In a G’day world podcast I appeared on in 2007 I stated I was voting Liberal. It should come as no surprise I am doing the same in 2010

At the beginning of Tony Abbott’s reign as leader of the Federal Liberals, I will admit I was uncertain of his ability to be the Prime Minister of Australia. Through this campaign, Mr. Rabbit has shown a wiser and more mature head. Having met Tony in person, spoken to him one:one and in 2004 manning an election booth — I am certain what we see with Tony is what we are going to get. Whilst I am no longer a member of the Liberal Party, I would consider myself a “small-L” liberal.

On one of the occasions where I met Mr Abbott when he was Minister for Health (2003 I think), we talked about the importance of Information Technology. He was no more a techhead as he was a Doctor; and was not convinced with my ranting on the power of the internet. A senior Liberal advisor stated firstly that all industries lobby about their importance to the future. Information technology is no different. Secondly, that once the politicians care about your industry, it becomes a political football. Increasing control, regulation comes with increased investment. Welcome to where we have been for the last 5 years.

This election Geeks have suffered a cognitive dissonance: vote Labor, get a government funded National Broadband Network (NBN) but with a coupled Filter/Censorship position. Vote Liberal, and you get no Fibre installed into your home but no Filter. Greens supporters will make the observation: “vote Greens”. They’re too progressive and socialist for a country boy like me. Or, their attached policies are not to my liking. Larger Government, more public servants and more control of our lives by a nanny state rubs against my grain.

In the 2007 election, Rudd promised $4.7b for Fibre-to-the-Node NBN. This expanded into $43b Fibre-to-the-Home; spanning 93% of Australians as a mechanism for countering the GFC. Whilst there is no pure business plan to spend $5.37b per year over 8 years, Labor has failed to sell a complete social plan for the need for an NBN. There is no vision. Whilst the Minister in charge is shackled by the Filter debate, the geekerati will not help.

To illustrate the importance of internet access, this election Liberals are promising to invest $6.7b (I think) into internet connectivity. Not as generous on funding, and therefore speed – but within their budget constraints. To the Liberals, the largesse of the NBN is a place to grab forward committed funds to reduce debt. They have no vision for the use of the internet and how it has the potential to transform. The Liberals best warrior, Malcolm Turnbull, has been sidelined. I would hope that Malcolm gets re-elected and we find a pragmatic policy that is affordable. A cut down NBN; copper conduits purchased from Telstra with smarter negotiation. And with a vision for its use 30–50 years out.

Fibre, along with wireless, is the future. Both. This is not an either-or.

Oh, and if Labor get back in, the Filter will arise. Games and apps for phones and other like devices will require expensive classification. With or without a wonderful fibre NBN, our creativity will be throttled at the borders. Even if the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate, Mr Conroy (if Communications Minister) will find another way to implement his filter.

But the NBN is not the main game as far as I am concerned.

My concerns with Labor is its propensity to plough Australia into more debt. Bad management by both Rudd, but also Garrett et al have resulted in significant wastage of my tax dollars. Less sovereign debt will leave Australia in a better position to deal with the shock of a slowly collapsing US and Europe. The argument that a Government can always tax more to repay debt: this is on the assumption that business is healthy enough to be taxed (and employ staff to be taxed) and there is a healthy world economy that consumes Australia’s exports.

Apart from spending hand over first, Labor has a track record of wastage. Reports on the Building the Education Revolution (BER) state a low wastage %. This is certainly not the case with the Insulation program, another GFC program. Government purchasing should be efficient and not waste taxpayer dollars.

Interestingly, the most progressive policy that taxes the big end of town this election comes from the Liberals: Paid Parental Leave funded by a levy on large business. I think that it is important that women can both have kids if they choose, and continue to work if they choose. Within the economic realities of today, the Liberals have the most attractive policy.

Like all elections, those marginal electorates are receiving the most attention. This is our system working. You have to make your electorate a marginal electorate if you want the same attention. Simple.

I am not so concerned with the “men in smoky backrooms” or voting by random party members that control the levers behind our Federal politicians. It is the same on all sides of politics. Continuing greater transparency on donations and lobbyists would be nice. But nice never wins.

