It seems kind of sad that we’re still discussing the issue of mandatory web filtering, but until the Labor government decides to start listening to experts (or gets voted out of power), we don’t really have a choice. yesterday, representatives from Facebook, Yahoo!7 and NineMSN told the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety that mandatory internet filtering isn’t a viable option for protecting kids.
Facebook’s chief privacy advisor, Mozelle Thompson told the committee:
“I would hate for the public to get the wrong impression that there is a quick technological solution for inappropriate content, because there isn’t.”
NineMSN’s corporate affairs director Jennifer Duxbury insisted that it was time for schools to become more serious about teaching kids the dangers of the Internet:
“We would also like to see effective cyber-safety education embedded in the curricula of every school. It could be useful to have a campaign around the importance of parents being engaged in this issue with their children – similar to the ‘slip, slop, slap’ campaign.”
Yahoo!7 Asia Pacific legal director Samantha Yorke questioned why a voluntary measure wasn’t explored before the government went all mandatory filter crazy:
“The breadth of scope was something that was of concern for us here at Yahoo!7. We also felt that imposing a filter through legislation might have been a little bit pre-emptive in terms of trying to seek a voluntary collaborative process within the industry more broadly before jumping to that step.”
There was also a lot of discussion about Facebook’s own cyber-safety record, with Thompson admitting that the company deleted 20,000 accounts globally each day for underage users lying about their age. The social networking site would also be hiring a cybersafety policy expert specifically for the Australian market.
But despite the mounting evidence, Senator Conroy’s response was as cliched a expected:
“There is no silver bullet when it comes to cyber safety.”
Sigh.
Peter Simpson
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 3:38 PMYou would think he was agreeing, until you remember it’s Conroy and that he’ll try shove it through anyway
Aaron
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 11:13 AMI feel sorry for his wife.
simon c
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 3:58 PMBetween the filter and OzLog, Government might as well just install Police officers in every home to make sure someone doesn’t accidentally do something wrong. Thats what it feels like.
wsDK_II
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:01 PMI notice how you left off microsoft from the list of companies – seriously Giz, this is getting really bad – stop pandering to Apple
Nick Broughall
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:25 PMThe first mention of Apple in this post was in your comment wsDK_II. I can’t help but think that the issue isn’t with us but with you.
StevoTheDevo
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:33 PMI thought it was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment… but apparently not!
wsDK_II
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:39 PMAhh Nick, I think you know exactly what my point is – but of course you are unable to comment on it officially.
For those who dont my point is this – Gizmodo will always have a love affair with Apple, anyone who has visited this site for more then a month or two will understand this.
But to not post significant details on a story leaves me wondering whether or not it was deliberate.
LucasF
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 7:17 PMwsDK_II – What did microsoft have to say on the issue?
Lakshan
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 10:19 PMJust feel like saying, I have been reading Gizmodo for many years and as a fervent Microsoft user I dont see any problems with bias, though it has been shown in studies that people who feel affilitated with one group are likely to see neutral reports biased against themselves (http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/02/why-the-media-seems-biased-when-you-care-about-the-issue.php). If you still have a problem, just dont visit the website.
Sam
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 10:43 PMAnd yet you still keep coming here…
Andrew
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 1:35 AMHe speaks of Microsoft’s chief Australian security adviser Stuart Strathdee who was also present. He spoke advocating a combined approach of both education and software filtering.
The suggestion is that the omission of Mr. Strathdee’s viewpoint from the article may be indicative of journalistic (editorial) bias.
I hope that clarifies things.
James
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 4:36 PMWhat on earth does Apple/Microsoft have to do with this? Seems like you’re really straining to make a connection that just isn’t there
Travis New
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 5:06 PMMSFT commented on the subject but they chose not to include said comment.
Todd D
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 7:08 PMWhat do you think the MSN in NineMSN stands for?
Peter Simpson
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 9:49 PMhttp://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-over-nooks-android-look/
My take on this apple business. I have no misgivings.
Bren
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 10:09 PMThis is what wsDK_II is talking about.
——-
Microsoft Australia chief security advisor, Stuart Strathdee, said the reliance on a single method of protection was problematic.
“I’d highlight the difficulties in selecting a single technology to try to implement that style of protection,” he said.
“I think this issue is a challenging one and we need to look more broadly at a combination of technologies and education to combat it. One technology isn’t going to be the solution.
“A key consideration, even in voluntary filters, is complacency. If a technology is introduced people over a very short period of time believe they are protected and don’t have to worry any further.”
———–
Gizmodo has completely ignore MS comments.
Paul
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 7:54 AMI agree with James here. There is no need to mention Microsoft in this context other than their Australian portal presence. I assume you are aware that Microsoft is the ‘m’ in ninemsn.
SHL
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 5:07 PMNineMSN IS Microsoft.
Stew
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 10:58 PMWhat the hell dude? Giz’s (predominantly US-based) Apple fanboyism or Apple vs. Microsoft etc. is completely irrelevant to this article.
Womp
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 5:00 PMCommence countdown to Conroy’s “It’s not a Silver Bullet” lame retort. 10..9..8..7..
peter
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 5:30 PMWhilst I have no idea of the reason, it is a fact that Microsoft Australia had representative at the meeting and that was omitted.
cleverclogs
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 5:44 PMIt’s pretty bad “journalism” to be leaving out one of the companies that appeared that the hearing.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscc/hearings/program08.pdf
I wonder what Dr Clarke had to say, too.
Jo
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 6:01 PMsounds to me that people just need to get over trying to make connections implying that Gizmodo is some kind of fanboy. get over it. if you’re not happy with the site leave – there are plenty of us that will stick around – keep up the good work Nick
Bela Tanka
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 6:08 PMPolice State.
Epilogue
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 6:34 PMWsdk it seems like your trying to start a flamewar
DK Son
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 8:54 AM“Slip” into something sexy
“Slop” on some hand cream
“Slap” the monkey
Is that what they are going to start promoting towards duh interwebz?
ch1pm0nk
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 4:48 PMInternet content filtering is a step in the right direction to protecting our children.
Interpol collates and provides a “worst of” list of all domains which are identified as distributing child sex abuse material. The theory is that by filtering specifically these domains and illegal content, offenders participating in this activity will find it increasingly difficult to engage/access/plan/offend individually or with others.
Agreed, filtering this content will not stop the activity occurring, but its believed it will mitigate the occurrence. Those who protest against having evil filth like this blocked should surely be questioning their motives…
Kenan Kadric
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 6:11 PMFiltering wont work at all against those targets. mainly because those people dont use the standard/conventional protocols to communicate and share stuff. Child porn is horrible however the “filter” wont help nothing, mainly because its only going to block the http protocol.