Expressions

It would seem I have once again reneged upon my pledge of frequency - perhaps we should look upon this as a developmental process. It has been only a month, which is a distinct improvement.

So, what has caught my eye recently? Most prominently, the writings of the admirable Mr Stephen Fry, whose blog I very much enjoy but frequently forget about.

Unfortunately for Mr Fry, though he will never know it (even making the rather large assumption that his pageview counter worries him terribly in between writing and counting his money), his blog always reminds me of Douglas Adams. From mentions by name, in reference to an imminent TV sequel to "Last Chance to See", to an article about his gadgetry which, despite the generous lacing of product placement, can't help but reminds me of Adams' musings about Frank the Vandal, Mr Fry's writing holds the qualities of irreverence and irony which are increasingly, and saddeningly, unique.

Incidentally, "saddeningly" doesn't appear to be a word, despite following the same pattern as "maddeningly", which is.

What else in the wide world has caught my attention? Not much.

*http://news.google.com.au*

The news that Malcom Turnbull has taken up twittering his every move saddened me when I first heard it, my skeptical inclination jumping the gun a bit. A quick browse shows this to be a little more deep than Kev's marketing campaign. I was surprised, and pleased. I think, just maybe, he gets it.

Of course, there's always somebody who doesn't get it. Minister Tanner is one of those people.

My response follows. If it is flawed, please blame it upon the hour, revise it, and submit it yourself. They have asked for our contributions, let us provide them in abundance.

Dear Minister Tanner,

Unfortunately, the proposed plan to implement an ISP level filter preventing access to child pornography demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand the fashion in which the internet works.

While filtering of traditional protocols such as HTTP and FTP may have some limited effectiveness through use of an imposed blacklist, this will inevitably be only a temporary inconvenience, unless you also plan to filter any and all material pertaining to stenography and encryption. Such filtering would constitute a remarkable violation of our democratically-implicit right to free speech.

But the problem runs deeper than that. The internet simply doesn't work the way many people think it does. The World Wide Web is not the Internet. The internet encompasses many layers, including bittorrent, Usenet and FreeNet. These networks are designed to route around damage, can be encrypted end-to-end, will operate on any available port ranges and are, as a result, effectively unblockable.

You have previously spoken about ensuring that social decorum translates to the medium of the internet. What you fail to understand is that the internet is not like any traditional construct. The notion of regulating the usage of the internet within the borders of a specific nation is as absurd as regulating the breathing of air. The internet does not respect borders. The internet is not designed to be ruled. It is defined by those who use it.

A friend of mine today proposed that the ownership of the internet could be modeled as a colonial process. Tribes of natives eventually supplanted by corporate exploitation, followed by the imposition of government controls. It is here that we stand today.

But consider this: The content of the internet is created by its users, not by the controlling government. How long is it going to be before we, collectively, ask you to leave, and take your tea with you?

I only ask of you and your department that you consult the right experts - not experts in implementing filters, but experts in IT Security. Perhaps you should hire a pair of consultant teams. Ask one to draft a comprehensive test of your proposed filter, and the other to perform your test.

Perhaps such a test, before many more millions of dollars are outlaid on this project, could provide convincing evidence to you, far more so than the posts of 100 angry bloggers.

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Kerr

NB: Yes, this entry has now been updated several times - I'm not a great believer in leaving content static. Corrections of grammar and spelling only serve to enhance your enjoyment of this content. The addition of relevant hyperlinks is something I typically perform after posting, partially to allow you to see this discussion in a wider context, and partially for my own amusement.