ALIA submission to the Australian Broadcasting Authority investigation into the content of online services

February 1996

Summary

The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) favours the creation of an online code of practice and an online regulatory body which represents the interests of community, industry and government. The Association seeks to ensure that equity of access to information is not compromised in the new medium, while still being responsive to community concerns relating to the nature of the information which is accessible online.

ALIA believes that, in time, technological solutions can be found for technological problems. It is the content of online services, particularly in the context of community standards and the protection of intellectual property interests, which requires immediate consideration. Existing regulatory mechanisms which apply to the distribution of current media have application to online information and the development of new media should not alter our society's fundamental commitment to freedom of information and access to a broad range of materials. Where these regulatory mechanisms have limited applicability, such as in the case of content generated beyond our national boundaries, online service providers cannot be held responsible for material accessed by users. Service providers do however have a responsibility to ensure, as far as is practicable, that steps are taken to limit accessibility to illegal or disturbing material. The establishment of a code of practice and a regulatory body would clarify the rights and responsibilities of the users, content creators and service providers of online information.

Introduction

ALIA represents librarians and information service providers across Australia. Members include library personnel in public libraries, university libraries, TAFE libraries, school libraries, and a host of specialist libraries in government departments, corporations, and institutions such as hospitals and research organisations. Recent surveys have shown that the services which members of ALIA provide are utilised by more than half of the Australian population on a regular basis.

The library and information community has always played an important role in providing information to Australians. Public libraries are a focus for local communities and often act as centres for community activity. School, TAFE and University libraries form the core of learning institutions they are attached to. Special libraries service the needs of client groups within the government and private sectors and enable them to perform with knowledge and confidence. Quality information and access to it underpins any conception of a clever country, and is the only base from which Australia can maintain its international competitiveness into the next century.

Libraries, in all their forms, are a focal point for information resources. Although online communications have the potential to allow information to flow onto every office desktop and into every home, libraries will continue to provide convenient, central points of access to the general public and users of specialised information resources. This is particularly important for the disadvantaged groups who rely on library services for their information needs. The new information and communication technologies represent a new approach to the traditional role of libraries. Libraries are viewed by the community as a logical place to install online access points. The policies of all major political parties support the role of libraries as access points to online information, and Federally, $11.4 million has been promised to facilitate this role.

The core of this inquiry covers many issues of relevance to the library sector as the role of libraries as online access and content providers has developed. As information service providers, and particularly as educational information providers, libraries must adequately deliver the information requirements of all their users. This is an important function of specialist and higher education libraries. In their role as community centres and providers of information resources for children and young people, libraries must be sensitive to community expectations and take reasonable steps to ensure that children do not access inappropriate material.

In this submission to the ABA's inquiry we address those issues which are relevant to the library sector. We do not address the extent to which the definition of "broadcasting" and the statutory role of the ABA is applicable to networked information.

Technology

For the library sector, the regulation of content is the most important issue to be dealt with in regard to online services. Our interest in technology principally relates to the establishment of cross-platform compatibility, so that access to online services is neither constrained nor disjointed, and to the development of screening and filtering technologies. The rapid pace of technological change suggests that, given enough time, technological solutions can be found for technological problems.

Screening and filtering technologies do not appear to offer imminent or even mid-term solutions but have an immediate relevance to content regulation. These problems impact on the effectiveness of implementing a "refused access" list, where it might be appropriate, and limit any guarantee which seeks to effectively safeguard users from inappropriate material.

(I) Screening technologies still remain distant from a practical application to digitised images. The problems associated with screening technologies have been recognised in other inquiries, but are still important to note. While computer matching may be very accurate in identifying a specific image, and certain general morphological similarities can be recognised, no current computer device can screen for context. Context must be screened by a human operator, and the daily flow of information within Australia alone makes the screening of even a fraction of these messages an impossible task and highlights the difficulties faced by a single, external authority which might aim to regulate content.