My wish is for all parties to reduce middleclass welfare, and reduce taxation. Or, at least, funnel money into places where the market will fail. Roads, Hospitals, Education.

And here lies the drum. Both parties are using the flow on tax to wrest constitutionally state-based concerns (Education, Health) into the Federal sphere. If this reduced the management overhead, I would support this. The model that seems to be created to increase bureaucracy. More wasting of money. Both parties need to not waste money on overhead.

Politics is never simple: A vs. B; black or White. It is grey with multiple dimensions. This leaves us all wiggle room to argue and discuss; he said she said style conversations. Promises kept; changes in position. Hypotheticals. Rhetorical constructs. It is great to live in a country where we can openly discuss, argue and most importantly: vote.

As I hold a portion of my wealth in US$ and locally in cash — higher interest rates and a lower exchange rate that a ALP/Greens Government is likely to induce. And Fibre to my home, paid for by you buggers at $5000, sounds good too. But it is not good for the future of Australia. That’s why I am voting Liberal. As I am now in Mr Rabbit’s electorate, he has a safe vote in my hands.

I know that Lord Acton had papal infallibility in mind when writing to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 but given the flaunting of their Christianity by our two alternative political leaders that perhaps just makes his words more appropriate:

“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”

It seems out of the old adage: speed, quality, cheap: pick any two that the department chose just speed.

From ABC1’s Q & A last night, members of both sides of the house marked Peter Garrett as an honourable and a decent man. His experience leading environmental lobby groups, and leading a successful band shows he can manage people. But Management in a Ministerial sense is way more complex.

Evidently, his department commissioned a legal risk assessment of the program in February 2009. This document was not seen by Mr. Garrett until early this year.

My speculation is:

• Mr. Rudd & Mr. Swan design a large program to inject money into the economy in light of the Global Financial Crisis. Getting this cash into the economy quickly is paramount.
• Based on a program created by the previous Government, it was seen as an easy mechanism to gain green credentials and inject fiscal stimulus.
• Someone in the Department engages an external party to detail any risks. In large projects, there are always risks. Mitigating risk is a part of sound project management. Not all problems can be solved nor foreseen: but those that are foreseen must be managed.
• Remember: timing is everything. Speed, speed, speed. The Department cannot wait months to create a viable infrastructure to manage all the risks, and as political pressure is on to spread the money out: nothing gets in the way of speed.
• Conversations between Ministers is all positive and about the velocity of the program;
• the Department keeps their risk assessment information to lower levels, in an effort to protect their Minister, the program and potentially their job.
• The Minister doesn’t want to hear or see bad news: even worse, pass this up the chain to the notorious micro manager Rudd.

The causes for this breakdown potentially are:

• An environment where negatives and risks are seen as bad PR. Bad messaging for the nightly news
• An environment where speed is critical. Now, now now rather than considered policy execution
• An environment where people fear raising bad news

Just “firing” the Minister is not going to solve the problem. Although Mr Rudd will probably reach a point where he jettisons Mr Garrett. That will be sad.

While our keynote and discussion will be invaluable to anyone interested in democracy and communication in the first half of this century I also wanted the forum to be an opportunity for a look at practical examples of new technology tools.

To that end I’d like to invite any developers, web 2.0 or social networking activists with ideas for, or examples of, on-line tools that can be used in political campaigning and who would like to demonstrate their ideas (as a proof of concept or developed application) to the attendees at the forum to contact me.

Microsoft not interested in how the tools were or are developed, what platform or language the tool was or would be developed with as long as the idea is original, is yours, and you are prepared to demonstrate the concept or tool to the audience. It would be preferable if the idea were capable of wide usage but that is a matter for you.

• Up to three ideas will be selected for demonstration.
• Financial support will be provided to get to Canberra.

For more information, please visit the Australian Government Affairs blog or contact me.

