Fantastic news this week! The Australian Government has finally stated it is officially abandoning its plan for mandatory ISP filtering. The policy, that was flawed from the start, and absolutely out of line especially for a so called left-wing political party, bites the dust at last.
The Government hasnt acknowledged the policy was flawed or that there were technical limitations that would have made it ineffective... but they have confirmed that they no longer intend to introduce the proposed legislation.
What they have done instead is to require ISPs to block child abuse websites based on the Interpol list of the worst sites on the internet. Sites are reviewed by the authorities in two countries before they are added to the list. It appears that around 1,400 sites are currently required to be blocked and that some Austalian ISPs were already voluntarily doing this.
What was to potentially be a broad and secretive mandatory filter has quite rightly been reduced to a targeted black list. This is great news for freedom of speech and a huge relief for many.
Further Reading
ABC News, Government abandons plans for internet filter (9 November 2012) < http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-09/government-abandons-plans-for-internet-filter/4362354 > at 10 November 2012
Showing posts with label Filtering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Filtering. Show all posts
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Friday, March 25, 2011
Sound Cloud
I have just read on Techdirt that apparently Sound Cloud has a content filter installed on it blocking people from uploading infringing works. I was unaware of this when I wrote about the site recently. This makes some difference to their potential liability for copyright infringement depending on whether the filter is effective or not. I wonder if there have been DMCA take down notices since the filter was first installed or whether it does the job. As Techdirt points out filters are unable to detect fair use or fair dealing and the likely outcome is that much more content is blocked than needs to be. It is such a shame that these types of tactics are necessary in the digital age when much creativity depends on building on the works of others. I guess the site however is far more likely to be around in the long run which is good news.
Further Reading
TechDirt, How Copyright Filters Present A Serious Challenge To DJ Culture (21 March 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?d=21&m=3&y=2011> at 25 March 2011
TechDirt, Permission Culture And The Automated Diminishment Of Fair Use (27 December 2010) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/09520712421/permission-culture-automated-diminishment-fair-use.shtml > at 25 March 2011
Further Reading
TechDirt, How Copyright Filters Present A Serious Challenge To DJ Culture (21 March 2011) < http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?d=21&m=3&y=2011> at 25 March 2011
TechDirt, Permission Culture And The Automated Diminishment Of Fair Use (27 December 2010) < http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/09520712421/permission-culture-automated-diminishment-fair-use.shtml > at 25 March 2011
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Conroy on the proposed internet filter
Senator Conroy will be speaking with the triple j radio show, Hack, at 5.30pm this afternoon. You can stream the show live off the internet by going to the triple j home page here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/
Or, if you miss it live, you can listen to it afterward as a podcast by going to the Hack home page here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/
Senator Conroy is the Minister for Broadband and directly responsible for the proposed internet filter in Australia.
Or, if you miss it live, you can listen to it afterward as a podcast by going to the Hack home page here: http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/
Senator Conroy is the Minister for Broadband and directly responsible for the proposed internet filter in Australia.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Internet Filter Campaign Statements
I was just reading that the Australian Liberal Government would not back the introduction of an internet filter if they are elected to office. They consider the filter proposal to be flawed policy that will not work. They suggest it will create a false sense of security for parents without actually preventing the spread of censored information and pictures.
You can read the article from ABC News here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974827.htm
You can read the article from ABC News here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974827.htm
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Conroy Filibuster
I watched the ABC show Q&A tonight in which Senator Stephen Conroy responded to questions regarding the proposed internet filtering scheme in Australia. Over 2,000 questions were submitted by members of the public.
He spoke very slowly and very carefully selected words when addressing the issues raised. He repeated himself a lot and appeared to deliberately stretch out answers to limit the extent of the discussion.
The central points of his argument were that the first blacklist leaked contained 700 more sites that the true list and was did not accurately depict the sites that are currently blocked. He stated that the second list that has been leaked was closer to the real list. The current system by which sites are refused classification and are blocked has been in place for 9 years and was introduced by the Howard Government. While stating that the list is updated every couple of months to remove outdated links and add new ones he also stated that the list has not been changed since the Labour Government was voted into office. When asked if the government could publish the list in the future he stated that this would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place - seemingly missing the point that none of us would be able to access it anyway.
