Screw reading this, go STRAIGHT to the letter...
So did anyone actually read the link on the Wikipedia SOPA "Blackout" page? (Perhaps)
So did anyone actually read the link on the Wikipedia SOPA "Blackout" page? (Perhaps)
Did anyone notice the "What should I do now?" section? (Probably not)
Did anyone do anything about it? (Even less likely)
Will you assholes all whinge and whine when stupid legislation is passed by government (Most definitely)
YAY for apathy!
Anyhoooo...
I did what was requested, because I'm a sheep and do whatever Wikipedia tells me to do..
Click through to read my letter to our representatives..
It's very long, and probably quite predictable and very boring so:
- Read or don't.. I don't really care and won't be offended if you can't be bothered :)
If you find it useful, feel free to copy/paste whatever sections you like on to any of your respective rants to your local politicians or facebooks.
You could also do a 'find and replace' and make the letter about something completely different, say 'coal seam gas' or 'live animal export' though it seems unlikely that it'll make any sense :)
Hey Mr Rudd, Jane Prentice, Sandra Bailey...
As my Foreign Minister, Jane as my local member & Sandra and others as my potential alternative elected officials:
I'd like you to take on board my comments and my concerns. I'd like you to keep them in mind when you discuss these issues with your political colleagues.
I'd also like you to consider them as representative of at-least some of your constituents as you form your own policy positions (I know some of my friends think my arguments are logical and persuasive and agree with my position).
--
As per the request to readers on Wikipedia I am registering my concern:
"Users outside of the U.S. can contact their local State Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or similar branch of government. Tell
them that you oppose the draft US SOPA and PIPA legislation, and all similar legislation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more
Primary Concern
I'm concerned about any legislation that give copyright holders, media companies, and governments additional controls over personal and public communication.
I am specifically opposed to:
- "Conroy's Net Filter" that Labor were trying to introduce.
- I'm opposed to any Australian participation in treaties which may in time require us to adopt or agree with foreign legislation such as this.
Further, I believe this should be taken as a serious concern considering organisations as large and 'open' as Wikipedia take global actions such as their "Blackout", and innovative companies like Google oppose such legislation.
Reason for opposition
While on the surface these Filters and anti piracy legislation sounds reasonable, when you dig in to the potential negative side-effects I think any reasonable individual would need to conclude that these efforts area) A waste of taxpayer time and money
b) Completely ineffective (I speak with technical knowledge here)
c) ONLY disadvantage law abiding citizens
d) Stifles the creation and development of new business models (iTunes is a great example), by "making it easy" for everyone to go about business as usual.
e) Spurs the uptake of new technologies that make the lawful monitoring of criminal activities difficult or impossible.
Why these things simply won't work
The primary reason for this is that the fundamental architecture of Internet and communication technology systems is so adaptive that no amount of "address blocking", "black listing", or "packet inspection" will actually ever be successful in preventing 'underground' activity. Literally within hours, experts and nerds will have found a way to completely circumvent any technology.This can be seen with "tech savvy" citizens getting data in and out of China with relative ease (even with China's ultra draconian monitoring and filtering policies).
In detail why these technologies and types of legislation won't work
1) The bypassing of filtering and censoring efforts can be easily achieved with readily available, user installable encryption and masking technologies.2) Should the use of these technologies become ubiquitous, then the real policing and lawful monitoring of criminal behaviour will become literally impossible.
3) Only law abiding citizens will be blocked from accessing content that contravenes any filtering legislation.
While this may not seem like an issue for law abiding citizens, it
quickly becomes a complex issue when the technologies are:
5) Several studies exist that show that MP3 and movie 'downloads' have had very little to do with the 'downturn in sales'. That the 'downturns' experienced by media companies are more influenced by poor quality content, poor distribution and external economic factors.
6) I believe it is up to the suppliers and creators of content and technology to work out ways of making their content and technology relevant to consumers. The music industry has finally started to evolve to an online distribution model that is being embraced by most consumers - instead, these laws and filters will regress technology and provide protections that allows content producers to "sit back and relax" instead of developing better content and innovative business models.
- applied incorrectly
- applied with a heavy hand
- applied due to pressured by lobbyists
- applied due to pressure from legally savvy/cashed up "content owners"
- or applied in error.
5) Several studies exist that show that MP3 and movie 'downloads' have had very little to do with the 'downturn in sales'. That the 'downturns' experienced by media companies are more influenced by poor quality content, poor distribution and external economic factors.
6) I believe it is up to the suppliers and creators of content and technology to work out ways of making their content and technology relevant to consumers. The music industry has finally started to evolve to an online distribution model that is being embraced by most consumers - instead, these laws and filters will regress technology and provide protections that allows content producers to "sit back and relax" instead of developing better content and innovative business models.
Misrepresentation of the scale of these "Problems"
With respect to problems faced by copyright holders:
It appears that "the loudest" proponents of these technologies are also the wealthiest and most profitable ones, usually connected with media outlets. In fact, it would appear that these particular content owners have not experienced any genuine losses due to copyright infringements.
