Five things I learned from the Insight episode on filtering
April 3, 2009 – 3:25 pm
1) Conroy isn’t backpedaling, he’s reengineering rhetoric:
He now claims his plan is to block only material which would be classified as Refused Classification (RC). Well ‘almost exclusively’ Refused Classification — In typical Conroy fashion he has left himself a backdoor with enough room to park a Hummer-sized load of as much ‘unwanted’ content as he or anyone else in government likes.
Conroy’s plan has morphed from blocking child pornography and prohibited content on the ACMA blacklist into mandatory blocking of RC content (and a bit more). Little has changed and it’s no less dangerous.
Most RC content is legal to possess and view in Australia, with the exception of Western Australia and some indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It’s a classification category that includes adult pornography containing fetishes like spanking… oh, and that anti-abortion web page we shouldn’t see. Refused Classification is a broad category of content that when applied to the Internet is immediately unmanageable, not like any other censorship system in Australia and an unequivocal attack on free speech.
2) Conroy is reacting to opposition:
Opposition from yourself, families, the Greens, the Liberals, ISPs, technologists, academics, media, business and nearly every nook and cranny on the Internet. He’s not changing tack for the fun of it; he’s doing it because his arguments are being discredited.
3) Conroy still doesn’t have clear policy or goals:
He’s been running the Government’s communications portfolio for well over a year now and his mandatory ISP filtering policy is barely more defined than it was when Labor went to the election. Conroy says policy will be determined by the outcome of the trials, yet offers no metric to measure their success. As Senator Minchin said last month, ‘it’s policy written on the back of envelope’.
4) Support for the filter is limited, but the community still needs educating:
Parents like Wayne Mitchell, the father at the start of the episode, believe the Government’s filtering plan will make the Internet ’safe for all kids’. That’s a problem in more ways than one. What the Government has proposed will not stop the explicit spam Mr Mitchell’s daughter has been receiving through email and Bluetooth, nor will it stop cyber-bullying, identity theft or risks associated with those who exploit children.
We must continue to show families why relying on ISP filtering to protect children online is neither workable, safe or an alternative to education and supervision. We also need to educate them about how to use technology safely.
5) There is still a misconception by those who advocate this plan that filtering child abuse material stops child abuse:
There is no evidence to suggest that ISP filtering reduces the demand for, distribution of, or access to child abuse material, especially when the web is reportedly not the primary method of distributing such material. It’s also naive to believe a filter – a piece of hardware or software – is capable of stopping the physical and emotional abuse being perpetrated each day.
Bernadette McMenanin, who wants filters to block child abuse content and ‘other material’, told Insight viewers that ‘Internet service provider filtering is working, can work – it does work’, presumably referring to international examples. But how do you define ‘working?’ In most international examples, including the UK, ISP filtering is voluntary with the goal of stopping accidental access to child abuse material. That’s not what is being proposed in Australia.
To really make an impact on these crimes the Government must first deal with the problem of violence, especially against children. As Senator Scott Ludlam said in his talk at the recent NewMatilda forum on Internet regulation held in Brisbane, that’s an issue that can’t ‘be solved by half-arsed attempts of censorship’.
25 Responses to “Five things I learned from the Insight episode on filtering”
I would have liked to ask the audience how many people there had actually ever accidentally stumbled onto a real child porn (or a bestiality site for that matter) just by doing everyday net things like reading the paper online, checking Facebook, catching up on email (assuming one doesn’t casually open spam email with links to such sites), or watching internet TV etc.
There’s still this ostensible idea that child porn is all over the WWW, that people, especially children, stumble involuntarily onto these sites all the time and that a filter will magically block this from happening.
In 13 years of web surfing I have never once chanced across such websites by accident and I don’t think many people out there have either.