In response to recent reports that a Dentists surgery was on the list he advised that the site had been hijacked by the Russian mob and that the site had been blocked internationally due to the inclusion of refused classified material on it - he stated that it had never been blocked from Australia. He did note that one site had been incorrectly blocked despite being classified as PG (parental guidance) advising that this was a 'technical error' and that ACMA were going through the list tonight to ensure that other sites had not been accidentally included.
He acknowledged that the filter will not address the distribution of material on file sharing networks, did not have a chance to respond to the suggestion that sites like Facebook pose a greater threat to children nor did he reply to suggestions that keeping the sites online and using them to trace and prosecute offenders was a preferrable option. There was also insufficient discussion of the need for parents to monitor children's net usage and no comment on the fact that only 35,000 Australian's have downloaded and installed NetNanny and other approved home based filtering technology.
Overall he came off as being poorly spoken and unconvincing. However having said that the show itself was not really capable of delivering a considered debate with a sensationalistic approach that did not give enough time to answer each question, overlooked important points raised by members of the public and overall proved to be a poor forum to debate such a detailed and contentious issue.
The show is available to be streamed on the ABC website here.
He spoke very slowly and very carefully selected words when addressing the issues raised. He repeated himself a lot and appeared to deliberately stretch out answers to limit the extent of the discussion.
The central points of his argument were that the first blacklist leaked contained 700 more sites that the true list and was did not accurately depict the sites that are currently blocked. He stated that the second list that has been leaked was closer to the real list. The current system by which sites are refused classification and are blocked has been in place for 9 years and was introduced by the Howard Government. While stating that the list is updated every couple of months to remove outdated links and add new ones he also stated that the list has not been changed since the Labour Government was voted into office. When asked if the government could publish the list in the future he stated that this would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place - seemingly missing the point that none of us would be able to access it anyway.
In response to recent reports that a Dentists surgery was on the list he advised that the site had been hijacked by the Russian mob and that the site had been blocked internationally due to the inclusion of refused classified material on it - he stated that it had never been blocked from Australia. He did note that one site had been incorrectly blocked despite being classified as PG (parental guidance) advising that this was a 'technical error' and that ACMA were going through the list tonight to ensure that other sites had not been accidentally included.
He acknowledged that the filter will not address the distribution of material on file sharing networks, did not have a chance to respond to the suggestion that sites like Facebook pose a greater threat to children nor did he reply to suggestions that keeping the sites online and using them to trace and prosecute offenders was a preferrable option. There was also insufficient discussion of the need for parents to monitor children's net usage and no comment on the fact that only 35,000 Australian's have downloaded and installed NetNanny and other approved home based filtering technology.
Overall he came off as being poorly spoken and unconvincing. However having said that the show itself was not really capable of delivering a considered debate with a sensationalistic approach that did not give enough time to answer each question, overlooked important points raised by members of the public and overall proved to be a poor forum to debate such a detailed and contentious issue.
The show is available to be streamed on the ABC website here.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Get Up - Censor This!
I was sitting here only a few minutes ago checking that my last post on the FMC DC Policy Day had published properly when I noticed that the Get Up petition on the left had side of the screen was nearing 100,000 signatures. I excitedly thought that reaching that milestone would be a great opportunity to write another post about the proposed filtering regime for Australia.
Having thought that, I then turned to check my email and low and behold there is a message from Get Up about something even more interesting - they are looking for OUR ideas to write a new television campaign against the Governments scheme. Their current web ad has been viewed more than 3.5 million times.
They state:
As a people-powered movement, we understand that the internet isn't about control and censorship - it's about collaboration. That's why we're pooling the creativity of the GetUp community to create a TV ad, which will air on national television.