(ps: the Siamese Cat in the above poster is in fact a Korat)

A watcher of byzantine and machiavellian politics, the situation in Thailand is providing an interesting demonstration of power wielded by history, tradition and might vs money, corruption and popular politics. Neither side is clean, and neither side is completely right. Thanks to Stigherrian and ‘Pong for taking time out to explain the contemporary situation; and in a clearer fashion than I have seen/heard/read elsewhere.

re: Australian ISP Internet Filters

As a parent, a technology industry veteran and citizen who works via the Internet, I feel it is my duty to provide a pragmatic perspective on the Federal Government’s proposed plans to adopt Mandatory Filtering of Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for the benefit of Child Safety.

Current statements from Senator Conroy highlight the need to protect Australian Children from undesirable corners and content found the Internet. This is a worthy ideal, but Senator Conroy’s proposed solutions go nowhere near far enough to truly keep our children safe. Any half-hearted attempt at filtering exposes the Government to legal liability and voter discontent when their kids see any undesirable material that will fall through the cracks of a pure technology-based solution.

The blocking of internationally recognised child p-rn sites; and additionally adding warning bells to people accessing these sites is a must. Whilst the need for security, and the sequestering of these sites for criminal investigations is understandable — to counter claims of “censorship by stealth”, these sites should be reviewed by an Ombudsman on a regular basis.

The current rhetoric from the pro-filter lobby purposely associates children online with reprehensible child p-rn. I seriously doubt that children are going to purposely or not stumble on child p-rn. Rather, undesirable people will find children in the “clean” internet. This online safety aspect requires more than 1,000 or 1,000,000 sites on a filter list: it requires strong policing, parenting and school education: just as road safety is taught. Connecting two disparate and highly emotive issues obfuscates and politicizes the real need of parents.

However, the call for “undesirable” sites to be censored does cause alarm. “Undesirable” is an emotive, and very subjective definition for each parent and family: based on their own moral, religious, cultural, ethnic and many other highly personal considerations. 

Today, Education Departments provide Children-safe Internet access. This is treated much the same way as Kids-safe playgrounds and excursions: The legal principle of In-loco Parentis applies. To implement a Kid-safe filter of any less quality for kids at home seems counter productive. Experts in the field of internet-based education also note that these filters are very disrupting and significantly slow down access to the Internet: but it is a cost that is born out of necessity.

By having a laudible goal of implementing an Opt-out, completely filtered truly Kids-safe Internet, the unitended impact to Australian business and the economy will great. Therefore, filters should be Opt-in for ISPs and Consumers.

Both a “Kid-safe Internet” needs to be created as an Opt-in for Home access; backed by a strong education campaign from the Government to Parents, and a standard speed Filter-free Internet for the Australian Economy. 

Also, a “Kid-safe Internet” is much more than just what can be seen or read: there must be a code of conduct for advertising, safe social communities and business when interacting with our Children. For instance, the new phenomena of Cyber-bullying.

Any implementation of Opt-in Filters, Authorities and broad-based education campaigns should also realise that there is no absolute in safety. Just like pools, bicycles and cars: accidents can and will happen. The Internet itself is in constant change: therefore, any management system must be created with continual improvement as a strategic imperative.

My thinking and research on this matter has led me to the following structured recommendations:

Toward A Kid-Safe Internet:

