As you are most likely already aware Australia is in the process of testing a ‘clean feed’ whereby every internet connection in the country will receive filtered access unless the account holders actively ask their ISP not to filter. The government's reasoning seems mostly of the order that ‘it was our election promise so we are going to do it’ with very little real understanding of what this actually means.
As noted in this article one concern is the impact this will have on Internet access speeds. What passes as broadband in Australia compared with other countries is already dubious but with the added limitations of filtering at an ISP level we can only expect that it will get slower. This impacts on all aspects of our lives from home computing tasks to commercial tasks as well as involving additional costs which will be passed from ISPs to consumers. Filters must be updated constantly to remain even partially effective and this means ongoing maintenance costs – forever.
Aside from this there are also some very real concerns for free speech. Note that the mother in this article states with respect to the home filtering software offered by the Government:
“... we found it was very cumbersome and clunky. It really restricted access to sites, for example on whether it was boats or art or things that the kids were researching for school, so it would just block you constantly and it became very frustrating."
The fact of the matter is that filtering, regardless of whether it is done in the home or at an ISP level, is imperfect. This sort of performance will simply be paralleled on a country wide basis. Every Australian internet connection will have distorted search results which block material which is not meant to be blocked and some pornographic material will still pass through the filters. If we as parents are lulled into thinking the filters are effective then our children will be no safer than they are now.
One may also question who will be determining which material will be blocked and on what terms. The internet offers an open architecture enabling free communication and here we sit as a ‘progressive western nation’ ready to allow private interests to determine what we can and can not view. How are we to know what we are being blocked from seeing? How long will it be before material that offends other values, including political views, is blocked? You can read more information here where Irene Graham notes that the filtering systems used in other countries, if implemented here, would see entire sites like YouTube and MySpace blocked.
I have argued time and again that the answer to this issue is a combination of parental supervision and education. The point that should really be taken from this article is that this parent was unaware of the dangers on the Internet, and this should be the point that is addressed as a primary concern. From one perspective it could be suggested that the government has failed to educate parents and provide parents with the information they need to be able to deal with this issue themselves. But another perspective suggests that this article and the basis of the whole of the government’s policy is flawed.
I wrote to Senator Conroy earlier this year on this issue, and I stated:
As you are no doubt aware, the ACMA recently released a detailed report considering the relationship between Australian families and the media, including the Internet.[1] In the overview of this report it is categorically stated that Australian parents feel comfortable with their children’s Internet activity. Indeed 61% of parents indicate that they are not concerned about their children’s Internet activities with only 8% being very concerned.[2] A number of very effective measures are currently employed including keeping computers in public areas of the house, spending time on the Internet with their children, talking about security issues, developing agreements and understandings, reviewing the history of the web browser, browser filtering as well as the use of free filters already available to block content at the home level.[3] With respect to the later of these methods only 19% of parents use browser or filtering software. When looking at each of the age groups of the children within the research, a maximum of 10% of families have the free internet filtering software installed.[4] Yet overall Australian parents are comfortable with their children’s use of the Internet. Indeed 48% also state that their children’s Internet use is overall easy to manage and a further 37% state that it is very easy to manage.[5]
It seems altogether convenient for the government to forget its own and most recent research into the relationship between Australian families and the Internet.
Today I went to my daughters parent/teacher night and in passing, another mother said that her daughter had raised an issue relating to sex leading to a general discussion about how to introduce information in a passive way (for under tens). I mentioned that we go to our local library every week and that one week we had been in a rush and I had borrowed some books, from the children’s section, without having read through them properly and when we got home and started reading that night there was a book that had maybe a little too much information in it (it was an age appropriate, fictional story, but not really for reading at bedtime). As this article discusses, it is not beneficial to introduce children to these issues in a way that lacks explanation or monitoring – I do not think children should have unfettered access and I do think there can be psychological and behavioural consequences for those that do – but the point is that it is our job as parents to ensure that life education takes place in a constructive way. It is not the role of the government but up to parents to filter material and decide what is appropriate for our children and when. What I dispute here, is the method by which the government is seeking to achieve this goal. There are many other ways that are being used now, and that can be improved and expanded on, that will have an equal if not better chance of success with far fewer negative consequences.
Its interesting that the government has also announced an in school education program for internet security (I am hoping to find out more on the copyright aspects of this program) - clearly even with the proposed filtering they remain concerned about children's internet safety. This, combined with a comprehensive education program, made available to parents, free of charge, through the school system, would be a far better option than filtering. What parents need is information and strategies. Not enough has been done to provide these to parents and this should be the basis of the governments policy.
The filtering program sets in place the architecture to censor the internet for all Australians and opens the opportunity for this government, and future governments, to restrict information without our knowledge. It is a dangerous precedent that we should do everything to resist. I have listed Senator Conroy’s address below and I urge you all to write today to express concern for this proposal.
Senator, The Hon. Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
[1] Australian Media and Communications Authority, Media and Communications in Australian Families (2007)
[2] See page 95
[3] See page 127
[4] See page 126
[5] See page 104
No comments:
Post a Comment