The policy race to “fuck off, we’re full”

This morning’s astounding announcement from Opposition Immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison on asylum seekers policy affirms we’re the land of “fuck off we’re full”, not the land of compassionate treatment of those in need with “boundless plains to share”.

This is not my Australia. These are not my beliefs. I despair for my nation and the state of our polity, as we descend ever further into this unpleasant, adolescent approach to empty policy designed to appeal to an ignorant, uninformed minority. Labor is little better, and I often wonder how sick to the stomach many of the people in parliament across the political spectrum must feel as this race continues to descend ever lower. Surely this was not why they entered politics? Surely it’s only a matter of a little time before the camel’s back breaks and a revolt among parliamentarians occurs.

Back when I did refugee work for the Department of Immigration, there was a model (based on the then Canadian approach, and similar to that currently proposed by The Greens) that was known to work, encouraged people to be compassionate, quickly identified genuine refugees, and kept us to our Convention and Protocol obligations. Then, the government at the time introduced mandatory detention and things went downhill from there, driving me and many others from the department.

We could have a working, compassionate refugee program, but successive governments have chosen not to in order to appeal to a deliberately uninformed, scared minority of mostly white people in socioeconomically depressed marginal electorates.

Current refugee policy in this country, and many others (NZ, UK, US and a lot of Europe) is no longer about managing refugees, and is entirely about politics and power.

If the LNP Coalition comes to power on September 7, we will get at least three years of hateful government beholden to focus groups and big business who will govern for power not for the good of the nation.

The temptation to leave the country of my birth behind and take my family somewhere that hate is not the norm is strong. The right thing to do, of course, is stand up against this and other policies that are awful. I now quite regret not acting on my instinct to stand in the current election.

What now for Australian politics?

My personal politics are fairly well-known, I don’t seek to keep my allegiances too close to my chest. However, this post is about politics more generally, and what I’m thinking about as we, in the words of my wise godfather, Michael Pusey, “slide down the razor blade of life towards our inevitable end”; that end being the impending federal election.

First, I’d argue the polls, multitudinous as they are, lack meaning without discussion (which is why the media polls are provably without point; you can do the statistical and uncertainty analysis on them, and they rarely influence or shift opinion), so long as we all remain cogent and adult, and discuss policy over personality. I think there’s little hope of that happening given the execrable state of our media. Even the nation’s flagship nightly current affairs program has abrogated it’s responsibility when Leigh Sales asks incessant questions about leadership speculation rather than dissecting policy and seeking for truth.

This weeks’ machinations, those of the past, and the equally innumerable shifts of leadership on the other side of the House make little difference to me. They simply firm my view that both major parties have abandoned policy platforms and a desire to make a difference to the nation, in favor of personalities and overweening, cold-eyed ambition. A change of leader, for any party, won’t change my vote. As a policy wonk from way back, I’m interested in what parties will do and stand for, over personalities and the misleading construct most of the voting public seem to have been fooled into – that they vote for (and in any way influence) the choice of Prime Minister. Go back to 7th Grade and re-do basic Civics! (oh, we don’t have a decent Civic curriculum in this nation…)

I’ve been asked if my vote will change this week in order to seek a better outcome for my business. If we all voted in the best interests of our businesses, we’d probably largely vote Liberal in this country. However, my vote is always in context, and there are a wealth of other considerations – social policy, foreign relations, climate, environment, and the generation of what’s generally referred to as “social goods” by progressive economists like Umair Haque (I recommend you read his New Capitalist Manifesto and Betterness).

For me, these things are far more important overall than immediate policy benefit for acidlabs. I’m a firm believer in doing good work with and for people you believe in and that the benefits come.

For those critical of the functioning of the 43rd Parliament, I’m not certain you can justifiably call the current parliament dysfunctional. It’s passed more legislation than any previous parliament. Those calling it ineffective on the basis of a minority government and the need to ensure equitable legislative agendas in order to gain passage on the vote of cross-benches, aren’t paying adequate attention.

This parliament and similar ones elsewhere, such as northern Europe, where either grand coalitions or equitable agreements are necessary in order to pass legislation, are almost universally successful in prosecuting legislative agendas that achieve the best results for the majority of the populace.

