Internet Filter Stakeholders - Assignment Example

Name: Tutor: Title: Internet Filter Stakeholders Institution: Date: Executive summary Internet filtering is an issue being critically debated on in Australia. This is because its implementation may have adverse effects on the stakeholders and the general public. The report seeks to identify the effects and the expectations of the issue on the stakeholders. Six main stake holders composed of primary and secondary have been identified for the report. The report has discussed the effects that the implementation of internet filtering may have on each stakeholder. Their expectations both positive and negative have also been discussed in the report. The report has however, noted that some stakeholders may have minimal influence over the mater since they are not allowed to participate in the law making process. On the other hand, the politicians have been identified to have the greatest influence since they participate directly to the law making process. The report has thus come up with a conclusion that the debate over the internet filtering may not come to an end any time soon due to the divergence in views among the members of the public and the stakeholders. Introduction Internet filtering is the process of ensuring that some contents are removed from the internet to prevent access. Over the recent past, internet filtering has become a sensitive issue that has generated a lot of debate among various stakeholders. The debate is mainly about its impacts, merits and demerits in the sector (Bauer, 2009). The debate however, lacks solid conclusions among the members of the public and stakeholders. This may result in the issue not being resolved and failure to pass a good piece of legislation to guide the matter. The report will identify six stake holders in Australia who will be affected by the implementation of internet filter. The report will also make the distinction between the primary and secondary stakeholders with the expectations, rights, interests and desires of each stakeholder being analyzed in details. The stakeholders who will be affected The following presents a list of stakeholders who will be affected by the implementation process. The stakeholders who will be affected are from diverse groups including political parties, internet users and the internet services providers. The political parties include; The Greens, the liberal party and the Australian labour party. On the other hand the internet service providers includes; Google and eBay. The Australian Communication Media Authority will also be affected. The internet users such as the adults, children’s and learning institutions will also be affected. In this case, the primary stakeholders are mainly the ones with a direct input on the issue. The secondary stakeholders on the other hand are the ones who will be affected greatly by the choices that will be made by the primary stakeholders whom they rely upon (Duffy, 2009). From the list of the stakeholders who will be affected, the primary stakeholders are mainly the political parties, Australia communication and media Authority and the internet service providers. The political parties contribute directly to the input on the issue. This is mainly because the politicians from the parties are mandated with the legislation of the rules and regulations that govern the internet filters. This puts them in the position of control over the laws surrounding the issue. The internet service providers will be required to comply with the laws and implement it by adjusting their networks to make it compliant with the laws passed. This puts them in a critical position as they will have no choice but to follow the law. The Australian communication and Media Authority on the other hand acts as a watchdog and will have to ensure that the laws are being followed (Egan, 2006). The secondary stakeholders will have n say in the implementation process and they will have to rely on the primary stakeholders concerning the issue. Google, eBay, schools and the members of the public will be greatly be disadvantaged if the outcome does not suite them. This is mainly because they will have to modify their aces and contents due to the changes that will be made by the primary stake holders. The educational curriculums and other educational programs dependant on the internet will also be affected. Thos may lead to the restructuring of the curriculum so as to ensure it ids in line with the new internet system. This will mainly be for the purpose of removing those educational issues that will be rendered irrelevant. It is thus evident that some of the users will be greatly affected by the process but the law may not have exceptions and the users will have no choice other than to relay on what will be accessible to them. Influences and expectations of the primary and secondary stakeholders Internet service providers The internet service providers are the most important stakeholders as the legislation may have adverse impact on their services. The government has already partnered with some of the internet service providers in trials concerning the filters. These companies have not spoken publicly about the issues as they are bound by the non disclosure agreement. The internet service providers may decide to reject the legislation or agree to it. This is mainly because they will be the ones implementing the changes. They therefore have a great influence as rejecting the legislation may paralyze the internet service (Kaye, 2009). The internet service providers however have different expectations. Most of those who have spoken in the public about the issue have rejected the move. This is mainly because the trials of the internet filters have been found to have negative effects on the speed. The lower the speed the costly it may end up being. This is mainly due to increased maintenance and servicing costs. This will also affect their revenues as the clients will take long to aces certain services as compared to when the speed is high. The expectation of the internet service providers is thus quite negative as they anticipate their revenues will go down (Madsen, 2001). Political parties As a primary stakeholder, the Australian political parties have the greatest influence on the issue. This is considering that the members of the party are mandated with the responsibility of making laws. Through their numbers, they can pas any form of legislation regarding the internet filter. The Liberal and Labour parties support the filter as it will reduce the chances of children or underage watching explicit contents in the internet. However, the Green party does not support the internet filter as it will interfere with the privacy of the people by increasing the censorship powers of the government. This is courtesy of the party’s senator Scott Ludlum (Jacobs, 2010)). Despite the differences in the stand of the political parties, it is however clear that they all expect the law to counter undesirable aces to pornography and the use of the internet by terrorist networks to gain support from the members of the public. The political parties also expect that the law