blog Well, we already knew that national broadband provider TPG wasn’t too keen on the idea of voluntarily filtering its customers’ Internet, courtesy of comments made by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in late May this year.
But now the company has come out in a bit more of a concrete way against the voluntary filter. The Australian reports (click here for the full article, an excellent overview on the current filter situation):
“Whilst TPG abhors (child) abuse of any kind, we believe that internet service providers should best let the question of censorship or filtering be determined by a suitable political process leading, if appropriate, to law,” a spokeswoman said.
We’ve reached out to TPG this morning for confirmation and more details, but the company hasn’t responded as yet.
With Internode and iiNet taking a similar approach and stressing they will comply with the law with respect to filtering, TPG’s decision means Australia’s ISPs are currently split down the middle when it comes to the IIA’s voluntary filtering scheme. The filter, which is being seen as a more moderate industry approach developed in reaction to the Federal Government’s much more comprehensive filter scheme, will see the ISPs block a “worst of the worst” list of child pornography sites generated by international police agency Interpol.
Image credit: Dani Simmonds, royalty free
I’m inclined to disagree. To state that a implementing a filter after the relevant political process implies you have faith in the current political system.
I most certainly do not. Even with good policy they have a habit of stuffing it up in the details.
so, TPG says, “we believe that internet service providers should best let the question of censorship or filtering be determined by a suitable political process leading, if appropriate, to law.”
Internode says, “We feel that if the government wishes to pass a law that has the effect of legally requiring us to do something, THATS FINE – WE’LL DO IT. Until then, we will WAIT and WATCH with interest.” (my caps)
which is practically saying the SAME THING (i.e passively reacting to any new legal requirement).
your response to TPG: “I’m inclined to disagree. To state that a implementing a filter after the relevant political process implies you have faith in the current political system.”
your response to Internode: “Finally, some sense from an ISP. ”
http://delimiter.com.au/2011/07/05/well-filter-when-the-law-makes-us-internode/#comment-88051
geez, NK, you’re such a one-eyed Node fanboi ;)
Choice of wording is very important Tosh. I think you’d know that after all the arguments we’ve had where you’ve accused me of changing my point instead of conceeding, when I did nothing of the sort.
Internode’s statement says they’ll do it if forced, TPG’s is similar but in particular it leaves the question up to the political process.
I read the statements as thus:
Internode: We will resist any attempt to censorship and will only comply if forced by law.
TPG: We will do as required by law.
It is that subtle difference that led me to point out TPG put to much stock in politics, i.e. they should be actively resisting, or at the very least, make a loud objection (like Internode have with their “legal theatre” comments) to the idea.
And yes, I am a fan of Internode, but that has nothing to do with my comments. Being a fan of something does not imply blind faith with me, or haven’t you been paying attention?
*Choice of wording is very important Tosh. I think you’d know that after all the arguments we’ve had where you’ve accused me of changing my point instead of conceeding, when I did nothing of the sort.*
geeez… isn’t there a statue of limitations on “backtracking”? i would have thought it’d have expired by now ;)
*Internode’s statement says they’ll do it if forced, TPG’s is similar but in particular it leaves the question up to the political process.*
and Internode isn’t leaving it up to the political process by passively implementing any future legal requirement?
*Internode: We will resist any attempt to censorship and will only comply if forced by law.*
how do you define “resisting censorship”? you mean not acceding to “voluntarily filtering the Interpol list”?
isn’t that also TPG’s stance on the issue?
in what way is Internode “resisting [censorship] harder” than TPG? have they employed lobbyists on this issue (whereas TPG hasn’t)? are they donating mullah to anti-censorship causes (whereas TPG isn’t)? are they putting out advertisements to educate the public on this issue (whereas TPG isn’t)?
*TPG: We will do as required by law.*
straight from the mouth of Internode.
*It is that subtle difference*
let’s cut the subtle bullshit – in what substantive fashion has Internode invested more political capital on this issue than TPG?* please kindly illuminate (i don’t claim to know everything).
*And yes, I am a fan of Internode, but that has nothing to do with my comments. Being a fan of something does not imply blind faith with me, or haven’t you been paying attention?*
oh, i’ve been paying attention alright… to your obvious biased comments (which you are definitely entitled to). ;)
*and oh, please… don’t point to some furtive, off-the-cuff comments buried deep in some obscure thread on WP ;)
You know what Tosh, you are starting to piss me off. Fortunately I can am safe in the knowledge you’re just a troll.
Since you clearly need a refresher, here are the three normal approaches to any political issue as I see them. Please note you can be for or against the issue in wllall cases.
