tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68681280100910118082024-02-20T00:16:18.202-08:00The Interweb WarriorVerity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-69344674880978739192022-09-03T14:06:00.000-07:002022-09-03T18:21:58.657-07:00Australia goes ballisticFrom the little broadband backwater Australia has <<a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/022">announced</a> its own plans to go ballistic on broadband. I guess this will make tickets to the <a href="http://www.ftthcouncilap-melbourne09.org/">FTTH Council</a> in Melbourne in May the hot item of the month.
But its been really hard to work out what's going on. The announcement include a <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/national_broadband_network/extract_from_the_evaluation_report">summary</a> from the Expert Panel evaluation which said that no proposals met the criteria but a path forward could be found with a mix and match from various proposals.
The price tag of $43B is just a projection from these elements to deliver Fibre to the Home to 90% of the population at 100Mbps, and 12Mbps to the remainder through satellite and next generation wireless. But outside of Tasmania we have no idea who the providers will be nor how they will be chosen.
Because the Tasmanian fibre is only offering 100Mbps one can safely assume that is GPON. Bad news is that GPON suffers the same "not future proof" characteristics as FttN. It also doesn't really come with an estalished competition model for innovation.
The wireless component is unspecified technology in unspecified spectrum. In Australia right now the only available technology is WiMAX and the only spectrum owners weren't bidders.
As for the satellite component to deliver 12Mbps to the 2-6% of the population that might be serviced that may require one or two more satellites than are currently planned.
Plenty of opportunity. The big loser remains the incumbent telco elstra - especialy as the accompanying <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/021">regulatory review</a> foreshadows that their second and third strategies after FttN (use their pay TV infrastructure or wireless) may be barred to them through forced divestiture of the Pay TV business and the capping of future spectrum.
As <a href="http://www.fiberevolution.com/2009/04/australia-and-new-zealand-to-get-widespread-fttx.html">Benoit Felton</a> says;
<em>Overall, both of these announcements, much as they may be frought with risk, are momentous because they dare to break the current paradigm that was inherited from the (largely botched) telco liberalisation back in the 80s-90s. It's hard to anticipate how either will play out simply because for a large part we are now in unknown territory.</em>Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-62911039217114899132010-04-26T17:41:00.000-07:002010-04-26T18:01:25.875-07:00Wow what hypocrisyThe SMH on Satuday carried an <a hef="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/tea-party-brewing-a-rebellion-20100425-tlhf.html">editorial</a> (second part) titled <em>Conroy tilts at a web windmill</em>. It was better than most because it didn't misrepresent the intended scope of the web page blocking regime.<br /><br />What it did do was open a new, novel reason for why the internet is different. In responding to Conroy's oft stated question of why Refused Classification content on the internet should be treated differently to other media the author offered;<br /><br /><em>He asks: what's so special about the internet? The answer is: nothing. But Conroy compares the internet with means of publishing - books, films - and assumes it should be subject to the same classification controls as they are. In fact it should be compared with free means of communication - speech, telephones, newspapers - which it more closely resembles, and in which governments intervene less because intervention is less likely to be effective.</em><br /><br />This is either a more nuanced version of "why bother it won't be effective" or is really trying to argue the proposition that content published on a web page is really more like a conversation. Unfortunately, the author fails on the latter by asserting that newspapers are in there with speech and telephones rather than books and films. I have news for them - they would be committing an offence were they to attempt to publish refused classification material (indeed I suspect they would commit an offence were they to publish material that would be classified as R18+ or M18+). The fact is that newspapers, like television, run their own classification exercise rather than submitting it to the censor.<br /><br />And that ultimately is all that is proposed for the internet. Not all sites will be rated by the "censor", only those referred. Just as the SMH would be referred if it published an instruction on euthanasia in its pages.<br /><br />So ultimately the editorial rests on the assertion that it will not work. They cleverly then extend this to the "thin end of the wedge" argument that because it hasn't worked there will be pressure to extend it. <br /><br />But here is another logical slip. The extension they argue will be needed will be to other ways of distributing the content. But the extension they fear will be the extension to more political content. How can it be that we should fear the extension to other content if the justification is that it failed in the first place.<br /><br />If the SMH wants to join a campaign for free speech let them campaign against any RC list. But save us from this kind of second rate thoughtsVerity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-2397362477062806322010-04-19T22:06:00.000-07:002010-04-19T22:11:33.616-07:00The Pirate PartyComputerworls has <a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/slideshow/342549/pirate_party_how_bypass_great_australian_firewall/?image=1">published</a> the Pirate Party presentation to Exit International on how to bypass the Government's web-page blocking proposal. It gave us the chance to see that they are peddling the misinformation that equates the existing ACMA blacklisting process to the new one - despite Conroy's consultation on transparency and accountability for the new process.<br /><br />How useful though is it to lecture these folks on how to bypass rather than doing the hard political yards to get information on how to take your own life taken off the Refused Classification list for all media. Surely that would be more useful to the audience.<br /><br />Even more useful would be to be more than a single issue party and actually campaign to legalise euthanasia. That's the position the Democrats and its predecessor the Australia Party has had for at least forty years. The Democrats answer on the censorship issue is also saner - an end to Refused Classification in any media.<br /><br />The Pirate Party - what a joke - just GetUp! in geeks T-shirts.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-14320529769952435962010-03-24T16:00:00.000-07:002010-04-26T19:15:11.636-07:00Openness and Transparency Submissions ReleasedThe quality of the discussion on the Government's policy in relation to controlling content available on the internet became apparent with the release of submissions on the framework for opennness and transparency. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/top-ten-internet-filter-lies/">Writing</a> in the Punch <a href="http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/eliza-cussen/">Eliza Cussen</a> (who is described as a GetUp campaigner) has identified what she called the top ten internet filter lies. I provided a comment online which is paraphrased here. <br /><br />I only focus on what was called lie number 5. The point is conceded that the content designated by the policy cannot be lawfully sold or distributed in other forms. A distinction is then drawn between the distribution in those forms and the "filter" impeding "one-to-one" communication.<br /><br />In reality the policy is not for a filter - it is more technically a policy of "web page blocking". That significantly changes both what it is and how it operates. <br /><br />As an example the Government has satisfied itself that the high volume sites referred to have their own content management regimes that actually can be relied upon and provide an exemption from the blocking regime. Unfortunately the media beat up over Facebook the other day allowed this to be converted into a Conroy assertion that he would order it to be taken down and it would.<br /><br />In fact the major high volume sites are promoting a voluntary campaign to achieve the same objectives.<br /><br />One of the more terrifying submissions to the DBCDE inquiry on transparency was one from an academic who argued that the RC rules were too restrictive because they would block a Japanese cartoon form of child pornography, which is supposedly OK because it is legal in Japan. Thankfully this week's <em>The Economist</em> notes that the Japanese themselves are reviewing their own approach.<br /><br />Most of the accusations of "lies" rely upon a misrepresentation of the policy.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-83627921279918504722010-02-17T14:38:00.000-08:002010-02-17T16:00:05.667-08:00The assault on Free to Air televisionThe Murdoch press has come out with all guns blazing on the issue of licence fee rebates for the FTA networks. <br /><br />ichael Stutchbury writing in the Oz <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/backroom-tv-dealbrcorrupts-our-policy/story-e6frgd0x-1225831555620">labels</a> it "corrupt" because it is a supposedly "scret" deal. The sin being that;<br /><br /><em>Neither the Prime Minister nor Conroy have revealed what the commercial broadcasters agreed to provide in return for paying less to use their publicly owned spectrum.