River Views :: How much do you know about the proposed internet filter?

How much do you know about the proposed internet filter?

You have probably heard about the mandatory internet filter by now, and as someone close to the issue I thought I should share some facts about the proposal. There is so much fear-mongering around the issue that it’s hard for the facts to surface.

First, for those of you who are not aware, Senator Conroy has been proposing a mandatory internet filter for all Australians; homes, businesses, everywhere. I don’t really have an issue with the concept of a filter; we already have plenty of censorship which is helpful for society (eg. movie/tv ratings, games classifications, etc). But that is not what the filter will be doing.

The filter is being presented under the banner of “protecting the children”, but not only does it fall way short of that goal; it has much potential to actually make child abuse worse.

There are lots of IT people talking about how it will slow down the Internet for all of Australia. The government is white-washing that fact, but that’s no big deal; anyone who cares to read about it can see that our internet will be slower if the filter is implemented. The part which is not very clear is how it has the potential to increase child abuse.

The following may to be too confronting for some of you, but I believe it’s important to define what child abuse is in the context of “protecting the children”. There are two distinct issues at play; kids who view inappropriate content (net nasties), and kids who are abused and become victims.

I’m sure if you stop to think about it; the second problem is much more serious. But the filter does nothing (& I mean nothing) to stop children from being abused. In fact, it has opposite effect. One of the things the government is not readily sharing is that Australian Federal Police have a unit that works internationally to combat child abuse, and their funding has been cut in order to help fund the new filter.

Did you get that part? We already have cops “on the ground” who are combating child abusers. The government is taking money away from them so that they can put the mandatory filter in place. So next you ask, but what about the pedophiles, won’t they be blocked from all the nasty content. And NO, they won’t.

That’s when we start getting into the technical details, and trust me that it would take a determined person about 10 minutes to circumvent the filter. A high school student demonstrated that with the trial filter; he had by-passed it in less than 10 minutes. And high school kids are notorious for sharing things like how to get around all the limitations placed in front of them.

If any of you are interested I can share the technical facts which make the filter a complete joke, but that will be too boring for most of you.

Next we can look at other countries like China and N Korea who have been condemned for their mandatory filters. We will be joining their ranks. Note I said mandatory filter. We have other options.

Having filters is a good thing, but it’s not the government’s place to enforce them, especially when they will be so ineffective (& possibly harmful) against the actual issue of “protecting the children”. And we already have other solutions today to protect the children.

Most people think of “protecting the children” as shielding them from net nasties. There are plenty of ways to do that already. The government even has a site already where parents can download filters and install them at home. Schools (& parents) can sign-up with an ISP which provides a “clean feed”. There is a long list of solutions which don’t take funds away from the AFP (who are already combatting child abuse) and don’t slow down the internet for every single person in this country.

One of my colleagues summarized it quite well in his blog:
Conroy’s Clean Feed Won’t Block Child P*rn

While Senator Conroy has failed to explain in coherent terms why the Government wants the clean feed, there are plenty of reasons why it’s a terrible idea:

There’s no real problem to solve online.

Even if there was, I can’t see any serious public demand to solve it.

Even if there was public demand to solve the problem, Conroy’s report, incomplete as it is, indicates that a clean feed won’t do the job.

Even if the clean feed was a workable solution to a problem that doesn’t seem to exist, it will be both expensive and unreliable.

Even if the clean feed was a magically technically perfect system, it will be administered by public servants who have trouble spelling HTTP - let alone controlling the content it carries.

And finally, even if a functional net filter was scrupulously administered by experts, it’s highly likely the blacklist will leak again.

All of which gets us to the crux of the matter: the Government’s own report demonstrates that easily circumvented censorware is ineffective, and their own experience shows that they’re, well, completely hopeless at maintaining blacklist confidentiality.

Even Google has stepped into the fray condemning the mandatory filter.
Google weighs in to Aussie firewall row

And they are not the only ones. “Save the Children” has urged the Federal Government to abandon its plans to censor the internet, saying it will not be effective in protecting kids from online dangers.
Save the Children opposes internet filter

I don’t really have suggestions for what any of you can do about it. And some of you may even be in favour of the mandatory filter so are happy to see it going ahead. But I strongly feel that more Australians should be aware of the true implications of the mandatory filter coming from behind the banner of “protect the children”.

Whether you agree with me or not, I do hope you take a moment to actually think about the issue rather than just going along with Conroy’s statements. And if you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them if I can, or at least point you to some online references.