If anything, this parliament has been notable for its success in getting nation-changing policies made into law. Our nation will be a better place for carbon trading, the NDIS, the NBN, education funding reform, and maintaining an economy that’s inarguably the envy of most of the Western world on a subjective basis.

What’s not worked, and will be remembered before the good things, are those issues where rightwards creep, kowtowing to big business, and poll-driven politics has been at play – our unjust, and illegal under our international obligations, treatment of asylum seekers, the continued failure of decent treatment of indigenous Australians and our failure to recognise their presence and rights in the Constitution, our failure to lead the world on delivering marriage equality despite overwhelming public support, a tax on super-profits that the government allowed the rentseekers in mining to gut so they’d almost never have to pay up, and the rampant mistreatment of women not just in politics, but still in many parts of society and economy.

The last three years have seen a very effective parliament, a highly productive economy with incredibly low debt in comparison to our global peers, and many legislative changes to improve society that we should be proud of as a nation.

Think about that on polling day, whatever your politics.

να εύχεσαι νάναι μακρύς ο δρόμος

Something special and affecting read to us at TEDxSummit in English by Jason Hsu of TEDxTaipei and in the native Greek by Katerina Biliouri of TEDxThessaloniki.

There are real, and enduring messages in it for those of us who wish to create change in the world. Better yet, it’s no less about relationships, friendship and love.

I hope you enjoy Cafavy’s Ithaca.


When you set out on your journey to Ithaca,
pray that the road is long,
full of adventure, full of knowledge.
The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the angry Poseidon—do not fear them:
You will never find such as these on your path,
if your thoughts remain lofty, if a fine
emotion touches your spirit and your body.
The Lestrygonians and the Cyclops,
the fierce Poseidon you will never encounter,
if you do not carry them within your soul,
if your soul does not set them up before you.

Pray that the road is long.
That the summer mornings are many, when,
with such pleasure, with such joy
you will enter ports seen for the first time;
stop at Phoenician markets,
and purchase fine merchandise,
mother-of-pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
and sensual perfumes of all kinds,
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
visit many Egyptian cities,
to learn and learn from scholars.

Always keep Ithaca in your mind.
To arrive there is your ultimate goal.
But do not hurry the voyage at all.
It is better to let it last for many years;
and to anchor at the island when you are old,
rich with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offer you riches.

Ithaca has given you the beautiful voyage.
Without her you would have never set out on the road.
She has nothing more to give you.

And if you find her poor, Ithaca has not deceived you.
Wise as you have become, with so much experience,
you must already have understood what Ithacas mean.

Constantine P. Cavafy (1911) (Greek original)

Reinventing TED

This essay, Against TED, by Nathan Jurgenson at The New Inquiry raises some important perceptions (and misperceptions) and isn’t the first criticism of TED we’ll see. Nor will it be the last. It’s really not that hard to find such criticisms; they’ve been around for some time and they all point to many of the same things we’re all aware of – perception of exclusivity, neatly defined problems tied up in bows, the “religion of TED”, etc.

English: Chris Anderson is the curator of the ...
Image via Wikipedia

Like any organisation, TED, and those of us that attend or organise TEDx events (I am the licensee for TEDxCanberra), as its community, need to be aware of the need for positive change and reinvention. I’m well aware that TED itself is going through a period of introspection about its relevance and the shape it takes into the future; it’s a subject of discussion that TEDx organisers around the world have been asked to contribute to.

As someone whose day job it is to help to define the way an organisation gets out its message and designs and delivers the things it does, I’m more than abundantly aware that no matter what insiders believe (and I do believe that TED really does have the best interests of the globe at heart and really is interested in “ideas worth spreading”) that it doesn’t matter. What matters is perception. Because for most people, even otherwise smart, critical thinkers, perception is reality.  And there’s no use arguing against it.

For example, the matter of the cost of TED is often contentious. Sure, its production values are insanely high and it must cost a terrifying amount to put on, but what almost everyone I’ve spoken to outside the TED community don’t know is that TED runs non-profit. When I point this out to many people they’re often far more circumspect in their criticism of TED after that realisation.

