Filtering the internet, but not choice

The Rudd Government is currently coming under heavy fire from the public about its proposed mandatory internet filtering for all ISPs, (Internet Service Providers) which would effect every Australian and content they could "possibly" view on the internet. But while some are heralding such a plan as a proactive step towards protecting children, others are claiming it gives the capacity for the government to become an overbearing big brother, diminishing our democracy. With the proposed policy in its current form, both sides of the argument have valid points. Though there is an effective solution, that could appease both sides of the debate.

The proposed policy, in its current form, will force all ISPs to block all RC (refused classification) websites on international servers. RC websites are not legally permitted to be hosted on Australian servers and are currently removed or blocked. However this policy classifies sites hosted internationally, and blocks these. Who chooses which sites to block was originally up to the government, but it appears they will opt for an independent organisation to review or choose which sites to block. The types of sites to be blocked are meant to be "offensive", though they range from illegal pornography and bomb making sites, to currently legal pornography and pro euthanasia sites. The list of sites to be blocked is not to be released publicly (which has caused just as much controversy as the blocking of sites), but earlier on in the year a list was leaked, which included a non harmful, not offensive, Queensland dentist's website. The main aim of the filter is to protect families and children from accidentally accessing "offensive" and dangerous websites. However the government has acknowledged the if people want to 'illegally' get around the filter, they can.

The main argument against implementing the filter is that the government has, and can, secretly block websites of its choosing. Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has criticised the proposed policy, as he, along with over 90% of the Australian public if news polls are to be believed, see an opportunity for government abuse to arise and the stifling of democratic process through restricted access to information. This is because it gives the government power to block sites it doesn't see as appropriate, such as pro euthanasia sites. Hence reducing the amount of information available to the public to continue fueling public debate and opinion. However if people can easily get around the system in an illegal way, it will still be ineffective in its purpose. And in this tech savvy world, it doesn't take much to get around firewalls. All this filter really does is stop people accidentally stumbling across such information.

The debate surrounding this particular piece of the Rudd government's "internet" policy, which is to be introduced into parliament next year, is also muddied by arguments that internet speed will decrease and that not all offensive material will be blocked. On the subject of speed, an internet filter will most likely slow down speed, but only by an insignificant margin. Though the belief that not all offensive material will be blocked does hold a lot of weight. While most RC sites can be blocked, it is easy to circumvent the filter, but also new sites can pop up, to which it comes a game of 'website creation' vs 'government finding and blocking'. Breeding complacency among the public with an internet filter is also dangerous. People still need to be careful about what sites they visit, and the content their children have access to.

So if the current proposal is ineffective yet to intervening, what's the solution? Firstly, to increase the range and type of RC websites to be blocked; which would include all pornography, scam and virus sites etc. (just think, any website you wouldn't want to be associated with opening in public). Secondly, list the websites blocked; transparency and accountability will not hurt here. If people want to find and access these sites, they will find away to do so. Thirdly, make it an "opt out" system; households and internet users who wish to remove such a filter, must register with their ISP to have it removed. This means the 'average' family has a safer internet, the complacent internet user who couldn't be bothered contacting their ISP is safer, and those who are wishing to access such information will be able to access it (because they would be able to with the proposed policy anyway)

The internet is the 21st century's digital figure-head for liberalism and democracy. It is also the greatest source for illegal and immoral content. However while governments should not be able to dictate what's morally acceptable (with legal exceptions), or diminish the capacity for individuals to access information consensually, they should be able to provide the choice for people to protect themselves and their families. 

Links

Net filters 'thin end of the wedge': Kirby - SMH online

Critics blast 'great firewall of Australia' - ABC news

Green light for internet filter plans - ABC news

Computer says no: Google slams filter - ABC News

The darker side of China's prosperity

While China is continuing to enjoy its strong economic growth that is fuelling the global economy, its intentions to "westernise" and be accepted as a good international citizen is again coming under fire. After vehemently denying the existence of "black jails", illegal detention (and sometimes torture) centres which hold civilians who attempt to make a complaint against the communist government, have formally been acknowledged by a high profile government newspaper and several officials. China continues to claim that it is improving its human rights record. However the cloud of Tienanmen Square still hangs over China and leaked reports of human rights abuses continue to plague the Chinese government.

