Michael Malone has a bit of a reputation as a ball-breaker, and although I don't think much of his ISP I am thoroughly impressed that he's spoken out about this in public.
Could have been a bad move though, as I think the government will do what it can to exclude iiNet from the trial after Malone's comments. Even if they don't, iiNet's trial results would not be considered objective.
It's highly unfortunate but I think the Australian government and the communications minister thinks that it has a clear mandate from the electorate to introduce this "technology", and it's going to happen whether we like it or not.
The other problem is, no journalist or lay-person will take the comparison with Saudi Arabia or China as fact even though it's an accurate assessment (see the quotes and the attribution of the comment in the article).
I think even if you convinced the Government this filter was a bad idea, they'd string it out for as long as possible to keep Senators Xenophon and Fielding on side.
For non-Aussies: The Government, who holds power Australia's House of Representatives, lacks a majority in the Senate and needs the support of the two senators above to pass legislation.
I have to agree that I never thought much of iiNet either. But Malone should be commended for speaking out on this issue.
As has already been mentioned, I don't doubt that if this mandatory filter does go ahead, they'll be a way around it, there always is. I'm just more pissed off that we will have to fuck around and find that way. I don't like being treated like a child.
I wonder how much opposition to this plan it will take before the government no longer thinks they have a clear mandate.
"They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers ... "
This is completely true and I can't believe the government is still even considering this plan.
I don't think ANYONE who is knowledgeable about the actual implementation of this thinks its a good idea. Possible comedic exception of consulting companies getting paid to complete the projects.
"For the 30 seconds that it will take to break this. This measure is not so much Orwellian as it is idiotic and a waste of time. Its sole purpose is to put up a PR stunt and that politicians can get away with using $128 million of taxpayer cash for this is unacceptable."
It's the tip of the iceberg, really. Once there is a shortage of clear-headed people willing to stand up to "for the children" measures, all sorts of idiotic laws will be passed by the bucket full.
Its the vendors that scare me. They smell blood (money) and will be constantly whispering in the governments ear - they will (unfortunately) appear as "experts" to the government.
Adding reinforced doors to airplane cockpits. It becomes significantly harder to hijack an airplane so it's not just for show.
Security theater can be useful. EX: Add fake video camera's in plain sight at a bank and hide the real ones. People act like they are being watched and feel their money is safer but it's harder to disable the camera's.
The value in security is often to prevent people from trying to attack / break in, or to make harder / take longer to do so, or to make people feel safer. While security theater only does 2 out of 3 it's not quite useless.
Could have been a bad move though, as I think the government will do what it can to exclude iiNet from the trial after Malone's comments. Even if they don't, iiNet's trial results would not be considered objective.
It's highly unfortunate but I think the Australian government and the communications minister thinks that it has a clear mandate from the electorate to introduce this "technology", and it's going to happen whether we like it or not.
The other problem is, no journalist or lay-person will take the comparison with Saudi Arabia or China as fact even though it's an accurate assessment (see the quotes and the attribution of the comment in the article).