The unspoken reality is of course that child porn doesn’t find you, rather it’s a “seek and ye shall find” phenomenon. It constantly surprises me that whenever the straw man of WWW child porn is raised no one states the bleeding obvious – that child porn rings are highly secretive, suspicious and sensitive organizations who are experts at covering tracks and use encrypted networks not included in any filter to disseminate their material, requiring the intensive efforts of such organizations as the AFP and Interpol to crack them. How on earth is a blunt filter of the WWW then going to be in any way effective against child porn? I was especially miffed at the blatant dishonesty of the Christian Lobby’s Jim Wallace who refused to admit that they actually want every kind of pornography – soft and hard, legal and illegal totally banned, only saying that they were happy with government’s current position (of course, because once the currently proposed filter is in place nothing’s stopping anyone from widening the scope of that filter to pretty much cover anything you like – inc. any kind of depiction of sex and sexuality – just include it in the “almost” part of “almost exclusively RC”).
By Daniel on Apr 3, 2009
Notwithstanding the above, Insight was far, far better than the ABCs Q&A episode about the same topic. Jenny Brockie must be commended for keeping the debate on track, not letting people slither out of the hard questions or get away with half-truths and evasions. It was interesting to see Conroy looking more and more dejected as the debate wore on. I don’t think he left the studio a happy man at all.
By Daniel on Apr 3, 2009
To Daniel.
Come over to Whirlpool, Mark Newton said, there was an ‘Exchange of Words’ after the show was recorded. I do not know what was said.
ConJob also did not participate in the after program chat.
By Brian on Apr 3, 2009
The look on Conroy’s face when Mark Newton spoke about VPNs was priceless!
It looked as if Conroy was completely unaware of VPNs!
By Eddie on Apr 3, 2009
RE: 1) Conroy isn’t backpedaling, he’s reengineering rhetoric
Indeed, and he did not even actually say that the compulsory/non-optional blocking tier would be limited to “almost exclusively” ‘RC’.
He avoided answering a question about what “almost exclusively” means and when asked whether the ACMA blacklist to be used in the compulsory tier would comprise a narrower range of content than ACMA’s existing blacklist Senator Conroy said:
“…the existing black list was passed by the Parliament. Now the Senate has 39 votes. The Liberal Party introduced this and they’ve got 37 and Steve Fielding is elected Family First Senator and he’s got strong views in this area. That’s 38. You cannot repeal this. Even if the Labor Party decided it wanted to try and change this, it actually won’t pass the Senate.”
Hence, although Senator Conroy says he is “talking almost exclusively about refused classification”, he is also saying that the Government has _not_ decided to try to change the legislated definition of “prohibited content” (which covers a vastly broader range of content than “RC”) and that even if Labor did decide to do that, the Minister believes such a change would not be passed by the Senate. Therefore, the government intends to require ISPs to block access to so-called ‘prohibited/potential prohibited content’ on ACMA’s blacklist. Nothing has changed.
By rene on Apr 3, 2009
Eddie, I think it was the point about having a job that Conroy took issue with – AFAIK he’s never held a real world job (outside of unions or government).
By Steven on Apr 4, 2009
around 95% of child sexual abuse happens inside families – what next, all children to be taken away from parents?
Oops – don’t forget, over half of child sexual abuse is from a sibling, don’t forget to separate them out too.
By Sheila on Apr 4, 2009
Bernadette McMenanin is right, ISP filtering DOES work. Just ask a Chinese internet user.
Oh wait…. you can’t…
By Dan on Apr 4, 2009
i have a bad feeling the government plans to bring in mandatory filtering against the ACMA blacklist with the promise of changing the ACMA blacklist then they will try and pass legislation to change the ACMA blacklist which will be defeated in the senate. then claim that all the extra filtering is not their fault. could they be that evil?
By drscroogemcduck on Apr 4, 2009
You are absolutely correct when you say Conroy is reengineering the debate. The policy is threatened by the leaking of the ACMA secret blacklist, this proves the potential for overblocking and suppression of political speech in a way that is obvious to general public. These arguments are not mere hypotheticals.
By reframing that portion of the debate around a new blacklist that is “almost exlusively RC” material administered by the Classifcation Board (CB) he is hoping to neutralise this major risk.