Having thought that, I then turned to check my email and low and behold there is a message from Get Up about something even more interesting - they are looking for OUR ideas to write a new television campaign against the Governments scheme. Their current web ad has been viewed more than 3.5 million times.
They state:
As a people-powered movement, we understand that the internet isn't about control and censorship - it's about collaboration. That's why we're pooling the creativity of the GetUp community to create a TV ad, which will air on national television.
We'll turn your idea into a professional TV ad that will be seen by millions of Australians.
What can you contribute? Creative script ideas, music, images, personal anecdotes, or even a video. We're also looking for offers of help from professional voice-over and acting talent.
Simply submit your idea by email to censorthis@getup.org.au by next Sunday, March 29.
Get to it Australia - the web needs our help!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Choruss - Jim Griffin
Check out the slide show by Jim Griffin regarding the proposed licensing scheme for file sharing on college campuses in the USA.
The intention is to implement a voluntary licensing scheme which does not required amendments to copyright law nor government intervention. Similarly Griffin does not propose that the fees paid for legal downloading should be applied on a compulsory basis, rather intending to offer opt-in, opt-out and all-in options. However, Choruss's focus is not solely on the legalisation of p2p file sharing - Griffin refers to this as a mere side effect - the aim of the proposal is to ensure monetisation of the digital music industry which includes other digital architectures in addition to p2p.
Interestingly he notes that in introducing a voluntary collective licensing scheme that mathematical perfection is impossible but that a reasonably fair division of funds can take place.
He states that it would be impossible, short of a compulsory license, for Choruss to prevent all future DMCA notices - partially because it will only apply to audio and also because it will only concern artists and labels that have agreed to cooperate. Major record labels are said to be negotiating however not all arists or labels will sign up to the scheme. They hope to have a test in place from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010.
Developments in technology mean that it is now far easier to count and compensate for the sharing of music than to filter exchanges and prevent it. Griffin concludes by noting that 'control' should not be the ultimate aim of the music industry.
While admirable in intention, as usual, there seems to be more questions than answers (check out the chat forum on the side of the slide show). The presentation goes for 1 hour.
Further Reading
Educause, Choruss: A New Business Model for Digital Music (3 March 2009) <https://admin.na3.acrobat.com/_a729300474/p72627963/> at 14 March 2009
The intention is to implement a voluntary licensing scheme which does not required amendments to copyright law nor government intervention. Similarly Griffin does not propose that the fees paid for legal downloading should be applied on a compulsory basis, rather intending to offer opt-in, opt-out and all-in options. However, Choruss's focus is not solely on the legalisation of p2p file sharing - Griffin refers to this as a mere side effect - the aim of the proposal is to ensure monetisation of the digital music industry which includes other digital architectures in addition to p2p.
Interestingly he notes that in introducing a voluntary collective licensing scheme that mathematical perfection is impossible but that a reasonably fair division of funds can take place.
He states that it would be impossible, short of a compulsory license, for Choruss to prevent all future DMCA notices - partially because it will only apply to audio and also because it will only concern artists and labels that have agreed to cooperate. Major record labels are said to be negotiating however not all arists or labels will sign up to the scheme. They hope to have a test in place from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010.
Developments in technology mean that it is now far easier to count and compensate for the sharing of music than to filter exchanges and prevent it. Griffin concludes by noting that 'control' should not be the ultimate aim of the music industry.
While admirable in intention, as usual, there seems to be more questions than answers (check out the chat forum on the side of the slide show). The presentation goes for 1 hour.
Further Reading
Educause, Choruss: A New Business Model for Digital Music (3 March 2009) <https://admin.na3.acrobat.com/_a729300474/p72627963/> at 14 March 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Oz Filtering Fizzes Out?
Recent reports suggest that the Australian Government's plan for ISP based internet filtering may never come to fruition. Independent Senator Nick Xenophon has now stated that he will oppose any legislation that the Government introduces because the filtering proposal may have unintended negative consequences. Originally in favour of the program due to concerns about online gambling, Senator Xenophon now looks set to vote with the Greens against its introduction stating that the money could be better spent elsewhere. The Senator has suggested that there should be a greater effort to educate parents.
