihad" warning needs an update. The Age has removed the article from its site. WHY? Because of all the publicity it has received in the last 24 hours, or because it was asked by the Government, and an embarrassed Attorney-General, Robert McClelland?
[update 1: It is possible that The Age just decided to cash in by charging $2.20 access for everyone who wanted to read it, however no other Australian news sources are reporting what the rest of the world have regurgitated in the last 24 hours. Why so silent?
A Daily Mail report (UK) states: Police say they have seen no indication that the Victorian blazes were a 'forest jihad', launched by a group of Islamic extremists using fire as a form of terror against Western communities - despite South Australian Premier Mike Rann labelling the perpetrators as 'terrorists'.]
Fortunately there are other sources and I link them below as well as copy the article for posterity.
Islam group urges forest fire jihad
by Josh Gordon for The Age
September 7, 2008
AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.
US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".
The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.
The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".
"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."
With the nation heading into another hot, dry summer, Australian intelligence agencies are treating the possibility that bushfires could be used as a weapon of terrorism as a serious concern.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.
"Any information that suggests a threat to Australia's interests is investigated by relevant agencies as appropriate," Mr McClelland said.
Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis, in keeping with a recent decline in the sophistication of terrorist operations.
"With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy. It would be very damaging and we do see a decreasing sophistication as a part of terrorist attacks," Dr Dolnik said.
"In recent years, there have been quite a few attacks averted and it has become more and more difficult for groups to do something effective."
Dr Dolnik said he had observed an increase in traffic on jihadi websites calling for a simplification of terrorist attacks because the more complex operations had been failing. But starting bushfires was still often regarded as less effective than other operations because governments could easily deny terrorism as the cause.
The internet posting by the little-known group claimed the idea of forest fires had been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri. It said Al-Suri had urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires.
Check out all the links through Google here.
Other Sources:
Jihad Watch
Western Institute for Study of the Environment News
Clipmarks
Canada Free Press
Hillary's Village
Fry on the Internet
I love it when someone can say something so profound and in the simplest possible manner, that even dumb-arses like George W. Bush could potentially understand it. Case in point, this gem spoken at Apple’s Regent Street store in London yesterday:
With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama
I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?
NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*
“The internet is like a city - it has red light districts, all kinds of weird people, who want to con and steal from you, but my god, they’re exciting places to live and to be a citizen of it is a great privilege. Yet people are trying to control the internet like they would never dare with a city.”
Stephen Fry, Actor/Presenter/TechEvangelist
With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama
I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?
NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*
Is this my last post before the police take me away?
PUBLIC WARNING!!!
Reading this post may put you at risk of breaking the law in Australia or other nanny-state nations. Following some the the links in the post will certainly do so!
I am posting this report and the links because I think the law has gone too far and I am putting out the challenge for charges to be laid against me.
2008 is likely to be remembered for many things, but censorship is the one area that has taken the spotlight, as the Australian Government, policing agencies, the courts of law and all forms of media have attempted to create an increasingly black and white view in a very grey world.
There is a fine line between right and wrong. Often that line gets crossed through humour, silliness, accident or just plain ignorance. But does that mean that the full weight of the law should come down upon you?
We have seen the problem caused by Bill Henson's artistic perspectives (viewed via Google) and the topic has arisen through the public debate surrounding Stephen Conroy's proposal for an Internet filter, which most industry experts consider to be infeasible and a waste of effort - see www.nocleanfeeed.com.
More recently we see that the Courts are now jumping in with questionable rulings on what constitutes child abuse, and specifically that which is deemed to be child pornography.
Mark Pesce writes about two such cases on the ABC blog "Unleashed" and Greg Barnes also has a say over on OnlineOpinion.
The first is regarding the Simpsons cartoon characters represented in sexual acts. The second concerns a judgement against a man who redistributed a video online of a child being swung around in the air - deemed to be child abuse.
By the way, if you want to risk police attention, you will find many of these cartoon "porn" pics by doing a simple search on Google (e.g. Bart sex or Simpsons Sex). The suspect video is apprently freely available on the internet and in my research I've determined that it is probably this one on Youtube.
Judge for yourselves ... am I now a criminal for having viewed this material and linking to them on my blog? Are you?
Reading this post may put you at risk of breaking the law in Australia or other nanny-state nations. Following some the the links in the post will certainly do so!
I am posting this report and the links because I think the law has gone too far and I am putting out the challenge for charges to be laid against me.
2008 is likely to be remembered for many things, but censorship is the one area that has taken the spotlight, as the Australian Government, policing agencies, the courts of law and all forms of media have attempted to create an increasingly black and white view in a very grey world.
There is a fine line between right and wrong. Often that line gets crossed through humour, silliness, accident or just plain ignorance. But does that mean that the full weight of the law should come down upon you?
We have seen the problem caused by Bill Henson's artistic perspectives (viewed via Google) and the topic has arisen through the public debate surrounding Stephen Conroy's proposal for an Internet filter, which most industry experts consider to be infeasible and a waste of effort - see www.nocleanfeeed.com.
More recently we see that the Courts are now jumping in with questionable rulings on what constitutes child abuse, and specifically that which is deemed to be child pornography.
Mark Pesce writes about two such cases on the ABC blog "Unleashed" and Greg Barnes also has a say over on OnlineOpinion.
The first is regarding the Simpsons cartoon characters represented in sexual acts. The second concerns a judgement against a man who redistributed a video online of a child being swung around in the air - deemed to be child abuse.
By the way, if you want to risk police attention, you will find many of these cartoon "porn" pics by doing a simple search on Google (e.g. Bart sex or Simpsons Sex). The suspect video is apprently freely available on the internet and in my research I've determined that it is probably this one on Youtube.
Judge for yourselves ... am I now a criminal for having viewed this material and linking to them on my blog? Are you?
Get Up! Campaign to Save the Net
Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content.
This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to save the net:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/
The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to abuse.
Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms.
This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/
Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save the net today.
Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team
PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net.
Tools to beat Internet Censorship
Here are a few resources to assist anyone wishing to challenge, undermine and even usurp the Australian Government's intention to censor the Internet through the application of a national filter.
Tell them to take a flying leap and send Stephen Conroy a one-fingered message of defiance:
An overview is provided here:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/privacy_security/bypass-internet-censorship/bypass-internet-filters-anonymous-browsing-guide-20071118.htm
and here:
http://citizenlab.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1319
plus this one:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071015-citizen-lab-releases-guide-to-circumventing-internet-censors.html
Some web-based tools are offered here:
http://proxify.com/alt.shtml
http://www.peacefire.org/circumventor/
http://www.stupidcensorship.com
Other software is provided here:
http://psiphon.ca/
http://www.internetfreedom.org/
http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/
http://rajeshrana.net/2008/02/12/7-best-tools-to-circumvent-internet-censorship-%E2%80%93-an-alternatives-to-ultra-surf/
Good Luck! ;-)
Usurp Internet Censorship
Enough is enough!!!
I am looking for ways to avoid, undermine and even usurp the Australian Government's Internet censorship strategy.
Any ideas, please leave your comments!
More info here:
http://nocleanfeed.com/
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24569656-5014239,00.html
And show your objections here:
http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship
I am looking for ways to avoid, undermine and even usurp the Australian Government's Internet censorship strategy.
Any ideas, please leave your comments!
More info here:
http://nocleanfeed.com/
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24569656-5014239,00.html
And show your objections here:
http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship
Censorship rating
The above rating is due to the words "gun" and "penis" being located in my posts, according to mingle2.com
It's a tough audience!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)