Australian censorship

[Varaj]

So how bad is it? Most of the stuff I've read so far seems pretty inflammatory. Any perspective from folks that live there?

The Federal Government is attempting to silence critics of its controversial plan to censor the internet, which experts say will break the internet while doing little to stop people from accessing illegal material such as child pornography.

Internet providers and the government's own tests have found that presently available filters are not capable of adequately distinguishing between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up to 86 per cent.

Documents obtained by Fairfax Media show the office of the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, tried to bully ISP staff into suppressing their criticisms of the plan.

Senator Conroy has since last year's election victory remained tight-lipped on the specifics of his $44.2 million policy but, grilled by a Senate Estimates committee this week, he said the Government was looking at forcing ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.

The first tier, which internet users would not be able to opt out of, would block all "illegal material". Senator Conroy has previously said Australians would be able to opt out of any filters to obtain "uncensored access to the internet".

The second tier, which is optional, would filter out content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography.

But neither filter tier will be capable of censoring content obtained over peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which account for an estimated 60 per cent of internet traffic.

Senator Conroy said Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand had all implemented similar filtering systems. However, in all cases, participation by ISPs was optional and the filtering was limited in scope to predominantly child pornography.

Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."

Critics of the ISP-level filtering plan say software filters installed by the user on their PC, which are already provided by the government for free at netalert.gov.au, are more than adequate.

Mark Newton, an engineer at Internode, has heavily criticised the Government and its filtering policy on the Whirlpool broadband community forum, going as far as saying it would enable child abuse.

He said the plan would inevitably result in significant false positives and degrade internet speeds tremendously. Those views were subsequently widely reported by technology media and blogs.

Although Newton identified himself as an employee of Internode - as Whirlpool's rules stipulate - he always maintained his views were personal opinions and not necessarily shared by the company.

On Tuesday, a policy advisor for Senator Conroy, Belinda Dennett, wrote an email to Internet Industry Association (IIA) board member Carolyn Dalton in an attempt to pressure Newton into reining in his dissent.

"In your capacity as a board member of the IIA I would like to express my serious concern that a IIA member would be sending out this sort of message. I have also advised [IIA chief executive] Peter Coroneos of my disappointment in this sort of irresponsible behaviour ," the email, read.

It is understood the email was accompanied by a phone call demanding that the message be passed on to senior Internode management.

Newton said he found the bullying "outrageous" and Senator Conroy was "misusing his influence as a Commonwealth Minister to intimidate a private dissenting citizen into silencing his political views".

A spokesman for Senator Conroy said Newton's accusation that the Government was promoting child abuse was "disappointing and irresponsible". He said the purpose of the email was "to establish whether Mr Newton's views were consistent with the IIA position".

Ironically, Senator Conroy has himself accused critics of his filtering policy of supporting child pornography - including Greens Senator Scott Ludlam in Senate Estimates this week.

ACMA released a report in July detailing the results of laboratory tests of six unnamed ISP-level filters.

Only one of the filters tested resulted in an acceptable speed reduction of 2 per cent or less. The others caused drops in speed between 21 per cent and 86 per cent.

The tests showed the more accurate the filtering, the bigger the impact on network performance.

However, none of the filters were completely accurate. They allowed access to between 2 per cent and 13 per cent of material that should have been blocked, and wrongly blocked between 1.3 per cent and 7.8 per cent of websites that should have been allowed.

"Why would you want to damage the performance and utility of the internet and not actually keep the bad stuff out anyway," said John Lindsay, carrier relations manager at Internode.

In Senate Estimates, Senator Ludlam expressed concern that all sorts of politically-sensitive material could be added to the block list and otherwise legitimate sites - for example, YouTube - could be rendered inaccessible based on content published by users.

"The black list ... can become very grey depending on how expansive the list becomes - euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet," he said.

Despite this, the Government - which distanced itself from the tests by saying they were initiated by the previous government - is pressing ahead with live trials of the filtering system and will shortly seek expressions of interest from ISPs keen to participate.

Here (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/technology/labors-web-gag-worse-than-iran/2008/10/23/1224351491889.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

[cnath.rm]

Damn!!! http://www.comicguide.net/images/smilies/wow2.gif Is it wrong for me to hope that neither of our main political parties here in the US hear about this idea?

[Atropine Mama]

When are people going to learn this lesson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms8KUs1BV0I

Censorship is stupid, mmmmkay?

And you gotta love the whole "We're going to nuke the planet to destroy child porn!" "No! That's ludicrous! It won't even work! The roaches have file sharing!" "You support child porn, you sicko!" approach.