A recent survey conducted by Galaxy on behalf of Get Up suggested only 5% of Australians are in favour of the proposed filtering and only 4% think the Government should have control over the information available to users of the internet. In another survey conducted by Netspace 61% of Australians were strongly opposed to the filtering scheme with only 6.3% in favour.
The Australian Communitcation and Media Authority's blacklist is reported to currently contain 1370 sites, of which only 674 relate to depictions of children under 18. An additional 506 sites classified R18+ and X18+ would be blocked under the scheme with the Government looking to expand this to another 10,000 webpages to include sites "depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or 'revolting and abhorrent phenomena' that 'offend against the standards of morality'".
This is certainly encouraging news but as is often the case in the world of politics, nothing is certain until the votes have been cast. In recent weeks Senator Xenophon has used his position as the holder of the balance of power in the Senate to force changes to the Government's financial stimulus package and it is not beyond possibility that another round of legislative bargaining may begin with the filtering proposal. We will just have to wait and see how this unfolds over the coming months - in the meantime the Government is continuing with the filtering trials.
Earlier posts I have written on the filtering scheme can be found here and here and here. If you haven't already done so, please sign the GetUp online petition which is available on the left hand side of my weblog and which currently has 97,824 signatures.
Further Reading
ZeroPaid, Aussie Internet Censorship Plans Scuttled (27 February 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/10033/Aussie+Internet+Censorship+Plans+Scuttled> at 1 March 2009
ArsTechnica, Key backer's change of heart endangers Aussie 'Net filtering (26 February 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/02/key-backers-change-of-heart-endangers-aussie-net-filtering.ars> at 27 February 2009
Sydney Morning Herald, Web censorship plan heads towards a dead end (26 February 2009) <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/02/26/1235237810486.html> at 27 February 2009
A recent survey conducted by Galaxy on behalf of Get Up suggested only 5% of Australians are in favour of the proposed filtering and only 4% think the Government should have control over the information available to users of the internet. In another survey conducted by Netspace 61% of Australians were strongly opposed to the filtering scheme with only 6.3% in favour.
The Australian Communitcation and Media Authority's blacklist is reported to currently contain 1370 sites, of which only 674 relate to depictions of children under 18. An additional 506 sites classified R18+ and X18+ would be blocked under the scheme with the Government looking to expand this to another 10,000 webpages to include sites "depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or 'revolting and abhorrent phenomena' that 'offend against the standards of morality'".
This is certainly encouraging news but as is often the case in the world of politics, nothing is certain until the votes have been cast. In recent weeks Senator Xenophon has used his position as the holder of the balance of power in the Senate to force changes to the Government's financial stimulus package and it is not beyond possibility that another round of legislative bargaining may begin with the filtering proposal. We will just have to wait and see how this unfolds over the coming months - in the meantime the Government is continuing with the filtering trials.
Earlier posts I have written on the filtering scheme can be found here and here and here. If you haven't already done so, please sign the GetUp online petition which is available on the left hand side of my weblog and which currently has 97,824 signatures.
Further Reading
ZeroPaid, Aussie Internet Censorship Plans Scuttled (27 February 2009) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/10033/Aussie+Internet+Censorship+Plans+Scuttled> at 1 March 2009
ArsTechnica, Key backer's change of heart endangers Aussie 'Net filtering (26 February 2009) <http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/02/key-backers-change-of-heart-endangers-aussie-net-filtering.ars> at 27 February 2009
Sydney Morning Herald, Web censorship plan heads towards a dead end (26 February 2009) <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/02/26/1235237810486.html> at 27 February 2009
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Stop the Clean Feed
Great news from Get Up - they have more than 55,000 signatures for their Save the Net Campaign. There are also nationwide protests planned for Saturday 13th December 2008.
Melbourne Protest
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Time: 12:00pm - 4:00pm
Location: Outside the State Library, corner of Swanston St and La Trobe St.