Overall, I think the biggest problem TED faces, to quote my Marx, is that it has become something of an opiate of the masses. It’s all too easy as a reasonably wealthy, middle class person, to attend TED, or a TEDx or to watch videos and to feel aware of problems in the world and become smug and self-satisfied that in your awareness, you’ve helped.

Not by a long stretch.

What really needs to follow is action. To take ideas worth spreading and convert them into actions worth doing.

Every. Single. Time.

Truth be told, the TED community already does this. It’s another thing too few are aware of. For the past number of years, TED has become really not just a single event, but a continuum of things – events, the TED Prize which funds US$100,000 of work by an outstanding individual (it’s worth looking to see who the winners have been), the TED Fellows, and other good works that are funded out of the Sapling Foundation. So, the actions worth doing that I put forward already happen. It’s just that most people don’t bother to look that deeply. They just see an expensive, exclusive event.

That said, I do think that there is an element of the audience, both physical and online, that feel they satisfy some “involvement in the world” quota just by showing up. I think it’s incumbent on us to make sure that percentage is small by encouraging action, no matter how small. If the end result is that someone walks away with their views changed, that may be enough, or a starting point.

I’d like to urge the international community of TEDx organisers to be a part of that; to be a community that doesn’t just showcase great ideas, but that inspires, drives and gets involved in action. To be defined by betterness, in the sense Umair Haque outlines in his book of the same name.

We’ve done it a little at TEDxCanberra, but are focussing on it more strongly this year. We’re going to ask presenters, where possible, to challenge the audience to get involved, or to leave them with a question, or a call to meaningful action.

No more neat bows.

If the doing of important things was what the rest of the world saw from TED rather than the (somewhat incorrect perception of the) wealthy and famous attending an expensive, hard to get in to event where they satisfy their perception of being involved by listening for four days, I think there might be fewer of the negative analyses out there.

As I said, perception is reality. What people see in TED, regardless of what we believe on the inside of that community, is what it is.

How we can win the #nocleanfeed argument

This afternoon, Jason Langenauer posted a well-argued piece with respect to the issues he sees in the national discussion we’re having over the imposition of the Labor government’s Internet filter. Initially, I thought it was a good piece. It’s clear, makes sense, sensible. But Jason is wrong on several points.

First, I should point out that this is my personal view, formed after lengthy discussion with well known anti-filter proponent, Mark Newton; someone whose view and ability to argue a point I respect a great deal. It’s not a view that represents my role as a board member of Electronic Frontiers Australia, though it is a view I’m trying to influence that group with. Given EFA is a democracy, I may get voted down.

No Clean Feed
Image by trib via Flickr

The #nocleanfeed movement is killing itself. But it’s not confusion that’s doing it as Jason and others have said. Anyone with even passing familiarity with the campaign has no confusion whatsoever about what it means. None.

Asserting that we (the #nocleanfeed movement) have somehow dug ourselves an inescapable hole by using that term is false.

Sure, I wouldn’t use #nocleanfeed to try to explain it to someone unfamiliar with the arguments, but that’s Communications 101; you use the language and understandings of your audience to talk to them. You don’t confuse them and fail to engage with them by using your language.

On the other hand, as pointed out to me by Mark, using filter is probably a bad choice. Filters are good. They remove impurities so we can drink clean water and other such important things. At the very least we should use the term “filter” (air-quotes very intentional).

EFA have just launched the Open Internet campaign. As someone who participated in the discussions that brought it about, I strongly support it and the message it sends. But we’re using filter everywhere. Why not call a spade a bloody great bulldozer and use the term censorship? That’s what we’re talking about, after all.

So here’s my view.

We’re smart, and we have all the tools we need to make this a fait accompli. Yet we dance around, playing nice, wording statements carefully and not calling out fools strongly when we see them.

Over two years into this campaign and Senator Stephen Conroy has been utterly unable to successfully frame this issue the way he wants – as a battle against child pornography. Not only do even those casually familiar with the issue know that the filter will fail to stop child porn, but they also know that it’s the wrong fight altogether; child porn is distributed via methods that Internet censorship can’t ever handle, at least with current technology.

We know that the argument that being anti-censorship is ipso facto to be pro child porn is rubbish. Senator Conroy has been called on this often enough that he’s largely given up on it.