But I agree not much has changed practically and this is still very dangerous, possibly moreso:
The ACMA use the CB guidelines to guide the decisions they make regarding the ACMA list of prohibited content.
The ACMA staff are trained by the CB allegedly.
Some of the ACMA decisions are referred to the CB to ensure the relevant legislation is being applied correctly.
Certain ACMA decision must be referred the CB.
The only practical difference between the ACMA and CB in this is that the CB does not have the same massive, and ever increasing, workload. The CB will be capable of making the same errors as the ACMA currently have.
Some of the entries of great concern on the ACMA blacklist are RC.
The list will still be secret as far as I know, Conroy has not said otherwise.
The list will not leak before he tries to ram this through parliament, it is an imaginary list at the moment.
My major concern about this new tact is that the enabling legislation for this will be attached to any NBN legislation.
By Cameron on Apr 5, 2009
@Cameron: “My major concern about this new tact is that the enabling legislation for this will be attached to any NBN legislation.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25285637-36418,00.html
Paul Fletcher – April 04, 2009
=================
While Telstra’s proposal has been excluded, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has before him a number of proposals from credible parties to build a national broadband network. In most cases, those proposals stipulate that the network owner will sell wholesale services only.
So the first option to arrive at the ideal market structure is to accept one of these proposals. This would automatically result in the right market structure: a retail market with multiple players (of which Telstra would still be the largest), and a national network owned and operated by another company selling wholesale services, in which no one retailer would have a controlling stake.
It is true that this would require significant legislative change. The proposals from non-Telstra players are premised on using components of Telstra’s existing network.
To make that work — given Telstra’s attitude –will require the force of law. But if the political will is there, the necessary laws can be passed.
=================
Indeed laws for a super fast NBN network promised by the ALP before the election – along with mandatory ISP level filtering.
Who in the Senate will be game enough to oppose “necessary legislation” to enable high speed broadband to the consumer ?
Bob
By Bob Bain on Apr 5, 2009
@Bob: “Who in the Senate will be game enough to oppose “necessary legislation” to enable high speed broadband to the consumer ?”
Precisely and I worry the mandatory filter will be incorporated into the wholesale network, perhaps as a condition of the successful bid.
By Cameron on Apr 5, 2009
I am reminded of comedian Doug Stanhope’s response to the notion that child pornography is all over the ‘net:
“I’ve found some really sick shit just clicking links, clicking links, never found any child pornography. I’ve even found cock fingering…so if child pornography is ‘rampant on the internet’, then cock fingering is probably occurring in this room, as we speak!”
By James on Apr 6, 2009
Agreed, Daniel. During the 11 years or so I’ve been using the internet, I have not stumbled upon any child pornography. Occasionally I run across regular pornography by accidental choice of keywords in Google’s Image Search, but the stuff that today’s parents claim are in-the-face of their children? Pft.
In this whole debate so far, the censorship that’s made me cringe the most (besides the whole “got hacked 2 years ago? You’re on the list!) is the censorship of victims of sexual child abuse by those claiming to support the filter: http://purplefae.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/deborah-robinson/
Disgusts me to no end that one.
By Vanessa on Apr 6, 2009
I agree with Daniel as well. Insight was much, much better than Q&A. You have a whole hour devoted to Internet filtering whereas the ABC only allowed 30 minutes discussing the topic before it moved onto other issues.
I really hope that the trials will fail, so that the Government drops the filtering plan altogether. I have been using the Internet since 1996, and I never “accidentally” stumbled across child pornography, bestiality, or child abuse material, and I doubt that kids would. This filter will prove useless.
Also, there are some rumors floating around the Internet that the prime minister will reshuffle his cabinet and Conjob will be in the firing line as he voted against him when he challenged Kim Beazley. If these rumors are true and Conjob is thrown out of the communications portfolio, then how would we know that the minister replacing him would not follow in Conjob’s footsteps?
By Glenn on Apr 6, 2009
Hopefully whoever’s replacing Conjob would have been keeping an eye on their predecessor’s movements. If they have been, then they’re sure to see the corner he’s gotten himself into and should be smart enough to avoid getting skewered himself.