</em><br /><br />It really is a piece of nonsense framed like that. The broadcasters clearly made the point that they needed either a reduction in licence fees or a reduction in ocal content quotas. The Government chose the former. The fact there has been no writte commitment about local content related to the rebate could well be due to it being prohibited under the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement (the other FTA).<br /><br />Meanwhile Terry McCrann has <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/kevin-rudd-and-stephen-conroy-in-it-up-to-their-eyeballs/story-e6frfig6-1225831562088">written</a> a diatribe that shows he is more a tool of Murdoch propaganda than serious business journalists. He tries to claim that the only reason Rupert Murdoch doesn't own a Free to Air network is because he wasn't a media mogul whe the licences were handed out in the 1950s.<br /><br />He forgets to mention that the only asset still held by its original owners is Nine Sydney and Melbourne, both of which were sold then bought back. He doesn't mention that Rupert used to own TV stations but had to dispose of them under the media cross ownership laws when he acquired HWT. He doesn't mention that News and Telstra each bought 15% staks in Seven when it was re-floated after receivership.<br /><br />That party ended when Seven decided to join Optus and Nine in Pay TV anyway. <br /><br />And Kerry Stokes is an even more recent media mogul than Rupert. He bought his entire stake in Seven on the open market. CanWest has been a ready seller over at TEN for some time. Rupert can't buy it for a whole host of reasons, but mostly because he doesn't really want to. <br /><br />Meanwhile at Crikey, Bernard Keane repeats the line that the free to air networks were "given" 7 MHz of spectrum for the purposes of digital conversion. He qualifies this by saying they didn't have to "bid for it". The vast bulk of users of spectrum pay for it by administratively determined licence fees, not by auction.<br /> <br />The FTA networks pay for their spectrum in licence fees that are a progressive scale on revenue up to a rate of 9%. It might have been reasonable to think of the additional channels as additional licences - but they weren't. That actually means the networks pay more because they are paying 9% of the small revenues they get from the multi-channels rather than the lower rate the revenues would qualify for o their own. Issuing an additional licence would have raised less money not more.<br /> <br />The main users who have acquired spectrum through auctions ("bidding for it") are the mobile networks. Not all their spectrum was acquired that way - they pay a flat licence fee for the 900 MHz spectrum originally used for GSM. If you project mobile industry revenues forward at the same growth rate as today a licence fee of less than 3% of revenue would have raised the same amount as the fees raised by auction.<br /> <br />So let's just get the facts straight. The FTAs are paying for their (temporary) digital allocation and they are paying more for it than those people who did buy spectrum at auction. <br /><br />Meanwhile Telstra and News pay nothing for their use of the airspace through which the Cable TV signal is distributed despite the attempts of some local councils to charge rates for it.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-26318657850053963552010-02-07T23:46:00.000-08:002010-02-07T23:48:36.487-08:00Intelligence SquaredThere is a suggestion that Intelligence Squared can't find speakers for the filter for their forthcoming <a href="http://www.iq2oz.com/events/event-details/2010-series-sydney/04-may.php?source=cmailer">debate</a> on the incorrectly named internet filter. (Actually its against - cause the topic is <em>Governments should not censor the internet</em>.<br /><br />Maybe they should invite Verity.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-9220607191049715532010-02-07T21:15:00.000-08:002010-02-07T21:18:42.466-08:00Regulation and the planned economyA very intemperate <a href=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectID=10623701&pnum=3#cmnts_Start">post</a> from me on a very stupid article in New Zealand on competition and regulation.<br /><br />This is a guy whose belief in "freedom" runs to his freedom to be exploited by monopolists.<br /><br />I wrote in part;<br /><br /><em>When New Zealand was the global darling of economic turn around it wasn't from abandoning the law or regulation as such, but from introducing competition. New Zealand is allowing itself to "go soft" by listening to the bleating of its large firms.<br /><br />There is no part of improving one's global competitiveness by reducing competition at home that can ever be justified. New Zealand might just be still getting away with it in dairy.<br /><br />But riddle me this, if just one or two large firms, or even a cartel of firms provides global competitiveness, then a centrally planned economy is the way to go. With no local market competition you aren't getting the price system to do anything. <br /><br />Letting domestic firms get fat dumb and happy on monopoly rents is no incentive to go compete.</em>Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-52392601010567634982010-02-07T16:44:00.000-08:002010-02-07T21:15:07.793-08:00Anonymous commentsVerity is always thrilled to see her name in print, even if it is a very short <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/04/conroy-on-keane-cheers-or-jeers/#comment-57464">comment</a> on Crikey's website. <br /><br />The comment was on the discussion about South Australian law that attempted to outlaw anonymous blog comments as part of political commentary. The new age internet types were horrified. However, there are two things we should look at. The first is how existing law works, and the second is about how anonymous comment can play out.<br /><br />The first thing to note is that it is standard law across Australia that electoral comment has to be authorised by someone. We are used to the authorisation line on electronic and printed ads. We might forget though the additional line that appears to cover editorial content in newspapers as required by <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s328.html">s328</a> of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Act also covers ads <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s328a.html">on the internet</a> and misleading or deceptive <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s329.html">publications</a>. <br /><br />Newspapers will normally include a line as to who is taken to be publisher of the paper for these purposes. That means that if the newspaper chooses to publish material that falls foul of the law the publisher is at fault. I find it fascinating that people on the web don't realise that the same rules apply, that ultimately the person who owns a domain name and thus authorises all the content that is available on their site is the "publisher". <br /><br />How the anonymous content thing can play out is also interesting, mostly because it is open to manipulation. I think I started this blog soon after reading <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender's_Game">Ender's Game</a> in which part of the plot is a brother and sister who created two fictional characters who get involved in debate on (I think) the interweb. The point is that they create an artificial conflict between themselves which they then resolve and bring both lots of supporters along with them.<br /><br />The risk factor is that the speed of network formation and expansion using online media rather than the printed word or radio is that the "swarm" can develop before there is any nterrogation of its source.<br /><br />Ultimately though the correct legislative solution is not a ban on anonymous content, just a recognition that the publisher (domain owner or as otherwise delegated) remains responsibl for the content.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-6168937135129141752010-01-14T15:07:00.000-08:002010-01-14T15:26:27.535-08:00Lundy and the filterSenator Lundy has <a href="http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/17/my-thoughts-on-the-filter/#comment-15373">blogged</a> about her concerns with the "internet filtering" policy announced by her colleague Senator Conroy. She has <a href="http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/21/further-thoughts-on-the-filter/">followed up</a> indicating (despite comments suggesting she wouldn't) that she has carefully reviewed the comments.<br /><br />I can understand why Senator Lundy remains concerned by the policy, but the fact that it has been kept very tightly constrained to the RC content and to identified page addresses (i.e. it is not a filter it is a page blocker) means that it shouldn't be thought of as imposing a limit on the "freedom of the Internet".<br /><br />More importantly though, if the Senator believes RC content should be available through the easy online navigation that is a webpage for adults who choose to "opt-in", why should the same content be denied to adults in other media.<br /><br />The policy of refusing access to RC content is a child protection policy not because it aims to help prevent children (or others) from SEEING it, but to help protect children (and others) from being subject to the ACTIONS portrayed in the content.