Cannot agree with Geoff more - if it matters, get out there and talk to politicians, especially Labor ones. If you local minister isn't ALP, find a senator for your state who is. http://freelancing-gods.com/posts/revisiting_internet_filter_action
-- Pat On 07/01/2009, at 1:22 PM, Geoff McQueen wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Things have been a bit quiet on the #nocleanfeed issue for a little > while, but following on from a prod by @pat to get off my butt and > register my opposition with my local MP, I made an appointment, and > today had a really good meeting with Sharon Bird (ALP), my local > member. > > We had a really good chat, and I've taken the time to write up the > approach/argument I used, as well as make a few notes from the > conversation at > http://www.geoffmcqueen.com/2009/01/07/my-chat-about-nocleanfeed-with-sharon-bird-mp/ > > . > > If you're against the filter, I suggest you do similar and make an > appointment to chat with your local MP. They'll be easier to pin down > in January, and making an articulate argument in person is invaluable > given the amount of hyperbole flying around in general (on both sides > of the issue). > > Elias is write about the positive effect SiliconBeach has had on this > debate - now its time to make it personal ;-) > > Geoff > > > On Nov 12 2008, 12:33 pm, "Elias Bizannes" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Xenophon, Nick (Senator) <[email protected]> >> Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM >> Subject: RE: The Rudd Filter >> To: Elias Bizannes <[email protected]> >> >> Dear Elias >> >> Thank you for your email to Nick Xenophon regarding the proposed >> internet >> clean feed. Nick shares your concerns that the technology being >> advocated by >> the government may not work. There is a real danger based on trials >> of the >> technology that have been undertaken that banned sites will get >> through the >> filter and sites that were not intended to be banned will be >> blocked. He >> will continue to investigate this matter and decide on what he >> believes is >> the appropriate course of action in due course. >> >> I will forward your email to Nick and his advisors for their >> information. >> Thank you for taking the time to write to Nick on this important >> issue. >> >> Kind Regards >> *HANNAH WOOLLER* >> Correspondence Officer for Nick Xenophon >> Independent Senator for South Australia >> >> 212 Grenfell Street >> ADELAIDE SA 5000 >> p: 08 8232 1144 >> f: 08 8232 3744 >> >> The information contained within this email may be confidential and/ >> or >> legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, access >> to it is >> unauthorised and any disclosure, copying, distribution or action >> taken or >> omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be >> unlawful. >> >> *From:* Elias Bizannes [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* Monday, 3 November 2008 1:08 AM >> *To:* Abetz, Eric (Senator); Adams, Judith (Senator); Arbib, Mark >> (Senator); >> Barnett, Guy (Senator); Bernardi, Cory (Senator); Bilyk, Catryna >> (Senator); >> Birmingham, Simon (Senator); Bishop, Mark (Senator); Boswell, Ron >> (Senator); >> Boyce, Sue (Senator); Brandis, George (Senator); Brown, Carol >> (Senator); >> Bushby, David (Senator); Cameron, Doug (Senator); Carr, Kim >> (Senator); Cash, >> Michaelia (Senator); Colbeck, Richard (Senator); Collins, Jacinta >> (Senator); >> Conroy, Stephen (Senator); Coonan, Helen (Senator); Cormann, Mathias >> (Senator); Crossin, Patricia (Senator); Eggleston, Alan (Senator); >> Ellison, >> Christopher (Senator); Evans, Chris (Senator); Farrell, Don >> (Senator); >> Feeney, David (Senator); Ferguson, Alan (Senator); Fielding, Steve >> (Senator); Fierravanti-Wells, Concetta (Senator); Fifield, Mitchell >> (Senator); Fisher, Mary Jo (Senator); Forshaw, Michael (Senator); >> Furner, >> Mark (Senator); Hanson-Young, Sarah (Senator); Heffernan, Bill >> (Senator); >> Hogg, John (Senator); Humphries, Gary (Senator); Hurley, Annette >> (Senator); >> Hutchins, Steve (Senator); Johnston, David (Senator); Joyce, Barnaby >> (Senator); Kroger, Helen (Senator); Ludlam, Scott (Senator); >> Ludwig, Joe >> (Senator); Lundy, Kate (Senator); Macdonald, Ian (Senator); McEwen, >> Anne >> (Senator); McGauran, Julian (Senator); McLucas, Jan (Senator); >> Marshall, >> Gavin (Senator); Mason, Brett (Senator); Milne, Christine (Senator); >> Minchin, Nick (Senator); Moore, Claire (Senator); Nash, Fiona >> (Senator); >> O'Brien, Kerry (Senator); Parry, Stephen (Senator); Payne, Marise >> (Senator); >> Polley, Helen (Senator); Ronaldson, Michael (Senator); Ryan, Scott >> (Senator); Scullion, Nigel (Senator); Sherry, Nick (Senator); >> Siewert, >> Rachel (Senator); Stephens, Ursula (Senator); Sterle, Glenn >> (Senator); >> Troeth, Judith (Senator); Trood, Russell (Senator); Wong, Penelope >> (Senator); Wortley, Dana (Senator); Xenophon, Nick (Senator); >> Faulkner, John >> (Senator); Brown, Bob (Senator) >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> *Subject:* The Rudd Filter >> >> Attention: Senators of the Australian parliament >> >> With all due respect, I believe my elected representatives as well >> as my >> fellow Australians misunderstand the issue of Internet censorship. >> Below I >> offer my perspective, which I hope can re-position the debate with >> a more >> complete understanding of the issues. >> >> The following letter can also be accessed via >> >> http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/The_Rudd_Filter.pdf >> Background >> >> The policy of the Australian Labor Party on its Internet filter was >> in >> reaction to the Howard Government's family-based approach which >> Labor said >> was a failure. Then leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, >> announced in >> March 2006 <http://www.alp.org.au/media/0306/msloo210.php> (Internet >> archive<http://web.archive.org/web/20060422120043/http:/www.alp.org.au/media/... >> >> >) >> that under Labor "all Internet Service Providers will be required >> to offer a >> filtered 'clean feed' Internet service to all households, and to >> schools and >> other public internet points accessible by kids." The same press >> release >> states "Through an opt-out system, adults who still want to view >> currently >> legal content would advise their Internet Service Provider (ISP) >> that they >> want to opt out of the "clean feed", and would then face the same >> regulations which currently apply." >> >> The 2007 Federal election, which was led by Kevin Rudd, announced the >> election >> pledge<http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf >> > >> that >> "a Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a 'clean feed' >> Internet >> service to all homes, schools and public Internet points accessible >> by >> children, such as public libraries. Labor's ISP policy will prevent >> Australian children from accessing any content that has been >> identified as >> prohibited by ACMA, including sites such as those containing child >> pornography and X-rated material." >> >> Following the election, the Minister for Broadband, Communications >> and >> Digital Economy Senator Stephen Conroy in December 2007 clarified >> that >> anyone wanting uncensored access to the Internet will have to opt- >> out of the >> service <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm>. >> >> In October 2008, the policy had another subtle yet dramatic shift. >> When >> examined by a Senate Estimates committee, Senator Conroy >> stated<http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/cybersafety-n... >> >> > >> that >> "we are looking at two tiers - mandatory of illegal material and an >> option >> for families to get a clean feed service if they wish." Further, >> Conroy >> mentioned "We would be enforcing the existing laws. If investigated >> material >> is found to be prohibited content then ACMA may order it to be >> taken down if >> it is hosted in Australia. They are the existing laws at the moment." >> >> The interpretation of this, which has motivated this paper as well as >> sparked outrage by Australians nation-wide, is that all Internet >> connection >> points in Australia will be subjected to the filter, with only the >> option to >> opt-out of the Family tier but not the tier that classifies 'illegal >> material'. While the term "mandatory" has been used as part of the >> policy in >> the past, it has always been used in the context of making it >> mandatory for >> ISP's to offer such as service. It was never used in the context of >> it being >> mandatory for Australians on the Internet, to use it. >> >> Not only is this a departure from the Rudd government's election >> pledge, but >> there is little evidence to suggest that it is not truly being >> representative of the requests from the Australian community. >> Senator Conroy >> has shown evidence of the previous NetAlert policy by the previous >> government falling far below expectations. According to Conroy, 1.4 >> million >> families were expected to download the filter, but many less actually >> did<http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/ssc-conroy-confirms-commitm... >> >. >> The estimated end usage according to Conroy is just 30,000 - >> despite a $22 >> million advertising campaign. The attempt by this government to >> pursue this >> policy therefore, is for its own ideological or political >> benefit<http://stilgherrian.com/politics/petitions_drove_filtering_policy >> >. >> The Australian people never gave the mandate nor is there evidence to >> indicate majority support to pursue this agenda. Further, the >> government >> trials to date have shown the technology to be ineffective. >> >> On the 27th of October, some 9,000 people had signed a >> petition<http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship?signedpetition=14... >> >> > >> to >> deny support of a government filter. At the time of writing this >> letter on >> the 2 November, this has now climbed to 13,655 people. The >> government's >> moves are being closely watched by the community and activities are >> being >> planned to respond to the government should this policy continue in >> its >> current direction. >> >> I write this to describe the impact such a policy will have if it >> goes >> ahead, to educate the government and the public. >> >> Impacts on Australia Context >> >> The approach of the government to filtering is one dimensional and >> does not >> take into account the converged world of the Internet. The Internet >> has - >> and will continue to - transform our world. It has become a >> utility, to form >> the backbone of our economy and communications. Fast and wide- >> spread access >> to the Internet has been recognised globally as a priority policy for >> political and business leaders of the world. >> >> The Internet typically allows three broad types of activities. The >> first is >> that of facilitating the exchange of goods and services. The >> Internet has >> become a means of creating a more efficient marketplace, and is >> well known >> to have driven demand in offline selling as >> well<http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SCOR/0x0x101467/c60d8600-c8c8-... >> >> >, >> as it creates better informed consumers to reach richer decision >> making. On >> the other hand, online market places can exist with considerable less >> overhead - creating a more efficient marketplace than in the >> physical world, >> enabling stronger niche markets through greater connections between >> buyers >> and sellers. >> >> The second activity is that of communications. This has enabled a >> New Media >> or Hypermedia of many-to-many communications, with people now >> having a new >> way to communicate and propagate information. The core value of the >> World >> Wide Web can be realised from its founding purpose: created by >> CERN<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN>, >> it was meant to be a hypertext >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext> implementation >> that would allow better knowledge sharing of its global network of >> scientists. It was such a transformative thing, that the role of >> the media >> has forever changed. For example, newspapers that thrived as >> businesses in >> the Industrial Age, now face challenges to their business models, >> as younger >> generations are preferring to access their information over Internet >> services which objectively is a more effective way to do >> so<http://futureexploration.net/fom/2008/07/consumers_want_information_n... >> > >> . >> >> A third activity is that of utility. This is a growing area of the >> Internet, >> where it is creating new industries and better ways of doings, now >> that we >> have a global community of people connected to share information. The >> traditional software industry is being changed into a service >> model<http://www.scripting.com/disruption/ozzie/TheInternetServicesDisrupti... >> >> > >> where >> instead of paying a license, companies offer an annual subscription >> to use >> the software via the browser as platform (as opposed to a PC's >> Window's >> installation as the platform). Cloud computing is a trend pioneered >> by >> Google, and now an area of innovation by other major Internet >> companies like >> Amazon and Microsoft, that will allow people to have their data >> portable and >> accessible anywhere in the world. These are disruptive trends, that >> will >> further embed the Internet into our world. >> >> The Internet will be unnecessarily restricted >> >> All three of the broad activities described above, will be affected >> by a >> filter. >> >> The impact on Markets with analysis-based filters, is that it will >> likely >> block access to sites due to a description used in selling items. >> Suggestions by Senators have been that hardcore and fetish >> pornography be >> blocked - content that may be illegal for minors to view, but >> certainly not >> illegal for consenting adults. For example, legitimate businesses >> that used >> the web as their shopfront (such as adultshop.com.au), will be >> restricted >> from the general population in their pursuit of recreational >> activities. The >> filter's restriction on information for Australians is thus a >> restriction on >> trade and will impact individuals and their freedoms in their >> personal >> lives. >> >> The impact on communications is large. The Internet has created a >> new form >> of media called "social media". Weblogs, wiki's, micro-blogging >> services >> like Twitter, forums like Australian start-up business Tangler and >> other >> forms of social media are likely to have their content - and thus >> service - >> restricted. The free commentary of individuals on these services, >> will lead >> to a censoring and a restriction in the ability to use the >> services. "User >> generated content" is considered a central tenet in the >> proliferation of >> web2.0, yet the application of industrial area controls on the >> content >> businesses now runs into a