[Black Angel]

I have to say, it's not something that's very present in the media over here right now (at least that I'm aware of). Our major concern, like the rest of the world, is the financial crisis. The only 'child pornography' issues I recall from the last little while are an artist who displayed some contraversial pictures, and some massive arrests from a world-wide sting. But they were both a couple of months ago...

Edit: Although I don't watch a lot of news or surf the news sites, so take my comments for what they're worth...

[Dacke]

The article mentioned that we have a filter here in Sweden, which is true. However, I think ours is different from what they're proposing. Ours is basically a modification of the DNSes "voluntarily" participating ISPs (as in "go along quietly or we'll make it a law") use, that sends requests for certain URLs to a police site that says "that URL is blocked."

The Swedish filter is supposed to be for child porn, but it's a bit overly large in scope. And of course, some people have tried expanding its scope to include things like The Pirate Bay, which created quite a bit of outrage.

[Pigs in Space]

Not to contradict my lovely wife, but being an engineer, in an office full of engineers, using the internet every day for work... we have been talking about this a lot between ourselves.

In fact... last week I sent this email to the office of Kate Ellis, who is our MP. She is part of the party perpetrating this uninformed travesty on us.

Dear Kate,

As you are my MP, I am sending this letter to you, although it concerns Senator Stephen Conroy - the Minister for Communications as well.

I am an IT professional, an Australian and an internet user. I have serious concerns about the new mandatory "clean feed" filter initiative.

The government should be acting to increase and protect our rights, and to modernize our broadband network, so Australian companies can compete on a fair playing field with international companies.
Currently, it seems labor is pursuing a policy that is ill-informed, and misguided.
The idea or placing a mandatory filter with "no opt out" on all internet connections in the entire country is a very poor one.

Lets be clear about this:

* This policy is nothing more than censorship - and we are not a dictatorship or police state. It is not the Government's role to decide what's appropriate for me or my children. That is my job.
* This will slow down the internet (reports say around a 75% speed decrease) in our country where we are already significantly behind much of the western world in broadband speeds.
* This will increase the costs of home internet access, in a country where internet penetration throughout the home should be fostered, not hindered.
* Most households do not have young children, so mandating a one-size-fits-all approach will not serve the public well.
* No software exists that can do what is proposed, and therefore whatever is implemented will have holes that will be exploited by the minority of offenders that this policy is targeted at.
* The Government will never be able to classify all pages on the internet, and will never be able to move fast enough to keep up with the dynamic nature of the internet to formulate policy and block sites.

This is in effect a huge waste of money, which will only hinder Australian businesses and internet users.

I urge you to bring these concerns to the Minister for Communications, and scrap this terrible idea.

sincerely,

Pigs in Space


And I got the following reply, which pretty much amounted to "don't worry, we're good at wasting money on things that 12 year olds will circumvent within a day of it going live":


Thank you for your email dated 20th October concerning internet service provider (ISP) filtering.



I am aware that the proposal for ISP filtering has attracted some criticism from those, like yourself, who are concerned that it will lead to censorship of the internet. However, the Australian Government has no plans to stop adults from viewing material that is currently legal, if they wish to view such material.



The Government regards freedom of speech as very important and the Government’s cyber-safety policy is in no way designed to curtail this.



The internet is an essential tool for all Australian children through which they can exchange information, be entertained, socialise and do school work and research. The ability to use online tools effectively provides both a skill for life and the means to acquire new skills.



However, while the internet has created substantial benefits for children it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to offensive content. As such, parents rightly expect the Government to play its part in the protection of children online.



The Government has committed $125.8 million over the next four years to a comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures, including law enforcement, filtering and education. Measures include:



· Australian Federal Police (AFP) Child Protection Operations Team - funding to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation;

· Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - funding to help deal with the increased activity resulting from the work of the AFP to ensure that prosecutions are handled quickly;

· ISP level filtering - funding to develop and implement ISP filtering, including undertaking a real world ‘live’ pilot;

· Education activities - funding to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to implement a comprehensive range of education activities;

· Websites / Online helpline - funding to ACMA to improve current Government
cyber-safety website resources and to make them easier for parents to use, and to provide up‑to‑date information. ACMA will also develop a children’s cyber-safety website to provide information specifically for children, and improve the online helpline to provide a quick and easy way for children to report online incidents that cause them concern;

· Consultative Working Group - funding for an expanded Consultative Working Group. The Group will consider the broad range of cyber-safety issues and advise the Government, to ensure properly developed and targeted policy initiatives;

· Youth Advisory Group - funding for a Youth Advisory Group which will provide advice to the Consultative Working Group on cyber-safety issues from a young person’s perspective; and

· Research - funding for ongoing research into the changing digital environment to identify issues and target future policy and funding.