1. Children must have access to the Internet. It is a fundamental part of our world economy; central to our future as humans in the 21st Century. Ignoring the Internet will seriously disadvantage future Australians from the world economy: similar to neglect teaching mathematics or literacy skills. Simply banning the Internet would be a draconian move that only a luddite minority would advocate. (Recent study on Childhood casual access to the Internet)
2. The world is a large and potentially dangerous place for young humans. That is why today Governments across the world regulate what/when children can see in movie theatres, read, smoke, drink, engage in sexual activity and drive. Therefore a strong precedent has been set for the Government to equally protect children when using the Internet.
3. The Internet is unlike other previously invented mediums, modes and technology of communication: highly distributed, uncontrollable, two-way, multi-faceted (for instances: video, text and sound in a myriad of formats). Therefore, a unique administrative mechanism for protecting those who need protection is required. Simply “listing” web sites with movie ratings will not work as will miss other content. A central filter for all internet traffic into and out of Australia is technically not economically nor technically feasible with current computer technology.
4. Equally, the Government should not be in the business of creating filtering software for all internet connected devices a child has access to. These devices number in their hundreds of millions, across thousands of versions shapes and sizes: PCs, Macs, non-Windows OS PCs, the wide range of internet-able mobile phones, Game stations and Music players. The NetAlert program of the previous Government has shown to have a low installation rate, and also misses the Internet connected mobile phones many children currently posses.
5. Having Kid-Safe filters at the ISP level seem to be a sound and logical solution.
6. If the Government initiates the process of protecting our children whilst they are on the Internet, and makes a public promise that “the internet is now safe for our Children”: simply relying on existing the existing static list-based systems provided by ACMA as proposed by Senator Conroy the Government will ultimately fail.
7. Senator Conroy talks of a list of ~1,500 sites, and is testing filters with a listing of 10,000 sites. If you assume 1% of the 1 billion web pages are not suitable for children; Senator Conroy’s plans is a few orders of magnitude out to safely restrict indecent sites.
8. Basing filters purely on HTTP/HTML protocol (that is, just Web browser traffic) will result in a filtering fail as the Internet comprises many protocols. Adding other protocols such as instant messaging (chat rooms), file downloads, sound and video doubles the load on filters for each new protocol added.
9. Keep Children “safe” on the Internet must be more than just blocking static pages, sites, protocols and streams. True Online Child safety must include Cyber-bullying, Social Community codes of conduct, Inappropriate Advertising (similar to Child TV advertising guidelines) and many other associated issues with a broad, two-way communications system.
10. Of greater concern is what our kids: either accidently, or on purpose; publish to the internet. With rampant identity theft, and the ability for people to publish video and images to the world: we need to ensure this is addressed by any kid-safe internet.
    

    My suggested approach:

11. A new Authority is created; resourced to keep Australian Children Safe Online.
12. This Authority is commissioned to address all the above issues, using the knowledge that already exists in the community
13. This Authority has the power to Certify Kid-Safe Internet Filters at both end Device and at ISP level. For the sake of this document, these are named Filter Devices.
14. This Authority also has the important responsibility to educate and communicate Internet Public Service Advice for Parents.
15. The Authority own a central policies and procedures to control the Filter Device Certification; and processes of continual management of the Filters. The Authority has the power to Certify and de-Certify Filter Devices installed at any point in Australia. Similar standards exist for toys that show child safety breaches. Parents rely on thse standards, recalls and Authority vigilance to offer a greater level of protection to children.
16. The Authority would have executive oversight over a distributed Filter Management Body. This body would be crowd-sourced, and be the clearing-house of filters, codes of conduct, industry best practices and connections with local Education departments and law enforcement. 
17. A central registry of what a Filter Device must clean, and other child-protection guidelines is managed by this management body. This registry may contain proscribed (child p-rn) sites, but to a larger extent all the child-inapproprate material on the internet. This list will be larger than the proposed 10,000.
18. Additionally, there must be Industry-based codes of conduct for online forums; age verification; phishing and other internet-related communities. This body would could use internet technology for rapid response, voting and sharing best-practise amongst all ISPs.
19. As much a legally possible, this body of filtering knowledge must be transparent to bona-fide interested parties, and would reflect community “norms” as the information comes from the community.
20. Every ISP who has a commercial wish to market and sell “Kid-Safe Internet” must comply with the Authorities policies and procedures (ie: Each ISP chooses to Opt-in).
21. And ISP may only sell a Kid-safe Internet connection if certified by the Authority. This could also apply to Education departments and private school groups where their connection to the internet should also be through a Certified Filter Device.
22. The knowledge of what is to be filtered/codes of conduct must be collectively shared so smaller, regional based ISPs can provide an equity of protection for rural children. These smaller ISPs will not have equal resources available to their own filter managers.
23. Parents and others interest parties have an internet-speed mechanism to report and escalate breaches to the Authority; all parties must have transparent access to these reports; and like Wikipedia: a history of decisions made.
24. The Authority also has the important responsibility to educate Parents and Guardians about the Internet. Parents have personal experience of morals, road rules, social norms, cultural expectations passed to them from their parents. The internet, being extremely new, is alien to today’s parents , and is incorrectly feared. Like in previous times where the Government has provided information on AIDs, currency changes (to decimal) : it also has a responsibility to educate today’s Australian parents on the Internet. The Authority must embark on a campaign to educate Parents as they are the last lines of defence. Parents must also be encouraged to purchase a Kid-safe Internet connection from their choice of ISP.
25. Parents who are internet-savvy could opt-out of the Kid-safe Internet system; thereby taking the responsibility for the protection of their children, or a range of filters based on a range of classifications could be created. A teenager will not want to view the internet as if they are 6 years old.
    