clash with people's public speech as the >> two >> concepts that were previously distinct in that era, have now merged. >> >> Further more, legitimate information services will be blocked with >> analysis-based filtering due to language that would trigger >> filtering. As >> noted in the ACMA >> report<http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_interne... >> >> >, >> "the filters performed significantly better when blocking >> pornography and >> other adult content but performed less well when blocking other >> types of >> content". As a case in point, a site containing the word "breast", >> would be >> filtered despite it having legitimate value in providing breast >> cancer >> awareness. >> >> Utility services could be adversely affected. The increasing trend of >> computing 'in the cloud' means that our computing infrastructure will >> require an efficient and open Internet. A filter will do nothing >> but disrupt >> this, with little ability to achieve the policy goal of preventing >> illegal >> material. As consumers and businesses move to the cloud, critical >> functions >> will be relied on, and any threat in the distribution and under- >> realisation >> of potential speeds, will be a burden on the economy. >> >> Common to all three classes above, is the degradation of speeds and >> access. >> The ACMA report claims that all six filters tested scored an 88% >> effectiveness rate in terms of blocking the content that the >> government was >> hoping would be blocked. It also claims that over-blocking of >> acceptable >> content was 8% for all filters tested, with network degradation not >> nearly >> as big of a problem during these tests as it was during previous >> previous >> trials, when performance degradation ranged from 75-98%. In this >> latest >> test, the ACMA said degradation was down, but >> >> The Government has recognised with the >> legislation<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/bill_em/bsasb... >> >> > >> it >> bases its regulatory authority from, that "whilst it takes >> seriously its >> responsibility to provide an effective regime to address the >> publication of >> illegal and offensive material online, it wishes to ensure that >> regulation >> does not place onerous or unjustifiable burdens on industry and >> inhibit the >> development of the online economy." >> >> The compliance costs alone will hinder the online economy. ISP's >> will need >> to constantly maintain the latest filtering technologies, >> businesses will >> need to monitor user generated content to ensure their web services >> are not >> automatically filtered and administrative delays to unblock legal >> sites will >> hurt profitability and for some start-up businesses may even kill >> them. >> >> And that's just for compliance, lets not forget the actual impact >> on users. >> As *Crikey* has reported (Internet filters a success, if success = >> failure<http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080729-Internet-filters-a-success... >> >> >), >> even the best filter has a false-positive rate of 3% under ideal lab >> conditions. Mark Newton (the network engineer who Senator Conroy's >> office >> attacked >> recently<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html?page=ful... >> >> >) >> reckons that for a medium-sized ISP that's 3000 incorrect blocks >> *every >> second*<http://stilgherrian.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf >> >> >. >> Another maths-heavy >> analysis<http://girtby.net/archives/2008/7/31/bayes-theorem-1-mandatory-filter... >> >> > >> says >> that every time that filter blocks something there's an 80% chance >> it was >> wrong. >> >> The Policy goal will not be met & will be costly through this >> approach >> >> The Labor party's election policy >> document<http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf >> > >> states >> that Labor's ISP policy will prevent Australian children from >> accessing any >> content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA, including >> sites such >> as those containing child pornography and X-rated material. Other >> than being >> a useful propaganda device, to my knowledge children and people >> generally >> don't actively seek child pornography, and a filter does nothing to >> prevent >> these offline real-world social networks of paedophiles to restrict >> their >> activities. >> >> What the government seems to misunderstand, is that a filter regime >> will >> prove inadequate in achieving any of this, due to the reality of how >> information gets distributed on the Internet. >> >> *[image: Composition of Internet traffic by you.]