"Australia considers email snoop powers for bosses: minister". SYDNEY (AFP) — Bosses will be able to spy on workers' emails without consent under new anti-terror laws being considered in Australia, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Monday.

For fuck's sake, Julia - this is a tired argument and not one that justifies further erosion of privacy and freedoms.

1. Untrained network and systems administrators do not guard against terrorism: authorities do.

2. Authorities who need access to data for a national security investigation are going to get it, regardless of employee consent.

3. Many workplaces make surveillance a condition of employment. There's little benefit in changing legislation just to make it easier for companies that have not yet informed staff of the intention to monitor usage.

4. The EFA is right: the powers will be used to serve the corporate agenda more than they will be used to protect national security. Are any safeguards going to be introduced with these changes?

ABC News article: Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children

In a bid to follow in the footsteps of Helen Coonan rather than try anything new, Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy says Labor will legislate mandatory content filtering at the ISP level. (ISPs are already required to offer user-level filters to customers.) Note that it's opt-out, not opt-in.

Though I believe it would be a bad idea, I could understand a government requiring that ISPs offer network-level filtering to concerned parents.

Requiring that content be filtered by default and that people must opt out if they don't want filtering is outrageous. I guess it makes sense though - maybe they realise that people don't want such filtering, and they don't want to look stupid when the adoption rate is shown to be minimal.

What bugs me most about this is the way Conroy is mixing issues. He says: "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

Referring to child pornography is a misleading and irresponsible use of emotive argument. Practically everyone is against child pornography and since it's illegal, the best way to deal with it is through prosecution, not filters.

The filters he's proposing are not for child pornography, but for pornography and violence generally. Mentioning child pornography sounds like a Howard-era tactic: reasonable concerns about broad-reaching changes can be dismissed by saying "you don't care about the children".

Talking about the speed of the Internet also seems like a red herring to me. I guess some people would be concerned about that. But surely the big issue here is the potential harm that could arise once a large proportion of the population are having their Internet access filtered by default.

The only good news in that article is the promise to engage "the sector" before they force it on the unsuspecting masses. It would be nice if they also engaged parents, children and educators.

One last question before I finish this rant: why are there no other initiatives being announced to protect children online? Filtering is a partial (and possibly ineffective) solution to a broader problem.

Who's going to help educate children about what to expect online and how to deal with bullies, stalkers, legalities, etc.? Who's going to help the parents educate their children? Where are the resources to actively protect children onlnine, beyond the implementation of a set-and-forget filtering regime?

Okay, that last question had sub-questions. I'll stop now.

Thanks to hasimir for pointing out the article. This post is adapted from my response to his post.

EDIT: I've bookmarked a range of articles and posts about this: http://del.icio.us/nathanj/conroy-filter (The earliest bookmarks are the most useful.)

Over a dozen negative reactions before I found someone who supports the plan. And she fails to address either of these two major problems:

1. Risk of abuse and related civil liberties problems.

2. Lack of focus on educating and helping children.

Well, that's my civil duty done. 68 squares on the Senate ballot paper! What percentage of voters actually number the squares below the line?

The majority use a single number above the line. That means they're letting their selected party determine where preferences flow, according to group voting tickets. Group voting tickets that most people never see, unless they're interested and proactive enough to visit the AEC site.

I seem to recall a time when how to vote cards showed the group ticket in grey under the line. I don't think they do that now.

Preference deals suck. Voters certainly have a say as to who is elected, but it's significantly influenced by preference deals. Now, perhaps there's no realistic way to end preference deals, but I do not understand why we can't number multiple boxes above the line.

Don't agree with your party's preferences? Just number the 23 boxes in order of your own choosing.

Does your party have a split ticket, but you want to choose which major party get your preferences? Number the boxes above the line.

On a related note, I could have sworn I numbered up to 70-something. Either I numbered wrong, or I remembered wrong. Hopefully the latter; I don't want it said that my vote was responsible for electing one of the many nutcases vying for last place on my big white sheet...

What influences the way you vote?