We all know that fighting child porn is far better fought by adequately funding the Australian Federal Police and their high-tech crime unit to do the job they know how to do very well. Give them more resources and they can likely do it better again. I’ve met some of them, they’re incredibly dedicated and they believe in what they do.

And this week, the mainstream media and the public got 100 per cent sucked in by the idiots at Anonymous and their ridiculous Project Titstorm. Anyone with half a brain will accept that this action was completely unacceptable. It stopped government delivering important services to the public and did the anti-censorship argument no favors whatsoever by risking re-framing the debate in anti-censorship = pro-porn terms. To that I say an unqualified NO WAY!

On Monday evening on the ABC’s Q&A, Melinda Tankard-Reist managed to unequivocally demonstrate that she had zero understanding of this issue when she sought to conflate Anon’s attacks with child porn. She looked less informed on the Internet and censorship issues than did Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who, in a moment of infrequent clarity noted that kiddie porn perpetrators ought to be locked up. Yes, Senator! Though this may be the one and only time I ever agree with you.

The #nocleanfeed movement, its meaning and its ability to creep (hopefully pretty quickly, it’s an election year after all) into the greater public consciousness couldn’t be in a better position. And here’s why.

Those who understand the argument are eloquent. Let’s help others understand by explaining to every person we know just what a damn fool idea the whole thing is and why. It’s not that hard. I’ve written about it enough, and others more eloquent than me have too. Use their words, and mine, to help you.

The government, overall, is in something of an unclear mess over a great deal of its Communications portfolio, not least because there’s at least one Senator, in Kate Lundy, whose public opposition to the Internet censorship policy must be having an effect by now.

Every time Senator Conroy speaks about the issue, he makes less sense and dances around more than last time. He is rapidly losing authority because he can’t argue cogently about the censorship policy. I suspect he just wishes it would go away, but he’s argued so long and hard for it, that he has no face saving way out.

And, should Anon ever decide to play with the big kids rather than confining themselves to the sandpit where they can fling mud pies, they have the potential to be a powerful force. They are certainly smart enough, if misguided. Any blacklist will get leaked almost weekly. The update frequency on Wikileaks (currently not publishing as they try to fund raise – maybe you could donate?) will go through the roof!

The only real problem we face in the #nocleanfeed argument is our good manners. When we’ve couched something badly, we take the beating. When we argue well, we let the opposing forces argue against us and take the beating. It leaves us without a strong position and no driving story. Nobody really knows what we stand for. As Mr Newtown eloquently pointed out to me, “[like the US] everyone knows exactly what the American right wing claims to stand for, but nobody knows jack about what the
lefties represent.” Same with the #nocleanfeed lobby and to a relatively significant extent, the EFA.

We need to switch our approach. Argue hard. Point out the fault in the opposition argument. In public. In strong terms. Cut their legs out from under them.

Jason thinks there’s no strong, consistent framework for couching #nocleanfeed arguments. He’s wrong. Here it is, and it’s so simple your Luddite family members can understand:

  • there’s no serious Internet content problem to solve – you just can’t inadvertently stumble on RC or child porn on the Internet
  • even if it was, nobody wants the government to solve it – if they did, free filtering software would be incredibly popular
  • even if they did, this solution won’t work – we’ve seen the trial results and the extensive analysis which points out the flaws
  • even if it did, it’s too expensive, unreliable, performance-sapping,
    – ouch, ouch, ouch and no way
  • even if it was perfect, it’ll be administered by governments ill-equipped to do so – we’ve seen several policy and program stumbles lately, do we want one over this?
  • even if it was administered perfectly, the blacklist will leak – and leak, and leak, and leak, giving infinite publicity to exactly the content the government wants to suppress (you’ve heard of the Streisand Effect, right?)
  • there is no possibility that the blacklist won’t leak – it already has and it will again

There’s your framework. Work those arguments. Expand them. Point out the risks of Nanny Stating. The disconnect between the government and the electorate.

Sounds like a strong movement with a great argument to present to me.

Do these people have no idea? – the folly of the Internet Filter

This afternoon, Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy made the announcement so many of us had been dreading – that the Federal government would be going ahead with its plans to filter Australian Internet access and unnecessarily protect us from nasties we neither want nor need to be protected from.