That’s assuming the replacement cares about his self-interests.
By Vanessa on Apr 6, 2009
@Cameron: “Precisely and I worry the mandatory filter will be incorporated into the wholesale network, perhaps as a condition of the successful bid.”
—————–
Well we now know who is going to build the NBN – The Australian Governement !
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-to-build-national-broadband-network-20090407-9v5i.html
——————–
Govt to build national broadband networkApril 7, 2009 – 9:24AM
The federal government will establish its own company to build the national broadband network.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made the announcement during a joint press conference with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner in Canberra on Tuesday morning.
==========
The Acacia consortium, comprising wealthy businessmen and telco veterans, had been regarded as frontrunner for the project ahead of Optus and Canadian telco Axia NetMedia.
The nation’s largest telco, Telstra, was excluded from consideration after it failed to meet tender guidelines.
But it will be invited to take part in the new process, Senator Conroy said.
The new company will invest up to $43 billion in the network over eight years.
================
Telstra will be “invited” to join the NBN initiative ?
I believe “forced to become involved” might be a more appropriate phrase.
Be prepared for “necessary legislation” !
Bob
By Bob Bain on Apr 7, 2009
I read about the NBN plan. Just remember though that the mandatory filtering will be added to the NBN, then it would be the CBN – the Crippled Broadband Network.
I don’t think I would care to see Labor progressing on this one. We should have had a much bigger broadband network five years earlier, but no one gave a damn about building one.
By Glenn on Apr 7, 2009
@Glenn: “I read about the NBN plan. Just remember though that the mandatory filtering will be added to the NBN, then it would be the CBN – the Crippled Broadband Network.”
———————-
From Crikey today (Stilgherrian)
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090407-The-dark-side-of-a-government-run-NBN.html
And there’s a hidden benefit … By building the network from scratch, the government can make sure it has censorship-friendly choke points.
As a participant in the UNSW internet censorship forums told Crikey this morning:
Suddenly having an initially government-owned/controlled monopoly backbone operator removes all those pesky independent ISPs and backhaul businesses with contractual and ethical obligations to their customers from the discussion about if and where to install the big censor/filter boxes, who pays, performance hits, monitoring, security etc. And thus neatly bypasses the discussion which was finally starting to emerge about the suitability of the current plan to meet real needs, especially of those s-xting young ones.
==========================
I attended the first workship but not the second so didn’t hear one of the key speakers from the United States..
http://cyberlawcentre.org/censorship/forum2.htm
Derek Bambauer (worked on Harvard’s Berkman Center OpenNet Initiative global internet filtering project, author of ‘Filtering in Oz: Australia’s Foray Into Internet Censorship’, Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies Working Paper Series, Research Paper No. 125, December 2008)
————–
It’s possible to download Derek Bamabuer’s paper – the most interesting point to me being that is would be hard for the Australia to “retrofit” a “would be censored network” into the existing framework – whereas other countries built their networks with censorship in mind – and with suitable “choke points”
At the moment there appears to be a strang mixture of optimism and scepticism. As I suggested earlier who could possibly question our need for a high speed FTTH network ? I believe they have a Fibre to the Home Network in Korea (somewhat more progresive IMHO than Australia).
I guess we wait and see. BTW. I don’t believe Fibre to the Home covers wireless Internet which is gaining in popularity – especially via the use of mobile devices such as “cell” phones and mobile modems such as those sold for laptops.
The Australian Computer Society have a apeaker next week from Optus who may have something to sayy on the issue.
http://www.acs.org.au/index.cfm?action=event&area=9001&temID=eventdetails&eveID=10133342699902
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
What NBN could have been
Level 1, 280 Pitt Street Sydney
(Sydney Mechanics School of Arts- In between Park & Bathurst St)
Date: Friday 24 April 2009
Time: 12:15pm for 12:30pm start – 1:30pm
=================
A technology solution will be presented which could have provided a truly competitive landscape in Australia, as well as ticking the “green” box with emphasis.