These initiatives will tackle the issue of cyber-safety from a number of directions to help clean up the online environment and protect Australian children from the dangers of the internet now and into the future. This approach acknowledges the key role parents and carers have in the online safety of children and provides them with the necessary information to assist with this task. This initiative also recognises that there is no single solution to ensure children can access the internet safely.



A key part of the Government’s plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of ISP level filtering. The policy reflects our community’s growing belief that ISPs should take some responsibility for enabling the blocking of illegal material on the internet. Filtering would cover illegal and prohibited content using an expanded ACMA blacklist of prohibited sites, which includes images of the sexual abuse of children.



Consideration is being given to more sophisticated filtering techniques for those individual families who wish to exclude additional online content in their own homes.



The Government wants to ensure that Australian parents can access a ‘clean feed’ internet service. This will be informed by the technology adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Canada where ISP filtering, predominantly of child pornography, has been successfully introduced without affecting internet performance to a noticeable level.



The Government’s ISP filtering policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including industry consultation and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia.



ACMA recently completed an extensive laboratory trial of available ISP filtering technology. The trial looked specifically at the effect of a range of filter products on network performance, effectiveness in identifying and blocking illegal and inappropriate content, scope to filter non-web traffic, and the ability to customise the filter to the requirements of different end-users.



The laboratory trial indicated that ISP filtering products have developed in their effectiveness since they were last assessed in 2005. The Government will now proceed with a ‘live’ pilot in the second half of 2008 which will provide valuable information on the effectiveness and efficiency of filters installed in a ‘real world’ ISP network. An Expression of Interest will be released in due course seeking the participation of ISPs in the pilot.



The Government is committed to working closely with internet industries to address any concerns, including costs and internet speeds. These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will further inform the Government’s cyber‑safety policy.



Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I trust this information will be of assistance.

Yours sincerely


Kate Ellis MP

Member for Adelaide

[Pigs in Space]

Furthermore:

http://www.netalarmed.com/


And for action! :
http://nocleanfeed.com/index.html

[Varaj]

I'm angry reading that response from your MP and it doesn't directly impact me. :mad:

Isn't Australia pretty heavy handed censorship wise (by western standards) even outside this specific issue?

[Snatch]

This will be informed by the technology adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Canada where ISP filtering, predominantly of child pornography, has been successfully introduced without affecting internet performance to a noticeable level.

I wasn't aware we had anything in place like this.

[Snatch]

Huh. Apparently we do. (http://opennet.net/research/regions/namerica)

Many Canadian ISPs, however, have begun to filter content hosted outside of Canada despite regulatory uncertainty in the area. For three days in July 2005, the Canadian ISP Telus blocked access to a Web site run by members of the Telecommunication Workers Union during a labor dispute containing what Telus argued was proprietary information and photographs that threatened the security and privacy of its employees.10,11 This unilateral action by Telus broke the “cardinal rule” of Canadian ISPs—that they pass on any and all information without regard for content in exchange for immunity from liability over content. This action also conflicted with Section 36 of the Canadian Telecommunications Act, which states that, without the approval of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), a "Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public."12 Telus, however, argued that content filtering is permitted in the contract it holds with its subscribers, although, to the detriment of their argument, the blocking affected the customers of other ISPs that connect via Telus. The matter was resolved when, though the site was hosted in the United States,13 Telus was able to obtain court orders from Alberta and British Columbia requiring the Web site operator, who lives and works in Canada, to remove the offending materials.14

In August 2006 the Canadian human rights lawyer Richard Warman filed an application with the CRTC to authorize Canadian ISPs to block access to two hate speech sites hosted outside of Canada.15 The CRTC denied the application but the decision recognized that although the CRTC cannot require Canadian ISP’s to block content it can authorize them to do. However, the CRTC noted that the “scope of this power has yet to be explored.”16

In November 2006 Canada’s largest ISPs launched Project Cleanfeed Canada in partnership with Cybertip.ca, the nation’s child sexual exploitation tipline. The project, modeled after a similar initiative in the United Kingdom, is intended to protect ISP customers “from inadvertently visiting foreign web sites that contain images of children being sexually abused and that are beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian legal authorities.”17 Acting on complaints from Canadians about images found online, Cybertip.ca analysts assess the reported information and forward potentially illegal material to the appropriate foreign jurisdiction. If a URL is approved for blocking by two analysts, it may be added to the Cleanfeed distribution list. Each of the participating ISPs voluntarily blocks this list without knowledge of the sites it contains, precluding ISP involvement in the evaluation of URLs. Blocked sites fail to load, but attempts to access them are not monitored and users are not tracked.18

Since Cleanfeed Canada is a voluntary program, the blocking mechanism is up to the discretion of the ISPs. Sasktel, Bell Canada, and Telus all claim to block only specific URLs, not IP addresses, in an attempt to avoid overblocking.19 Besides the significant public outcry that would most likely result, overblocking may be itself be illegal under the Telecommunications Act mentioned above.

