Australian Internet Filtering Proceeding - We Have Some Issues
By Ben Salter
The Australia Federal Government last night announced (via news.com.au) that it will go ahead with its controversial Internet filtering scheme. They have concluded from the trial, which we’ve heard little about, that the filter works "with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed". However, those heavily involved with the Internet world beg to differ, suggesting it will block a range of legitimate sites, and slow down our already behind the western world Internet speeds.
If you missed out on all the fuss a couple of months back, the filter will require all ISPs to block content that is refused classification (RC) when legislation is passed next year. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says RC content includes "child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence and the detailed instruction of crime and drug use". I think I speak for all of us when I say we’re more than happy for such content to be made unavailable to Australians. Some of it’s flat out disturbing, and it’s not exactly comforting knowing someone can google tips on bomb making. If it stopped there we’d have no problem with it, but unfortunately completely legit sites are likely to get caught in the firing line.
Back in March a list of 1000 blacklisted sites, to be used in the trial, was leaked to the public. The list included perfectly innocent YouTube videos, Wikipedia entries, religious sites, poker games, and even a tourist and dentist website. In other words the censor did not work, and blocked sites it should not have.
There was also the issue of legal adult sites being blacklisted. While they may not appeal to everyone, they are perfectly legal. Referring to everything that was blocked, Mr Conroy said "It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material." In a way this takes us back to the R18+ videogames rating debacle. While he was referring to the illegal content mentioned earlier, does the government care if it means we lose legal content that is designed for adults only? While it won’t block all legal porn and online poker sites, is it fair that in a free country the government is able to dictate which lawful sites we can and cannot visit just because they’re rushing into a filtering scheme that does not work flawlessly, no matter what they claim? It’s exactly the same with an adults only rating for videogames, surely it’s the parents job to protect their children from such horrid content, they could opt in! Kevin Rudd did propose that there would be a two-tier system that would include opting in for the second level; with the announcement yesterday we didn’t hear anything about that. Does it still exist?
Maybe it’s a little harsh to use the term “dictate” in there, but with mandatory Internet filtering expect the comparisons to come. Australia will be placed alongside 15 other Western democratic nations that have, or will have, ISP filters. They include Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Germany and The Netherlands, but with one key difference; they are all voluntary. That’s what we want! If parents want to protect their children from absolutely everything they can opt in. Meanwhile the rest of us don’t have to worry about perfectly legitimate sites, including family friendly ones, being caught up in this mess.
The biggest problem we have is who exactly makes this blacklist? The ACMA did it last time, and clearly not very well. All we know currently is that the list will be created and maintained by an “independent body.” Who is that, exactly? Knowing a majority of the Internet community wouldn’t take kindly to the announcement a public discussion paper has been released. What it actually achieves is another story, but at least they are trying to make it look like we have a say. For the record, we say no, at least until it works 100% flawlessly, which includes losing absolutely no speed. If that can’t happen, don’t make it mandatory.
"Given the pilot's modest goals, it was designed from the beginning to pass," said EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs, against the filtering system. With a limited trial list, and only a handful of Australians participating, the EFA have argued that the trial was designed to pass, but will collapse when it is implemented for everyone. The “pass” diagnosis seems to have ignored the fact that the filter blocked a vast range of sites that should have remained available. Putting that aside, it didn’t impact too much on speed. However, that’s more than likely going to change outside of the trial containment, when it tackles the entire Internet with a much larger blacklist.
Is the government rushing in to this? Or should we even have it at all?
Tags:
australia
filtering
ICC
Internet
ISP
R18+