It would also have used the $4.7B of funding from the Federal Government to enable a Smart Grid solution in a uniform manner right across Australia.
Note: This appears to be a free event to non members of the Soceity (unless that’s a misprint)
==================
Bob (MACS)
By Bob Bain on Apr 8, 2009
I reckon it’s all over. While Conroy wastes his time crapping on about the dire need for mandatory internet filtering, happily willing to slow down our current pathetic 10 Mbps ADSL2+ by a possible 80%, having thereby created a beast that has apparently totally broken its leash, PM Rudd takes the real issue into his own hands without a single reference to our beloved Senator: ditching the dismal tender process overseen by Conroy and announcing himself instead how the promised new broadband network will finally look, and looking like it’s been more or less totally taken out of Conroy’s fumbling hands by announcing a $45 billion National Broadband Network Corp. which wil provide FttH connections at 100 Mbps. Yea!
Aplogoies for that endless convoluted sentence. I’m excited, it just seems too good to be true.
By Daniel on Apr 8, 2009
As for FttH network choke points – who cares? At 100 Mbps I’ll just happily use my VPN to access my favourite pro-life sites.
Seriously though, if choke points are included, let’s just bug them to tears like we’re doing now.
By Daniel on Apr 8, 2009
@Danel “Seriously though, if choke points are included, let’s just bug them to tears like we’re doing now.”
As I understand it from yesterday’s 2JJ podcast there is no intention of including “choke points” (Senator Conroy) but ISP level filtering is still under trial.
It appears that legislation won’t be required as the FTTH scheme bypasses Telstra’s copper.
As for Senator Conroy it’s no longer “Conroy Fail” but “Conroy Nation Builder” (see Vex news)
http://www.vexnews.com/news/3777/conroy-fibre-to-the-home-will-be-his-legacy-to-the-nation/
“Federal Communications Minister Senator Steve Conroy, who is responsible for administering the controversial “clean feed” internet censorship, has been the target of the Australian internet community’s wrath.
In the announcement yesterday of a $43 billion spend on building a nationwide fibre optic network, he has been transformed from zero to hero, bringing home a nation building proposal that will ensure Australians have access to world’s best internet speed.”
=============================
The announcement is the relatively easy part. Implementing will be tricky, as it always is. But if fibre to practically all Australian homes and businesses is delivered, as announced, Conroy will write himself into the nation’s history books alongside the great reforming ministers of our history.
We couldn’t be any more impressed.
It also indicates that those talking up his demise at the next round of preselections are unlikely to succeed
==================
Conroy is still targetting the legal “RC” category of material – which on my rounds of Sydney yesterday could have been purchased for $30 DVD or $59.99 Blu-Ray and incorrectly labelled “X18+” with what appear to be fake stickers.
Given the sorry state of the “Classification” website http://www.oflc.gov.au/ at the present time it’s hard to establish if these DVD and Blu-Ray discs have actually been rated “X” by the Australian Classification Board. There is a minor fine for selling misclassified material under the New South Wales “Enforcement” Act and it is an offence under the Act to sell unclassified material (subject to imprisonment).
Bob
By Bob Bain on Apr 8, 2009
Great, they get shitty cause Telstra’s more or less got a monopoly on hardware, and now they’re going to create a new one. Thank you, Rudd. You’ve just shown how mentally challenged you actually are
By Steve on Apr 8, 2009
@Steve: Great, they get shitty cause Telstra’s more or less got a monopoly on hardware, and now they’re going to create a new one.”
discussed at..
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2538347.htm
The new cables wlll have to be above ground which may mean an eysore and a problem for local councils BUT it may be possible to negotiate with Telstra to use their underground pipes to slip in the new fibre optic cable.
There’s a suggestion that Telstra may not be happy about this and the word legislation creeps in once again..
mp3 The World Today
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/200904/20090408-twt04-broadband-streets.mp3
Bob
By Bob Bain on Apr 8, 2009
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
By Dan Buzzard on Apr 14, 2009