12Feb 09

Filtering out reality?

Posted by Phil Dobbie @ 12:31 29 comments

Play or download the Twisted Wire podcast below:

Embed podcast:

Late yesterday, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the six (mostly) small ISPs who will be participating in the first phase of the government's internet service provider (ISP) filtering live pilot.

If the trial demonstrates no technical issues, the government intends to enforce an Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist of sites on all internet users. Only paedophiles would be concerned about this applying to child pornography sites, but the ACMA blacklist is designed to cover all illegal content. Is this practical? Does it amount to censorship?

You'll hear a variety of views on the subject in this week's Twisted Wire, from those who say it won't work, those who are concerned about the implications if it does, to those who say there's too much at stake not to at least give it a go.

Press the "play" symbol below to listen to the podcast.

Voicing their concerns are:

Peter Coroneos, CEO of the Internet Industry Association
Senator Scott Ludlam
Hetty Johnston, executive director of Bravehearts
Simon Hackett, founder and MD of Internode
Senator Stephen Conroy declined our invitation to explain more from the government's perspective.

Be sure to give your views in the comments section below.

Phil Dobbie is a broadcaster and businessman with more than 15 years commercial experience across the telecommunications, internet, tourism, advertising and radio industries. Phil also provides a daily podcast for our sister site BNET.com. Join him for BTalk Australia, where he provides a lively and insightful view on business issues, adding his blend of irony and humour to the discussions.

Talkback 29 comments

ACMA list is more than "illegal" Anonymous -- 12/02/09

It's interesting to see a lot of comment in the media about the list extending to illegal content beyond child pornography.

While the list content is secret there is a statistical breakup of what sort of content is in there from the ACMA. This was confirmed by Sen. Conroy's response to Sen Scott Ludlam's questions on notice.

The ACMA list is internet "prohibited" content. This allows for material all the way down to MA15+ in some circumstances. The stats show that more than 50% of the list is already legal content. It also shows some items made it in the list after being determined "R18 Nudity"

The list already goes well beyond illegal. If it is applied in a mandatory fashion it will block content from adults that can be seen in Cinemas, TV and adult bookstores.

sen. Ludlum's Questions on Notice Phil Dobbie -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123032)

Yes - anyone wanting to read Sen Ludlum's Questions on notice, here's the link to Hansards:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansards/2009-02-09/0023/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication/pdf

ACMA Blacklist Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123032)

You can assume that the ACMA blacklist (which does NOT cover AU hosted content) is almost identical to the list published recently by wikileaks:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008

and

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/1%2C203_new_websites_censored_by_Thailand

Prohibited vs. Illegal Anonymous -- 12/02/09

You state the following in this article: "but the ACMA blacklist is designed to cover all illegal content". This is very misleading. What the ACMA blacklist contains is prohibited content as specifically defined on the ACMA website. It is not necessarily illegal and the word illegal is not mentioned in their definition of "prohibited". This was demonstrated recently when a person (who opposes the filter) submitted a complaint about an (perfectly legal) anti-abortion website and successfully had it added to the blacklist.

Response to Podcast. Anonymous -- 12/02/09

I welcome Hetty Johnson involvement in this podcast because it raises one point I feel is important and that is empowerment. Leaving it up to governments to handle the control and dissemination of content on the internet is something that arguably DISEMPOWERS users. How about trusting parents and educating parents and educators to empower THEM to help protect their own children instead of leaving them to feel like child abusers because they object to having governments tell ADULTS what can or cannot be seen on the internet.

Yes my kids need to be protected, just give me the tools or encourage my efforts to help protect them myself. I don't need any government to do that on my behalf thank you very much.

@Anonymous Response to Podcast Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123042)

You're right to want to keep your kids safe online....and the tools are already available to do so...just sign up to an IIA ISP and receive a filtered "clean feed."

Response to Podcast Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123071)

If that is the case, why are you objecting to the voluntary opt-in/opt-opt out systems trial?

opt out? Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123085)

Your assertion is factually incorrect;

The program will NOT allow anyone to 'opt out' of content ruled by ACMA to be 'prohibited'... nor will the list of 'prohibited' content be published.

The assertion that the program is opt in / opt out is terribly misleading. In fact, only PART of the program will be 'opt out'.

Protecting Children Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123042)

You have conceded the need to protect children and also the need for you as a parent to access to such tools. This is the objective of the pilot: To help develop and refine such tools and provide these tools to you for your use. There are thousands of parents like you who are concerned about protecting their kids.

