Where my parenting meets the “Cleanfeed”

I love technology. The thrill of new possibilities. The excitement of learning. There’s nothing that beats it.

Actually, that’s a complete lie. There is something that beats it. Beats it hands down. Without question.

I love my baby girl. The thrill of her potential. The excitement of seeing her learn. By gum it’s the greatest feeling I’ve ever experienced, to watch her discover her world.

Hacking the interwebz Hax0r the interw3bz

I’m totally looking forward to teaching her everything I can about the earth. The people on it, the cultures, the life, the bizarre phenomena we just can’t explain yet. I know she’ll be just as fascinated as I am. And I’m hoping that she turns out to be a geek like her Dad.

I’m not saying that technology can beat long healthy walks, or travelling, or hands on experience. But by golly, it can help fill some of the gaps in my knowledge. When Little asks why the sky is blue, we’re going to google it1. When Little wants to know where milk comes from, we’re going to look it up on Wikipedia together. And I’m going to use the technology I have at my fingertips to show her a wider world than I could, just on my meagre wages alone.

But the important part about it is I’m going to be with her.

When I give her the password to her shiny new Gmail account (it’s already set up!) I’m going to be there to hold her hand and teach her about spam. When I give her her own Twitter account, I’ll be there to show her how to block those strange people who just want her to buy things. And when I help her make her own web page (xhtml and css standards compliant) we’re going to explore the pros and cons of publishing an email address on the site, and how we can still communicate with people without exposing ourselves to harm.

I’ve been looking forward to this for over a year now. And by the time it comes to start all this, I’ll be ready. My wife will be ready. We’re going to show her the brave new world where information is at our fingertips, and new ways of communicating are instantaneous and free.

Except that maybe it won’t be. By the time my girl is old enough to read, the Australian Government may have implemented their “cleanfeed” policy. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy has been pushing a plan (that starts trials this month) that will see every internet connection in Australia filtered for “illegal and inappropriate” material. This sounds good on the surface, until you realise that something similar has been tried by the previous government which was in Conroy’s own words “millions of dollars of wasted taxpayer’s money”. The new scheme, which will see the internet filtered by the internet provider, has had $126 million allocated to it already, and one can only presume that when they see how appalling the results are, even more money will be sunk into something that critics have been saying from the outset will never ever work as intended.

Why am I appalled by something that’s supposed to be about protecting my child? Something that stops Amelynne seeing nudie pictures, or spares her the horror of “goatse2″ must be a good thing right?

Wrong. Here’s why:

  1. I work in a school. I wrote two months ago that I see too many teachers (and parents) letting technology do their job for them. Years ago it was television, and now it’s the internet that we plonk our kids down in front of, and expect them to learn or be entertained. Then we complain that the device is teaching them the wrong values? How screwed up is that? If you are concerned for your child’s mind, teach them with their hand in yours. Don’t expect an electronic baby sitter to know what values you want passed on. If a filter goes in, how many parents will dust off their hands thinking the “internet problem” has been solved? That is dangerous.
  2. I also see the technology fail to many times to be useful. We have mandatory filters in place in every school in South Australia, and I know how often legitimate sites are wrongly categorised, or overzealously filtered. I also see how much “inappropriate” material gets through regardless. The internet is spawning hundreds of new sites every day, and before a filter works, it has to have looked at each of those sites and classified it as safe or not. If you let the technology do it, you end up with false positives (or negatives) that can seem almost random, and if you get a human to do it, it’s subject to their prejudices or frame of mind. I think in a school it’s possibly a necessity to have something like this in place, but in every home? That’s madness.
  3. The technology cannot keep up. As well as the millions upon millions of sites that must be blocked, you have the problem of the internet traffic of every user in Australia needing to go through some sort of filtering technology. I see massive slowdowns at work when even half our school use the internet at once. A lot of the slowness can be attributed to the filtering technology. It’s just not at the stage where it can reliably catch “illegal and inappropriate” material without slowing down the connection significantly. In a country that is simultaneously trying to create a national broadband network that improves broadband speeds, it’s inconceivable to put such a serious bottleneck in place.
  4. We’ve already seen politicians use the proposed filter to further their personal agendas. Family First wants all pornography blocked, and even reliable old Nick Xenophon has made noise that he might want online gambling blocked. In both cases it might be argued that they are totally right to want these blocked, but how long before a new government or political lobby group decides that their particular bugbear — gay marriage, or abortion, or pre-marital sex — is inappropriate “for the children”, and we no longer see it on our internet? That’s all too possible.
  5. It wont stop the damage being done by the real criminals. The majority of illegal activity online is done through “peer to peer” networks — that is, groups of people who bypass the Google and Youtube internet, and go straight for the content they want from other people that have it. It’s the way that people who download movies and music predominantly do it. This sort of traffic isn’t illegal in-and-of itself, and law makers cannot block it outright, any more than you could stop all Australia Post mail for the occasional illegal package that gets sent through it3. So regular folk will be inconvenienced in the ways I’ve mentioned, and criminals will continue to do whatever they want. Once again, Joe Six-Pack4 gets the raw end of the deal.

