This blog post raises a valid point: “if we don’t start offering an alternative workable solution as part of our strategy, we will ultimately fail.”
So what is a workable solution? Education isn’t a solution in itself. The problem is that no good technological solution exists. Accessing the kind of material that is supposed to be on the mandatory blacklist is illegal anyway, so there are disincentives there already.
As Mark Newton stated on Insight: “Remove the mandatory, and we can all go home”. It’s not the idea of ISP-level filtering we’re against, it’s the mandatory part.
Reasons we’re against it include:
- The power it places in the hands of an unaccountable, secret organisation to choose what is and what isn’t apropriate for all Australians to view.
- The mandatory blacklist will be ineffective at achieving its stated goals (ie. blocking access to RC and above content)
- A static blacklist cannot hope to address the dynamic nature of the world wide web.
- The people who are pushing the filter don’t fully understand the possible implications of what they are asking for (Censorship has no friends)
- The technical ability of censorware will always lag behind internet technology by a significant margin, and the margin will grow as the Internet moves towards new technologies.
These are all arguments against mandatory filtering, but what solution can we offer in its place? Not a technological one, we know there’s no technological solution. More funding to the AFP would be nice, but that wouldn’t have a very obivous or immediate affect and the Government wants to be seen to be doing something. So the question is: Does a workable solution to the “problem” exist?