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=46838735931
Brisbane Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Time: 11:00am - 3:00pm
Location: Brisbane Square
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=42526399601
Sydney Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Town Hall Square, George Street
Time: 11:00am - 3:00pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=49916537640
Adelaide Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Parliament House
Time: 12:00pm - 4:00pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39343300875
Hobart Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Parliament Lawns
Time: 11:00am - 1:30pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39329861995
Perth Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Stirling Gardens
Time: 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=45738419714
You can find out more and volunteer to help at: http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com/
Melbourne Protest
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Time: 12:00pm - 4:00pm
Location: Outside the State Library, corner of Swanston St and La Trobe St.
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=46838735931
Brisbane Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Time: 11:00am - 3:00pm
Location: Brisbane Square
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=42526399601
Sydney Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Town Hall Square, George Street
Time: 11:00am - 3:00pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=49916537640
Adelaide Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Parliament House
Time: 12:00pm - 4:00pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39343300875
Hobart Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Parliament Lawns
Time: 11:00am - 1:30pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39329861995
Perth Protest:
Date: Saturday 13th of December
Location: Stirling Gardens
Time: 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=45738419714
You can find out more and volunteer to help at: http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com/
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Get Up - Save the Internet Campaign
Great news this week that the Greens appear determined to vote against the proposed mandatory ISP filtering that the Government is trying to introduce. Of course they do not hold the balance of power completely so more work needs to be done to ensure that this draconian regulation is not implemented.
Get Up are running a Save the Net campaign. I urge everyone to sign the petition and send it on to all of your friends and family and encourage them to get involved. As the material on the GetUp website explains, mandatory ISP level filtering will slow up internet speeds by up to 87%, will block 1 in 12 legitimate sites and will miss much of the inappropriate content - especially the 60% of traffic from peer to peer sites. It is completely unnecessary, expensive and ineffective to filter the internet in this way. Have your say today and do what you can to stop the Government from introducing the worst internet access in the world outside of China.
You can also write to Stephen Conroy (as I already have - see here and here) and express your concerns directly:
More Information
Get Up, Save the Net <http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442> at 26 November 2008
News.com.au, Greens Could Block Plans for Internet Filter (25 November 2008) <http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24703499-5014239,00.html> at 25 November 2008
ZeroPaid, Australian Web Filter to Block More than 10,000 Unwanted Sites (14 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9842/Australian+Web+Filter+to+Block+More+than+10%2C000+%27Unwanted%27+Sites> at 26 November 2008
ZeroPaid, Australian ISP Agrees to 'Ridiculous' Net-Filter Trial to Prove 'How Stupid It Is' (12 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9838/Australian+ISP+Agrees+to+%27Ridiculous%27+Net-Filter+Trial+to+Prove+%27How+Stupid+it+Is%27> at 26 November 2008
The Register, Is the Internet Going Down Down Under (5 November 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/05/aussie_internet/> at 26 November 2008
ZeroPaid, Australian Govt's Plans to Censor the Internet is Stricter than Iran (24 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9821/Australian+Govt%27s+Plan+to+Censor+the+Internet+is+%27Stricter+than+Iran%27> at 26 November 2008
ArsTechnica, 'Net Filters "required" for all Australians, No Opt Out (16 October 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-net-filters-required-for-all-australians-no-opt-out.html> at 26 November 2008
TechDirt, Australian Internet Filters Have No Real Opt-Out; Only Opt-In to Fewer Filters (13 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/1135502530.shtml> at 26 November 2008
The Australian, Net Censorship to Cost Users (5 August 2008) <http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24128728-15306,00.html> at 26 November 2008
Get Up are running a Save the Net campaign. I urge everyone to sign the petition and send it on to all of your friends and family and encourage them to get involved. As the material on the GetUp website explains, mandatory ISP level filtering will slow up internet speeds by up to 87%, will block 1 in 12 legitimate sites and will miss much of the inappropriate content - especially the 60% of traffic from peer to peer sites. It is completely unnecessary, expensive and ineffective to filter the internet in this way. Have your say today and do what you can to stop the Government from introducing the worst internet access in the world outside of China.
