Angry: Don't make a mockery of our medium, Stephen

Image by CloCkWeRX via Flickr

Conroy finally starts 'engaging' the public.

He does it by parroting the same rubbish he's been doing all along, while actively ignoring our questions.

This is a total mockery.

An example: Why aren't PC level filters sufficient?

The previous Government's Protecting Australian Families Online strategy focused on providing families with PC-level filtering software. However, despite an $84.8 million government program and $15.5 million in advertising, only about two per cent of households with dependent children are using a filter. Unfortunately, many parents do not have the technical skills or knowledge to install and manage PC-level filters. ISP-level filtering could provide important protection for those families with limited technical expertise.

We understand that ISP filtering is not a 'silver bullet' for this purpose. However, in conjunction with the Government's numerous other initiatives in this area, we believe it can make an important contribution to protecting children online.

Stephen Conroy

So,
1. You think we are too stupid to go out and learn how to protect our children if we need to
2. No one wanted it before, which means we're too stupid to learn how to get it
3. Look at how much money was spent, and still no one cared! The answer? Spend more money, and force it on people.

RRRRRRRRR.

These are the same rubbish answers you've given in question time, this is the same junk. You wasted hours and hours of our lives, as we hated you then, and then to pacify us, you parrot it back at us?

Get out, Stephen Conroy, get out of this country: you have no place within our civil and confident society.

A response from Ms Ellis

I got a response regarding my letter to Kate Ellis, my local member, regarding #nocleanfeed.

It's at least polite, and she did write a letter to Conroy on my behalf.

Her words:

Dear Senator Stephen,
I write on behalf of a constituent, Mr Daniel O'Connor, regarding ISP filtration.

Mr O'Connor is concerned that ISP filtration system will inhibit his job. Mr O'Connor is currently employed as a software engineer, and he points out that his work could not continue without a free and open responsive internet. Mr O'Connor also enquires as to whether the option of giving funder and encouragement to ISP's such as http://www.webshield.net.au has been considered.

I would appreciate it if you could please investigate this matter and advise me of your findings so I can respond to Mr O'Connor's enquiry.

She also included a number of pages detailing the other bits of the proposed plan - I'm aware of these, and largely unconcerned by them - they are in fact reasonably on target.

She mentions her support for the other parts of the package, minimizing the importance of the filter, and so on and so forth.

When I'm next to a scanner again, I'll post a PDF of it all.

My take: from the tone and wording of the letter, it seems like she's taking the party line but politely ignoring the filter aspects. She's certainly not a foaming at the mouth filter fan; but won't speak out against it.

It's at least better than the fridge magnet I got sent.