Protecting Children Toejam -- 07/03/09 (in reply to #320123087)

No, the "pilot" is testing the ACMA blacklist - the MANDATORY part. That is not a "tool for parents", that is a "tool for governments".

For the thousands of parents concerned about protecting their kids, there are plenty of downloadable PC "filter" applications which offer genuine customisability.

And for those too braindead to install a PC filter, there is even already an ISP (note: only ONE that has not gone bankrupt out of complete lack of demand) that sells nothing but pre-censored internet.

Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09

I see a lot of misinformation being circulated and promoted. The entire pilot is totally voluntary and people can opt-in if they wish and opt-out if they wish. Internet users have total freedom and ultimate power in their hands. Don't opt in if you do not want to!

RE: Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

And what happens when the filter is brought in? How are you going to opt-out of that?

Not the intention Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123060)

Yes, the govt is intending to introduce a mandatory filter. Listen to the podcast.

Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

'Internet users have total freedom and ultimate power in their hands.'

That's the whole point. Why is it necessary at all then??

Surely money could have been much better spent on helping ISPs provision their own solutions to handle customer requests for greater and better tailored filtering solutions at the ISP level.

Such a waste for something that may turn out to have a predetermined outcome.

Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123063)

There are several good reasons for testing an Opt-in/Opt-out voluntary filtering system, including there are families out there who want a facility of this type and economies of scale in common development and testing.

End filter is mandatory Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

The pilot may be voluntary, but if the trial is "successful", then the filtering of the ACMA blacklist will be mandatory..

What concerns me (and many others) is that the government is just going through the motions with this live trial and has no intention of cancelling this proposal, no matter how bad the results. If they are serious about taking an evidence based approach, I would like to see them define the testing methodology before the trials start. and define what will constitute success. If they do not do this, they can always try and put a positive spin on the results afterwards, which is exactly what they did for the Tasmanian lab tests.

END FILTER IS MANDATORY (NOT!) Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123066)

Your are attributing motives without any basis in fact. Why should we deny millions of parents their right to exercise choice to protect their children? The pilot is quite clear: Opt-in if you want and when you want and Opt-out whenever you want if you have opted-in. What could be more democratic than that?

Mandatory and Optional Phil Dobbie -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123089)

"The Government's election commitment was that filtering would block content using a blacklist of prohibited sites maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in accordance with legislation. The ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web sites, predominantly comprising images of the sexual abuse of children, which are defined as 'prohibited' under Australian legislation which has been in place since 2000.

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

The first para refers to a mandatory filter. The scond para indicates additional filtering might be optional. The contents of the ACMA blacklist has been the subject of some of the concerns in the podcast.

Hope this clears up any confusion.

See http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cyber-safety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering

Attributing motives.... Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123089)

You are either being deceptive, or you are genuinely misinformed. If it's the latter, then I suggest you read the tender invitation which clearly identifies the program as having;
a/ a mandatory component (ACMA blacklist)
and
b/ an options (opt-out) component

This is not difficult to grasp. Please check your facts:

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cyber-safety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering

opt out? Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

The Filter Anonymous -- 13/02/09

What a waste of money, its not enough that we have to pay for our bites, uploads now included with some providers, and unlike other countries where they pay for speed and get unlimited access, but now we have all these internet technology experts in Government who want to control the masses via the internet, and half of them still finding their way around a keyboard. You know what I think; I think education is the key. Not this bullshit, get on with the job at hand you idiots and fix the network so every Australian can connect, if you want to filter the internet then I suggest you set up your own internet service and give it to Australia for free. Opt in/opt out.

Money better spent Anonymous -- 13/02/09

Why is the government wasting OUR money on this rubbish when billions of dollars are needed to rebuild after the devastating bushfires and to start creating jobs to help our economy? Spend the money on new fire trucks & equipment, research, anything that actually gives a benefit, but this is just insane.

Filtering our Reality? Anonymous -- 13/02/09

If Mr Conroy is concerned with obscenity, perhaps he should deal with the utter obscenity of spending $120 million on a scheme which will be ineffective against the bad guys, will slow down access for legitimate users, and brings Australia into disrepute .

Filtering our Reality? Anonymous -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123141)

"on a scheme which will be ineffective against the bad guys, will slow down access for legitimate users"

You have pretty well summed up the whole legal system. Why should this be different.

