[LINK] Oz: 'Labor online strategy slammed'

[Roger Clarke]

Labor online strategy slammed
The Australian
Galen English
January 02, 2008
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22997280-15306,00.html

[27 comments by mid-afternoon]

opinion

IT SOUNDS entirely defensible, at first. The federal Government plans 
to protect unwary children by blocking violence and pornography on 
the internet.

Yet this simple sounding initiative - barely discussed during the 
election - is riddled with technical, financial, moral and social 
complexities.

The Government's plan, overseen by Communications Minister Stephen 
Conroy, would require internet service providers (ISPs) to block 
undesirable sites on computers accessed by all Australians.

A seething Dr Roger Clarke, chair of the Australian Privacy 
Foundation, bluntly described the proposal as "stupid and 
inappropriate".

He said not only was it unworkable, but it was a sinister blow to an 
individual's rights to use the internet without censorship.

"Not only will it not work, it is quite dangerous to let the 
Government censor the net and take control out of the hands of 
parents," Clarke said.

"It is an inappropriate thing for them to be doing. Mr Conroy is like 
a schoolmaster playing god with the Australian population, all 
because of the dominance of a moral minority."

Conroy's view is that the legislation - compared by critics to 
Chinese-style internet censorship - will only render unseen the most 
vile and extreme sites.

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation on 
the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Conroy said.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, 
then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."

One problem for the Government is that blocking child porn may 
unintentionally block acceptable sites.

The history of the internet is full of such examples; one blogger 
found that, due to spamware set to block ads for sex drug Cialis, he 
was unable to publish the word "socialist".

Another problem, according to civil libertarians, is that policing 
the net should be left to parents - not a big brother-style 
bureaucracy.

And, if it is disingenuous to compare Labor's policy to China's 
malevolent control over web access to its citizens, it is equally 
disingenuous of Rudd's Government to claim the issue simply relates 
to child pornography.

There are genuine concerns that the Government - backed by morals 
groups like Family First - will in time extend the powers outside of 
their intended target area.

Also of concern is that, under the Government's plan, users would be 
permitted to "opt out" of the scheme - and might therefore find 
themselves listed as possible deviants.

Service providers fear any legislation would be "the thin end of the 
wedge", heralding widespread censorship. Besides, what evidence is 
there that young children using the web are regularly stumbling 
across child pornography?

Sites used by paedophiles are well hidden and frequently relocated to 
avoid detection.

On a practical level, ISPs fear the mass blocking of sites could slow 
internet speeds and cost millions of dollars to implement.

Crucially, the Government has not explained how such a system would 
be paid for or who would monitor it.

The truth is, despite the policy having been part of Labor's 
manifesto since 2005, and following claims the Government is "engaged 
constructively with the sector", no one has the faintest idea how 
such a system would work.

It is expected any future filtered feeds would be based on a current 
voluntary UK system operated by British Telecom.

Sites identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority 
(ACMA) would be "blacklisted" and then blocked by the servers.

The ability for download speeds to be maintained would depend on the 
exact number of sites blocked - it is suspected around 2000 sites 
could cause problems.

A user typing in the address would be sent to an error page or 
possibly - as in Scandinavia - redirected to a police page.

However, ISPs fear a system based on key indicator words could 
rapidly clog the system.

In the UK the Internet Watch Foundation has its encrypted list of 
1200 paedophile and race-hate sites updated twice a day.

Even still, it is unlikely to deter computer savvy paedophiles here 
from simply relocating their sites or from swapping pictures on 
message boards or in forums, thus rendering any filter impotent.

So far the industry, although eager not to be seen to be dragging 
their feet on child pornography, has been noticeably reticent in 
their response to Labor's plans.

Internet Industry Association spokesman Peter Coroneos was keen to 
emphasise the work already being done by service providers in 
supplying free filters.

They are likely to clarify their position after ACMA runs simulated 
tests on a filtered network later this year.

"We obviously want to know if this will have an impact on network 
performance," Coroneos said.

"At the moment we don't know what the extent of it will be, what it 
will cost, and whether it will set a precedent for other changes. We 
just don't know if it is feasible."


-- 
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