Internet censorship not a vote-changer

By Ry Crozier on Mar 5, 2010 1:57 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Annual Whirlpool survey released.

The Federal Government’s planned introduction of mandatory internet filtering was unlikely to change the way most broadband users voted in the next election.

The results of the 2009 Whirlpool survey, released overnight, showed 44.1 percent of the 23,683 respondents believed filtering would be a “key factor” affecting their vote.

Almost 40 percent percent of respondents indicated the introduction of filtering would “possibly” affect the way they voted but “not at the expense of other issues” while 13.3 percent said it would not change their vote.

The results appeared to the show the issue was a divisive rather than decisive one for Labor at the next election.

The survey showed some - but not all - of the Government’s messages around the need for filtering were getting through.

In particular, respondents believed it could restrict access to child pornography and “protect children from harm”.

The news wasn’t all good. Almost one in three respondents indicated they were still “unsure what sites might be filtered” under the proposal, draft laws for which were due out within months.

“The fact that almost 30 percent of respondents did not understand exactly what will be blocked is a testament to the vague and ever changing policy statements made by the Government,” Whirlpool said.

Most respondents also believed they - or someone close to them - could circumvent the filters. Over 80 percent either knew of one or more ways or were confident they could skirt the filters “given instructions”.

iiNet was right

The survey also supported a number of assertions made by ISP iiNet in its copyright case against the film industry.

iiNet had argued that copyright infringement notices it received from studios included only IP addresses that identified a device - rather than a user - that was connected to the internet.

The user could be "be the partner, child, flat-mate, employee or customer of the account holder" or even a stranger passing an account holder's unsecured wireless network.

The results of the 2009 Whirlpool survey appeared supportive of that assertion.

Most broadband connections (41 percent) were frequently used by two people. Over 45 percent of connections had three or more regular users.

Likewise only 10 percent of connections serviced only one computer. Over 40 percent of connections serviced four or more computers.

Almost three out of every four respondents also indicated they shared their connection via wired and wireless networks.

Arguments made in court on the benefits of supplying legal content also appeared well-founded.

When asked what broadband users liked about their current ISP, 56.2 percent of iiNet users said they liked the “unmetered content”. Over 12 percent also said they liked the “music and videos” iiNet provided.

Rich media content was not among the top five reasons why respondents indicated they had broadband. “Fast web surfing” was number one. “Watching downloaded TV shows” was cited by 53.2 percent of respondents and “P2P file sharing” by 47.9 percent.

12 comments in this discussion

"Governments of all flavours favour control of everything they can lay their hands on. The internet got away from them, because it arrived so quickly, and was so far beyond the comprehension of ..."

By Ace

Tags

internet, filter, mandatory, optin, conroy, laws, whirlpool, survey, iinet, afact