(ii) Filtering programs, such as NetNanny, can only block access to objectionable material to a limited extent. Although they offer the best current technology for limiting access to restricted or illegal materials, they cannot be guaranteed to prevent access to such materials. The problems with filtering programs are threefold. First, if used to lock out specific sites, then there are no guarantees that the same materials cannot be found elsewhere in the global system. Second, if access is only given to a restricted list of sites, it likewise restricts the potential for the networked environment being a useful research tool. Third, if the filter denies access to sites which contain specific part-words such as sex- or porno- it will inadvertently deny access to legitimate and useful information sources, such as rape counselling services, scientific information sites, or fanclub information for popular music bands. For example, as stated in the evidence given to the second part of the Senate Committee inquiry into Community Standards, the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.paedophilia is the site of '...the most vehement opposition to paedophilia as a practice' (Evidence to Committee p. s396). The use of filtering programs has to be selectively implemented in specific sectors and their limitations clearly recognised.

Service

The role of libraries in regard to online services is principally as access provider to communities, although they also act as significant content providers. Our Association is concerned with more clearly defining the responsibilities of access providers, particularly in relation to the types of services which are currently being developed online.

The service which an access provider offers a user can be categorised into three primary, technology-neutral types. The first is where the access provider is also acting as a content provider. An example is a database or an online catalogue service offered by a library. The second is where access providers provide information storage facilities, such as a bulletin board service or a web site. The third is where access providers are simply providing the tools to reach external information, as would be the case with a user gaining Internet access via a terminal in a library.

In reality, access provision is usually a combination of all three types of user access and libraries have a stake in each category. The liability of access providers for the information accessed by users differs markedly between categories. Essentially, where access providers are also content providers, information they produce should be the subject of regulatory control (such as is the case with material produced in other media). However, in those cases where access providers are allowing users to reach online information such as that available on the Internet, the responsibility for the material accessed should not fall to the access provider.

A further refinement is necessary to adequately describe the interacting roles of content providers and users in the online environment. Of primary concern here is the level of privacy afforded to particular types of communication. If private networks are considered to fall outside the scope of this inquiry, then so too should private communications. Just as access providers should not be held accountable for information beyond their control, the right to privacy should prevail over the scope of a content code, save for those occasions where such communications breach statute law - obvious examples include harassment, stalking and trading child pornography. For all private communications the content creator, not the access provider, should be liable.

Differentiating between public and private communications impacts on the usefulness of the distinction between proprietary networks and private networks made in the issues paper. Arguably, the distinction will continue to erode as increasing numbers of private services implement gateways for their users. Of more utility would be a distinction made between public access and online access. This is not meant to imply that private communications cannot be included in a code of practice but that they must be carefully delineated from public services and subject to the same consideration given to private communications in other media.

The nature and scope of community concerns

To deal with the broad sweep of community concerns relating to online services, provisions for online conduct as well as online content are important. In line with its policy of freedom to access information, ALIA supports any efforts to ensure equitable access to information services. This requires not only the physical infrastructure to gain online access, but also an appropriate environment to participate in the services available. As noted earlier, privacy issues are important, not only to protect users and their sensitive or personal information, but also to clearly define the responsibilities of access providers.

A balance between freedom of expression and community standards must be achieved. There is a well-recognised need for the adequate protection of minors from information which may be harmful or disturbing. However, the role which community standards play in determining which information can be accessed online is contentious.

There are a multiplicity of community standards relating to offensive material. In Australia there are well-established standards regarding the classification of information and, to the extent that these can be applied to digitised information, these standards should be applied. This includes the existing classification schema of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). We should not resile from these standards, particularly as they provide significant rights of access to information. As highlighted by events in the United States, attempting to restrict content based on local community standards is divisive, counterproductive and essentially unworkable for a national or global network.

ALIA supports the OFLC principle that adults should be able to access any information which is legally available to them, but that appropriate safeguards should be in place so that the risk of being accidentally exposed to information which they do not wish to access, or the ability of adults or minors to access information which is either illegal or restricted is minimised.

Libraries will continue to uphold their legal responsibilities in relation to restricted or illegal information in the new medium. However, while measures can be taken to minimise the risk of exposure to materials which may be offensive or objectionable this risk cannot be fully eliminated. Consistent with ALIA's statement concerning freedom to read, libraries should not become involved in the process of censorship, and while recognising the powers of censorship which are legally vested in State and Federal governments, libraries will resist attempts by individuals or special interest groups to determine what information is to be, or is not to be, available to the users of libraries. A code of practice and other regulatory mechanisms, developed after careful consideration by representatives of the community, industry and government, is a more appropriate approach to dealing with issues of community standards.