will ensure that the internet is not used for the purposes of propagating immoral behaviours as well as promoting violence and causing fear to the public through terrorism. These expectations are affirmed by the communication minister Steven Conroy (Foley, 2010). Internet Users The internet users are secondary stakeholders who may bear the greatest effect of the legislation. This is considering that they are the ones who will feel the effects whether it will be positive or negative. However they also have some influence although it may not be direct influence on the legislation. According to the Australian laws, they are free to express their concerns to the members of parliament and other representatives who will have to make laws that suit them. This puts them in the position of influence over the politicians (Beer, 2010). A political organization called Get up! Which opposes the internet filtering is active in the issues and is set to represent the internet users accordingly. However other sections of the internet users like the children welfare is in support of the internet filtering. The internet users also expect that the legislation will affect the way they access the internet contents. However most of the internet users remain undecided about the issue. Other internet users expect that the law will guard the children against the aces to explicit materials like pornography easily found in the internet. Australian communication media association This department is owned by the Australian government. Its main objectives is to act as a watchdog and foresee the implementation process if the law is passed. It has influence over the process and it is already involved in the process and debate surrounding the issue. The department is actively involved in the trial of the internet filters. This is mainly for the purpose of making recommendations and also to determine how efficient it may be. However their influence is largely dependent on the trial despite the leakage through the internet (Pauli, 2009). There is influence is not great and it depends on the political will. The department is however supportive of this law and it expects that the political parties will pas it regardless the outcome of the trial. This is considering that the trial may fail leading to the lack of political goodwill regarding the issue. Google and eBay These are examples of international online service providers. They therefore have no influence on how the laws should be formed or what it should not contain (Johnson, 2010). However they have the ability to influence the members of the public indirectly through advertisements on their sites. This may also attract the attention of lobby group who may use their influences to determine e the outcome of the process. The international online internet service providers have openly opposed to filter the contents. This is mainly because some of their contents will have to be blocked or they may be required to remove some of the contents from their search engines. Google and eBay therefore expects that the legislation will put a lot of pressure in their business. The international online internet service providers may also end up taking a lot of time filtering contents from their search engines so as to comply with the law. This will greatly affect their performance as well as increasing their costs of operation. Schools Most of the schools depend on the internet for the purpose of obtaining learning materials (Bertola, 2010). This is beneficial to both the teachers and the students. However, the schools have little influence over the mater as most of the schools have already devised their own means of filtering. This was mainly for the purpose of ensuring that the students access only learning materials. The schools may be affected since the government department in charge of the implementation may end up filtering some of their contents. However the process may be beneficial to the schools in terms of cost reduction as the process will be controlled by the government Authority. This will save them the cost of using their own means to filter the materials. Conclusion In conclusion, internet filtering is quite a contagious issue in Australia. This is considering the effects it has on the stake holders. The effects are positive while others are negative; this has thus led to a debate which has caught the attention of the stakeholders as well as the members of the public. The opinions are divided but it is evident that most of the stakeholders are against the internet filtering process. The main reason for the argument against internet filtering is that it may increase costs due to the interference of the speed and also the maintenance. The international online service providers will also suffer as a result of the filtering due to the increase in costs caused by filtering their contents. Only the schools may benefit from reduced cost as they will not be required to use their resources for the filtering process. Those who are for the argument that the internet should be filtered feel that it will protect the children from exposure to explicit contents found in the internet which may have psychological impacts on them. It is thus evident that the debate over the internet filtering may not get the appropriate solution as any move will affect both sides. Bibliography Bauer, J, 2009, 'Cyber security: Stakeholder incentives, externalities, and policy options', Telecommunications Policy, vol. 33, no. 10-11, pp. 706-19. Beer, C, 2009, 'Political geographies of lobbying: Canberra within Australian politics', Australian Geographer, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 187-202. Bertola, V, 2010, 'Power and the internet', Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 323-37. Duffy, J, 2009, 'Toothless tiger, sleeping dragon: implied freedoms, internet filters and the growing culture of internet censorship in Australia', eLaw Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 91-105. Egan, E, 2006, 'Building a better filter: how to create a safer internet and avoid the litigation trap', IEEE Security and Privacy, pp. 37-44. Foley, M, 2010, Australian Labor Party to Form New Government, The New York Times, Retrieved on 25 April 2012 from . Jacobs, C, 2010, Senator Ludlam slams filter in Parliament, Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc, Retrieved on 25 April 2012 from < http://www.efa.org.au/2010/05/13/senator-ludlam-slams-filter-in-parliament/> Johnson, K, 2010, 'The importance of Net Neutrality to the digital economy', Telecommunications Journal of Australia, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 19.1-.6. Kaye, N, 2009, Online/offline public spheres: the influence of newest social movements on creative praxis and the institution, Subjectivity, Creativity, and the Institution, Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton. Madsen, H, 2001, 'Integrating environmental and stakeholder management', Business strategy and the environment, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 77-88. Pauli, D 2009, Australia's Web blacklist leaked, ComputerWorld, Retrieved on 25 April 2012 from, . Read More