[LINK] itNews - Classification Scheme Report

[Roger Clarke]

[As Irene suggests, the report is interestingly ambiguous, or is that 
'ambivalent'.  It will probably be subject to many interpretations.]


Law review proposes refined mandatory internet filter
James Hutchinson
Mar 1, 2012 6:03 PM (14 hours ago)
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/292258,law-review-proposes-refined-mandatory-internet-filter.aspx

The Federal Government agency tasked with reviewing the national 
classification system has recommended internet service providers be 
obliged to block a narrowly defined scope of 'prohibited' content on 
websites.

But the Government is not expected to make a decision on the 
recommendation - including its effect on the Government's mandatory 
internet filter proposal - for at least a month.

The highly anticipated 393-page report, submitted on Tuesday to 
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and made public today, recommended the 
Federal Government replace the current classification system.

It proposed new legislation that provided for classification and 
regulation of media regardless of technology or platform in order to 
avoid "inconsistencies manifest under the current scheme".

It would be administered by a new regulator encompassing the current 
duties of several government bodies.

Importantly, it recommended the Government provide for a new, 
'prohibited' classification encompassing content that 'promotes, 
incites or instructs in matters of crime' to 'serious crime'.

Under the commission's recommendation, this would replace the highly 
contentious 'refused classification' category.

The recommendations include a push for content provides not to "sell, 
screen, provide online, or otherwise distribute prohibited content" 
but the proposal would require content be classified before an 
internet take-down notice was issue or charges laid.

It did not explicitly make a recommendation on the Federal 
Government's mandatory internet filter but suggested such a filter 
may be restricted to content defined as 'sufficiently serious'.

"Given the volume of prohibited content on the internet, if ISPs were 
required mandatorily to filter prohibited content, the Regulator may 
recommend that particular subcategories of Prohibited content will be 
prioritised," the commission noted.

The ACMA has continued to maintain and add to a blacklist of websites 
that contain refused classification material under current 
definitions, with the list of sites believed to stretch beyond 2000.

Under the ALRC recommendations, such a filter would likely focus on 
content including child abuse, advocacy for terrorism and 'content 
that promotes or incites crime or violence'.

Filter smoking gun?

Home Affairs minister Jason Clare said in a statement that federal, 
state and territory governments could consider the recommendations 
before responding in full.

But statements from Clare and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy 
suggest the report will not be fully considered in light of the 
mandatory internet filter until the finalisation of the convergence 
review, which is set to finish next month.

The delay provides uncertainty as to the future of the 'refused 
classification' category, which has led to the prohibition of video 
games from sale in Australia in absence of an R18+ classification - 
currently under consideration in Parliament - while also forming the 
basis for the Government's initial proposal for service providers to 
impose a mandatory filter on Australian internet subscribers.

Anti-censorship campaigner and former Electronic Frontiers Australia 
director Irene Graham told iTnews the Federal Government would have 
to tread carefully in coming months to avoid upsetting state and 
territory governments.

Accepting the ALRC recommendations as worded in the report would 
require the Government to take responsibility for classification away 
from states and territories, a proposal vehemently opposed by the 
Victorian Government and Western Australian Attorney-General during 
the commission's public consultation phase.

"This report is not providing the Government with a simplistic way to 
quickly make a decision about refused classification or prohibited 
[classification] and then chuck legislation into Parliament," she 
said.

"They just can't do it quickly unless they're completely prepared to 
go it alone and upset the states and territories."

The mandatory filter proposal, first issued in 2009, was frozen 20 
months ago when Conroy announced the refused classification category 
would be reviewed before being implemented using the filter.

It was replaced temporarily by a new initiative that saw Telstra, 
Optus and CyberOne voluntarily impose a filter on users' internet 
services for only child pornography material.

Based on a 'worst of' list maintained by Interpol of some 400 
websites and monitored locally by the Australian Federal Police, that 
filter has seen a high number of redirects from users but is yet to 
expand beyond the initial three providers.

Senator Conroy said on Tuesday that the voluntary initiative had so 
far only been refused by one service provider, with which the 
government was currently in negotiations.

"Overwhelmingly Australians have not noticed any difference, any 
difference whatsoever [in its operation]," he said.

"I'm very, very excited that the industry has stepped forward. If we 
were to achieve an outcome where everyone actually introduces it 
themselves, well then that is the best possible outcome."

Updated 12.23am March 2: Clarified legislation for R18+ video games 
currently in Parliament.


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			            
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 the Faculty of Law               University of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University