You can also write to Stephen Conroy (as I already have - see here and here) and express your concerns directly:
Senator, The Hon. Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
More Information
Get Up, Save the Net <http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442> at 26 November 2008
News.com.au, Greens Could Block Plans for Internet Filter (25 November 2008) <http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24703499-5014239,00.html> at 25 November 2008
ZeroPaid, Australian Web Filter to Block More than 10,000 Unwanted Sites (14 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9842/Australian+Web+Filter+to+Block+More+than+10%2C000+%27Unwanted%27+Sites> at 26 November 2008
ZeroPaid, Australian ISP Agrees to 'Ridiculous' Net-Filter Trial to Prove 'How Stupid It Is' (12 November 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9838/Australian+ISP+Agrees+to+%27Ridiculous%27+Net-Filter+Trial+to+Prove+%27How+Stupid+it+Is%27> at 26 November 2008
The Register, Is the Internet Going Down Down Under (5 November 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/05/aussie_internet/> at 26 November 2008
ZeroPaid, Australian Govt's Plans to Censor the Internet is Stricter than Iran (24 October 2008) <http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9821/Australian+Govt%27s+Plan+to+Censor+the+Internet+is+%27Stricter+than+Iran%27> at 26 November 2008
ArsTechnica, 'Net Filters "required" for all Australians, No Opt Out (16 October 2008) <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-net-filters-required-for-all-australians-no-opt-out.html> at 26 November 2008
TechDirt, Australian Internet Filters Have No Real Opt-Out; Only Opt-In to Fewer Filters (13 October 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/1135502530.shtml> at 26 November 2008
The Australian, Net Censorship to Cost Users (5 August 2008) <http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24128728-15306,00.html> at 26 November 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
ISP Filtering in Australia
I wrote earlier this year about the Australian Governments proposed ISP filtering scheme and out lined a number of very good reasons as to why this is extremely bad policy. Yesterday, over six months after I wrote to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, I received an unsatisfactory response.
The letter states:
A key part of the Government’s plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of ISP level filtering. Filtering would cover illegal and prohibited content using an expanded ACMA black list of prohibited sites, which includes images of the sexual abuse of children.
Consideration is being given to more sophisticated filtering techniques for those families who wish to exclude other online content.
The Government’s ISP filtering policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including an AMCA laboratory trial, extensive industry consultation, and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia. A real world ‘live’ pilot involving ISPs and their customers will follow the laboratory trial.
The Government is committed to working closely with the industry to address any concerns, including costs and internet speeds. These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will inform the Government’s cyber-safety policy.
To comment on these statements – firstly the government’s ISP filtering plan will not make children safer. As I outlined both in my letter to the Minister and the related blog post, filtering is an imperfect technology, there are many ways for content producers to get around the attempts to restrict material and any filtering scheme will simply initiate an arms race where each side will constantly try out do the other. This leads to enormous ongoing maintenance costs which in the end will be put back on the consumer without ever achieving the desired results.
The second of the above paragraphs provides further concern. Whilst the Government to date has not gone down the path of filtering content other than that which is deemed offensive, the prospect of filtering other content raises serious questions. Filtering in any form posses a significant threat to free speech, diversity, neutrality and democracy.
It is interesting that the Government refers to the process as being ‘informed and considered’ particularly as previous inquiries on exactly the same topic found that ISP level filtering was ineffective, expensive and ultimately unjustified. A real space trial proposed by the Howard Government was abandoned after the major telecommunications carriers refused to participate.
Further statements from Senator Conroy’s letter do little to ease my concerns:
The Government regards freedom of speech as very important and the Government’s cyber-safety policy is in no way designed to curtail this...
[W]hile the internet has created substantial benefits for children, it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to offensive content. As such parents rightly expect the Government to play its part in the protection of children online.
The Government’s actions and policy do very little to reflect a genuine concern for free speech. Regardless of how the try to justify it on this occasion, it nonetheless remains the first step on a slippery slope to censorship.