Western nations, such as the UK, US and Australia have historically criticised China for its human rights abuses. Though as seen throughout 2009, these diplomatic condemnations of China's actions haven't occurred. Instead, because of China's economic growth, statements like this were made - "We won't let human rights get in the way of trade with China" (Hillary Clinton's statement when visiting China earlier this year). This is because of the strength of China's economy. Its newly found economic power is able to overpower international condemnation from its reliant trading partners. Western nations are also being held accountable to their human rights abuses and neglects, such as the US and Guantanamo Bay, UK and invasion of Iraq, Australia and the neglect of Indigenous Australians. Hence China's economic prosperity is able to diminish the capacity for dialogue about human rights abuses.

The recent report about human rights abuses and "black jails" however has come after much international concern and condemnation, especially from non government groups, such as Human Rights Watch, that aren't restricted in their opinion by lucrative trade deals. And with the acknowledgement of misconduct coming from a high ranking communist party paper, it signals a move by Chinese ministers that human rights abuses can not be overlooked or so easily swept under the carpet. However the reason these jails exist is just because of this. When a Chinese citizen wants to make a complaint, they must go to their local officials. These officials performance are not ranked or decided by a vote by the people in a democracy. They are judged by the amount of complaints that are made against them. Because there is little accountability within the communist government, these officials ignore and do not file these complaints. Hence these citizens who want to make a complaint must travel to the "State Bureau for Letters and Calls" in Beijing in person to make the complaint. And this is where the government employs civilian security forces to capture and detain those who have travelled to Beijing to make a complaint. About 10 000 Chinese travel to Beijing to make complaints a year. An unknown amount end up in "black jails".

While the Chinese Communist government is able to more effectively manage and regulate and economy, proven through its continued strength and resilience to bad foreign debt, it is unable to have effective accountability to the Chinese people. Millions more Chinese are enjoying to luxuries of a middle class life, such as owning a fridge, car, house and consumer technology. Though those who aren't on the 'golden coast' (East coast of China) aren't receiving these benefits. Their issues they wish to take up with their government aren't being heard, but instead they are being punished. The minor acknowledgement about these black jails is another step in revealing the failing process of accountability and transparency. China still strongly pursues its aim of internal stability, most notably created through military crackdowns (Tibet, Xijiang) and economic growth (the 'golden' East Coast). Though maybe more accountability, transparency and filing would work better than guns or money!

Links
China admits it runs illegal black jails - Telegraph.co.uk 

China must be held to account for its political repression - Guardian.co.uk

China 'running illegal prisons' - BBC News

Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

As Barack Obama pledges to put 30,000 more US troops into Afghanistan by the start of 2010, the US Defence Secretary admits that they don't know where Osama bin Laden is, and have had no accurate intelligence about his whereabouts in years. Towards the end of Bush's presidency, and since Obama has taken office, the "war on terror" and US occupation of Afghanistan has changed from capturing and killing terrorists, to nation building and stopping Afghanistan and surrounding areas from becoming a terrorist safe haven.

This admission from Defence Secretary Robert Gates highlights the changed intentions of the US in regards to fighting terrorism, but also to the inadequacies and failures of US intelligence and military operations. It is believed that bin Laden was able to escape from the remote mountain caves of Afghanistan into boarding onto Pakistan during the 2001 invasion, because of a lack of US military concentration in that area. It makes us question the true amount of effort the US military and intelligence services put into finding bin Laden, and how serious their efforts are now. At the time of the invasion, Fox News (not the most accurate to be quoting as a common example) was reporting during the invasion of the possibility of large, underground lairs being used by al-Qaeda operatives as training facilities. Hypothetical diagrams were made to demonstrate the vastness of these caves, which included stairs, multiple levels and a hydro power generator. The very reality of the situation with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, or even all over the world, was and still is far from this fearfully fanciful prediction.

The huge al-Qaeda network the US was estimating to find was never really found. Only what was found was a very loose connection between financiers who hated the west, and people who also hated the west and were willing to kill themselves for it. Osama bin Laden only managed to blur these lines even further, by being a very supportive financier, in monetary and ideological perspectives. The widely spread opinion (mostly among conservative circles in the US and other western nations), that bin Laden and other radical terrorists are out to kill westerners, and that they are trying to get into the country now has amazingly crumbled to bits, and is now lying scattered around their ankles. The loose 'networks' that existed all shared one common trait. A hatred towards the US from invasive action and believed persecution and marginalisation from it. These "terrorists" have been shown to not exist in vast numbers, but quickly appear when poor, unemployed and disenfranchised young males believe they are being marginalised by the US. This has been proven again throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Young men fight against the US, on the belief that the US is the 'evil' invading force (often brought upon by the accidental killing of family and friends, livestock and destruction of homes due to US military activities). This has been proven again with the US drone program in Pakistan, killing 50 civilians to 1 terrorist. This has created more anti US sentiment and reason for young Pakistani men to conduct terrorist affiliated activities within the region against the US and westerners.