    The Cost of Filters

26. Any reasonable Adult Australian does not want a child-like view of the Internet as described above,
27. If left Opt-out, the resulting ISP Filtering speed-tax will reduce investment in Australian businesses, and due to the international nature of the internet drive employment and investment offshore.
28. As the deeper level of filters and codes of conduct as described above are enabled to rightly protect Children; there will be a slowing down of internet response for these filtered users. And just as alcohol, smoking, voting and other rules are relaxed for adults:  the same must apply to internet access.
29. General ISP connections should therefore be unfiltered, and Opt-in. Turning the internet into a pure-children’s playground will only hamper Australian businesses and governments as they conduct operations in the emerging global Digital age. Businesses do not conduct business in a playground.
30. The impact of Australia-wide mandatory filters would hurt Australia’s economic future across all sectors of industry. Email traffic, online banking, business to business commerce: will all slow due to mandatory filters.
31. Other competing economies do not have the same ISP Filtering-speed-tax, and can therefore out-compete Australian businesses.
32. Therefore, the filters must be Opt-in and kept separate from the grown-up, business internet; but to a deeper level as the Government takes on partial responsibility of In loco parentis
    

    Vigilance

33. Apart from child p-rn, there are many other insidious dark corners of the internet that impact all Australians. Nigerian scams, phishing attacks on bank accounts, general spam, cyber bullying: all drain our economy. The Australian Federal Police must be given more experienced and trained officers with strong Internet skills to protect all our citizens by policing those who embark on illegal activities. The Government must address these increasing risks, too. (reference: Online fraudsters ‘steal £3.3bn’)

The current confusing statements of policy by Senator Conroy strikes me as policy-on-the-run with a dearth of grass-roots (electorate) demand and little to no publicly articulated strategy. Therefore, fear-mongering and ad-hominem attacks from all sides of this argument have arisen. At this stage, it is in Senator Conroy’s hands to clearly articulate the strategy outside of pure technical “trials” and emotional and glib “child p-rn” arguments.

The lack of clarity and transparency is of deep concern as it thrusts at the heart of people’s desire for the freedom access to information as adults: uncensored and unfiltered.

Now that the Pandora’s box of a Kid-safe Internet is opened, it is in the Government’s hands to do the right thing for our kids without hurting the economy and freedoms we all enjoy. For the sake of Australia’s collective future.

Nick Hodge

Interesting Links

• Nocleanfeed started out with Mark Newton.
• What children need is censorship Article from The Guardian by Aric Sigman. P-rn is only one of the many things on the internet that we must protect children from; and ultimately parents must take control.
• Internet Censorship, Blogs, And The Government View More indepth results of the filtering trials
• Why internet filtering is bad for business post on Smart Company by Paul Wallbank. Apart from the potential accidental inclusion on a filter, the Internet-speed-tax on all Australian individuals, businesses and government agencies would make Australia an Internet back water
• Fireside chats in the 21st century by Barry Saunders on the ABC web site.  
  