* >> >> *Source:http://www.ipoque.com/userfiles/file/internet_study_2007.pdf* >> >> Peer-to-peer networks (P2P), a legal technology that also proves >> itself >> impossible to control or filter, accounts for the majority of >> Internet >> traffic, with figures of between 48% in the Middle East and 80% in >> Eastern >> Europe <http://www.ipoque.com/userfiles/file/ >> internet_study_2007.pdf>. As >> noted earlier, the ACMA trials have confirmed that although they >> can block >> P2P, they cannot actually analyse the content as being illegal. >> This is >> because P2P technologies like torrents are completely decentralised. >> Individual torrents cannot be identified, and along with encryption >> technologies, make this type of content impossible to filter or >> identify >> what it is. >> >> However, whether blocked or filtered, this is ignoring the fact >> that access >> can be bypassed by individuals who wish to do so. >> Tor<http://www.torproject.org/> is >> a network of virtual tunnels, used by people under authoritarian >> governments >> in the world - you can install the free software on a USB stick to >> have it >> working immediately. It is a sophisticated technology that allows >> people to >> bypass restrictions. More significantly, I wish to highlight that >> some Tor >> servers have been used for illegal purposes, including child >> pornography and >> p2p sharing of copyrighted files using the bit torrent protocol. In >> September 2006, German authorities seized data center equipment >> running Tor >> software <http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/09/11/1050215.shtml> >> during a child >> pornography crackdown, although the TOR network managed >> toreassemble itself >> with no impact to its >> network<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060911-7709.html>. >> This technology is but one of many available options for people to >> overcome >> a ISP-level filter. >> >> For a filtering approach to be appropriate, it will require not just >> automated analysis based technology, but human effort to maintain the >> censorship of the content. An expatriate Australian in China claims >> that a staff >> of 30,000 are employed by the Golden Shield >> Project<http://dedlog.blogspot.com/2008/10/internet-censorship-recurring-nigh... >> >> > >> (the >> official name for the Great Firewall) to select what to block along >> with >> whatever algorithm they use to automatically block sites. With >> legitimate >> online activities being blocked through automated software, it will >> require >> a beefed up ACMA to handle support from the public to investigate and >> unblock websites that are legitimate. Given the amount of false >> positives >> proven in the ACMA trials, this is not to be taken likely, and >> could cost >> hundreds of millions of dollars in direct taxpayers money and >> billions in >> opportunity cost for the online economy. >> >> Inappropriate government regulation >> >> The governments approach to regulating the Internet has been one >> dimensional, by regarding content online with the same type that was >> produced by the mass media in the Industrial Era. The Information Age >> recognises content not as a one-to-many broadcast, but individuals >> communicating. Applying these previous-era provisions is actually a >> restraint beyond traditional publishing. >> >> Regulation of the Internet is provided under the *Broadcasting >> Services >> Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 (Commonwealth)*. Schedule Five >> and >> seven of the amendment claim the goal is to: >> >> - Provide a means of addressing complaints about certain >> Internet content >> - Restrict access to certain Internet content that is likely to >> cause >> offense to a reasonable adult >> - Protect children from exposure to Internet content that is >> unsuitable >> for them >> >> Mandatory restricting access can disrupt freedom of expression >> under Article >> 19 of the*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* and >> disrupt >> fair trade of services under the Trade Practices Act. >> >> It is wrong for the government to take the view of mandating >> restricted >> access, but instead should allow consumers that option to >> participate in a >> system that protects them. To allow a government to interpret what a >> "reasonable adult" would think is too subjective for it to be >> appropriate >> that a faceless authority regulates, over the ability for an >> individual >> adult to determine for themselves. >> >> The Internet is not just content in the communications sense, but >> also in >> the market and utility sense. Restricting access to services, which >> may be >> done inappropriately due to proven weaknesses in filtering >> technology, would >> result in >> >> - reduced consumer information about goods and services. >> Consumers will >> have less information due to sites incorrectly blocked >> - violation of the WTO's cardinal principles - the "national >> treatment" >> principle<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm >> >, >> which requires that imported goods and services be treated the >> same as those >> produced locally. >> - preventing or hindering competition under the interpretation >> of section >> 4G of th*e Trade Practices Act*. This means online businesses >> will be >> disadvantaged from physical world shops, even if they create more >> accountability by allowing consumer