It appears that most Intellectual and Copyright property laws are designed to give even more power massive businesses that have the cash to gobble up and hold on to these 'rights', while generally stifling small producers, emerging artists, small businesses and innovative technologies.
With respect to problems 'solved' by general filtering and monitoring:
From the evidence before me, I firmly believe there has been a ridiculous "beat up" and excessive scrutiny on issues such as "copyright infringement", "kids downloading info on drugs", "instructions for making weapons", or "subversive terrorist related literature" (etc... etc.. etc..).
I believe the scale of the 'problems' is being grossly over stated when compared to real societal pressures, and the core drivers for criminal activities.
There is no credible evidence that there has ever been a statistically significant increases in criminal activity due to the availability of information. Further, the availability of contraband does not increase the propensity for criminal behaviour, specially when the contraband in question is intangible.
I believe this general 'unease' that people have with technology is driving this misrepresentation. Unfortunately, it also seems to be guiding government policy on complex matters that can't be fixed with simple or 'technical solutions'.
However in the scope of these matters, security models that rely on: filtering of content, blanket public surveillance, and censorship schemes are the wrong tools for the job.
The money, time, business development, and "intellectual resources" of our country would be better served by:
I'm frustrated by governments making complicated, and far reaching laws in reaction to nonexistent or low-risk threats in response to public hysteria, or pressure from massively profitable business sectors.
I opposed the Internet Filter suggested by our mate Conroy, because it's stupid (luckily for Labor, everyone has gone really quite on those shenanigans).
As I said in opening, I'd like you as my Foreign Minister and my local representatives, to take on board my comments and my concerns.
Thanks to anyone (staff or otherwise) who took the time to read this..
35 Year Old Male,
Soon to be married,
Home Owner & Small Business owner in Brisbane
Technically Literate, with a great personal interest in security and communication technology.
It appears that "the loudest" proponents of these technologies are also the wealthiest and most profitable ones, usually connected with media outlets. In fact, it would appear that these particular content owners have not experienced any genuine losses due to copyright infringements.
It appears that most Intellectual and Copyright property laws are designed to give even more power massive businesses that have the cash to gobble up and hold on to these 'rights', while generally stifling small producers, emerging artists, small businesses and innovative technologies.
With respect to problems 'solved' by general filtering and monitoring:
From the evidence before me, I firmly believe there has been a ridiculous "beat up" and excessive scrutiny on issues such as "copyright infringement", "kids downloading info on drugs", "instructions for making weapons", or "subversive terrorist related literature" (etc... etc.. etc..).
I believe the scale of the 'problems' is being grossly over stated when compared to real societal pressures, and the core drivers for criminal activities.
There is no credible evidence that there has ever been a statistically significant increases in criminal activity due to the availability of information. Further, the availability of contraband does not increase the propensity for criminal behaviour, specially when the contraband in question is intangible.
"...You wouldn't steal a mobile phone. You wouldn't steal a car..." (From the DVD Trailers against piracy)Technology is moving very fast and the rate of change is accelerating. Governments, business and society is struggling to keep up.
"...if a mate of mine called me up and said 'Sam, I've just bought a new car, would you like me to burn you a copy', I reckon I'd consider that!" (From Sam Bowring, Australian Standup Comedian)
I believe this general 'unease' that people have with technology is driving this misrepresentation. Unfortunately, it also seems to be guiding government policy on complex matters that can't be fixed with simple or 'technical solutions'.
Alternatives
I do believe that government should in some cases, intervene in individual behaviours to ensure the smooth running of society, as well as the success of businesses, and the freedom of individuals.However in the scope of these matters, security models that rely on: filtering of content, blanket public surveillance, and censorship schemes are the wrong tools for the job.
The money, time, business development, and "intellectual resources" of our country would be better served by:
- Focusing on "Old School" policing of actual crimes that affect 'everyday citizens'
- Using these "Old School" techniques to analyse and infiltrate 'real' criminal networks
- Improving public and business education as to real vs perceived threats
- Improving public and business education that allow individuals to protect themselves against real threats.
Summary
I am quite tired of governments with little technical understanding, passing legislation (or publicly supporting a response) which has been dictated by media organisations and uninformed masses (who have been educated by the media organisations driving these laws).I'm frustrated by governments making complicated, and far reaching laws in reaction to nonexistent or low-risk threats in response to public hysteria, or pressure from massively profitable business sectors.
I opposed the Internet Filter suggested by our mate Conroy, because it's stupid (luckily for Labor, everyone has gone really quite on those shenanigans).
As I said in opening, I'd like you as my Foreign Minister and my local representatives, to take on board my comments and my concerns.
Thanks to anyone (staff or otherwise) who took the time to read this..
35 Year Old Male,
Soon to be married,
Home Owner & Small Business owner in Brisbane
Technically Literate, with a great personal interest in security and communication technology.
No comments:
Post a Comment