Analogy with TV Darren Ellis -- 14/02/09

Firstly parents exercise their rights over what children watch on TV by restricting the ability to access the device. It is simply allowed to be on or not. The first level of computer restriction should be similar. The computer is allowed to be on or not.

Broadband internet is an always available service just the same as broadcasting .We then choose to connect or not. the switch on - switch off policy in your house is governed by you the parent. Downloading email from their postoffice once the machine is switched on. can be less convenient that automatic collection from postoffice but not impossible. More parents should exercise control and switch the computer off when not sitting in front of it just as they do with a TV.

Once a TV is switched on the viewer relies on the broadcast authority which grants the broadcast license to police the content as being appropriate. The broadcaster pays the government the fee for right to broadcast. The government then sets a code of conduct for the broadcaster to abide by. The broadcaster voluntarily conducts themselves to comply with the code. An authority is set up out of the licensing fee and investigates reported breaches of the code of conduct. This is how the public is assured of appropriate content on TV.

It is a relatively simple process with only 4-5 free to air TV stations or even a few hundred stations on a subscription service model. It is when you try and scale this "code and monitor" model to a tens of millions websites and services that you begin to run into a problem.

That is assuming there is a regulatory and monitoring body for the internet. At the moment there appears to be no such body.

If the government wants a trial they would be better trialing a whitelist system that has proven to work for almost 50 years and scale up to a few million websites. Rather than blacklisting and banning everything else. This is the real perceived objective they are effectivley asking for in the current trial.

Getting everyone that wants to view appropriate content & protect the children, to subscribe to those isp's or services on an opt in basis Is hinted at in the podcast by the lack of takeup of such services as available now. Obviously the premium paid now is too high. So they really need to look at ways to make these style of services cheaper.

They certainly can create demand for such a service. They are building a state of the art broadband network and offering PC's and laptops to many school age children. I am sure most parents want their children protected at school and the library just as much as they do around their own home. Mandating schools subscribe to these filtered services creates the base demand.

All government departments could set the example be mandated and subscribe to the services also. I am sure many private companies would want to be seen as good corporte citizens and subscribe to an appropriate material service if encouraged by lower price differental between unfiltered and filtered appropriate content.

If the larger audience share is people opting into a filtered service then corporations have thier incentive to pay the fee and abide by the code to reach the larger audience.

Maybe they don't need a blacklist system but a whitelisted, value added, appropriate content model we know already works, paid for by those who wish to avail us of their services.

Providing information to the public is not a right it is a privilage

Government censorship is a bad thing Anonymous -- 16/02/09 (in reply to #320123227)

"Providing information to the public is not a right it is a privilage"

And here, lots of us thought freedom of expression was a fundamental human right.

"The computer is allowed to be on or not."
Agreed, parents should decide what their children are exposed to, on the Internet, TV and in real life, and as has been pointed out there are already filtering options available.
As has been pointed out previously on other article comments and other places, what one family decides is appropriate for one of their children may be different from another family's view (for instance some content may be culturally inappropriate), and then there's the big difference - the age of the child: Something may be perfectly acceptable for a 14-year-old, but not a 6-year-old, while other sites may be suitable for adults. The proposed mandatory government censoring filter will apply to everyone identically - so are we all going to be restricted to what the minister decides is OK for a 5-year-old? A 4-year-old? What? Well, the government thinks we don't need to know.

"All government departments could set the example be mandated and subscribe to the services also"
That's a tad silly: Government departments already have filtering to block access to sites that are deemed to be inappropriate for work, such as porn sites, online video and audio sites (don't want to pay for the extra bandwidth used, & especially avoid corporate WAN links becoming saturated by streaming video/audio), online file transfer/storage/download sites (don't want workers uploading corporate data or downloading virus-infected files).
Many companies also already do the same (filter Internet access), but a company restricting access to what is needed for legitimate business purposes is one thing, the government deciding what's OK for everyone is a totally different thing.

I don't like the idea of a whitelist because it means everything is blocked until explicity allowed - try explaining that to a foreign company (why no one in Australia can access their web site)?
It's a recipe for disaster - imagine if lots of countries implemented such a scheme - it would effectively kill the Internet - every new web site would have to apply to be allowed in every country (applying in the different languages would be difficult enough). The whitelist suggestion is just not workable.