Proactive : Take action that is not against current laws in order to bring about change. (This is what Optus and Telstra are doing)
Neutality: Ignore the issue. (This is, based upon TPGs statement what they are doing).
Activism: Protest the issue and/or lobby the government (This is what Internode are doing by protesting the “theatre”).
Now, you could agrue that Internode could be more active in their protests via lobbying, yes. Afterall they aren’t as active in there protest as say the EFA have been, but the fact remains TPG aren’t opposing the issue. Look at their statement, they are neutral.
If you can’t accept that as being my opinion then fine, but please don’t try and waste your time by asserting that this has anything to do with the fact that I’m more likely to give Internode money to provide my Internet Subscription than TPG.
And because this is an opinion, I’m not going to bothering finding more evidence to support it. I suspect you won’t bother finding counter evidence either.
Afterall the only reason I replied was because you accused me of being biased, I’m not. That’s like saying a person who brought a Toyota supports Toyota’s decision to bring out hybrids.
And I haven’t posted in Whirlpool in a long time. I got sick of the constant whinging.
*I’m not going to bothering finding more evidence to support it*
so you have no evidence to back up your assertions….
*you are starting to piss me off.*
but you also don’t like being backed into a corner….
*Fortunately I can am safe in the knowledge you’re just a troll.*
so you resort to making a personal (ad hominem) attack.
got it.
If I’m backed into a corner then you’re pinned under a fallen skyscraper. What the hell are to trying to prove here Tosh? Come on. Tell us.
Are you really trying to tell me that TPG are being as resistant to filter policy when all they said amounts to “we’ll follow the law” as compared to the comments of Simon where he not only accused the efforts of Optus and Telstra of being “security theatre” he also retorted Stephen Conroy’s statement of accusing ISPs who don’t support voluntary filtering as being pro child porn? Cause that is all I’m trying to say, and if you disagree well, you’re welcome to try and argue that, and the Google results showing that internode have been far more vocal in their resistance to the filter isn’t going to help much.
Cause honestly, if me calling you a troll is the best argument you got…
let me simplify it for you:
Event A: both TPG and Internode decline to implement “voluntary Interpol filter”
Event B: new legal requirements potentially resulting from political process
you’re chastising TPG for “letting the political process determine the final policy with regards to internet filtering”.
this is Internode’s statement: “We feel that if the government wishes to pass a law that has the effect of legally requiring us to do something, THATS FINE – WE’LL DO IT. Until then, we will WAIT and WATCH with interest”.
note:
i) if new legal requirements to filter the internet come to pass, Internode thinks “that’s fine – we will implement it”.
ii) until then (in the time period between Event A and B), they will “wait and watch” (i.e they will let the political process play out).
to summarise, Internode will let the political process play out and is happy to implement the final policy that results from it. this is NO different from TPG’s public response.
in other words, is there anything in the latest news reports that indicates that Internode will be expending significant political capital to proactively influence the outcome of Event B that sets it apart from TPG?
nein.
see how i can back up my assertions w/o resorting to screaming “troll”?
Wow that was quick, good boy Tosh, I asked for a contradiction and 5 mins later…
Tosh from above – see how i can back up my assertions w/o resorting to screaming “troll”?
Tosh from yesterday – ignore him, alain… that’s just another paid Labor troll from WP
Thank you…LOL!!!!!!!!!
*facepalm*
Okay. So just ignore Internode’s very pointed statements regarding “security theatre” and the government labelling non-proactive ISPs incorrectly as pro-CP.
And while you’re at it you seem to be completely ignoring Simon Hackett/Internodes continued opposition to filtering while TPG remain quite on the issue.
Internode may watch with interest, but at the same time they do have a habit of commenting anfand their opinions carry a lot of weight in the industry.
Since you require “evidence” for something I have stated twice now is “merely my opinion” i.e. I’m much more comfortable with Internode’s response than TPGs and would prefer if TPG were more vocal in their objections.
Evidence: http://blog.internode.on.net/2010/04/09/of-myths-and-mandatory-internet-censorship/
Does that blog post sound like it’s coming from and entity that will just passively watch and wait?
Sadly I can’t find an equivalent post from TPG, and until I do, I stand by my opinion.
Wow tosh, you seem to love quote minig.
Tosh, interestingly you sound “exactly” like alain, in all 3 of your responses, here…
1. so you have no evidence to back up your assertions….
2. but you also don’t like being backed into a corner….
3. so you resort to making a personal (ad hominem) attack.
How about a few ridiculous contradictions now…!
Seriously does the anti-NBN circus have anything else but baseless excuses…? No, I thought not!
So we have a node fanboi and a Lib fanboi…
i know which one has the most impartiality!
Comments are closed.