<br /><br />Senator Lundy has resorted to concerns about the effect the page blocker will have on Internet speeds, and has picked up thoughts from contributors on limits of the technical trials. Be that as it may, it is still hard to argue that the Australian Government should take no action to prohibit distribution of material that it prohibits being distributed in other ways.<br /><br />One thing I am being convinced of is that the current dividing line between X18+ and RC is set too low. That needs to be addressed, perhaps with another category above X18+ (dare I say XXX18+). But it needs to be addressed for ALL MEDIA.<br /><br />Finally I was alerted to the <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/13/labor-senator-kate-lundy-speaks-out-against-mandatory-internet-censorship/?source=cmailer">Crikey story</a> on the Lundy blog by <a href="http://freedomtodiffer.com/labor-senator-kate-lundy-speaks-out-against-m">a blogpost</a> on a site that calls itself "Freedom to Differ". <br /><br />Iwas alerted to it by my Google Alert on my name, because there is a comment there from a Verity Pravda that is not me. How awesome if there is now a "Not the real Verity Pravda" out there. More interestingly Freedom to Differ seems to thnk that it is OK on a blogpost to cut and paste an ENTIRE Crikey story. Freedom to steal as well perhaps?Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-45498527396283210152009-12-15T20:02:00.000-08:002009-12-15T20:21:58.151-08:00A year is a long timeI started this blog to <a href="http://theinterwebwarrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/welcome-dbcde.html">discuss</a> the Government's digital economy efforts. That blog got rapidy overwhelmed by anti-filter campaigners.<br /><br />At the same time a year ago there was still much cynicism about the NBN, as tenders had just been recived and Telstra excluded from the process.<br /><br />In <a href="http://theinterwebwarrior.blogspot.com/2009/04/australia-goes-ballistic.html">April</a> the Government changed the agenda on the NBN, and in <a href="http://theinterwebwarrior.blogspot.com/2009/07/it-is-here-at-last.html">July</a> they released their DE report.<br /><br />This month the Government held its <a href="http://www.broadbandfuture.gov.au/">Realising Our Broadband Future</a> conference to build on the both of these - the Digital Economy future directions meets the NBN. An interesting fact is that despite the forum attracting lots of public participation, I think there were only three comments that linked filtering to the agenda. Which perhaps goes to show that manufactured outrage is not a sustainable position.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-61108911085481995822009-12-15T19:45:00.000-08:002009-12-15T20:02:55.019-08:00ReactionsMeanwhile the reactions to the policy have been many. <br /><br />Catherine Lumby writing in <a href="http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Sex-drugs-and-other-things-you-cant-read-about/?referrer=email">The Punch</a> has trotted out some of the old stuff, based on misunderstanding the policy. In particular she tries a fear campaign that safe sex messages would be filtered out - as if there are any safe sex sites that would be Refused Classification. <br /><br />She also raises the bogey about the control of the list. Conroy has commenced a <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/all_funding_programs_and_support/cybersafety_plan/transparency_measures">public consultation</a> on how to ensure the accountability and transparency of this list. <br /><br />GetUp! (who admitted that their campaign against the filter was just designed to raise money) told <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772781.htm?referrer=email">the ABC</a> that there is something wrong with a "public complaints" mechanism because that's what previously banned things like Catcher in the Rye. I keep being confused by this argument - because the web sites Conroy wants to block would be prohibited from import in any other form.<br /><br />In the same interview EFA questioned the efficacy of the policy, as did Stilgherrian and Bernard Keane at Crikey. But they all miss the point that no legal prohibition is ever one hundred percent effective, but that is no reason not to try. <br /><br />The worst I saw was David Braue at ZDNet who wrote an entire <a href="http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/fullduplex/soa/Welcome-to-National-Censorship-Day/0,139033349,339300065,00.htm?ocid=nl_TNB_16122009_fea_l3#talkback">article</a> that bore no relatio to the policy as announced, only to the prejudices of those who have tried to wrap themselves in a libertarian and freedom flag and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-53283145108674512302009-12-15T19:29:00.000-08:002009-12-15T19:45:48.212-08:00Long time comingOK so I've been quiet a while. In the meantime Stephen Conroy has completed his "filtering" trials and come out with a <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115">policy</a>. <br /><br />He seems to have addressed all the myths and fear mongering on the topic.<br /> <br />Most importantly the technical report showed that filtering a defined short list of adresses (URLs) can be achieved reasonably accurately without serious impact on network performance. On the subject of what to exclude he has announced that it will be limited to Refused Classification material, that is, imported online content will be subject to the same restrictions as imported content on paper or a disc. This is not creeping censorship, it is making the same rules apply everywhere.<br /> <br />The list is therefore not the same as the infamous ACMA "black list". It will be constructed using public complaints and international co-operation to identify the most egregious sites. What's more he has listened to concens about secret censorship and proposed a process of public scrutiny of the list.<br /> <br />Finally he has heard the concerns about the absence of an R18+ category for games and has commenced a process to seek to introduce that classification, and at the same time has stated that these games will be not included on the list of refused classification sites to be blocked.<br /> <br />In addition to the mandated filtering he has recognised that there are end-users who don't feel confidant in their ability to maintain their own filters. He will introduce a program to assist ISPs in offering an opt-in network based filter that goes beyond the mandated filter.<br /> <br />This looks like a sensible policy that goes no further than tries to apply the same rules to web content a are applied to other content. It is a policy based on testing of solutions and with appropriate puiblic safeguards. It is a policy that makes the fear-mongers in the internet community look somewhat foolish. As an example, how much of the discussion was about the blacklist and how it was constructed even after Conroy made it clear the policy would only apply to RC?<br /> <br />Will it work? Yes and no. It will stop people accessing certain sites through simple web browsing. It will not stop the the internet being used to "import" refused classification material. It is a proportionate response. <br /> <br />Do gun control laws stop death by gunshot? No, but they do severely limit it and make Australia a safer place. <br /> <br />Acknowledgement should be made of the contributions of Telstra, Optus, Primus and iiNet in working with the Government in developing this scheme. This is a refreshing change from an industry normally best noted for taking no responsibility for its products and making assumptions about the abilities of customers that are not conected to reality.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-27097531739319956922009-07-27T01:03:00.000-07:002009-07-27T01:11:00.098-07:00Up there with IrelandSo reland has now published their Digital Economy <a href="http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/373D1478-CD29-4DEA-97B0-1847E1B98BB1/33047/TechnologyActionsReport21July09.doc">report</a>. Well actually it is "the first report in the Knowledge Society Strategy process".<br /><br />They have a <a href="http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/Making+the+smart+economy+real.htm">six point</a> plan. But theirs starts with choosing to build an exemplar network with Irish technology called "Optical Burst Packet Switching".<br /><br />It has a few more targets and more projects - but is otherwise much the same as ours - all content centres and smart grids. Ho Hum. Read all <a href="http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13461/government/digital-economy-report-the-overview">about it</a>.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-14042394314419937812009-07-14T06:51:00.000-07:002009-07-14T07:12:47.065-07:00It is here at lastI started this blog way back in December by <a href="http://theinterwebwarrior.blogspot.com/2008/12/welcome-dbcde.html">welcoming</a> the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to the blogsphere. Tonight (until dawn) the Minister launched the <a href="http://www.dbcde.gov.au/digital_economy/future_directions_of_the_digital_economy/australias_digital_economy_future_directions">report</a> that the blog fed into. <br /><br />I guess the report will get tossed around a lot. There will be some like <a href="http://www.itwire.com/content/view/26277/1095/">Stuart Corner</a> that will be disappointed that it didn't read like a business plan - with clearly stated goals, measurement processes and neat strategies for its implementation. But in the end those kinds of reports aren't much use either.