It represents imposition of Nanny State government of the worst sort. Arguably, it places us alongside extreme and totalitarian states such as Iran, China and North Korea in the level of control placed upon Australians’ Internet access.

It would appear that vested interests, dominated by appeasement of fringe Senators such as Steve Fielding and their constituencies in the moral and religious right have wielded their increasing power and brought about the policy position they have been pushing for, as on first reading, the report doesn’t provide compelling enough numbers to justify moving forward and, as we’ve seen many times in the media, community support for this policy is not widespread.

The reaction on Twitter, a place that politicians are now listening to, is singularly passionate. As I write, WhatTheHashtag has recorded in excess of 6000 tweets in just a few hours and the tag is the #4 trending topic overall. It’ll be swamped when the Americans wake, unless we all tell our American friends who can then laugh at the stupidity of the entire exercise.

This issue is the #1 reason I stood for and am now on the Board of Electronic Frontiers Australia. I am passionately against the foolish policy position that this represents and am keen to hear from any reader who wishes to email me or comment here. I’ll make sure your views are taken to Parliament House in Canberra and given to the right people.

There are any number or already well-discussed reasons why this plan is folly – expense, ease of circumvention, lack of widespread public support, lack of transparency and adequate governance in the blocking process. There are any number of far less controversial measures the government could undertake that would satisfy both sides of the argument on ‘Net filtering. Let’s start with opt-in filtering for both homes and ISP’s as noted by Internode tech and outspoken anti-filter campaigner Mark Newton. There’d be little outcry if this was the policy executed. People could choose to filter on their PCs at home, or if that was too challenging, choose to use an ISP that offered a filtered feed. Everyone ends up happy as those who don’t want filtering get to have unfiltered connections too.

The arguments that are pro the filter are incredibly spurious and usually couched in “it’s for the children” terms. We’re supposedly going to protect them from ‘Net nasties and the burgeoning ranks of pedophiles waiting to pounce on them online.


My 12 year old daughter uses a completely unfiltered Internet connection. She also has root access to the network at home and to the computer she uses. Yet she’s never encountered any of the problems Senator Conroy and the likes of Senator Fielding seem to believe are rampant – no nasties, viruses, stalkers or any other undesirable in several years of using the Internet unfiltered and mostly unsupervised. And you know why? Good rules and decent parenting (well, certainly the first and hopefully the second).

Yes, there are risks to being online, They’re remarkably similar to the risks you face in meatspace. Here’s a handy list of things to try to effectively protect your kids online in case you’re confused at this point:

  1. Make sure the computer your kids use is in a public, well-trafficked part of the house
  2. Educate yourself as a parent so that you have as much knowledge or more than your kids about the risks of being online
  3. Establish reasonable expectations for their Internet use in terms of time online, acceptable standards of behavior in terms of online activity and what the real risks are (they’re much smaller in my view than the government, Federal Police and parts of the media would have you believe)
  4. Teach them strategies to deal with undesirable content encountered online
  5. Live up to the expectations you set for your kids in terms of your own Internet use
  6. Impose penalties for breaches of the rules you set and stick to them

It’s my desperate hope that this foolish policy and the legislation necessary to make it happen are defeated in Caucus. If not, it’ll be one of the few times I’ll support a vote the Liberals take in the Senate when they vote against it.

Others have written their own thoughts over this important matter:

  • Téa Brennan, who makes an impassioned pleas for sense and proper parenting
  • Craig Wilson, who speculates the intelligent folk of the Australian blogosphere might just bring the government down
  • Crikey’s Possum Comitatus, who examines the possible electoral fallout
  • Will Briggs, a pastor in Tasmania whose faith-based views contrast strongly with others such as Senator Fielding
  • Gary Sauer-Thompson, on his well-regarded blog, Public Opinion
  • Jeff Waugh, well known Open Source and Software Freedom proponent
  • technology educator, Dean Groom
  • Chris Chesher from the Digital Cultures program at University of Sydney

If you’d like to do something effective, email and write (on paper) to your member and Senators and let them know how unhappy you are about this decision. If you’d like some guidance, EFA’s No Clean Feed campaign is a good place to start. You should also take a look at EFA’s response to today’s announcement.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Great Firewall of Canberra

No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in AustraliaAs a resident of our national capital, the references in the media to “Canberra” as an analogy for the Federal Government sometimes bug me, as they must equally bother the residents of places like Washington DC and other seats of government. But that’s a minor issue in comparison to the serious issue facing Australians with the proposal to impose mandatory filters on Internet traffic.