discussion on forums that >> may trigger >> the filter due to consumers freedom of expression. >> >> Solution: an opt-in ISP filter that is optional for Australians >> >> Senator Conroy's crusade in the name of child pornography is not >> the issue. >> The issue, in addition to the points raised above, is that mandatory >> restricting access to information, is by nature a political process. >> If the Australian >> Family Association <http://www.family.org.au/> writes an article >> criticising >> homosexuals <http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2003/challenge.htm>, >> is this >> grounds to have the content illegal to access and >> communicate<http://defendingscoundrels.com/2008/10/conroy-misleads-the-senate-on-... >> >> > >> as >> it >> incitesdiscrimination<http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/legislation/index.html >> >> >? >> Perhaps the Catholic Church should have its website banned because of >> theirstance >> on homosexuality? <http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357> >> >> If the Liberals win the next election because the Rudd government >> was voted >> out due to pushing ahead with this filtering policy, and the >> Coalition >> repeat recent history by controlling both houses of government - >> what will >> stop them from banning access to the Labor party's website? >> >> Of course, these examples sound far fetched but they also sounded far >> fetched in another vibrant democracy called the Weimar >> Republic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic>. >> What I wish to highlight is that pushing ahead with this approach to >> regulating the Internet is a dangerous precedent that cannot be >> downplayed. >> Australians should have the ability to access the Internet with >> government >> warnings and guidance on content that may cause offence to the >> reasonable >> person. The government should also persecute people creating and >> distributing information like child pornography that universally is >> agreed >> by society as a bad thing. But to mandate restricted access to >> information >> on the Internet, based on expensive imperfect technology that can >> be routed >> around, is a Brave New World that will not be tolerated by the >> broader >> electorate once they realise their individual freedoms are being >> restricted. >> >> This system of ISP filtering should not be mandatory for all >> Australians to >> use. Neither should it be an opt-out system by default. Individuals >> should >> have the right to opt-into a system like this, if there are >> children using >> the Internet connection or a household wishes to censor their >> Internet >> experience. To mandatory force all Australians to experience the >> Internet >> only if under Government sanction, is a mistake of the highest >> levels. It >> technologically cannot be assured, and it poses a genuine threat to >> our >> democracy. >> >> If the Ministry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth> >> under >> Senator Conroy does not understand my concerns by responding with a >> template >> answer six months >> later<http://Liako.Biz/2008/07/internet-censorship-in-australia/>, >> and clearly showing inadequate industry consultation despite my >> request, >> perhaps Chairman Rudd can step in. I recognise with the looming >> financial >> recession, we need to look for ways to prop up our export markets. >> However >> developing in-house expertise at restricting the population that >> would set >> precedent to the rest of the Western world, is something that's >> funny in a >> nervous type of laughter kind of way. >> >> Like many others in the industry, I wish to help the government to >> develop a >> solution that protects children. But ultimately, I hope our elected >> representatives can understand the importance of this potential >> policy. I >> also hope they are aware anger exists in the governments actions to >> date, >> and whilst democracy can be slow to act, when it hits, it hits hard. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Elias Bizannes >> >> ---- >> >> Postal address: 201 Sussex St, Sydney 2011 >> >> Telephone: (02) 8266 1473 >> >> Mobile: +61412 338 508 >> >> E-mail: elias.bizannes at gmail dot com >> >> Elias Bizannes works for a professional services firm and is a >> Chartered >> Accountant. He is a champion of the Australian Internet industry >> through the >> Silicon Beach Australia community and also currently serves as Vice- >> Chair of >> the DataPortability Project. The opinions of this letter reflect >> his own as >> an individual (and not his employer) with perspective developed in >> consultation with the Australian industry. >> >> This letter may be republished freely. HTML >> version<http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/index.html> >> and PDF >> version<http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/The_Rudd_Filter.pdf >> > >> version. >> >> -- >> Elias Bizanneshttp://liako.biz > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