• Elias Bizannes on The Rudd Filter: one of the original, and well thought and more importantly, well referenced out posts on the matter.
• With a public intellectual like this, who needs barbarians? by Jon Seymour, detailing the lack of logic from the mandatory filtering side of the argument; especially the “internet has p-rn, therefore opt-out all encompassing filtering is required.
• Glenn Milne of news.com.au writes a cohent and concise article on Internet Filtering and Censorship
• Senator Nick Minchin (Liberal-SA) on NBN and filtering. I like the quotation: “The opposition senator additionally claimed that Conroy’s policy was causing Australia embarrassment internationally, giving it a reputation as a repressive regime.” Ouch. The full statement from Senator Minchin has also been published.
• Tom Edwards and Gareth Griffith wrote in a special research note published by the NSW Parliamentary Library Service, reported in ZDNet: “NSW calls Conroy on Euro filter fudge”
• Mark Newston’s second, follow-up letter to his local Labor member.
• Libertus on Statistics Laundering: false and fantastic figures in regards to child p-rn online. Well researched, with many links. Highlights the current emotional, McCarthy-ist level of witch hunting with knee-jerk reactions does not help. Parental vigilance is a must.
• Background on The Australia Institute, and history of filtering prior to the current Government The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were.
• iiNet’s statement iiNet and Internet filtering
• Kathryn Small of IT News reports on Net filters debated by experts at cyberlaw forum held on 27th November.
• Neutering the net is about repression, not protection In the Age, by Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs. “wowserism dressed up in concerned rhetoric about the sanctity of childhood is still wowserism.”
• Children’s Welfare Groups slam Conroy’s Filtering Plans by Asher Moses, The Age
• Clive Hamilton, “Net porn: Whose rights matter most?”. Some notes: argument has moved from children to teenagers, two very different beasts as far as parenting is concern.
• Labor Plan to censor internet in shreds by Asher Moses, Senator Conroy has said that, under his filtering plan, Australia would sign up to the same IWF blacklist
• and in relation to the Internet Watch Association, the recent blocking of Wikipedia editing in the UK does not lend itself creditability.
• LeWeb’08 Attendees note that Australia is planning to Filter the Internet
• Australian Information Security Association on Mandatory Internet Filtering
• 37% rise in 2008 “money transfer scams” in Australia resulting in AU$33million in lost funds. (Choice magazine). Choice has more detail on how to avoid online scams. The failure of the Federal Government to make the broad populace aware of this is more problematic for kids than “p-rn”.
• Dept’s Response to postings to its “blog” about Internet Censorship. I just love the double-speak/managerial speak of the title, and the requests to stop calling it censorship, please!“ Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online.
• The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a secret report: Fatal flaws in website censorship plan, says report. Again, excellent reporting from Asher Moses
• Duncan Riley, Australia’s premiere blogger with logical analysis: Great Firewall of Australia. I agree with Duncan: we need to keep the Government out of our bedrooms. To quote Duncan’s last paragraph, to which I agree and further echo:
  

  Today I am ashamed to be Australian, ashamed that my Government should seek to implement draconian 19th century style censorship laws over the marvel of the modern age: The Internet. Free Speech may not be totally dead in Australia yet, but it’s about to be placed on life support. Conroy can say all he wants that this isn’t about free speech, but speech censored by Government isn’t free, no matter which way you want to spin it. 

• Response from the Sydney Morning Herald front page: Conroy and Prof Landfeldt respond to secret report article, trial delayed. I find it contemptable that Senator Conroy has access to this report in February 2008, yet continued to waste our money on “a trial”. A trial that is delayed until mid January 2009. The more that is revealed, the more this whole situation looks like a pure political play to ensure Senator Fielding’s votes in the Senate. So, who is genuinely looking after the kids?

Notes:

• need to find references to fact to back up some of the statements
• there are some leaps of logic that need to be addressed.
• I will modify as comments come in
• I have linked to various postings from all sides as the debate has raged. One day someone will find this useful

From the ABC: “Rudd lays wreath for Hiroshima victims”

Mr Rudd is the first Australian prime minister to visit Hiroshima’s Peace Park and Memorial.

How embarrassing for Australia. Why has no other Prime Minister visited Hiroshima? Incredulous.

On the other hand, I wonder if a Japanese Prime Minister will visit the Thailand-Burma Railway and apologize.

One day, maybe.

Join Government, business leaders and political bloggers for Australia’s inaugural Politics & Technology Forum, brought to you by Microsoft Australia.

Quick details: Date: 25th June 2008, Time: morning, Location: Hyatt, Canberra

For the first Forum, Microsoft is hosting keynote speaker Matt Bai, author and political writer for New York Times magazine. Matt will address the rise of political movements in the internet age, with a focus on new forms of Information Technology and how they fashion or replicate the political debate and trends.

