Internet censorship not a vote-changer

By Ry Crozier
Mar 5, 2010 9:42 AM
Tags: internet | filter | mandatory | optin | conroy | laws | whirlpool | survey | iinet | afact

Annual Whirlpool survey released.

The Federal Government’s planned introduction of mandatory internet filtering was unlikely to change the way most broadband users voted in the next election.

The results of the 2009 Whirlpool survey, released overnight, showed 44.1 percent of the 23,683 respondents believed filtering would be a “key factor” affecting their vote.

Almost 40 percent percent of respondents indicated the introduction of filtering would “possibly” affect the way they voted but “not at the expense of other issues” while 13.3 percent said it would not change their vote.

The results appeared to the show the issue was a divisive rather than decisive one for Labor at the next election.

The survey showed some - but not all - of the Government’s messages around the need for filtering were getting through.

In particular, respondents believed it could restrict access to child pornography and “protect children from harm”.

The news wasn’t all good. Almost one in three respondents indicated they were still “unsure what sites might be filtered” under the proposal, draft laws for which were due out within months.

“The fact that almost 30 percent of respondents did not understand exactly what will be blocked is a testament to the vague and ever changing policy statements made by the Government,” Whirlpool said.

Most respondents also believed they - or someone close to them - could circumvent the filters. Over 80 percent either knew of one or more ways or were confident they could skirt the filters “given instructions”.

iiNet was right

The survey also supported a number of assertions made by ISP iiNet in its copyright case against the film industry.

iiNet had argued that copyright infringement notices it received from studios included only IP addresses that identified a device - rather than a user - that was connected to the internet.

The user could be "be the partner, child, flat-mate, employee or customer of the account holder" or even a stranger passing an account holder's unsecured wireless network.

The results of the 2009 Whirlpool survey appeared supportive of that assertion.

Most broadband connections (41 percent) were frequently used by two people. Over 45 percent of connections had three or more regular users.

Likewise only 10 percent of connections serviced only one computer. Over 40 percent of connections serviced four or more computers.

Almost three out of every four respondents also indicated they shared their connection via wired and wireless networks.

Arguments made in court on the benefits of supplying legal content also appeared well-founded.

When asked what broadband users liked about their current ISP, 56.2 percent of iiNet users said they liked the “unmetered content”. Over 12 percent also said they liked the “music and videos” iiNet provided.

Rich media content was not among the top five reasons why respondents indicated they had broadband. “Fast web surfing” was number one. “Watching downloaded TV shows” was cited by 53.2 percent of respondents and “P2P file sharing” by 47.9 percent.

  • Email a Friend
  • Print Page
Internet censorship not a vote-changer
"G'day, Mike. Thanks for gracing us with your presence again. So what does the "HH" stand for?"
 
 
 


Comments: 14
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
HH
Mar 5, 2010 11:46 AM
So 41% of a tiny but very focused interest group of active Whirlpool readers/members, who are as a majority against the filter from their very nature, says the filter is a key factor for them in the election.

No surprise there.

The other 99.5% of the Australian population is still wondering what all the fuss is about for the 10 to 20 people who turned up late for their short lived protests recently, if they took any notice at all, and simply do not accept or believe the doomsday predictions of a small group of activists.

If they cannot get that 41% of their respondents to take to the streets in protest, and the night-clubs protest had thousands marching for their music, then why would they take that protest movement seriously?

Most probably simply do not want to lose their anonymous status, which is understandable, but it shows that it is a long way from furious online protester to street protester to vote changer...

Hats off to WP for their survey in general.
kruge
Mar 5, 2010 12:03 PM
Those who do decide to change their vote need to think carefully about what someone like Tony Abbott could do with a pre-existing internet censorship bill. Either way, if this legislation gets through, we are worse off.

We won't be able to read discussions or research subjects such as euthanasia online, but the child pornographers will continue to use the systems they currently do (i.e. peer-to-peer) to access their filth.

And if Abbott gets in at any time after such legislation is passed, with his extreme right-wing views, there won't be a lot left that you will be able to look at on the internet... Unless, of course, you're into kiddy porn, where you'll have no more difficulty obtaining it than you do now.

This is the most ill-conceived idea that any government in this country has ever had, and if its allowed to go through not only won't I be voting for Labor, I'll be seriously considering moving to another country, one which actually values freedom of speech.

