Reminds me of the Lieutenant Colonel from Apocalypse Now, who took joy in the deployment of napalm with no regard for the collateral damage.

Drawn after I read the announcement that Fielding had won the minor party spot on the Cyber-safety Senate committee. Of course, this turned out to be wrong, and Ludlam won the position. But I think the cartoon is fitting.

Entry: RC Sensitive Sunglasses

Description: Eye wear proscribed by the Australian Government, designed to go black, preventing ‘inadvertent exposure’. Always keep your cool when viewing the Internet.

As part of a new system implemented by the Federal Government, all school students will be bar coded. Students will be required to scan themselves when they site for tests to improve data tracking. And, as an added benefit, it will allow students to swipe to logon to computers, setting the correct Internet Filter setting automatically.

“Better record keeping, and keeping you children safe on the Internet, all in one!” the education spokesperson announced.

While this may be a little fanciful, I worry about information systems that this government wants to setup. The new “unique student identifier” looks like a Trojan Australia Card.

If the government starts tracking all your school results you will get stuck with them for life. I can see the USI being rolled over into your Taxfile number or some such thing when you get older.

When applying for a job in a government department, do you really want them quizzing you about why you failed maths in year 3?

Maybe this is a little extreme, but it is something you need to think about. Will those those indiscretions as a child catch you up (or at least your children) later in life?

• Students to get tracking numbers (SBS, 24 Feb 2010)
• Children to be given identity numbers (Phillip Coorey, SMH, 24 Feb 2010)

This is the second time in a year they have move the kids playground.

Is the reason for moving, that stores have complained about the kids area being to close to them? I would think it would be good the surrounding stores. Parents are stuck there for a length of time, with nothing else to look at.

The kids playground was in a convenient location. Easy to visit when you need to let them burn off extra energy. Now you have to drag kids along a series of escalators or wait for space on the one lift that goes to level 3.

I suppose kids don’t make many purchases in the shopping centre. So why not just stick them where they are neither seen nor heard?

It’s more likely that just want the space to put in more shops. Like the reason they moved the customer service desk somewhere not obvious.

Sorry, this machine
is temporarily
out of service

Doesn’t it really annoy you finding an ATM that is not working?

First the banks charge you for using someone else’s ATM, then you find their ATM broken so you have no choice.

Not that I needed this one, I just though it was a good example of the problem.

The No Internet Censorship site, run by the Australian Democrats, has an interesting article about this problem: ‘Taking control of the campaign against internet censorship‘. It clearly addresses the problem with having multiple bodies trying to run the campaign from different angles.

Although, it makes me think of Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Here is my adaptation of The Colosseum skit:

Brian: Are you the Internet People's Front?
Reg: F*ck off.
Brian: What?
Reg: Internet People's Front. We're the People's Front of the Internet. Internet People's front, caw.

The article mentions that there are 3 political parties involved in opposing the filters: The Australian Democrats, The Greens, and The Australian Sex Party. And it asserts that one of these would be best to lead the campaign.

Brian: I hate Stephen Conroy as much as anybody.
PFI: Sssh. Ssssh, sssh, sssh, ssssh
Judith: Are you sure?
Brian: Oh. Dead sure... I hate Stephen Conroy and his Internet filters already.

I noticed they missed Pirate Party Australia. Though, reading PPA’s FAQ, I see that they are not yet a registered party. Hence the current membership drive to get the required 500 members.

Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the PFI, you'd have to really hate Stephen Conroy.
Brian: I do.
Reg: Oh yeah? How much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than Stephen Conroy are the f*cking Internet People's Front.

The underlying message of this article is good, but it also looks like political posturing. With The Democrats having no members in parliament since the last federal election.

My take on it all

In my opinion these political parties should take a back seat on pushing the issue. The Democrats are seen as irrelevant to current Federal politics; The Greens polarise people with their other politics; and The SEX Party is seen as representing that which Conroy is telling the public is bad about the Internet.

Their article also forgets to mention of the two non political party groups that are involved in the campaign: the Electronic Fronteirs Australia (EFA) and GetUP. Both of whom have had an important role in delivering the message to the public.

In my opinion the EFA has the best mandate for being the focus for the campaign. The EFA is an organisation ‘independent of government and commerce‘ and formed in 1994 ‘representing Internet users concerned with on-line freedoms and rights‘.

There are many sites that are campaigning against the filters. There needs to be one central hub, that people link to and that provides a clear direction to the campaign.

Conroy already has the jump on the anti censorship people. The anti filter folk don’t have time for a long Darwinistic evolution to find the best candidate, the creationists are currently on their crusade against the Internet. And a divided campaign will be easily swept aside.