The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) this week put the controversial mandatory internet filter on hold, with the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, saying a review was needed to see if the scheme "reflects current community standards". With an election looming, Labor would appears to be quietly distancing itself from the filter in order to garner votes from the IT industry with its National Broadband Network plans.
The Internet filter has been a serious source of contention amongst the tech savvy community and child welfare groups who are both at odds over the proposal. The proposed filter as it currently stands would block refused classification (RC) material. Under Australian classification laws, RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use.
A list of RC material is currently held by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) who have come under increased criticism after the list was leaked and was found to contain websites that had nothing to do with illegal material whatsoever. Most famously was a Queensland dentist office and school tuckshop website. The lack of independent oversight into the ACMA black list has drawn the most criticism with many saying that unless an independent panel monitors the list or it is released publicly, how are any of us to know that websites can't mistakenly be blacklisted at any time without due process.
Recently, Telstra, Optus and Primus have agreed to voluntarily filter their customers internet connections against the current ACMA blacklist. ISP's Internode, iiNet and Vodafone/Hutchinson Australia have publicly denounced any such move.
Internode general manager of Regulatory & Corporate Affairs, John Lindsay, said the ISP would not comply and that ACMA's blacklist had been thoroughly discredited.
iiNet chief executive, Michael Malone, said his company would wait to see the detail of the proposal. "I am a long time supporter of opt-in, or even opt-out. Still not keen on a blanket mandatory filter though. On the plus side, I'm very happy to see the scope limited to child porn (for now), and to see notice to website owners, an appeals process, and regular review."
Mr Malone's comments reciprocate throughout most of the tech community who have continually lobbied the government to limit the scope to child porn or abuse websites, as is done voluntarily in other western democracies by ISP's in the UK for instance. No one in their right mind supports this kind of abhorrent content but it is continually used as a scapegoat to push the entire RC filter as a whole.
The problem with RC material is that there are areas that are not so black and white but are shades of grey. For instance, detailed instruction of drug use is currently illegal, however most in the community would agree that those with drug problems should be able to access information on how to safely inject should they do so or where to find help. YouTube videos portraying such content would come under the scope of RC related material.
Another area of grey is video gaming. As it stands, Australia is the only western country in the world without an R18 classification for games. Anything that does not meet our MA15+ rating is refused classification. Discussion of these games, video trailers and game play would be deemed illegal under the filter even though these games are completely legal in nearly every other industrialised country.
There are also many myths surrounding the proposed filter and misinformation being spread by religious groups like the Australian Christian Lobby do nothing to help the Open Internet cause. One such myth is that the filter will protect children which is completely ludicrous. The filter as it stands will not block legal pornography, peer to peer networks or do anything to combat the rise in cyber bullying or stalking.
Proponents to the filter continue to spread lies and deception and give the public a false sense of security that this filter is the be all and end all to protecting kids online. Opponents have always held the view that the best form of protection is to install computer based filtering and monitor your child's usage by placing the computer in an open area in the house and not in their bedroom.
More recently at the Cyber Safety Committee meeting, industry experts came out in unison urging the government to dump the filter and instead spend the money on more Australian Federal Police "Internet Officers" and give them more power to work with international agencies to fight the problem head on.
For more information on the Internet Filter head over to Open Internet and voice your concerns to your local member of Parliament. Also get involved in the discussion on Twitter by using the #openinternet and #nocleanfeed hash tags when commenting about the filter.