Because accessing child pornography—as well as making it accessible—is unlawful in Canada, the filtering of such content does not infringe on rights of access or speech afforded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, because ISP participation in Project Cleanfeed is voluntary, the blocking of sites through the project cannot be said to be state sponsored. However, the project remains controversial for other reasons. First, Project Cleanfeed has not yet sought or received authorization from the CRTC. Second, the blacklist maintained by Cybertip.ca remains secret, though necessarily, as publishing a “directory” of child pornography would itself be illegal. This lack of transparency inevitably generates distrust of the list and the process by which it is compiled. Third, the procedure for appealing the blocking of a site may have implications for anonymity.20 A content owner or ISP customer may complain to the ISP or directly to Cybertip.ca, which will reassess the site and, if necessary, obtain an independent and binding judgment from the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre. It is unclear whether this process might expose the complainant’s identity and create the potential for abuse of that individual’s rights by the ISP or perhaps even by authorities.

Canada's response to online obscenity and its collaborative filtering initiative look restrained by contrast to the more vigorous regulatory efforts of the United States.

[Edena_of_Neith]

Vote for the Opposition Party. From what I remember, the previous party in power in Australia wasn't for this plan.
Hope the Opposition Party can get back into power before the current government crushes the internet, if crushing the internet is really what they want to do.

[Black Angel]

Vote for the Opposition Party. From what I remember, the previous party in power in Australia wasn't for this plan.
Hope the Opposition Party can get back into power before the current government crushes the internet, if crushing the internet is really what they want to do.

Sorry Edena, there is NO WAY this will be happening any time soon. We only just had an election last year, so there's another 2.5 years before there's even an opportunity to vote the opposition in. Even if we wanted to - they have MANY other policies I don't agree with, so it would be hard to vote for them based on only this one policy.

Edit: Varaj to address your point about Australia being heavy-handed censorship-wise... I'm not sure! We like to think we have free speech, but there are certainly hot button issues (like child porn) where the powers-that-be will crack down hard...
It's hard to know when you're in it I suppose.

[Pigs in Space]

What makes you angry about the reply Varaj?


I think we have a poor record for censorship as well. Most stuff is ok, and of course anyone with a brain uses the internet to ignore the goverment and download shit they ban, but:

There is no "R" rating for videogames. So anything rated above MA is banned, immediately.
The govt has banned certain movies from Oz. Notably I recall "Ken Park" was banned recently.
The government (well in this case, the previous one) put pressure on the ABC to shut down programs such as "the glasshouse" who were all about satire of the govt. Then again, the chasers are still going strong. Those blokes would probably be in Gitmo if they were yanks. :)


And like BA said to Edena, no freakin way are we re-electing that bunch of Right wing pissants, any time soon. Fuck them and their 13 year stretch of raping the poor and instituting fascist agendas. We put down shrubbie, let him stay dead.

This internet policy is coming from the left wing party (the closest thing to hippy liberals). These guys are a good step more liberal than US democrats. In most things.

Although it's one senator in particular.

I doubt Coonan even really knows what the internet is.

I expect the filter will be instantly disabled anyway, by using ssh encrypted connections (ie torrent style) or going through free web proxies.

I expect, like last time they tried this shit, that a 16 year old schoolkid will break the filter within a day.

[Varaj]

What makes you angry about the reply Varaj?


Because the idea of censoring pisses me off, the idea of censoring as vast as the internet with inadequate solutions are profoundly stupid. The technology to do it effectively doesn't exist and won't for a long, long time to come. It won't have to be broken by a 16 year old kid it will be broken out the gate for the average person and anybody that wants to avoid it 100% will be able to.

The proposal will do nothing to stop the people that want "illegal" material, I put illegal in quotes because of the questionable definition that Australia uses.
What it will do:
is cost a lot of tax dollars
slow down the intertubes for Australian business which will cost them money
create liability for ISPs
help protect criminals
block legal content for kids and adults

In short it is an idea that will hurt the good guys, help the bad guys and cost a ton of money and is blatant censorship under the banner du jour of stop child porn.