[LINK] NYT: 'Proposed Web Filter Criticized in Australia'
Roger Clarke
Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Fri Dec 12 15:41:22 AEDT 2008
[Is this *really* the kind of headlines Conroy wants to make?]
Proposed Web Filter Criticized in Australia
The New York Times
By MERAIAH FOLEY
Published: December 11, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/technology/internet/12cyber.html
SYDNEY - The Australian government plans to test a nationwide Web
filtering system that would force Internet service providers to block
access to thousands of sites containing questionable or illegal
content, prompting cries of censorship from advocacy groups.
The proposed filter is part of a $82 million "cybersafety plan"
started in May with the goals of protecting children online and
stopping adults from downloading content that is illegal to possess
in Australia, like child pornography or materials related to
terrorism.
But the plan has ignited opposition from online advocacy groups and
industry specialists who say it would slow browsing speeds and do
little to block undesirable content.
Last month, the minister of communications, Stephen Conroy, invited
Internet service providers and mobile phone operators to participate
in a live trial of the program, which is set to begin this year.
The proposed system consists of two tiers. Under the first, all
Australian service providers must block access to around 10,000 Web
sites on a list maintained by the Australian Communications and Media
Authority, the federal monitor that oversees film classifications.
The second tier would require service providers to provide an
optional filter that individuals could use to block material deemed
unsuitable for children, like pornography or violence.
The government says the list, which is not available to the public,
includes only illegal content, mostly child pornography. But critics
worry about the lack of transparency and say the filter could be used
to block a range of morally hazy topics, like gambling or euthanasia.
"Even if the scheme is introduced with the best of intentions, there
will be enormous political pressure on the government to expand the
list," said Colin Jacobs, the vice chairman of Electronic Frontiers
Australia, a technology advocacy group. "We worry that the scope of
the list would expand at a very rapid rate."
The proposal has set off a flurry of anxious chatter on social
networking sites like Facebook, where thousands of users have
announced plans to attend mass protests on Saturday. More than 85,000
users have also signed an online petition created by the left-wing
advocacy group GetUp, which calls the mandatory filter "a serious
threat to our democratic values."
Some industry specialists have also criticized the plan.
"Our view is there are some serious shortfalls in what is being
proposed," said Mark White, the chief operating officer at iiNet,
Australia's third-largest service provider, which has applied to take
part in the trial.
Mr. White said the mandatory filter was unlikely to work because it
would not monitor illegal activity on peer-to-peer or file-sharing
networks, where most child pornography and other illegal content is
exchanged. The filter would also slow Internet browsing speeds for
all regardless of whether they were trying to access forbidden sites,
he said.
This concern has been affirmed by the government's own research.
According to a July report by the communications and media authority,
the best filter in tests of six unidentified Internet filtering
programs slowed browsing speeds by 2 percent; the other five made the
Internet run between 22 and 87 percent slower.
The study found that filtering programs were effective at blocking
illicit material around 92 percent of the time, but around 3 percent
of legitimate sites were mistakenly caught up in the filters.
Australia's largest service provider, Telstra, has also expressed
doubts about the plan. The firm's chief operating officer, Greg Winn,
said last week that using service provider filters to stop illicit
content was "like trying to boil the ocean." As soon as the filter
was applied, he said, someone would find a way to break it.
Clive Hamilton, a senior ethics professor at the Australian National
University and a supporter of the plan, dismissed the arguments.
[As far as I can see from the ANU web-site, Hamilton is a tenant in a
University building]
"The laws that mandate upper speed limits do not stop people from
speeding, does that mean that we should not have those laws?" he
said. "We live in a society, and societies have always imposed limits
on activities that it deems are damaging." he said. "There is nothing
sacrosanct about the Internet."
The children's welfare group, ChildWise, has also defended the plan,
saying filtering of child pornography would be "a victory for common
sense."
Mr. Conroy says he and the government are open to feedback from
Internet industry groups and the public. On Tuesday, the minister
introduced a blog seeking comment on Australia's digital future,
including a string on how to "maintain the same 'civil society' we
enjoy offline in an online world."
In an e-mail message, Mr. Conroy said the government was taking note
of the industry's concerns about the technical limitations of the
proposed filter. He added that the trial would provide "an invaluable
opportunity for I.S.P.'s style to inform the government's approach."
--
Roger Clarke http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of NSW
More information about the Link
mailing list