Furthermore, attempting to use parental concerns as the basis for introducing ISP filtering is erroneous. The most recent survey on this matter, conducted by the Government’s own Australian Communications and Media Authority, found that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children’s safety on the internet. Reponses suggested a range of techniques being implemented including keeping computers in open spaces in their house, reviewing the history of web pages visited, sitting with and monitoring their children’s use and browser filtering.
It seems more likely to me that the Government made a rash and sensationalistic policy statement during the election designed to secure the votes of swinging conservatives. One can only question whether, in the face of an adverse report on this proposal out of their own inquiry, the Government would have the strength to resist the pull of a minority of conservative voters.
Further Reading
ABC News, Govt sticks to guns on internet porn filters (6 March 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/06/2181828.htm> at 26 June 2008
Australian Media and Communications Authority, Media and Communications in Australian Families (17 December 2007) <http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310893> at 10 March 2008
The letter states:
A key part of the Government’s plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of ISP level filtering. Filtering would cover illegal and prohibited content using an expanded ACMA black list of prohibited sites, which includes images of the sexual abuse of children.
Consideration is being given to more sophisticated filtering techniques for those families who wish to exclude other online content.
The Government’s ISP filtering policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including an AMCA laboratory trial, extensive industry consultation, and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia. A real world ‘live’ pilot involving ISPs and their customers will follow the laboratory trial.
The Government is committed to working closely with the industry to address any concerns, including costs and internet speeds. These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will inform the Government’s cyber-safety policy.
To comment on these statements – firstly the government’s ISP filtering plan will not make children safer. As I outlined both in my letter to the Minister and the related blog post, filtering is an imperfect technology, there are many ways for content producers to get around the attempts to restrict material and any filtering scheme will simply initiate an arms race where each side will constantly try out do the other. This leads to enormous ongoing maintenance costs which in the end will be put back on the consumer without ever achieving the desired results.
The second of the above paragraphs provides further concern. Whilst the Government to date has not gone down the path of filtering content other than that which is deemed offensive, the prospect of filtering other content raises serious questions. Filtering in any form posses a significant threat to free speech, diversity, neutrality and democracy.
It is interesting that the Government refers to the process as being ‘informed and considered’ particularly as previous inquiries on exactly the same topic found that ISP level filtering was ineffective, expensive and ultimately unjustified. A real space trial proposed by the Howard Government was abandoned after the major telecommunications carriers refused to participate.
Further statements from Senator Conroy’s letter do little to ease my concerns:
The Government regards freedom of speech as very important and the Government’s cyber-safety policy is in no way designed to curtail this...
[W]hile the internet has created substantial benefits for children, it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to offensive content. As such parents rightly expect the Government to play its part in the protection of children online.
The Government’s actions and policy do very little to reflect a genuine concern for free speech. Regardless of how the try to justify it on this occasion, it nonetheless remains the first step on a slippery slope to censorship.
Furthermore, attempting to use parental concerns as the basis for introducing ISP filtering is erroneous. The most recent survey on this matter, conducted by the Government’s own Australian Communications and Media Authority, found that parents were overwhelmingly satisfied with their children’s safety on the internet. Reponses suggested a range of techniques being implemented including keeping computers in open spaces in their house, reviewing the history of web pages visited, sitting with and monitoring their children’s use and browser filtering.
It seems more likely to me that the Government made a rash and sensationalistic policy statement during the election designed to secure the votes of swinging conservatives. One can only question whether, in the face of an adverse report on this proposal out of their own inquiry, the Government would have the strength to resist the pull of a minority of conservative voters.
Further Reading
ABC News, Govt sticks to guns on internet porn filters (6 March 2008) <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/06/2181828.htm> at 26 June 2008
Australian Media and Communications Authority, Media and Communications in Australian Families (17 December 2007) <http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310893> at 10 March 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Porn Filtering
I didn’t really want to stray from discussing material relating to copyright/music/technology but I just read this article (Govt sticks to guns on internet porn filters) and it so incensed me that I feel the need to respond to it.
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