<br /><br />As was noted in the introductory chapters of the <a href="www.rtirc.gov.au">Glasson report</a> Government has a limited array of activities it can pursue. These include legislation, taxation, incentive payments or investments. The only other toool they have is to "define the conversation". In a more lyrical moment I might talk more about the importance of that, and how in the real world real decision makers are very much "boundedly rational". The significance of framing the conversation is that you can direct the conversation.<br /><br />The final report has done a wonderful job of providing some structure to that framing discussion. It has created a degree of vision about what the Digital Economy entails, carvd out roles for Government, Industry and the Community, and talked a bit about how progress will be measured. For each of the three sectors three "elements of a successful digital economy" have been outlined.<br /><br />These are;<br />Government: lays the foundations for digital infrastructure<br />Government: facilitates innovation<br />Government: sets conducive regulatory frameworks<br />Industry: demonstrates digital confidence and builds digital skills<br />Industry: adopts smarter technology for environmental sustainability<br />Industry: develops sustainable online content models<br />Community: enjoys digital confidence and digital media literacy<br />Community: experiences inclusive digital participation<br />Community: benefits through online engagement<br /><br />These are really valuable structures to frame the discussion. It is particularly valuable that the term "industry" refers to all productive sectors of the economy not just the ICT industry. It is also useful to note how the three sectors of government-industry-community are described as inter-relating.<br /><br />It is perhaps a pity that what has been forced into the frame is much the same discussion as was in the original consultation paper and that between them all the individuals and groups who submitted weren't able to shake some new ideas loose.<br /><br />I imagine there will be more critics than just Stuart. It perhaps isn't as sexy as Digital Britain, it couldn't copy the simple "four Cs" model from New Zealand (confidence, connnectivity, capability, content - I think). <br /><br />The success of the Directions Paper will be measured by how much the framework can be used for framing discussion. That is something that can only be judged in time.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-16684422262362589422009-06-30T16:20:00.000-07:002009-06-30T22:59:05.067-07:00Merciless rip-offAs this is meant to be a digital economy site I thought I might rip off an item from <a href="http://www.plumsolutions.com.au/articles/?p=221">Plum Solutions</a> that provides a really interesting example of just how useful the web has become for developing human knowledge. <br /><br />What they were providing was a list of online resources to assist people using Excel for financial modelling. Spreadsheets some may now were the original "killer ap" for the PC, with VisiCalc for the AppleII and the original Lotus 1-2-3 for the initial IBM platform. While they have come a long way from there the advances have mostly been in formatting options and built in formulae. But the biggest single change has been their ability to handle larger quantities of data.<br /><br />The suggestions from Plum were;<br />* The LinkedIn <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?gid=1724487">Financial Modelling in Excel</a> group. The LinkedIn groups in general are a good way to access people interested in your field. Knowledge Management professionals will talk a lot about creating virtual groups of experts across an organisation. LinkedIn shows how to do it across the globe. Interesting question - do the really large knowledge based organisations like the consulting firms run their own social networking sites. I know that at least one Government Department (actually DBCDE) tried to do so but it didn't seem to get much use. <br />* <a href="http://chandoo.org/wp/">Pointy Haired Dilbert</a> is a fascinating blog for the heavy-duty Excel user. Plum suggest that if you subscribe, barely a day goes by without a fascinating tip or Excel tidbit.<br />* Accotding to Plum <a href="www.financialmodelingguide.com">www.financialmodelingguide.com</a> and the related <a href="www.finance30.com">www.finance30.com</a> have a huge following and are great resources on general finance as well as Financial Modelling. These are very much focussed on the "finance" part of financial modelling.<br />* Plum refers to the discussion forum on <a href="http://www.fi-mech.com/discussion/">Financial Mechanics</a> site as "the entertaining Swamp Fox" newsletter and user forum. Possibly interesting stuff, again very much for the financial.<br />* Meanwhile <a href="http://www.vertex42.com/">Vertex 24</a> is described as a guide to Excel in everything and includes loads of templates and calculators. <br />* <a href="http://blog.corality.com/">Corality</a> is an interesting firm that specialises in the audit of models. They provide a blog that Plum claims "has lots of Financial Modelling and Excel-related topics". <br />* Others suggested by Plum are <a href="http://www.navigatorpf.com/training/tutorials">Navigator Project Finance</a> which has a blog together with free tutorials and other resources to download, and <a href="http://www.accessanalytic.com.au/">Access Analytic</a> which has a "knowledge area". <br />Plum concludes by noting that for plain Excel stuff, you can always head straight to the <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/office/community/en-us/FlyoutOverview.mspx#2">Microsoft user discussion groups</a><br /><br />Plum readers also offered other useful links. Mohit Khurana provided a link to his own <a href="http://excelmatic.blogspot.com/">ExcelMatic</a> blog. Another reader promoted <a href="http://www.spreadsheetzone.com/">speadsheetzon.com</a> which describes itself as "one of the biggest Excel template repositories on the web".<br /><br />The purpose of this post wasn't just to mercilessly ripoff the Plum post nor just to make abn interesting repository of these links for leter use - it was to show off just how much the web increases the accessiblity of this kind of knowledge.<br /><br />My only disappointment...none of the links seemed to refer to the Mathematica kernel for Excel, and they were all financial modelling biased (the place spreadsheets made their own). I'm more interested in the statistical/econometric capabilities, and in the possibility of using Excel as a platform for conducting agent-based modelling (why - because CELLS look like natural homes for parameters for agents (which could be rows) - new sheets for each new time period - and lots of mathematical functions are available).Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-83271529592627393092009-06-29T23:11:00.000-07:002009-06-29T23:28:27.528-07:00Long Time No TalkI got an e-mail advice on 25 May that read <br /><br /><em>The third installment in the government's online consultation trial has just launched (with much less publicity) Please check it out at www.openforum.com.au/NHROC I would be happy to talk to you about it. Really want to let as many people as possible know it's happening so they can participate.</em><br /><br />I sort of missed it though as I had temporarily retired battered and bruised from the public policy debate space. <br /><br />I was intrigued by how this was called the "third installment" - I guess the DE blog was the second as someone else had run one as well. But I have serious doubts about the validity of this one, as the choice was made to use space on www.openforum.co.au which counts as its major sponsor a group called Global Access Partners. GAP gives the illusion of being a straight-forward private think tank, but their <em>modus operandi</em> was pretty is very non-transparent.<br /><br />More recently the Australian Government has launched a consultation on <a href="http://gov2.net.au/">Government 2.0</a> using the tools. I'm starting to think they are trying too hard to find ways of doing it differently rather than simply being organic in the development of use. After all the move to publishing decision from the Government Gazette to websites has been gradual.<br /><br />The big focus on Public Sector Information has nothing really to do with any of the digital economy issues - the traps in this space seem mostly to be caught in odd thoughts about Government not competing with the private sector. That is, by being in the info biz they cut off someone else's opportunity to make a buck.<br /><br />The relative logic of that proposition kicks off a strand of discussion in economics I don't want to pursue.<br /><br />PS Tried another post to Crikey about filtering. Let's see if they will publish me again.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-81758029794148515222009-04-30T22:00:00.000-07:002009-04-30T22:25:23.900-07:00Secrecy and the Digital EconomyIt was with some fascination that I noted that the Digital Economy blog and subsequent discussion paper included a section on private sector use of Government information. I realised it appeared there because of the particular interest of one advisor to Minister Conroy who has subsequently moved on to the office of the Premier of Victoria.<br /><br />It has been one of the notable achievements of the Rudd Government that at least Senator Faulkner has been able to progress on a range of issues to do with openness in Government. This has included both <a href="http://www.pmc.gov.au/consultation/foi_reform/index.cfm">FOI Reform</a> and the <a href="http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/lobbyistsregister/">lobbying code of conduct</a>. However, I am aware through a family connection that Senator Faulkner is finding the process slow and and the support of his colleagues lacking.