Some D&M Research polling quoted by Crikey asked voters why they were planning to vote against a particular party:

Voters were concerned about returning the Coalition because of:

• The "it's time" factor (18%)
• Distrust (14%)
• Peter Costello (14%)
• WorkChoices (14%)
• Social policy (12%)

In contrast, voters hesitated supporting Labor because of:

• The economy (21%)
• Lack of experience (17%)
• Distrust (16%)
• Unions (14%)
• "All the same" (6%)

It's a rather random collection of answers, so feel free to make up your own.

Put me down for 12% and 6%. I think all my voting decisions are related to social policy. Either party can manage the economy. Both have some good politicians and some lousy ones. WorkChoices, taxes, election promises - they're of vague interest, but I'm not going to base my voting decisions on them.

On the other hand, some things piss me off.

Take the NT intervention for example. Let's put aside the cynicism about its timing and the Government's hopes that it would become an election issue. It's the execution that matters. It's a well meaning initiative with a corrupt execution. Scraping the permit system doesn't lower crime or abuse. By contrast, it can open up Aboriginal areas to further problems. Scraping CDEP doesn't help. If you want to scrap it to save money, do it as a separate initiative; don't bundle it in with a half-arsed response to the Children Are Sacred report. What's wrong with restricting the intervention to the good bits? Or even... giving communities the resources to deal with problems so that you don't have to send in defence forces and teams of doctors to do partial screening of children?

I understand that they want to get into power and don't want to rock the boat, but Labor have done a disservice to rural communities by not calling out the problems with the intervention.

Then I have gripes with foreign policy, imported copyright laws, etc. Oh, and bad legislation in the name of national security. More on that one another time...

One thing I think is important in government is oversight. Without oversight, power can be abused more easily and bad decisions made more readily. Before the month is out, I hope to write about some recent legislation that removed oversight of law enforcement agencies. In this post, however, let's look at the balance of power.

I remember years ago thinking that it's an odd thing, balance of power; there always seems to be one or two candidates or parties able to block decisions.

The alternatives are not that appealing, though. We currently have a situation where one party has a majority in both houses and can pass almost anything. It's also a problem if the opposition has a majority in the senate and can block everything just out of spite.

So, after the election is done, who will hold the balance of power? Who will be responsible for oversight of legislative changes in Australia?

I can't say that the options are all that appealing. It looks like the Democrats are going the way of their founder, Don Chipp. With Natasha Stott Despoja and Andrew Murray leaving, they're pinning their hopes on two returning candidates plus Don's daughter Laura Chipp (one electorate up the road from here). That leaves The Greens (we talked about them last week), Family First (shiver), Pauline Hanson, and a bunch of other nutcases (and maybe some well-meaning parties with no real following).

Whoever wins, it will be interesting to see who'll be providing oversight and controlling the senate.

Well, it is election month, after all. So to meet my NaBloPoMo commitment, I'll write some posts about politics. First, a question:

What's wrong with The Greens?

I've noticed some derision around here when The Greens are mentioned, and I'm interested to know why. If you dislike The Greens, what is it about them that puts you off? Is it just that you support a different party? Or are they too "greeny"? Is it their attitude? Or are there particular policies which seem wrong, or don't add up?

Personally, I'm not a Greens voter. I haven't yet encountered particular policies I've disagreed with, but there are bound to be some. I do find some of their debate a bit sensationalist.

Help me get to know the parties better. What's your take on The Greens?

"Playing online can lead to straying online", we were told by the Goverment's NetAlert advertising campaign.

It was a campaign that bugged me. I was especially disappointed that there was such a big focus on filters and so little practical advice. I couldn't tell whether they were simply out of touch, or whether they were playing on parents' fears and deliberately fueling the fire. Despite my unease, I struggled to pinpoint exactly what was wrong with it.

Enter Tom Wood.

Thanks to Crikey, I discovered The Wood Verdict - a blog written by a 16 year old student who got some media attention after easily cracking one of the filters funded by the Government.

Turns out he's not just a geeky schoolboy trying to show up the Government and show off his skills. He's actually articulate and is campaigning for change. He has written a comphrensive analysis of the NetAlert programme: the filters, the funding, the website, the campaign and the politics behind it. His writing would benefit from proofreading and better grammar, but his content is excellent. I can only find minor points to quibble with.