Some other references:


River Views
home :: internet_filter_is_a_joke Thu, 17 Dec 2009 How much do you know about the proposed internet filter? You have probably heard about the mandatory internet filter by now, and as someone close to the issue I thought I should share some facts about the proposal. There is so much fear-mongering around the issue that it’s hard for the facts to surface. First, for those of you who are not aware, Senator Conroy has been proposing a mandatory internet filter for all Australians; homes, businesses, everywhere. I don’t really have an issue with the concept of a filter; we already have plenty of censorship which is helpful for society (eg. movie/tv ratings, games classifications, etc). But that is not what the filter will be doing. The filter is being presented under the banner of “protecting the children”, but not only does it fall way short of that goal; it has much potential to actually make child abuse worse. There are lots of IT people talking about how it will slow down the Internet for all of Australia. The government is white-washing that fact, but that’s no big deal; anyone who cares to read about it can see that our internet will be slower if the filter is implemented. The part which is not very clear is how it has the potential to increase child abuse. The following may to be too confronting for some of you, but I believe it’s important to define what child abuse is in the context of “protecting the children”. There are two distinct issues at play; kids who view inappropriate content (net nasties), and kids who are abused and become victims. I’m sure if you stop to think about it; the second problem is much more serious. But the filter does nothing (& I mean nothing) to stop children from being abused. In fact, it has opposite effect. One of the things the government is not readily sharing is that Australian Federal Police have a unit that works internationally to combat child abuse, and their funding has been cut in order to help fund the new filter. Did you get that part? We already have cops “on the ground” who are combating child abusers. The government is taking money away from them so that they can put the mandatory filter in place. So next you ask, but what about the pedophiles, won’t they be blocked from all the nasty content. And NO, they won’t. That’s when we start getting into the technical details, and trust me that it would take a determined person about 10 minutes to circumvent the filter. A high school student demonstrated that with the trial filter; he had by-passed it in less than 10 minutes. And high school kids are notorious for sharing things like how to get around all the limitations placed in front of them. If any of you are interested I can share the technical facts which make the filter a complete joke, but that will be too boring for most of you. Next we can look at other countries like China and N Korea who have been condemned for their mandatory filters. We will be joining their ranks. Note I said mandatory filter. We have other options. Having filters is a good thing, but it’s not the government’s place to enforce them, especially when they will be so ineffective (& possibly harmful) against the actual issue of “protecting the children”. And we already have other solutions today to protect the children. Most people think of “protecting the children” as shielding them from net nasties. There are plenty of ways to do that already. The government even has a site already where parents can download filters and install them at home. Schools (& parents) can sign-up with an ISP which provides a “clean feed”. There is a long list of solutions which don’t take funds away from the AFP (who are already combatting child abuse) and don’t slow down the internet for every single person in this country. One of my colleagues summarized it quite well in his blog: Conroy’s Clean Feed Won’t Block Child Prn While Senator Conroy has failed to explain in coherent terms why the Government wants the clean feed, there are plenty of reasons why it’s a terrible idea: There’s no real problem to solve online. Even if there was, I can’t see any serious public demand to solve it. Even if there was public demand to solve the problem, Conroy’s report, incomplete as it is, indicates that a clean feed won’t do the job. Even if the clean feed was a workable solution to a problem that doesn’t seem to exist, it will be both expensive and unreliable. Even if the clean feed was a magically technically perfect system, it will be administered by public servants who have trouble spelling HTTP - let alone controlling the content it carries. And finally, even if a functional net filter was scrupulously administered by experts, it’s highly likely the blacklist will leak again. All of which gets us to the crux of the matter: the Government’s own report demonstrates that easily circumvented censorware is ineffective, and their own experience shows that they’re, well, completely hopeless at maintaining blacklist confidentiality. Even Google has stepped into the fray condemning the mandatory filter. Google weighs in to Aussie firewall row And they are not the only ones. “Save the Children” has urged the Federal Government to abandon its plans to censor the internet, saying it will not be effective in protecting kids from online dangers. Save the Children opposes internet filter I don’t really have suggestions for what any of you can do about it. And some of you may even be in favour of the mandatory filter so are happy to see it going ahead. But I strongly feel that more Australians should be aware of the true implications of the mandatory filter coming from behind the banner of “protect the children”. Whether you agree with me or not, I do hope you take a moment to actually think about the issue rather than just going along with Conroy’s statements. And if you have any questions, I’ll be happy to answer them if I can, or at least point you to some online references. Some other references: Internet filter ISPs reveal clean-filter technologies The Great Aussie Firewall is dead: Long live the firewall - Details of Australian ISP blocking now public SAGE-AU warns ISP filtering tests fail fast Internet AU Governemnt - Internet Service Provider (ISP) filtering Green light for internet filter plans permanent link*	River Views Views and comments from the Colo River in Australia. Charlie Garrison charlie@riverviews.com.au Subscribe Subscribe to a syndicated (RSS) feed of River Views.