The internet and being Aussie - on Australia Day
Now why would I be writing a blog post on the Australia Day public holiday? Besides the fact that I have a little more time to think and write today, it’s because I am celebrating being an Australian - in a free and democratic country. But what of the near future in regards to our internet…. yes, the NBN is a nation-building activity, but what of the proposed mandatory ISP filtering. It seems to go against not only the general Aussie way of things, but the core values of ALIA members.
Senator, we welcome the opportunity to comment and to be part of the debate and we absolutely agree that the issue of child abuse and pornography is abhorant and needs addressing. But the Blacklist is just one form of the internet - the blacklist covers URL’s only, it does not protect children against pornographic activities in the areas of peer-to-peer networking, instant messaging, direct emails and chat rooms. A significant shift of the cost of the proposed mandatory filtering into additional government funding for the AFP Child Protection initiatives would go a long way here. Library staff should be aware that anyone can report illegal internet material at anytime by lodging a complaint to ACMA via this webpage. It is a concern that filtering can give a false sense of security.
Last week I met with a few other like-minded organisational partners to forward the debate on ISP filtering and how ALIA on behalf of it’s members can contribute to this. We will also be requesting discussion time at the next CWG meeting about the proposals and drafted legislation.
You will note on the ALIA e-lists and ALIATwitter in the coming days a reminder of the ALIA submission to the RC Classification.
We believe that Cybersafety Education should be mandatory, not filtering. Every Australian should not be treated like a child - adults have the right to look after their children, to educate themselves on how to protect their children, to have greater access to resources and experts to assist with this education, and adults do have the right to view material that is not illegal on the internet – in a free and democratic society where freedom of information is regarded as a right of it’s citizens.
Topics that are sensitive - including euthanasia, terrorism, sexual persuasion and suicide - might not be long conversations around the Australia Day BBQ, but every Australian still has the right to access information about these issues.
ALIA members and friends, I encourage you to take the time to update youself on the current ISP filtering issues - this recent report is a great summary “Untangling the Net : The scope of content caught by mandatory internet filtering”. There are also more questions from the IIA that you will find of interest.
ALIA will be completing our submission to the RC Classification review and be writing to the minister again with questions and comments. What can you do?
1. Contribute to the ALIA Submission : Email your comments, example case studies of how filtering impedes access to information and topics of common interest to advocacy@alia.org.au . If you belong to another Australian Library Association/Organisation, then encourage your executive to contact the ALIA Executive Director to join in the combined submission executive.director@alia.org.au . Please note that the 5 main questions to respond to for this submission
2. Individuals may also make a submission directly to the RC Classification review by 12th February 2010, or write to the Minister at any time
3. