Greens Cyber Safety Policy Smells Of Common Sense

Gizmodo AU

While the focus of the election from a geek standpoint has shifted from internet filtering to the NBN given the fact the Libs and Greens have both promised to block the filter in the senate, that doesn’t mean online safety has gone away as an election issue. The Greens today announced their policy, and to give them credit, it’s a common-sense approach.

The Greens announcement, which is more of a suggestion on what the government should be doing with the money they’ve already budgeted for online safety, has an emphasis on PC filtering, more money for police, more research into online risks and online education.

Here’s the announcement from Senator Scott Ludlam today:

Greens propose a more comprehensive approach to protecting young people online

Greens communications spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam, today proposed a more effective use for the $40.8 million the Government has budgeted for cyber safety – an approach involving PC-based filtering, further research into cyber safety risks, strengthened law enforcement, and online education.

“I’ve long been on the record as a critic of the Government’s proposed mandatory ISP level filter. This has always been due to the simple fact that it won’t work, and it risks a number of negative impacts on the speed and performance of the internet in the process,” Senator Ludlam said.

“However, I have no hesitation endorsing the need to protect young people from exploitation or distressing and harmful online experiences, and today I will outline practical ways to make a real impact on these problems.

“Filtering has a role in preventing accidental exposure to material that is inappropriate for a young audience. But rather than filtering a very limited range of material at the ISP level that does not include, for example, X rated pornography or gambling sites, let’s place an obligation upon ISPs to offer PC-based filtering solutions that can be customised to block a much broader range of content at the local, individual PC level.

“It is also important that we take steps to truly understand the nature of the threats to young people online – threats such as cyber bullying and grooming, which have resulted in loss of life. The Greens would put more money into research into such threats and the best way to combat them, as recommended by experts in the field.

‘The response that most people would like to see to child abuse is law enforcement. They would like to see the people responsible identified and prosecuted. The Greens advocate earmarked federal funding to boost cyber crime units in State and Territory police forces, and the establishment of a single, online contact point for cyber crime reporting and cross-jurisdictional coordination of the police response.

“Finally, young people must be assisted to develop the skills to critically evaluate what they encounter online, and respond in a way that keeps them safe and comfortable. We need comprehensive, consistent online education and media literacy skills taught throughout our schools.

“These initiatives will do far more to protect our young people online, with none of the heavily-criticised drawbacks of the Government’s proposed filter,” Senator Ludlam concluded.

[Fight the Filter]

Discuss

(18 Comments)
  • [–]

    matt

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 2:55 PM

    “as recommended by experts in the field”

    nice of someone to finally ask them…

  • [–]

    Dyson

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 2:56 PM

    Finally some common sense

  • [–]

    canberracubicle

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 2:59 PM

    hmmm… makes sense, so I guess it’ll never happen

  • [–]

    David

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 3:30 PM

    It seems to be whenever I hear the greens say something I agree with them – except ironically on environmental issues

  • [–]

    James-Mac

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 3:45 PM

    See, if anything I would have said todays youth need more, not less, grooming.

    • [–]

      Bern

      Monday, August 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM

      Perhaps not the type of ‘grooming’ being discussed in the article? :-P

      I agree with you, though – one of the graduates at my work turned up in a partially-unbuttoned flanno today. That’s taking ‘business casual’ a bit too far!

  • [–]

    Keith

    Monday, August 16, 2010 at 3:55 PM

    Great so what they are proposing is the same filter option that John Howard offered…
    Not only that but browsing isn’t just done on PC’s anymore its done on Smart Phones ipod Touches, iPads and more.
    Are they going to offer software to filter the internet on those devices? That’d be fine but good luck getting apple to allow plugins to the browser.
    Now I know the Greens have a somewhat friendly approach to the internet but what they stand for, their other policies are SCARY and I don’t think that even most geeks would approve of them if they actually looked into them.
    The Greens having more power in this country is a bad thing regardless of what they say about the filter.

    • [–]

      Stefan Chochowski

      Monday, August 16, 2010 at 4:12 PM

      There’s one thing they should also implement. Router content filtering based on MAC addresses. Most routers support it and you can even have it email you the sites a certain MAC address accesses like an iPod touch. Each device has it’s own MAC address so it would be hard to circumvent and I don’t think many teenagers can do MAC spoofing. Whereas on the mobile side it would be VERY tricky, considering you can buy a SIM card from the local shops and access the web, register the SIM card with bogus details and voila! Web access unrestricted.

      The Greens proposal is much more sound, but like everything it will have flaws. The education of youngsters is quite beneficial though since most kids fall for the traps that adults can quite easily spot.

      I’m voting for the first time and it is hard to decide who to vote for seeing as the latest campaigns haven’t even reached me. I rarely watch TV like most people my age. Gizmodo is one of my sources of political info.

      P.S School based filtering is a joke so I hope it’s better than that.

    • [–]

      matt

      Monday, August 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM

      thats why I think it IS a good idea having it at the ISP level. of course, fully opt-IN.

      it means that parents don’t need to learn all the (relative) complexities of getting the stuff set up on their kids computers. the onus is on the ISP to handle all of that for families, keeping it up to date and maintained ect, it would also presumably be a little harder for kids to circumvent.

      and, as you say, they WOULD be able to apply it to all types net connections relatively easily, as opposed to platform specific ‘apps’.

      the only issue would be cost… as software on the user’s PC, it is using their storage, their cpu cycles, and their power. so, on the surface it could be provided freely, as opposed to being implemented at the isp level, where the isp would have to supply resources to it… on the other hand… money saved in user support, for users struggling to get the thing to work might offset the extra cost incurred at implementing it at the isp level.

      note, the most important part is that it REMAINS OPT-IN!

    • [–]

      Greg

      Monday, August 16, 2010 at 8:23 PM

      What are these “SCARY” policies of which you speak Keith? I’ve looked into their policies, and I have to say I remain thoroughly un-terrified. While I don’t agree 100% with their policy, they definitely represent my concerns more closely than any other party.

    • [–]

      StevoTheDevo

      Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 8:10 AM

      I hear a lot of comments about scary Green policy, but I reckon they’re on the money for everything I’m aware of.
      Give me an example of “SCARY” Greens policy…

      • [–]

        matt

        Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 6:12 PM

        +1

        where are these ‘scary’ policies?? there are some ambitious policies… and thats probably only because they know they won’t get majority power, so what the hell, may as well go all out. but I certainly don’t see any scary ones… infact, I was going to vote labor, and greens for the senate, but after going looking for these ‘scary’ policies I found my self convinced to vote for the greens for both!

  • [–]

    kakyoin01

    Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 9:23 AM

    arent the Greens will give their votes to labour if they don’t win?

    so its back to labour again …

    • [–]

      Nads

      Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 10:22 AM

      No if we can get a few more Greens into the Senate it will make all the different. And it isn’t hard to do (for example in the ACT electorate we only need 2000 people (out of something like 250,000+) to change their vote. This gives the Greens balance in the Senate which will immediately negate Family First and their filter friendly Fielding’s strangle hold.

      Labor isn’t so bad and I know from a fact that allot of people within the party (even very high up) are not all that committed to the Filter anyways.

  • [–]

    DK_Son

    Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 11:47 AM

    You want to protect my online safety?

    Give me some of that 40.8 million and I’ll stop using the internet. Preferably at least 3%.

Join The Discussion