One thing I like is that he's focused on the topic, and is carefully evaluating and criticising policies from both major parties, rather than bagging the Goverment without reasoning. If this continues, he'll have a promising future in the political arena. (Poor kid!)

I'm not holding my breath, but Helen Coonan's department would be wise to follow the advice of Tom Wood. All it requires is a willingness to admit mistakes (not a strong point of many politicians) and reallocation of some of the funding set aside for filters.

Why is this so important? Because it's about the safety and well-being of our children. The Government is very good at telling us how dangerous life is for kids online, but rather weak at helping us keep kids safe. I'd prefer real safety.

Apparently it's company policy to be religion-free on Christmas communications (although I can't find a written policy). Specifically, Christmas cards say "Season's Greetings", with no mention of "Christmas".

While I don't object to the phrase "Season's Greetings", I agree with a few people that it's silly to think that referring to Christmas may be offensive. There are many non-Christians who celebrate Christmas as a traditional holiday if not a religious one. Plus, there are people who don't celebrate Christmas, but accept it as part of the culture.

Apparently sales reps are not wanting to send the cards to customers: aside from the lack of "Christmas", they're dull and more depressing than festive. At least Telecom's cards are colourful, summery, family-focused, and branded with Telecom colours.

Now, here's the kicker: AAPT's bland cards feature a message from World Vision, the Christian aid agency we sponsor. The only life to the cards comes from smiles on the faces of people helped by World Vision. Too bad it's such a dull photo.

So... it's okay to get into bed with World Vision and do God's work, but we can't wish customers a Merry Christmas in case that comes across as a Christian gesture?

So, now that there's some controversy about the DLP being resurrected from the dea due to preference deals, can we please be given the option to indicate preferences above the line?

While I'd also support a ban on how-to-vote cards, at least voters can look at them and decide whether they want to follow what's on the sheet. But group ticket voting, with its susceptibility to behind-the-scenes deals, has to be cleaned up.

Preferences should come from voters, not parties. In particular, preferences should not come from parties playing a game that is essentially gambling. "They'll never get in, so we'll give them preferences in exchange for sending votes our way." How about giving preferences to the parties you like the most? "Well, if we don't win the seat, we'd prefer this competing party over that one."

It might be too late to save the Democrats, but at least we can see to it that extremist parties only get in when a decent proportion of voters want them.

This was going to be a comment in response to The right to vote... or Democracy R Us by kits_the_dm, but I thought I'd make a post of it.

Dom argues that the ballot needs some sort of "none of the above" option for voters who do not wish to vote for any of the candidates. Also pushing people's civic duty to vote, he writes: It is ridiculous that the only thing compulsory is getting your name marked off a roll.

No it's not. It's not practical to insist that every voter consider the available parties and policies and make an informed choice. By marking off names, Australia reduces the possible error rate of one party's supporters being more apathetic about voting than another party's; but wanting to force more than attendence is just being idealistic rather than realistic.

What, practically, would a none/abstain box achieve? Let's see:

• Stats for the next day's newspaper headlines.
  
• An extremely low possibility that a majority rejects all candidates, resulting in a repeat election for much the same parties and policies.
  
• Confusion or lack of representation for voters who are against all candidates, but want to express their least preferred options.
  
  • Confusion: "I don't like any of them, but I particularly hate Party X - do I tick 'none' or do I number the boxes to put Party X last?"
    
  • Lack of representation: people ticking 'none' because it's an option, when they otherwise would have voted against particular candidates.

Perhaps an alternative is for the existing ballot papers to be modified such that voters can specify whether they are voting for or against a candidate. However, this adds complexity, which in turn increases election costs whilst decreasing accuracy of the vote. All for a small benefit: parties knowing how many people like them and how many dislike them the least.

One more comment on elections: be grateful we still have paper ballots. Not a week goes by without more damning evidence about the problems with electronic voting machines in other countries. I'm happy to both turn up and vote, but that may change if we get EVMs (unless they are ballot machines with voter-verifiable paper trails, independently scruitinised code and very rigid election procedures). I wonder how much trouble you get in if you don't pay the $50 fine for not turning up to vote.