<br /><br />But it remains the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy that sets the benchmarks for opacity. One of the more bizarre is their ongoing inability to understand the lobbying code, most recently demonstrated by a claim in a call for sbmissions that submissions by lobbyists would need to comply with the code. The problem is the code actually notes that submissions made in response to requests for submissions is not a lobbying activity. <br /><br />They also suffer from an ongoing inablity to release submissions to discussion papers at or about the time of submission. The most recent ase is that of the Digital Economy consultation itself. It appears their excuse (from talking to a colleague) is that they forgot to ask at the time if submissions could be published and are only just getting around to that task now. <br /><br />A related problem is the idea that consultants reports on policy issues are automatically tagged as "advice to the Minister" and hence never allowed to see the light of day. This usually results in repeated consultations covering the same turf.<br /><br />Thankfully the related agency ACMA only suffers from its interpretations of the lobbying code of conduct. It has a new policy of including an agency response to submissions (that is, active demonstration of the concept of consultation by demonstrating that the views were considered even if not adopted) at the same time as final papers are released.<br /><br />I would prefer they focus on transparency of the policy process before they worry about access to Government data.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-57037691840813454982009-03-23T21:18:00.000-07:002009-03-23T21:24:30.763-07:00Crikey by-playStilgherrian has been busy over at Crikey again today and yesterday. I'm not going to bother linking to him. <br /><br />In yesterday's Crikey I had <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/Your-Say/20090323-Comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups.html?source=cmailer">comments</a> published. But in response to the extra I made a contribution which has not yet been published, which reads;<br /><br /><em>Oh dear. Those anti-filter types just can't seem to follow the story long enough to get anything right. Re: Razer: Conroy should not be surprised at blacklist leak, the good Helen has tried to infer something from the list of six providers announced already as participating in the trial, claiming "Sadly, applicants Optus and iiNet are still waiting. For the first round, Conroy has selected some odd companies." This isn't something being decided in "rounds" as the Minister has explained (at ATUG) there are sixteen applicants and some had simpler applications to process than others. Some ISPs have tried to use the trial as a way to fund equipment upgrades, which, understandably, isn't the Minister's intent.<br /> <br />Meanwhile Stilgherrian should have waited till he'd seen my comment before rushing to print. Wikileaks doesn't have another leak they are just describing how they got the list - and - horror of horrors it had nothing to do with the ALP or the filter trial. It was a copy of the list generated under the legislation and distributed in accordance with the industry code. So nothing in the filter trial was relevant to the list leaking, except the campaign. Most importantly the process supposedly favoured by the industry (end user control, filtering software) was exposed for the inadequate process it is.<br /> <br />And there is an attempt to claim that because a site referred to ACMA after August was on the list that the list must be more recent than its date. This conveniently ignores the fact that the list contained URLs not on the ACMA list, so it could have been there from another source, and also that the anti-filter campaigner reporting the URL has no way of knowing if the URL was already on the list before complaining about it.<br /> <br />Finally, if the Minister has made inconsistent statements about what content the final filter will limit (the existing prohibited list or the narrower Refused Classification) I'm prepared to believe his most recent comments, or at least wait till I see what is in the final legislation</em><br /><br />Mark Newton got a reply in <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/Your-Say/20090324-Comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups.html">today's</a> comments and Stilgherrian had yet another go.<br /><br />I've submitted my contribution;<br /><br /><em>Mark Newton (comments) incorrectly states that I suggest the IIA was involved in the leak of the ACMA list. But he does agree the list was leaked from the existing process and the existing legislation - which is the framework the IIA supports. He asks how long the list for the ISP filter would take to leak, and the answer, as I wrote, is that it doesn't matter - as with a filter in place the average joe-blow at home isn't going to be accessing the sites. <br /> <br />I think the issue about whether the list released is or isn't the "ACMA" list is a little weird. Even the first list seemed likely to at least include the ACMA list. But, to repeat, the leak came from a nine-year-old process of distributing the list to filter providers who embedded it in software for furher distribution. Can we all agree that that is a dumb idea? And, by the way, if we plan the filter right we only need to install it on the transit links out of the country rather than in every ISP - that is a lot more efficient and a lot more controlled.<br /> <br />And it really does become possible to institute a process for review of the sites listed on the list. Finally it is strange that Stilgherrian can be dredging up the "Conroy s Big Brother" line (which is matched in the chat forums with claims that the Rudd government is totalitarian) in the ame Crikey issue as John Faulkner's review of FOI laws is reported.</em><br /><br />If I was the editor I probably would't bother because I'm not saying anything new ... but then again, neither is Stilgherrian or his colleagues.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-77118612229098182772009-03-23T19:09:00.000-07:002009-03-23T21:43:40.730-07:00To confuse thingsLet's talk about democracy.<br /><br />You might have seen an item by Michael Duffy in he <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/many-voices-in-a-net-spread-thin-20090320-94dk.html?page=-1">SMH</a> on the weekend. Duffy discusses the claim that "the internet has healthily diluted the political power that used to be concentrated in the hands of those who were older, wealthier, and better connected than the average citizen." He relies upon a book by Matthew Hindman called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Digital-Democracy-Matthew-Hindman/dp/0691138680/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237860874&sr=8-1">The Myth of Digital Democracy</a> to claim that the internet has in general made little impact.<br /><br />The central thesis is that who speaks, and who gets heard is still fundamentally the same. For example, while GetUp! might reach a big audience, so did street stalls with paper petitions. People like me who blog were also letter writers to newspapers. People who talk a lot about politics in chat or twitter do it a lot in the pub.<br /><br />The thesis has some merit - however, it is not quite as simple as that. True the same people are still mostly doing the same things just in different ways. But significantly the internet means that a individual is no longer denied a voice. The impact is at the margins rather than a fundamental reform. And it is all too easy to forget how in earlier generations the printing press was the most significant weapon of revolutionaries. Simon Sebag Montefiore's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Young-Stalin-Vintage-Simon-Montefiore/dp/1400096138/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237866029&sr=1-1">Young Stalin</a> is full of the stories of the moving, defending and loss of printing presses.<br /><br />You don't notice the benefits of the internet in democracies as you do in states that aren't democracies. <br /><br />This is all a long intro to segue to the fact that I've been included in an <a href="http://citizensovereignty.net/censornetwork.php">online list</a> of the censorship who's who. I'm sure the Crikey guys would be thrilled to see that I'm referred to as having contributed i the main stream media because I have written in Crikey - they don't think of themselves as MSM.<br /><br />Anyhow the site also has a who's who on a Bill of Rights. Just to confuse matters I'm absolutely supportive of a Bill of Rights. I'm ultimately supportive of a Bill of Rights that would be incorporated in the Commonwealth Constitution, but I can see all the dilemmas that poses.<br /><br />What I can't stand is all the opposition to a Bill of Rights as just an Act of Parliament. Lots of very idiotic comments running around about either over-empowering judges to "make law" (or at least overturn law) or about constitutional problems if courts lower than the High Court were empowered to make decisions about the constitutionality of laws.<br /><br />It really is possible to hasten slowly. Step one would be to pass an Act establishing Basic Human Rights in Australia. In that Act you authorise a statutory body (e.g. HREOC) to report annually to Parliament on whether any rights have been affected by legislation, and empowering them to conduct enquiries and receive complaints. Parliament doesn't have to do anything - but the process holds the Parliament and Government to account to voters for the contraventions. (You can expect they will react by varying one or other Act).