Warrnambool users spent 10.5 days without internet

Google's win reflects internet-friendly High Court

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

EU lawmakers seek to limit use of data by Internet firms

Breaking Stories

Alacer Gold turns ERP refit project to Australia

NSW Govt bids for self-service analytics

NSW Police take aim at 3D-printable guns

Google faces new federal antitrust probe

US ISP to rip out Huawei equipment

Comments: 12

mullarpa Mar 5, 2010 7:42 AM	As it only takes about 10% of people to change heir vote to change the government, I would say that this could be a significate factor.
rycrozier Mar 5, 2010 8:32 AM	It's drowning as a deciding factor though. Compare it to a multi billion dollar overhaul of the health system, education, what sort of hip pocket impact an ETS might have... Censorship might get factored in there somewhere but it seems to suggest other things are more important.
ITrant Mar 5, 2010 11:23 AM	mullarpa is correct - 40% is a HUGE vote swing. Unfortunately, voting for the Coalition would be a wasted vote on this issue. Only the Greens are ACTIVELY opposing the filter. http://greens.org.au/taxonomy/term/499 As for whether it's a vital issue, that's a matter of perspective. If it was explained as the government opening letters and parcels in the snail mail and courier systems, and prosecuting people for sending "CDs" to their relatives, you might find that hits closer to home than the 'too big to make any real difference' issues like health, education and environment.
btone Mar 5, 2010 12:11 PM	Apart from the fact that in the sampled respondents, which idsFAR larger than most surveys, shows almost half would consider changing their vote, a simply astounding proportion, you neglect any mention that 92% oppose the mandatory filter. A bit different to the loaded results that the Hungry Beast push poll got that was so heavily covered. Poor...
rycrozier Mar 5, 2010 12:50 PM	@btone. For the record we didn't cover that Hungry Beast survey. There was a reason and you hit the nail. The 92 percent stat was widely leaked a few weeks ago. The fact that broadband users are against filtering, not really news by now I would imagine. The vote decisions are more interesting. We're left with 44 percent saying the filter would be "a key factor" affecting their votes at the next election. And 52-odd percent who don't see it as a major vote-changing issue. It's pretty unclear in the wash-up what "a key factor" means. It doesn't necessarily mean they'll vote against Labor I'd suggest. Rather they'll weight it accordingly among the myriad of other election issues they have to consider. That's something. But concrete vote translation rate? Your guess is as good as mine! Also, the idea 52 percent of the people you would most think would vote against a filter - passionate internet users - have indicated it's at best a "possible" factor in their decision at the next election doesn't particularly bode well...
RDEFCON1 Mar 5, 2010 4:43 PM	That means that 44.1% of previously Labor votes at the next election might swing against them with Internet Censorship as a 'key factor'. A further 40% might be effected on top of this. While there are naturally many other issues, I'd wager that few issues would have a negative impact on 84% of Labor's votes, and a serious negative impact on 44.1%! I think you got your headline wrong, Ry. I'd have dropped the 'not', and considered amplifying to "Internet censorship a major vote-changer".
rycrozier Mar 5, 2010 5:22 PM	Assuming all of that 44.1 percent voted or would vote Labor. It has the potential to change votes. I was surprised though, given the wording, at that potential, in an audience I would have suspected would be more hardline. Maybe it's the wording of the responses available.
Ace Mar 5, 2010 5:36 PM	One problem with the Whirlpool survey is that it is lopsided, with respondents tending to be informed internet users. So, to keep perspective, you have to keep in mind that 44% of informed internet users may only be 10% of the voting population. It needs to be paired with an equivalent phone or street survey.
Mordd Mar 5, 2010 8:41 PM	The no clean feed campaign hasn't really gotten properly underway yet either, partly due to the lack of detail from the government still on the proposed policy. Once it gets closer to election time, and you have GetUp doing tv ads, EFA and others organising protests, and the Pirate Party campaigning directly around the issue, I think you will find those survey results will change closer to election time.
Scengy Mar 9, 2010 5:35 PM	Whilst I agree that the issue will cause some vote swing, alongside noting (as Ace did) that the Whirlpool survey respondents are typically well informed enthusiasts, what the survey _doesn't_ tell us is: which way the vote will swing. It's fine to say the filter "Yes, this will be a key factor" in regards to the filter, but it fails to identify which party was getting the vote to begin with. _If_ 100% of the respondents are current Labor voters then the 44.1% could certainly be seen as a 'loss' to the Labor vote count. However it's probably a fair assumption to also say that _not_ 100% are Labor voters. Meaning that a proportion of that 44.1% could actually be people switching from Coalition voting to Labor _in support of the filter_. Now, mind you it's a brave soul who'll jump on Whirlpool and say they support the filter, so it should come as no shock that there'd be people who are in favour of it but keeping their mouth shut to avoid a public dressing down by the technocrati. And: have the Coalition ruled out mandatory filtering? Do you think it'll be the same "never happen" as we were told about the GST? Conroy's a prig, but don't vote personally - there's much more to both parties policies than internet filtering. And as the 'it'll never happen'/'wow, now we've got a gst' example illustrates - you can trust any party about as far as you can throw them.
Scengy Mar 9, 2010 5:50 PM	addendum, for those unaware (and there may be some): The Liberal/National coalition lost the 1993 federal election. The loss was widely blamed (truthfully or not) on John Hewsons GST policy. In May 1995 (the year preceding the 1996 election) John Howard as leader pledged that there would be no GST. The questioning ran along the lines of: John Howard: There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy. Reporter: Never ever? John Howard: Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election. Lo and behold, swayed by this (if you believe that they also lost on the same policy previously), the public put the Coalition in to office in March 1996. 2 years later he introduced GST to parliament. Then we, the public, got it. Despite the 'pledge'. Now, for better or worse, the GST exists. But my point is this: just because a pollie says something's not going to happen, doesn't mean they're telling the truth. IMHO if you believe in the Labor parties general 'ethics' (if that's what we can even call it these days) and policies, or vice-versa supported the Libs but were considering switching, it would be foolish in the extreme to switch votes just because of the single issue of the filter. Switching is _no_ guarantee that the filter wont just be back on (or off) the table in another 2-3 years. Far better to protest actively than to throw control of the country from party to party on single issues. The country is more than internet services.
Ace Mar 9, 2010 10:04 PM	Governments of all flavours favour control of everything they can lay their hands on. The internet got away from them, because it arrived so quickly, and was so far beyond the comprehension of most pollies, they missed the opportunity to license it, the way airwaves for radio & TV are licensed. Don't believe for a moment that any government would ever favour a free and open internet for their constituents. Governments around the world are working feverishly to try and wrest control of the internet from their citizens/ISPs etc. In Australia, the NBN provides the government with the perfect opportunity to make the internet 'safe' for Australian users. No amount of changing government will change this.