Canada's looking better and better right now...
OK
Mar 5, 2010 12:41 PM
@Ry Crozier

Not sure that your headline accurately reflects the information in the article.

What percentage of respondents would have to indicate that internet censorship would be a key factor before the headline would read "Internet censorship a vote changer"?

You also have to be cautious about interpreting the result. As the previous post says, there is an element of distrust of the Coalition on this issue, particularly given Abbott's religious background.

Is the Coalition firmly against it? Is it worth changing vote from Labor to Coalition if you can't trust that it will achieve the goal?

If the Coalition finally gets off the fence and if they will oppose internet censorship, will that increase the percentage for whom this is a vote changer?

@HH

Of course everyone understands that the people who chose to respond to the Whirlpool survey are not representative of Australians in general.

For a start, the people responding know that internet censorship is looming. Most people don't even know. Second, the people responding are able to see that Senator Conroy has made so many misleading and untruthful statements about this policy. Most people are fooled or don't pay attention.

I quite agree though that it's a long road from online objection to vote changer.

You might want to declare whether you yourself have a vested interest.

The Laws Clause: I don't. (Nor did I respond to the Whirlpool survey.)
brett2010
Mar 5, 2010 1:18 PM
I believe in freedom, so long as it moderately responsible, and not too extremist. As time has passed, we are bludgeoned with more and more laws, regulations, codes-of-practice, injunctive processes, etc. We are actually along say from true freedom. Some, arguably is reasonable. Nobody would want the freedom to murder or steal. However, there is too much that is now regulated.

The concept of Internet freedom has been criticised as going too far. Well, in that case, don't use it. The last thing you should do is pass another law or add another ban.

I want the freedom we have on the Internet. Again, limited rules should apply - say in the area of outright fraud. Beyond this, I want freedom and I want it badly. I do NOT want someone such as Stephen Conroy not only censoring me, but not even tell me what the censorship is. OK, kiddie porn is nasty, so restrict it. But Mr Conroy has not only extended his bans farther, but refuses to tell us what. There have been erroneous bans even during the trial period when it is all nice and easy, and should be his showcase example.

I resent this deeply, and would not support a government, Stephen Conroys included, who takes my freedom and in areas I am not even notified of. And to compound the error, he gets it wrong.

There is nothing I personally could do to stop a government from censoring material from opposing parties. He may say it would not happen, but would you believe him? Whether it be deliberate or accidental.

The internet is the closest thing to freedom I know of, while staying within mainstream society. If he thinks I would not change my vte on this issue alone, he is badly deluded. So long as Mr Conroy follows his censorship schemes, I will swear on oath I will not vote for him, his party and anyone else who supports the concept.

And, on the other subject, iiNet has my full and absolute backing. Bet that does not surprise many people.

Be careful Stephen, I am not alone.
sputnik
Mar 5, 2010 2:47 PM
Err, 44.1 to 84.1% of people changing their vote due to the filter proposal and you say it's not a vote changer??

I'd say from those stats that it is....
sputnik
Mar 5, 2010 2:49 PM
PS: Regarding people not turning up to protests on this issue, I think it is in a large part due to people being disenchanted with protest marches in general.