So that’s why I think this is a Bad ThingTM. But don’t take my word for it. Some smart people have written why they think its a colossal waste of money. Why it won’t do anything but hurt you and me, and do nothing to stop real criminals. Read their opinions, and make up your own mind. If you explore their sites, you’ll even find the other side of the debate. But keep in mind — no one with a knowledge of the technology has said it’s a good idea.

These sites will also direct you in ways you can help oppose the proposal. I’ll be writing to my local member for a start, and if you’re concerned I recommend you do the same.

I truly hope we can stop this travesty. It’s a disgrace in more ways than one. I want my child to grow up in a world where information is at her fingertips, in a fraction of a second. The “cleanfeed” will make this a memory for us older folk. Don’t let that happen.

Footnotes
  1. that is, “Use the Google branded search engine” 
  2. yeah, don’t look that up 
  3. Which reminds me: internet filtering is not going to stop people sending each other illegal material through the post — should every letter be opened and inspected before being sent, and should you have to opt-out of such a system to have your “gentleman’s magazines” delivered? 
  4. Gosh I hate that term 
  • You say... "At least there will be some protection". I say that's worse. Every site has to be specifically added to this list. I bet in less than a minute I could find a site that wasn't blocked that should be, and any kid with two minutes to spare and Google could find it. 'But it's OK, cause out internet is "protected"' will be the parent's cry. And the false positives and potential abuse make this a BAD THING for the sake of a few kids who's parents don't care enough about them to parent properly. Why should I be stuck with a slower, incomplete internet because Joe Douchebag can't be buggered looking after his kids? If he lets his kids play on the street, should I have to find a different street to drive down?
  • Wally N
    You say... "Don’t expect an electronic baby sitter to know what values you want passed on. If a filter goes in, how many parents will dust off their hands thinking the “internet problem” has been solved? That is dangerous."
    One of the problems is that many parents "dust off their hands" anyway. Not many of them will take the time to watch, or monitor their kids when they're on the internet. At least there will be some protection - and unless the kids are fairly into computing, most will be unable to find inappropriate sites if this is in place.
    Walter N
  • @NathanaelB I can't stand that we're spending so much money on this, when we could be putting that money into giving our police more resources to actually help victims of abuse. Or give our teachers resources to get skilled in internet technology to better teach our kids about "cyber safety"

    @jon_seymour I totally agree. My bastion of sanity from a filtered connection at work is to return to a pure internet at home. I am so looking forward to teaching Amelynne the joys of Twitter (blocked at school), Flickr (was blocked), YouTube (blocked) et al. At least (I thought) we could explore them at home without problem. It's an aside, and one I'm not willing to go into in great detail here, but I'm of the oppinion that schools should be a lot more open with the internet too. How else will kids learn to keep safe if they can't use them in a "monitored" environment? Kids get very little education about this stuff, and then get home and get into trouble uploading stuff onto YouTube, because their parents "can't keep up with this computer stuff" and teachers can't teach them how to use it responsibly (please don't think that I mean teachers should be doing the parenting—it's just messed up all round really)

    @zoon Thanks for the heads up. I'm hoping your friend isn't actually a technical person and was just wowed by all the fancy words and figures being thrown about. No technical mind I know thinks it's even remotely possible to balance "bulletproof filtering" with a "reliable useful internet".
  • Zoon
    I am against the clean feed proposal but a friend that I respect was part of the technical committee working on this last year. He is normally against censorship and I would have imagined he would have thought like "the rest of us" about what appears a misguided proposal... BUT, he came out of the working group agreeing with the proposal for ISP based filtering.

    Which leaves me quite fearful that the data and recommendations they are using to justify and analyse this must be convincing.
  • Josh,

    Well said - and I was only joking about the hot ThinkPad battery :-)

    You raise a good point about the poor experience of freedom that children experience at school because of the filtering they experience there. I am not arguing that schools shouldn't have filtering, but it makes it even more important, in my view, that homes do not have it - children have to know that it is possible to live responsibly with an unfiltered connection and their parents have to provide the example.

    If childrens only experience of the Internet is via censored connections, the next generation of adults won't think twice about the Government controlling everything they read and hear. We need unfiltered connections precisely to provide a working example to children of the value of unfiltered connections.

    This has to be a powerful argument against mandatory ISP filtering in the home, I think.
  • Yup, the Internet Filter is about as much a waste of money as the National Broadband Network - although an added waste of the NBN is that while they're trying to increase bandwidth and speed across the country with one hand they're then slowing it back down with the Internet Clean Feed Filter with the other hand. I don't know how you can get any dumber than that. Good post! Totally agree.
blog comments powered by Disqus