In the midst of the neverending US Presidential Primary Season, and just prior to the Party Conventions: Matt visits Australia and provides a vision of the future of politics in the age of Hyperconnection.

Seats are complimentary and strictly limited. To reserve your place, RSVP by 11 June 2008 and quote event ticket code’BAI’.

Who decides what is good or bad? We each have our own definitions of good and bad. I saw the Coen brothers film a few days ago, No Country for Old Men: it was absolute shite. Others, including film critics, love the movie. I see very few redeeming qualities in a movie about a psychopathic serial killer-for-hire. But I am thankful I could choose to see the movie and make up my own mind.

Do you trust the government or faceless bureaucrats to decide what books, newspapers or movies you shouldn’t see? Who black-lists an IP address? How do you get off the black-list?

Maybe internet black-lists are not enough. Next we should have black-listed countries. Cannot go to Brunei, sorry. Oh, and if you get there by a circuitous route, we’re going to jail you. Cars are dangerous too. People die in cars. Cars are bad, and should be banned.

Come on, people. Education. Teach people. Spread out knowledge. Using the internet is like reading and writing: online literacy is absolutely vital.

Stop being a nervous nanny and “just blocking” sites. It will not work in 100% of cases, so why do it? How will the unitiated know if a part of the internet is black-listed and they cannot see it?

I am with Uncle Mike. Educate, not Censor.

In the instance of this podcast, I am speaking for myself not my employer (which I make clear in the podcast)

In retrospect, the discussion could go on for another 30 minutes: the concept of Geeks for Good is a concept that is rattling around in my head.

(original image)

With Australian Politicians using “Fibre to the Node” and “Fibre to the Home” as election ploys, I think It’s Time to raise the issue to a new level:

Fibre to the Dunny.

We should not rest until every Dunny in Australia has Fibre. Face it, that’s where the best browsing occurs.

Also, with Australia’s rising colorectal cancer, an increase in our fibre diet would also help future generations.

At the Hill and Knowlton “Surviving and thriving in the next decade — Technology Publishing” Breakfast Bytes this morning, a group of eminent panelists in picture above, from the left:

• James Tuckerman – Publishing Editor, AntHill. New relatively magazine about ideas, money and skills. Previously more print than online, but adding new online projects later in 2007.
• Heather Craven — Director of Marketing & Communications, Circulations Audit Board,
  Australian Circulation Bureau. Sub-committee researching digital.
• Brian Haverty – Editorial Director, CNET Networks Australia : Readers first, video and text style publishing.
• Tony Sarno – Editor, APC. Adding new online APC projects later in 2007.
• Peter Roberts – Managing Editor, BRW. Part of the Fairfax group, around since 1857. Noted that http://www.afr.com/ relaunched this week, and closed content model AFR Access continues.
• Andrew Kirk, Hill and Knowlton: Chair

The theme from the morning’s panel and Q&A is that “there will be a mixture of online and print” and that “online and print” readers are treated as different readers by the big-names. My perspective as a corporate online/citizen journalist is slightly different.

Like the quintessential investigative journalists: Woodward and Bernstein learnt: follow the money. In the above listing of panelists, notice where their stated investment is going. It’s online.

From a traditional publisher’s perspective, the business is about employing journalists to gather hidden facts, connect, analyse and write stories. People buy the paper (atoms) to read the stories and maybe their eyeballs will stray onto an advertisement. The marketing groups of companies buy these positions on the paper in the hope that the right eyeballs are enthralled by the product and/or service — and buy the product. The core of a publisher’s job is managing the compelling content such that a specific audience is created that advertisers value.

The web is no different, except that anyone can be a publisher, and outsource the revenue side (advertising) to Microsoft or Google. Large publishers, such as Fairfax, are unhappy that their expensive infrastructure is subverted online: Peter Roberts mentioned twice that Google made $200 million in Australia without investing in the content-side.

Peter Roberts also commented on one of his competitors, Alan Kohler’s Eureka Report, having only an online mechanism but successful business model. My perspective is that Alan’s business is successful as he is seen as a respected and independent entity within Australia’s financial community. Alan Kohler is a trusted brand.