They achieve nothing it seems. Look at the 100'000s of people who marched against the Iraq invasion. The government just went ahead anyway...
rystrttn
Mar 6, 2010 11:26 AM
VOTING A G A I N S T Rudd, he's a loser, get with the times.. Australia is closer in relation to freedom to the US (and the flood of their entertainment they give us) than China. Everybody knows that, and as a leader means you should do whats in the public's interest, not your own.(which is embarrassing) ..oh yeah we need wage rises to buy a house, its embarrassing working just for TV,Cars & clothes.
Ray!
KJ
Mar 6, 2010 12:42 PM
Any censorship is a vote buster as far as I am concerned let alone the billions wasted at this Ruddsuckalls hands, ETS health and NBN everything he tried or touched cost the tax payer dearly as he smiles and gives gifts for votes from our treasury and then tries to tax us all though some manipulated scheme while spending millions on junkets to introduce these scheme or sell them and himself as our saviour for no value. Rudd positioning mates in class high paid jobs so they can hire mates to fit through these so called schemes so as to save us, while all of it has been one great smoke screen to waste tax payer’s money while hiding from crisis and put our children into debt before they even get a chance to live or even dream of buying houses themselves to become the slaves to pay for his mistakes. Labour has let the people and the country down that is sad his reign has me wondering if I would ever vote for them again! In other countries the guy would have been lynched by now.
branko
Mar 7, 2010 12:16 AM
I am very uncomfortable in a situation where there is no legal protection of civil or human rights unlike in the US, Canada or the UK, whilst at the same time some politician decides to push a policy that will get him the votes of the great unwashed who wouldn't know a mouse from a rissole. Worse still, it wont be Conroy overseeing this policy-- it will be some faceless and un-sackable public servant-- home insulation anyone?
As for all you Gen Y's out there that whine like a bunch of sissies about not being able to stop the Iraq war, so you dont care about protesting against net censorship, that is absurd-- the push to go to war with Iraq came from the US---and not some Centre Right ALP smart arse from Victoria-- something tells me this issue may be more sensitive to protests.
Interceptor
Mar 7, 2010 1:23 AM
The authors interpretation is rather dodgey given the statistics quoted. Nevertheless, I live in the most marginal Labor seat in the country and I, my wife and eldest daughter who have all been solid Labor voters will not be voting for them if this legislation is put before Parliament. My vote is worth a 100 of the average voter and this issue which involves issues of freedom, right of appeal, government secrecy is deeply disturbing to me and my family. Factor that into your analysis.
arathans
Mar 7, 2010 10:12 AM
@Interceptor
your 1 vote is worth 100 of mine or anyone elses? blow me!

As for censorship not being a vote-changer, its changed my vote.

Trevor C
Mar 7, 2010 1:01 PM
"Internet censorship not a vote-changer". You think not? Well it is enough to be a vote changer for this 70 year old that has voted Labor all I his life. AS far as I am concerned it would be sheer madness to vote for a government that wanted to keep secret Internet filter lists. I ask you, why would these lists need to be kept secret?. It on;y takes a few hundred votes or less in some areas to decides who gets into power.
HH
Mar 7, 2010 10:00 PM
I think Ry Crozier got this right in one - "The Federal Government’s planned introduction of mandatory internet filtering was unlikely to change the way most broadband users voted in the next election."

This says it all - "was unlikely to change the way most broadband users voted in the next election."

Nah clearly it is a vote changer for thousands of people, but not millions. There are still loads of voters out there who think limiting RC content access on the internet is not a bad idea at all... They may be thinking with too much simplicity for some protesters liking, but that's life in an open Australia.

Reg Shoe
Mar 8, 2010 8:55 AM
G'day, Mike. Thanks for gracing us with your presence again.

So what does the "HH" stand for?
Comment:
Want to participate in the discussion?
Or log in now to comment


Top Stories
iPhone 4 launch: Telcos invite the stars
Singer Kelly Rowland launches the iPhone 4 at Sydney's Optus store.
 
ATO goes after eBay sellers
Reseller encouraged by ATO's stance.
 
Central Coast to host HP pod data centre
Verb IT builds 20-foot pod in Wyong.
 
Shortcutsall you need to know on...
  • Election 2010 - the ICT vote 
  • CeBIT 2010 
  • Latest iPad new, reviews and analysis 
  • How to run your business successfully 
  • NBN 
Latest Comments
"Micro-trenching was in use in New Zealand to put telephone cables underground as early as 1975. ..."
by adamtaylor Jul 28, 2010 10:16 PM
 
"If we compare this quarter against the same quarter last year, Apple only sold 3.8 million in ..."
by adamtaylor Jul 28, 2010 9:42 PM
 
"Sounds like MailProtect Spam and Virus filtering, which is provided at no extra charge with My ..."
by em3 Jul 28, 2010 9:25 PM
 
"The public don't want to be told how they can use new technology to help protect their own ..."
by Jonbays Jul 26, 2010 12:15 PM
 
"So does this mean if I want to buy an LCD TV worth $2000 and I don't have a Visa Credit card, ..."
by Gladius Jul 23, 2010 8:33 PM
Polls
Should opposition leader Tony Abbott scrap the NBN if elected?

   |   View results
Yes
  23%
 
No
  77%
TOTAL VOTES: 30

Vote now
CRN Magazine

Issue: 281 | July

CRN Magazine looks in-depth at the emerging issues and developments for the Channel, and provides insight, analysis and strategic information to help resellers better run their businesses.