Personally, I’m a libertarian. So long as you’re not hurting anyone, I see no reason for government to get involved in stopping you from doing anything. Provided it’s legal. Using the Internet in this country is legal, or it was the last time I checked. The imposition of the proposed mandatory clean feed, and the opt-out only (thus potentially tarring the opter-out with an undeserved brush) approach is nanny stating at it’s very worst.

At best the proposal suffers from the well-documented flaws in execution that could slow Australia’s already slow Internet speeds to a crawl. At worst, it’s censorship on a scale with the most oppressive regimes in the world. Electronic Frontiers Australia would appear to agree – the discussion on their blog is running hot on the topic.

If, like me, you feel this proposal is ill-considered, bad public policy, I encourage you to do something about it. At the very least, write a letter to your local MP. For more ideas, take a look at No Clean Feed.

And for those not sure, educate yourself! There is already a great deal of public material worth reading:

And here’s the thing. One of the core arguments in the government’s position is protecting our children. Sorry, but that’s my job as a parent.

My daughter has been using the Internet since she could sit at a computer and she’s about to turn 11. She’s had a personal, unfiltered, unchecked by me email address since she was five and she has admin rights on the computer she uses. We have well defined, well understood rules for her Internet use. The computer is in an open part of the house. In all her time using the Internet she has never witnessed anything untoward, been spammed, stalked or otherwise bothered.

I’m thinking she and other kids don’t so much need protection as we as adults need not to abrogate our parenting responsibilities and learn about and understand the Internet. Particularly in the context of our children’s use of it.

If you need some help, ask me. I’ll give you a hand.

Your best employees are on loan

If only companies in Australia hired this way! I would certainly have been inclined to work for a business that thought like this rather than striking out on my own.

SHIFT are taking a position that recognises explicitly the power and value of an employee with a strong personal brand – their value to the company is, at least in part, defined by their online (and real life) personality and the cachet having the sort of person with a strong personal brand on staff can bring.

They also realise that in today’s world, any employee is just on loan to you, the employer. While you keep them engaged and excited about their work, you probably have the chance to keep them on staff.

The opportunity to work with big, free, innovative thinkers like Doug (in an older bracket) and Amanda (who’s only about 10 years older than my daughter) would totally attract me. When I visited Boston earlier this year, I met Doug briefly but missed Amanda.

Sadly, most Aussie companies still think they own you when they hire you. The idea of establishing and owning your own brand beyond your work is anathema to many of them. People here still get dooced for having any online persona. I know several who hide their Twitter streams and blog anonymously to protect themselves.

Time for Aussie companies to wake up!

2020 Summit fails Australia on connectedness

My friend, Stilgherrian, has posted a scathing analysis of the final report of the 2020 Summit. He’s particularly disappointed with the Summit’s failure to address and take advantage of the power of the Internet to build connections between disparate communities and between the government and its constituency.

I couldn’t agree more.

My views on the ongoing failure of government at all levels in Australia to really engage online are public and published here. That said, the 2020 Summit was a real opportunity for the Rudd government to take positive steps in the way it connects people with service providers, policy-linked activity and each other. But, yet again, it looks like failure on a grand and blinkered scale.

I am deeply disappointed, but really not at all surprised. Once again the no idea, safe option has been taken without a gutsy leap forward.

Australian politicians and policy-makers really have no idea about how to use the Internet. Largely, they are stuck in 1995 and interested only in broadcast messages and policy brochureware.

They are certainly nowhere near what the Kiwis and Brits (amongst a lot of other online constituent-linked activity, No 10 has a Twitter account and uses it to talk with people!) are doing and light years from where someone like Texas Republican Representative, John Culberson is, using Twitter, podcasting, blogging and more to, as he says, put “We the People in every room in Washington”.

That’s not to say that things couldn’t be different here. They could. I personally know a significant number of smart people, working on the ground in Federal Government departments who get the power of the Internet and could facilitate powerful communication and connection efforts between their organisations and their constituencies if only they were allowed to…