Australia Net Censorship Plan Under Fire

The new government backs a plan allowing service providers to filter out a list of child porn sites. Skeptics fear it will become a political tool

by Brad Howarth

Two woman walk past a local internet cafe, Sydney 19 March 2007. An Australian schoolgirl, a chinese adulterer and several South Korean celebrities have been victims of cyberbullying that led to a South Korean law aimed at cracking down on internet misuse ANOEK DE GROOT/AFP/Getty Images

On paper, the policy looked like a sound one. Australia's newly elected Labor Party government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would protect children online by preventing access to Web sites containing images of child pornography. But the decision to press ahead with a policy of mandatory filtering of Web content by Internet service providers has brought howls of derision from the Australian Internet industry and free speech advocates, who have claimed it will turn Australia into a nanny state, debase the democratic principles on which the nation was founded, and impair the speed and utility of the Internet itself.

All the fuss is over one component of the Rudd government's cybersafety policy: the requirement for Internet service providers to filter out sexually related sites containing "harmful and inappropriate material."

Filtering itself can work in several ways. In its most benign form, Internet service providers actively block content delivered by a list of undesirable Web sites. A more active form of filtering involves service providers scanning incoming content in real time to analyze and determine which content should be allowed through.

Although details of the technology to be used are not yet clear, industry watchers expect the government to choose the first option, which has the lowest impact on Internet performance. As the filter is designed to protect children at home and in public places, it is possible that there will be an opt-out option.

The Aim: Appease Conservatives?

Still, the measure has proven particularly controversial, due in part to a lack of detail on what will constitute illegal content, how decisions will be made, and how the filtering technology itself will work. Under the plan, the Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA) would be in charge of maintaining a blacklist of child pornography and other sexually explicit sites that the service providers would then block. The ACMA would cooperate with international agencies such as Interpol and the FBI to develop its list.

The skeptics are many. Paul Budde, a telecom analyst with Paul Budde Communications in New South Wales, is not convinced of the need for such legislation in a country where there is a relatively low threat to children. He adds that Australia has shown a rare willingness to forgo its democratic principles, and believes the policy is an effort to appease conservative politicians and sections of the community. "Yes, we do have the obligation to look after our kids; however, the key responsibility for that lies with the parents, not the state," Budde says.

The previous, conservative government of Prime Minister John Howard had already implemented a $76.5 million national filter scheme, which requires Internet service providers to provide free filters to consumers for use at home. Howard's government had rejected Internet filtering by service providers on the grounds that it would needlessly slow speeds for all users without effectively protecting children.

Rudd's Labor Party unseated Howard in elections last December, though, and is now pushing the more ambitious proposal and promises to take into account the worries of the skeptics. "The government is committed to working closely with the industry to address any concerns over costs and internet speeds," said Australia's Broadband, Communications, & Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy in a prepared statement. "These concerns will be carefully considered during the trial period and will inform the Government's comprehensive cyber-safety policy."

Precedent for More Internet Regulation?

The lack of detail on what constitutes harmful and inappropriate material has drawn fire from free speech advocates including Dale Clapperton, chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, a nonprofit group based in North Adelaide. "Once the system is in place there is a very real risk that any organization with any kind of political clout is going to be lobbying for the scope of the system to be extended so as to encompass material that they have an objection to," Clapperton says.

He says this could lead to possible censorship of Web sites relating to abortion rights, gay rights, and gay marriage. Copyright holder groups would also be keen to see the government use the filter to block Web sites they believe promote or facilitate infringement of their rights.

The chief executive of Australia's Internet Industry Assn., Peter Coroneos, doubts that filtering will have a significant impact on pedophile rings. Some use encrypted files on peer-to-peer networks to communicate, and these would not be detected by filtering technology. He says the current proposals are the subject of intense interest from service providers around the world. "They are concerned that Australia will become a precedent for a broader range of government intervention on the Internet," Coroneos says.

While Internet censorship is widespread in nondemocratic countries such as China, only a handful of Western nations have introduced mandatory Web content filtering. Scandinavian countries have mandatory filtering of a blacklist of sites containing child pornography, with would-be visitors redirected to a police Web site. In Britain, national telecommunications carrier BT (BT) undertook a program in 2004 called Clean Feed that restricts blacklisted Web sites.

Howarth writes for BusinessWeek from Sydney .