Clive Hamilton’s case for restricting the internet fails to point out why the scheme must be ISP based and not PC based.
We’ve all come to expect at least some level of alarmism from Clive Hamilton and his kin and his post today doesn’t dissapoint. His well trained and reasoned tone of writing weaves a chilling tail of a young boy’s inadvertent descent into sexual deviancy through the unfiltered use of the internet.
As scary as his short story sounds, it is one that, like most Hollywood disasters, jumps several steps of logic in order to reach the desired conclusion.
If the accidental fall from grace of a young boy downloading pron is the situation we are trying to fight, why is it imperative that we discount PC based filtering as a solution? The situation he describes wouldn’t happen on my home PC, I’m running Integard. if parents were concerned about the situation, they too would run a similar product to ensure that this fictional young man could not access pornography while not being supervised.
His article fails to give a compelling reason why ISP filtering is needed and PC filtering is inadequate to solve the situation he scripted.
Spinning the low uptake of the PC based filters provided in the Net Alert as a failure of the project relies on a blatantly condescending attitude towards the Australian Public. The uptake of the free filters may have been small, but conservatives like Clive have repeatedly failed to mention the market usage of commercial products such as Net Nanny that were denied access to the Net Alert program.
The dollar value of the marketing campaign is often touted by Clive and Co as an example of the waste of time that Net Alert became. When you compare Net Alert’s $22 million advertising budget with the $180 million Tourism Australia spent on their failed campaign, perspective starts to set in.
Another much loved anecdote amongst conservatives is the story about a 16 year old breaking the filter within minutes of first seeing it. Fast forward to 2009 and my 10 years of hardcore computer literacy can’t break Integard in 6 months. I’ve met the guys at Race River, creators of Integard, they’re not stupid. The products on offer today are nothing like the crap originally offered on Net Alert.
Clive also manages to confuse freedom of speech with unrestricted access to pornography. Allowing children to view porn has never been a policy of the EFA. Classification of content is fine where it allows people to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to view it. Prohibiting adults from making that decision is different, we are fighting for the right of an adult to choose what they see, hear or say.
There are numerous mechanisms both economic and legislative that have not been explored as solutions to the issue of unintended exposure of pornography to minors. Clive misses the point that he has chosen to back a mechanism that infringes on civil liberties.
Perhaps Clive should show us how truly smart he is and suggest a solution that everybody can be happy with, instead of lumping in with the nearest idiot with a ministry.
