[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