The Australian internet censorship filter is [CONTENT REMOVED]

New to my blog? You may want to think about subscribing to be notified of new posts. Thanks for visiting!

Recently I wrote about the Australian Government's plan to introduce compulsory internet filtering and how it is unnecessary, expensive, impacts network speeds and the technology doesn't work anyway. In the last two weeks the issue has exploded among those in the IT sector. Here's an update.

The Facts

• The Australian Federal Government will provide $125.8 million over four years to establish the Cyber-Safety Plan.
• The plan calls for two levels of filtering to be implemented by internet service providers (eg Bigpond):
• a filter for material deemed unsuitable for children
• a filter for material deemed unsuitable for adults
• Both levels of filtering are to be active on all internet accounts in Australia
• It will be possible to opt-out of the children filter, but not the adult filter
• The previous Government provided free filtering software for families to download. Over 12 months, 140,000 users downloaded the software. Only 29,000 of these users were still using the software 3 weeks later after they had downloaded it
• Studies into the technological effectiveness of internet filtering have been commissioned by the Government and conducted by the CSIRO, http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0016/10915/Ovum_Report_-_Internet_content_filtering.rtf" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker('/file/br_/_http_//www.dbcde.gov.au/_data/assets/file/0016/10915/Ovum_Report_-_Internet_content_filtering.rtf');">Ovum, RMIT and Enex Testlab. All the studies concluded that filtering technology:
• slows down Internet access
• inaccurately blocks content which should not be blocked
• inaccurately fails to block content which should be blocked
• fails to accurately distinguish between legal and illegal content even when specifically configured with lists of illegal content under laboratory conditions
• Neither filter will be capable of censoring material passing through peer-to-peer networks (eg BitTorrent), which account for over 60% of all internet traffic

Why all the fuss?

I have no objection to the Government wanting to restrict access to illegal materials such as child pornography. What I object to is the way the issue is being handled by the Government, particularly Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Specifically, my objections are:

1. The Government has not demonstrated a need for mandatory internet filtering.
2. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has repeatedly said publicly that his Government will be about 'evidence-based policy'. The evidence says the technology is unnecessary, expensive and doesn't work, but this is being ignored.
3. Attempts by industry experts, Senate colleagues and private citizens to ask for more detail about the Government's plans are met with bullying from Sen. Conroy and claims those who object support child pornography.
4. There is to be no facility to opt-out of the filtering.

I wrote a letter to Senator Conroy on October 11 2008 outlining my concerns, to which I have not yet received a reply.

Ben Grubb (an 18-year-old IT professional and amateur podcaster on the Sunshine Coast) interviewed Senator Conroy's media representative Tim Marshall on October 17, who said those who oppose mandatory internet filtering have 'extreme views' and are not too interested in the facts. Marshall declined to provide any more detail about the plan but said there would be a press release in the 'near future'. So far that is yet to materialise.

Listen to the interview or read the transcript here.

When did this suddenly become a huge issue?

Senator Conroy's media rep's character smears are mostly directed at Mark Newton, a well-respected network engineer at Internode, who posted details of the proposed internet filtering plan on the popular Whirlpool site. Since then a firestorm has erupted and the entire tech community is up in arms.

Mark was speaking as an everyday citizen in his post, and was highly critical of the filtering plan. Senator Conroy's policy advisor Belinda Dennett then proceeded to engage in bullying by pressuring him through his employer and board members of the Internet Industry Association.

Mark Newton has since become even more vocal about the issue and has written a letter to his local MP Kate Ellis which is probably the most simple and concise explanation of the issue I've seen yet. As another IT professional pointed out, perhaps the single best part of that letter is this paragraph:

The image of technologically-disconnected parents floundering helplessly in a sea of pornography as they fail to adequately raise their children is a reflection of the appalling lack of Internet-savviness of our politicians, not society at large.

Politicians assume that parents are ignorant about the Internet because politicians are ignorant. Yet parents came to grips with it years ago; the last remaining social group in our country who expresses difficulty with the Internet appears to be baby-boomer Federal politicians, whose child-rearing days are mostly well behind them.

Read Mark's full letter here.

Senator Conroy was questioned extensively about the filtering plan in Senate Estimates on October 20 by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. Conroy's responses to Ludlam's entirely reasonable questions were petty and defensive, and he accused Ludlam of wanting to give people access to child pornography. Ludlam's questions included asking what material would be deemed unacceptable, what benchmarks would be set for accuracy of the filtering, what the arrangements are of other countries who engage in filtering and what are the criteria for success.

The transcript of this questioning is available through the Hansard. There is also an edited version with commentary available at the Somebody Think of the Children site.

Why is the Government so intent on filtering?

All the evidence on internet filtering says embarking on a mandatory national progam is a fool's errand. The previous Government reached that conclusion. The other countries that have it (with the exception of China) do so under a voluntary basis. Many people are of the opinion the Government's motives are purely political.

Labor are 7 seats short of a majority in the Senate. To pass legislation, they need the support of the 5 Greens Senators, Senator Stephen Fielding of Family First and independent Senator Nick Xenophon. It's either that or work with the Coalition.

Some believe that the internet filter is a policy bone thrown to Fielding (who was elected with less than 2% of the primary vote) and Xenophon, who are supporters of the plan, to help get support for more difficult legislation in the future. If so, it seems that's a plan that's going to backfire in a big way.

What next?

For the moment we're waiting to see what the response from Conroy and Co. will be. So far they have displayed an arrogance that suggests the public will be overwhelmingly on their side on this issue and they do not have to worry about those with 'extreme views' who question the wisdom of their endeavour.

In the wake of the fury they have unleashed so far, they may well reconsider. If they persist, they will have a fight on their hands.

Tagged as: censorship