<br /><br />Once we all get comfortable with that you change the Act so that the High Court can decide if a new piece of legislation offends the Act, and specify that the latter Act is void if it is not re-enacted by the Parliament within three months (or twenty sitting days) of the Court's decision. Once again Parliament might decide to amend the Rights Act.<br /><br />Once that becmes stable you put the referendum to adopt the final Act as a set of Constitutional rights.<br /><br />Not hard really. And I suspect that the filter would be legal under any of them.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-3270778517219342462009-03-22T23:20:00.000-07:002009-03-22T23:47:31.854-07:00Oh Lord Oh LordHere we go, the filter issue is getting out of hand. Apart from Stigherrian and Helen Razr getting another run in Crikey, there have been three high-brow pieces.<br /><br />The first is ABC radio <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2512171.htm">Background Briefing</a> which, quite frankly, was standard beat up 101. Drawing wrong conclusions about who the first six triallists were, pointing out that there are other ways to access child pornography. The idea that the filter is "filtering" all web-traffic rather than simply blocking access o certain sites.<br /><br />The second is <a href="http://newmatilda.com/2009/03/23/tangled-web">New Matilda</a> which also runs most of the same lines. <br /><br />Meanwhile at <a href="http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8714&page=0">Online Opinion</a> there is a wacky piece which provides a really good scenario of how someone registering a new site could be acquiring a name that has already been blocked. But he spoils it all by claiming that a person who linked to the site would already be in court defending a fine rather than having become aware of the fact the site was on the list. But the supposed solution was about not just URL blocking but actually de-registering domains. That could be far more disastrous.<br /><br />Pity that with all this attention no one else seems to pose the two step question. Is it appropriate to run classification systems at all? If so, how should it be done on the Internet?Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-65879521061696672152009-03-18T20:28:00.000-07:002009-03-18T23:18:34.126-07:00Filtering - againI promise this is not my obsession, but I am getting increasingly frustrated by the nonsense that is the campaign against Internet filtering. I'm inspired to write by the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html">leaking</a> of the "ACMA blacklist" to <a href="http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist%2C_6_Aug_2008">Wikileaks</a>.* It is interesting to note that according to the <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/014">Minister</a> this is NOT the ACMA list.<br /><br />The difficulties I have with the campaign are many, but the main ones are that it is not a genuine libertarian cause, that it is mostly self-defeating and that it is based on the opponents own constructed straw-man. Let me deal with the first two, and then fill the void created by the absence of clear policy from the Government.<br /><br /><strong>Not libertarian</strong><br />The campaign against the filter is not a genuine libertarian campaign because, in fact, nowhere do they make the argument that the information that the Government ostensibly claims is to be filtered - images of child pornography and abuse - is information that should be frely available.<br /><br />Earlier libertarian campaigns that did lead to radical changes in Australia's approach to censorship focussed entirely on the right of citizens to access he material subject of the campaign. The campaign about the censorship of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Schoolbook">The Little Red Schoolbook</a> was a classic example of focussing on specific content. Similarly the work of <a href="http://www.milesago.com/people/bacon-wendy.htm">Wendy Bacon</a> and others expressly focussed on sexual politics, but this was based on some <a href="http://www.takver.com/history/aia/aia00033.htm">philosophical</a> foundations. The ultimate was, of course, the simple absurdity of the book censorship rules that banned books like <em>Portnoy's Complaint</em> and <em>Lady Chatterly's Lover</em>. It was the revision of these rules that made <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Chipp">Don Chipp</a> a poster boy of "small l" liberalism.<br /><br />A similar campaign now would be about the stringency of the rules that deems certain material "refused classification" and hence not legally able to be distributed or sold in Australia. But this is not the campaign - the campaign is that somehow the Internet is precious and different. <br /><br />A slightly different variant of the libertarian strand of argument is that somehow the creation of the ability to filter Internet content merely by the device of a secret blacklist would empower the executive government with the ability to filter out other material, such as political material. The whacky case of the <a href="http://theinterwebwarrior.blogspot.com/2009/01/political-censorship-deception-and.html">gruesome abortion images</a> was supposedly demonstrating the possibility of this. Other comments, notably on the DE blog (now torn down I gather), went to the idea that this Parliament shouldn't provide the tools to another Parliament to implement.<br /><br />This is all slightly crazy. Firstly you don't need this Parliament to make things possible for a future rogue Parliament, they can do it themselves. Secondly, the list is maintained by a statutory authority not subject to direction on including specific sites. Conspiracy theorists might abound, but you'd need to involve a lot of people in the conspiracy.<br /><br />The campaign against the filter is not a genuine libertarian campaign.<br /><br /><strong>A self-defeating campaign</strong><br />Jonathan Zittrain, in his book <em>The Future of the Internet; and how to stop it</em> refers to the wonders of the Internet being the fact it is a <em>generative</em> technology. He writes;<br /><br /><em>Generativity is a system's capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences.</em><br /><br />His thesis is that generativity is the Internet's greatest strength and its greatest weakness, it is this generativity that turns the Internet into a superb means for conducting scams, for phishing and, indeed, to subvert ordinary agreed social rules that are enacted as laws. This ongoing trend makes users sufficiently nervous about the net that they want it "controlled", and control ultimately means "locked down". There would be nothing simpler for controlling the net than going bck to the idea that all networks are Government owned and controlled just the way telephone networks were until the early 1980s. <br /><br />The campaign about the filter only serves to drive home more to the non-technologists just how much this fear is justified. It does nothing to make the average user feel more comfortable to be told that a Government program to "protect the children" is ineffective because people can just work around it. That's like telling people that there is no point in a law prohibiting murder because people will still get killed. It doesn't instil confidence - it just inspires people to say "do more" - in the case of murder more is banning guns and increasing police forces. In the case of the internet, nationalising it is one safe way to go.<br /><br />But more specifically the recent event has been the publishing of the ACMA "blacklist". Now this is the list prepared to notify filter providers of the sites that ACMA has identified that under Schedule 5 of the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch5.html">Broadcasting Services Act</a>. It is notable that the list that has ben "leaked" in March 2009 is the one issued in August 2008 - speedy stuff. <br /><br />It is also notable that this list has been in existence since the original amendment was passed in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/bsasa1999449/sch1.html">1999</a>. Why has the list been made public now - because it suits the purposes of those campaigning. There were lots of comments about how the list would become public, but it only has become public because of the campaign. How exactly does that endear the campaign to anybody? Especially since it also appears that the document is not the ACMA list.<br /><br />Finally and most damagingly for the anti-filtering campaign, the publication of the list has less effect if the filter is in place! We will talk more about the ability to subvert the filter - but do I really care if the list of sites you can't get to is known?<br /><br />I really do not know what campaign these people are pursuing, but it doesn't seem to be logical. Of course, they try to take comfort from the idea that the Government won't get its legislation through the Senate. Hello. Has anyone noticed that the existing law was introduced by the coalition when they were in Government. Do they really think that the coalition are the group that are going to vote for child porn?<br /><br /><strong>A better strawman</strong><br />In the absence of the Government doing it, let's write a possible policy.