You seem to be missing the point that some of our fundamental rights, like freedom of expression/speech, has to move along with the times, the Internet has helped a great deal by making it a lot easier for people to express themselves, including about political grievences. TV and radio stations and newspapers are owned by large corporations and don't provide a way for ordinary people to be heard (a newspaper don't have to print your letter to the editor, and look at some of the distortions that have been aired on tabloid 'current affairs' programmes) - the corporates can buy large advertising space to get their view across, but ordinary people can't afford that. The Internet has helped (although it's not perfect by any means). Censorship destroys that, and gives control back to the media corporations and the government: Put up a web site denegrating the government, and no-one will be able to see it - they won't even know it's there. You might think that won't happen with this PM/govt, or even the current opposition, but what about in a decade or two - how can you be sure the potential totalitarian weapon that a mandatory unpublished censorship system won't be abused by a future government?

Scrap this stupid plan. If people wan't a 'clean feed' they can already subscribe to one.

Paranoia Anonymous -- 16/02/09

This filtering idea has been pushed for years, by both Liberal and Labor governments. I wonder who is really driving this process. If I was to be really cynical I would suggest that the recording industry wants to have a filtering system in place that can be used to block pirated material. This would of course fall under the category of illegal content.

Paranoia? davo -- 16/02/09 (in reply to #320123342)

More likely its the christain mafia continuing their fight against free speech and independent thought. They own both sides of politics in this country and did not miss a beat during the changeover last year.

ACMA Anonymous -- 19/03/09

AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIAN MONITORING AUTHORITY :) :) :)

Phil Dobbie

Host

1) Apple iPhone 3GS 32GB	35 plans	4%
2) Apple iPhone 3GS 16GB	35 plans	4%
3) Sony Ericsson Satio	6 plans	1%
4) Nokia E63	39 plans	1%
5) Blackberry Curve 8520	6 plans	1%

1) Apple mobile phones	1%
2) Nokia mobile phones	1%
3) Sony Ericsson mobile phones	1%
4) Samsung mobile phones	1%
5) LG mobile phones	2%

Twisted Wire by Phil Dobbie

Filtering out reality?

Related stories

Alerts

Talkback 29 comments

ACMA list is more than "illegal" Anonymous -- 12/02/09

sen. Ludlum's Questions on Notice Phil Dobbie -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123032)

ACMA Blacklist Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123032)

Prohibited vs. Illegal Anonymous -- 12/02/09

Response to Podcast. Anonymous -- 12/02/09

@Anonymous Response to Podcast Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123042)

Response to Podcast Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123071)

opt out? Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123085)

Protecting Children Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123042)

Protecting Children Toejam -- 07/03/09 (in reply to #320123087)

Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09

RE: Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

Not the intention Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123060)

Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

Misinformation Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123063)

End filter is mandatory Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

END FILTER IS MANDATORY (NOT!) Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123066)

Mandatory and Optional Phil Dobbie -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123089)

Attributing motives.... Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123089)

opt out? Anonymous -- 12/02/09 (in reply to #320123050)

The Filter Anonymous -- 13/02/09

Money better spent Anonymous -- 13/02/09

Filtering our Reality? Anonymous -- 13/02/09

Filtering our Reality? Anonymous -- 13/02/09 (in reply to #320123141)

Analogy with TV Darren Ellis -- 14/02/09

Government censorship is a bad thing Anonymous -- 16/02/09 (in reply to #320123227)

Paranoia Anonymous -- 16/02/09

Paranoia? davo -- 16/02/09 (in reply to #320123342)

ACMA Anonymous -- 19/03/09

Phil Dobbie

Most Popular

Most Discussed

Latest Videos

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Popular Phones & Plans

Powered by WhistleOut

iiNet Broadband Reader's Hotline

3 Months Free Virgin Mobile!

Deal Alert Save on iPhone!

New Optus $29 Cap Plan

Nokia N97 With Vodafone

Nokia 6710 With Vodafone

PlayStation®3 With Optus

Christmas Gift Guide - Mobiles

Visual Voicemail With iPhone

Compare: Mobiles | Broadband

Tags

Reader Services

Popular Topics

Essentials

Sponsored Links

Featured

Services

Around the Network

Around ZDNet Australia

iiNet Broadband
Reader's Hotline

3 Months Free
Virgin Mobile!

Deal Alert
Save on iPhone!

New Optus
$29 Cap Plan

Nokia N97
With Vodafone

Nokia 6710
With Vodafone

PlayStation®3
With Optus

Christmas Gift
Guide - Mobiles

Visual Voicemail
With iPhone