The Gadget Guy, Peter Blasina’s question near the end summarised the morning for me: What does the future really look like? Each of the represented panelist’s organisations (maybe with the exception of cnet) have their business strategies weighted toward print, and the brand-value that print brings.

Peter Blasina comes at this with credibility as a true multi-channel brand and personality: print, online and TV — and surmised that the coming generation will change the face of the print publisher’s world. And they know it.

The future for publishers is where the eyeballs are. And eyeballs are not going to be in print, it is going to be online. Eyeballs stay longer where this is trusted value, and most importantly where there is a community. Reading a magazine is an almost high-latency feedback medium; where two-way interaction is slow if attempted at all.

Demographics of the eyeballs are changing to more online: younger readers being digitally native and older generations having more time to explore online; with more females than males desiring a community and interaction rather than passive acceptance; high bandwidth connection to permit TV, Radio and Print being equal online mediums.

Whilst I have no research to back this up, I am going to state it here. A common refrain from print publishers is that “Radio did not replace newspapers, and TV did not replace radio” as their backwards looking perspective on why online will not replace these old media. My argument is that the internet can replace the media styles: with web pages, podcasts and vidcasts. As Rupert Murdoch is quoted as saying: “Big media no longer controls the conversation” 

James Tuckerman knows his readers, and I think has a plan to create value in Anthill’s community. He understands the emotional connection that he has with his readership. James also stated there are “population lumps” at birth-years of 1949, 1974 and 1985. According to the ABS, there is another population lump in the 2005–7 range too. My suggestion is to watch Anthill as a publisher. They are starting a conversation with their community.

A Question about SecondLife, the current “craze” in Australia potentially due to a visit in meatspace by a Linden Labs persona, resulted in Tony Sarno saying that “many PBL management have visited SecondLife”. I fear it is because of the gambling dens rather than the community aspect. About 20% of the audience of largely PR and technology industry attendees had logged into SecondLife, of which most had logged in once.

So, in industry parlance, what is the tip-on for online? It’s the community. Community is the new Brand.

I wonder if in this election year, the pollies will pull a State Funeral. I hope so, as the impact his music had on that generation surpasses many who get a State funeral.

This week has been total traffic chaos after the shenanigans of the two Queens arriving in Sydney. Strangely, one of ships was also called Mary.

Avril and I have friends from Adelaide who were staying in The Rocks last night. The Rocks is the oldest part of Sydney-town, in the heart of the central business district. The Sydney CBD was locked off from Market Street down to The Rocks at 11pm — so they had to walk at least 2kms to their hotel.

Not Tourist Friendly. All this for one man.

This book has stuck in the neurons, and now the virtual is becoming real. It really goes to show how hard science fiction depicts a future that current living humans will not see. Based on some work I was doing to Tricks of the Hypertalk Masters, creating what would be now known as a “skin” over CompuServe; the book was just science fiction.

True Names published in 1981, describes a world called “Other Plane” were people interact online. The premise of separating your online from your physical indentity; and the concept of a future Singularity pervade my personal world-view today.

Thanks Mitch.

Now, what does this have to do with today?

Second Life. It’s more than the technology; it is also about the platforms involved. It is also how it impacts real people: such as Dave Wallace. Second Life is what I visualised as “Other Plane”

Watch the first half of this video: Jim-Cory-SecondLife.wmv, Lang.NET Symposium.

The first half of the video is light on technology; but heavy on the economics, and wider-world impacts of the virtual world. The user creation rate (Writeness in the Read/Write equation) is over 60%; compared to the web which is less than 10%.

A key reason seems to be the economic value attached to virtual objects scripted in Second Life. As items in the SecondLife virtual world are intellectual property; an item can be created, sold and purchased.

Ensuring that intellectual property is valued is going to be one of the toughest challenges for upcoming generations.

Is the scripting in Second Life the new HyperCard?

Note: For those in Sydney, Machiavelli’s also happens to be my favourite business lunching venue. Save up your dollars and head down to Clarence Street in the CBD for some hearty Tuscan/Italian food.