Hence most terrorists are not made in training camps in Afghanistan or are willing to fly planes into buildings. They are 'grown' (in the case of the UK, home grown) from actions conducted by the west against the Islamic community or particular Middle Eastern groups. The US has admitted that there is only around 100 al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan at the moment. So with the new troop surge, it isn't going to be 1,300 US troops per al-Qaeda member. It is nation building and prevention of radical groups establishing themselves with their anti western ideology in Afghanistan. The outcome of the Afghanistan war will depend on rebuilding the government, communities and the country, not finding or killing Osama Bin Laden.

So where is he now? Most likely dead. If not hiding somewhere in the remote mountains in Pakistan or anywhere in Africa. Though the real threat of terrorism doesn't come from him any more. It comes from those within the Middle East that we don't help or assist, or hurt, oppress and marginalise even more.

Links:
No news on bin Laden for years, US admits - ABC online

No Bin Laden information in years, says Gates - BBC news

President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan

Abbott in - more than just the ETS put out!

It's not often I find myself detesting a particular politician. The one Australian politician that really grinds my gears would have to be Tony Abbott. So while my jaw hit the ground when the news broke that he became "leader" (and I do use the term very loosely) of the opposition, it's now firmly back up in its place, grinding away at my teeth.


With Tony Abbott winning the position as Liberal Party leader, the conservative faction of the Liberal Party has taken over again. But at least they have stopped pining the Howard years (I hope). This is in line with his view not to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme within Australia, claiming that it was a pointless tax that was only going to ruin the economy and not cut carbon emissions. However he also takes the position "we won't be having a tax as part of our policy going to the next election". Instead, Abbott has taken the stance of supporting nuclear power for Australia, and is wishing to start up the nuclear debate. 


Firstly, (and also strangely), I support his view that we should reverse the current policy of not selling uranium to India. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world and an equally growing contributor to climate change, having access now to a low carbon energy source is a necessity for environmentally friendly growth. Because without it, growth will still continue but with more emissions!
Secondly, as discussed in Nuclear the way, but not for Australia on this blog, with Australia having such a relatively small impact on climate change, more long term solutions, such as investment in renewables that thus far can not deliver base load power, is a responsible (and less costly) option. 
But thirdly, Tony Abbott, playing politics as he does, is just muddying the waters around the debate of Australia's responsibility for action and the implementation of the ETS. This magical alternative, is also not to be "rushed into". Methodical debate and planning is necessary for a plan to reduce Australia's carbon emissions, though that's occurred with the ETS. I'd point out an example that didn't have scrutiny or debate, like 'Work Choices', but as John Cleese eloquently put it, "Don't mention the war!"


And even despite the current stance for inaction and a challenge to a verbal joust on nuclear power, a clause for further inaction has been revealed by Abbott - "The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America." While it may sound like a good stance on environmental policy, the 'Pope of the Parliament' knows that the blocking of the ETS only further cements in the likelihood of an unsuccessful international agreement at Copenhagen. Here's how.

China is the worlds largest emitter, followed by the US. If both come to an agreement to cut emissions, other countries will most likely follow suit (or be made to). However the US and China haven't come to an agreement (despite small cuts and agreements, signalling some hope) , and instead insist on the other a) taking the blame and b) making cuts. When they get tired of this, they look to the rest of the world, claiming no one else is doing something. Those who take the first steps to cutting emissions are leading, are making a difference and most importantly, setting a precedence and signal for the rest of the world to act. This is why the EU trading scheme has been successful. It has had the most impact in forcing China and the US to engage and act! By Australia acting and making cuts, it encourages other countries to do the same, to stick to rules of the "international community". Actions will speak louder than words


But with the recent rhetoric from Tony Abbott and the more outspoken right wing of the Liberal Party, the hot air will continue to flow. So while Abbot may believe "to become leader, you make a new start" and have a "clean break", yesterdays Abbot wasn't good, today he's OK, and tomorrow he'll be gone, and that day, will be "good". (apologies for the very bad religious reference)


Note:
The Copenhagen conference will run from the 7th to the 18th December
The Government plans to reintroduce the ETS on February 2nd, the first sitting of Parliament.

Links
Tony Abbott backs nuclear talks after senate block Labor's ETS scheme - The Australian
Liberals get "one last chance" on climate laws - ABC online
Dead ETS to rise again - SMH online