<br /><br />The concept of classification of content is now well established in Australia. The most well understood regime is provided by the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cfacga1995489/">Classification Act</a> that, as we know from the cinema ads, helps us make informed choices. The essential concept is that it helps a person to know before they (and importantly pay to) watch or buy something that it meets the standard they would expect. So the primary purpose is informing people about the content. A secondary purpose is to impose some mandatory restrictions, specifically on where and how R18+ and X18+ material may be displayed. In addition it allows for certain material to be "refused classification", this is material that cannot be distributed or sold, but it is not illegal to own. Included in this is a tighter level of material covered by other legislation - specifically the "illegal" material of child pornography, this is material that it is illegal to have in your possession. <br /><br />This regime is all compounded by the fact that aspects of it are in State law, for example, whether X18+ material can be sold. Similarly the classification scheme itself was subject to an agreement between he States and Commonwealth, and the fact that there is no R18+ category for games is because of the inability to get this agreement, not unwillingness on the part of the Australian Government. (The absence of this classification evidently is a reason to object to the banning of online RC material - as opposed to being a reason to get the category created).<br /><br />Let's also look at the limitations of the content classification scheme. Refusing something a classification and making it not available for distribution in Australia will not prohibit someone from accessing that material. It might be brought in undetected in luggage or even in the mail. However, the fact that it <em>might</em> still be accessed is never given as a reason for not having the classification and the prohibition. <br /><br />This is not the only process. Recognising the more dynamic nature of television the TV networks operate their own classification scheme within the <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/Content_Common/pg-Code-of-Practice.seo">TV code of practice</a>. <br /><br />In the best of all possible worlds a similar classification scheme could operate for the entire web content on the Internet. For simple browsing all that would be required is that as part of the DNS scheme every domain had a classification. Just as TV that classification could be self-attested by the domain owner. Where the domain facilitates other contributions, e.g. blogspot that hosts this blog, whirlpool which is a forum, it is up to the domain owner how they police the need for all content to met the classification standard. The ability to execute a take-down notice of some kind would suffice. A variation on this is the approach taken by the <a href="http://www.fosi.org/icra/">Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA)</a>.<br /><br />Unfortunately due to a range of factors, including the fact that different countries still have different standards, the full implementation of a satisfactory online classification scheme is some way off.<br /><br />So absent a global solution, how can we replicate the outcome of a classification scheme (noting that if you want to make the libertarian argument against classification that should be a technology independent argument). The coalition tried to do it through the device of the existing BSA provisions. This defined certain content as prohibited. Prohibited content was to not be hosted in Australia, and through an industry code, the industry agreed to restrict access to the content that was hosted outside Australia. That latter restriction is by the provision of the list of prohibited content to filter providers and the promotion by ISPs of those filter providers to their customers.<br /><br />This legislation unfortunately defined prohibited content as being R18+, X18+, and RC material. The procedure is that content is currently only listed if a complaint is made to ACMA and ACMA has investigated the site, classified the material in one of the categories and identified the site is hosted overseas. The ALP policy did include a plan to be more active on the list construction in conjunction with the filter. In addition ALP policy planned to require all ISPs to offer an optional "clean feed", that is of a filtered service more restrictive than the prohibited content.<br /><br />What Conroy has never clearly stated is that it is his intention to modify the BSA so that there are two classes of content. The RC material that must be filtered out, and then the R18+ and X18+ that would be filtered out if a customer elected to acquire a clean feed.<br /><br />The only objections to this (that are not objections to classification in general) are that it will "slow the internet", that it won't actually stop access to the bad stuff and that it is subject to abuse as the list is secret.<br /><br /><em>Slow the internet</em><br />Say the word "filter" and people immediately assume dynamic filtering or "deep packet inspection". In reality the simplest implementation of a filter of designated URLs (parts of sites) is to map those URLs to the IP addresses of the machines that host them. It is this list of IP addresses that is provided to ISPs and they route traffic to those IP addresses to the filter provider who undertakes the further analysis. This is cheap, scalable and efficient. It adds zero latency to IP addresses not on the list, and ideally can be implemented as part of the transit provision service out of the country and not need to occur in ISPs.<br /><br /><em>It won't stop access</em><br />This is the weakest argument, because it is equally true of all attempts to prohibit anything. As mentioned above you can find ways to get access to RC films or pictures. But is that a reason not to try? Is that sufficient reason to say they can be sold in any newsagent in the country? It is also the argument of the tech savvy who don't understand that the vast bulk of internet users never get past just typing URLs into browsers.<br /><br /><em>Secrecy of the list</em><br />The more effective the filter, the less necessary it is to keep the list secret. The list of films refused classification is public. It is no use in Australia because you can't buy them, though you could use it to try to source one through the means we know. Similarly the list of banned sites isn't much use to you if the filter is in place (except that you may equally use it to subvert). As a layer between secrecy and full disclosure the list could be made available for interrogation by application - so that civil libertarians and others could check to ensure the guidelines are being pursued.<br /><br /><strong>Concluding remarks</strong><br />The campaign against the filter is, quite frankly, stupid. It is only succeeding because Conroy hasn't been prepared to convert more of the campaign promise into policy documents. A good old fashioned "green paper" to accompany the trial would have been a good start. <br /><br />Meanwhile others keep making gooses of themselves. The IIA is most concerned about the idea of legislation and would prefer to deliver whatever Conroy wants by way of a revision to the industry code. Conroy himself in answering a question at the recent ATUG conference is reported to have gone on at some length with the idea that the filter can't be undemocratic because it was the Parliament that will introduce it.<br /><br />That hasn't stopped the Greens' Scott Ludlum engaging in a bit of <a href="http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/blog/could-clean-feed-bypass-parliament">posturing</a> that he and other Senators will stop the legislation but they are still afraid the Government might try non-legislative routes. <br /><br />It would be all much simpler if we divided the discussion into its two simple parts. What classification and content restriction schemes are appropriate for all content, and how can we mot readily put that into effect for content delivered over the Internet. <br /><br /><br />* I'm led to believe that providing a hyperlink on my site to the site that provides the list technically is a breach of the rules about publishing the list. If I am so notified I will remove the link.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-35796094434559352432009-03-18T18:51:00.000-07:002009-03-18T19:09:57.534-07:00CynicocraticalThere you go, a new word for you. What does it mean? "Pertaining to rule by cynics".<br /><br />Use the word in context - judging by the commentary about internet filtering in Crikey and other supposedly reputed sources, the governance of the internet is cynicocratical. That is the possible subject for a blog post all on its own!<br /><br />However this blog post is actually about words - in fact two kinds of words - firstly words that are in danger of extinction and secondly words being created. There are two ripper websites devoted to each topic - each of which can send you a "word of the day" (and both shown to me by the same work colleague).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.savethewords.org/">Save The Words</a> is a cool flash site that provides a picture of a lot of words that are in danger of falling into disuse. Moving the cursor moves the frame across the virtual picture and the words asked to be picked. You learn the meanings of the words, can adopt words and order a t-shirt of the word. The site is operated by the Malaysian subsidiary of OUP (and unfortunately the t-shirts are only available in Malaysia and Singapore).<br /><br />Meanwhile <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/">Urban Dictionary</a> describes itself as the "slang dictionary you wrote". Hence it technically could be called a <em>Wiki-ictionary</em> devoted to slang. While much of it is interpretive of existing slang, it is also a place you can go to make up a word. The word of the day today was "cewebrity" which means "an internet personality that has achieved celebrity". On that basis one of the afore-mentioned - the identity known as <a href="http://www.nowwearetalking.com.au/blogs/the-scrum/the-real-facts-about-telstra-and-the-fake-stephen-conroy">"the fake Stephen Conroy"</a> - is a cewebrity.