International agreements

As a matter of principle, the Australian government and its agents should work towards the development of international agreements on issues such as the regulation of content, classification standards and intellectual property matters. Because of the global nature of online services such agreements will not necessarily be an effective control on content which originates off-shore.

Education

Appropriate education is the most important user issue for online services. Without it, the utility of such services is limited and the protection given by a code of practice is likewise diminished. Therefore, a widespread education campaign should accompany any implementation of a code of practice, focusing on how to utilise the new services, what rights and obligations individuals and organisations have as users and content providers, and the measures which exist to aid their use of online services.

Code of practice for the industry

A code of practice is not only appropriate, but it offers the only method for achieving some form of control over the content of online services. ALIA favours the development of a model which shares responsibility for implementing the code between community, industry and government.

The ABA issues paper has identified the broad sweep of issues which ALIA would seek to include in a code of practice. Libraries are currently assisting and educating users of online services by offering professional expertise in matters such as user netiquette, and are already implementing procedures to help prevent access to restricted or illegal information. ALIA members are aware of their responsibilities in relation to matters such as copyright, defamation and anti-discrimination legislation, but recognise that the application of these responsibilities in respect of online information poses some difficulties which a code of practice and technological developments could help resolve.

Content classification

Legally required standards for content and conduct already exist in the classification standards of the OFLC and laws relating to copyright, racial vilification, and section 85ZE of the Crimes Act dealing with harassment and offensive behaviour over a telecommunications network. We have already noted the difficulties associated with the application of these standards to material originating off-shore. Legislators in the United States have attempted to circumvent some of the associated problems by imposing very stringent standards and appending extradition rights to their legislation. Given the vast quantity of information and the global nature of the infrastructure, this approach is impractical. International standards may ultimately aid both access providers and users by simplifying the administration of classification standards. We recognise that this issue requires further consideration and debate.

Online industry body

ALIA welcomes the call for the development of an online industry body and seeks representation on it. As stated earlier, libraries have a wealth of experience with information-related issues, are core information providers to community, business and government, and are expert in the special information needs of diverse groups in Australia. As libraries increasingly take on the role of online access and content providers, the necessity for a forum in which the interests of the library sector can be represented will also increase. ALIA believes that the library sector can make an important contribution to such a body because of the depth of its expertise in dealing with information-related issues.

Developments in the education sector

ALIA sought and applauds the bi-partisan support which has been given in principle to the provision of online access for schools, TAFE colleges and Universities. It must be noted that the educational sector is wide ranging and the information requirements of students are greatly varied. It is important to connect students to the emerging global information network because of the richness and diversity of information available. Library and information services personnel are directly involved in programs which ensure students have developed the information literacy skills which this access facilitates. Concerns about accessing inappropriate materials are amplified in the education sector.

Consumer issues

A code of practice should attempt to ensure that user issues, such as the quality, flexibility and accountability of services provided, are upheld. The code can be designed so that it aids users on two levels. First, it could help individuals using the services to do so more efficiently and in compliance with a code of practice as well as the code dealing with online content. Second, it could aid service providers in protecting users from the misuse of online services, such as being subject to unsolicited, harassing or disturbing material, by providing the service provider with clear guidelines on how to deal with situations as they arise. Libraries will continue their current practice of aiding users on both levels.

Australian content

ALIA encourages the in-principle bi-partisan support which has been given to Australia's emerging multi-media industry. ALIA perceives this support to be logically consistent with an in-principle support for Australian content online. Furthermore, libraries are set to undertake the important role of access points to the newly-digitised versions of Australian collections.

Conclusion

Any regulation of online content should not erode existing standards and expectations relating to access and the availability of a broad range of information. Classification systems, filtering and screening technologies and user education will facilitate the regulation of user access to information. Content creators must be held responsible for the maintenance of these standards. Access providers, such as libraries, cannot be held responsible for the content which might be viewed by users especially given the volume of information available, the dynamic nature of the medium and the difficulties with establishing and maintaining regulatory schemes. ALIA recognises that reasonable steps should be taken by access providers to allay the concerns of the community and supports the implementation of a code of practice and a representative online industry body.