<br /><br />I've signed up for both. I'll resist the temptation to try to include both words in a blog posting each day!Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-81536926303433960952009-03-15T21:29:00.000-07:002009-03-19T22:32:45.784-07:00Slow response timeI have received a late comment on one of my earlier <a href="http://theinterwebwarrior.blogspot.com/2009/01/under-whelmed-by-poor-logic.html">posts</a> about the filtering issue by websinthe. <br /><br />I really get irked by people who object to my ocassional typo (more often typos than spelling errors). He wants me to use Firefox as my browser because it has an inbuilt spell checker - but then again I could always compose in a wordprocessor and cut and paste. <br /><br />I object even more to people who use the gratuitous sign-off that implies the whole piece fails on grammar, logic and research. <br /><br />Now to the substance. Apparently my comment that certain concepts on which capitalism is founded weren't self-created was both insulting and wrong. Firstly when I claim "an argument ignores X" I am not actually claiming "the person who is making this argument is ignorant of X". I can't infer the latter from the argument made, I can infer the former, which is all I did. <br /><br />As to whether the concepts were made by Government either through courts or legislation it is not sufficient to claim something pre-dates the concept of legislation (as in a Bill introduced to a Parliament) to refute that. The context includes any action made by the representation of the State including a monarch. Yes, diffrent kinds of money flourished without central control. The only money that anyone ever relies on is the money that comes with the various levels of security created by the Government's role in money. Similarly the concept of a contract only required the two people entering into it to agree they wre agreeing, but the idea of contract as expressed in market theory requires all the elements that were created by judge-made law.<br /><br />(Oh - and if anyone cares the following is not a grammatical sentence "You claiming that I am ignorant of the legislative and judicial origins of the three frameworks you mentioned when only one of them was a creation of common law and none of them were created by legislation. " )<br /><br />Now as to the references to the Whirlpool action. The <a href="http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25181408-15306,00.html">story</a> is that ACMA issued a notice that one of the posts on Whirlpool included a link to prohibited content. The concern seems to be over the responsibility of the site hoster.<br /><br />The bad news for Whirlpool and anything like it is that they aren't a mere conduit and that the site's owner has the same responsibilities as a newspaper. If a defamation action is brought then the site owner can be included.<br /><br />Is that fair? Well, yes actually. You see the site owner has made the concious decision to have "unmoderated" comments - just like I have.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-40011841672915093912009-03-09T19:29:00.001-07:002009-03-09T22:04:24.522-07:00Researching the bleeding obviousACMA has today released a <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311655">research report</a> titled <em>Australia in the Digital Economy: Trust and confidence</em>. <br /><br />In their media release and the executive summary we are informed that<br /><br /><em>Australians value the internet and see it as critical to their daily lives...However, while Australians overwhelmingly see the internet as having affected their lives positively, they still have concerns about the potential for the internet to negatively affect their privacy and security. These concerns currently do not form a barrier to participation in the online environment, as increasing numbers of people use the internet for a wide range of activities including e-commerce and social networking.</em><br /><br />One could posit that original primary research wasn't required to reach these conclusions. Perhaps the research is justified if it gives a clear lead on policy implications.*<br /><br />The interesting part of the research is the analysis of users self-evaluation of their Internet skills where 36% od respondants rated themselves as above average skill levels (12% very, 24% somewhat), while 45% rated their skill level as average. (Of the 19% who rated themselves below average, it was 7% in very much below average and 12% somewhat). Is this possible? Shouldn't an equal number be below and above average? That depends on what meaning of "average" is used - if it was a median then that is what you'd expect, if it was a mean the kind of outcome above is possible. If we assume "average" means the mean plus or minus one standard deviation the outcome is possible on a hypothesised "score" of skills that would have a distribution that was clumped very much above the mean but had a very long distribution below it. <br /><br />But that assumes that one can meaningfully "score" skills. It does pose the question of whether relying on user's self-assessment is appropriate versus actually testing those skills. A really useful study would involve testing the skills as well as seeking the self-assessment. <br /><br />The report almost does this in its correlation of self assessed competency against the measures taken to protect against on-line risks. This is made somewhat difficult because of the reports measure of action taken. The Very much above average skills group had a relatively low level of having installed anti-virus programs, but they had a much higher level of "computer had filters/software installed when bought" which would typically include anti-virus. If we make that assumption there is overall the expected correlation between assessed skill level and level of protection. <br /><br />The report itself errs by asserting that "eighty-one per cent of internet users are confidant in their skills". The error is that a user's belief in whether their skills are average or better does not equate to whether their skills are adequate or not. <br /><br />The report's conclusion that high levels of self-assesed skills do not translate into taking proactive protection measures seems to be based on not including reliance on pre-installed software. Even were it true it is not sufficient evidence to support the reports major conclusion that <br /><br /><em>In order for consumers to continue to trust the internet and to ensure the growth of the digital economy, consumers need to be informed about online risks and ways to protect their computers and themselves from the more negative and harmful aspects associated with internet usage.</em><br /><br />It is hard to determine how that conclusion can be reached on the basis of the evidence presented. This is compounded in the report's conclusion in stating "there is a critical role for industry and governments in the continuing improvement of consumer awareness". <br /><br />In general the report is composed of relatively inconsequential statistics leading to disconnected conclusions that otherwise appeal to the interests of a regulator. Perhaps these weaknesses can explain why research conducted in June 2008 is being released in March 2009.<br /><br />* Note however that this is one area where the current structuring of ACMA under an establising Act with three separate principle Acts to be administered creates some confusion. The question of how much policy analysis is meant to be done by ACMA as opposed to DBCDE is an interesting question.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6868128010091011808.post-50910716224157787652009-03-08T23:07:00.000-07:002009-03-08T23:18:17.330-07:00Will the filter crowd come out to playThe Federal Government is again using on-line technologies to help in policy development, this time on <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/online-ideas-help-childcare-policy-20090308-8sgy.html">child care policy</a>.<br /><br />The last attempt was the blog on the Digital Economy, which got swamped by people posting about a completely different policy, albeit one covered by the same Minister. Will those same people decide to swamp the child care policy with the same kind of content? It is probably just as relevant as it is one Government not just individual Ministers who make policy.<br /><br />Will they find some tenuous link - maybe some spurious argument that the money spent on internet filtering would be better spent on chld care? Or that Maxine McKew should replace Stephen Conroy because she would know more about media?<br /><br />Let's see.....<br /><br />Meanwhile <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25157850-5013404,00.html">legal abortions</a> are a subject for discussion in NSW. The only tenuous link being the flurry over some images on an anti-abortion site being added to the ACMA blacklist.<br /><br />But before people get too excited about the question of legality or otherwise, I wonder if the people of NSW realise that already legal abortions cannot be obtained in NSW public hospitals. We are already back to the horrible days of the 1960s where abortions were able to be procured by the rich (they always knew the appropriate doctor) and never by the poor.Verity Pravdahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07844171210623455341noreply@blogger.com0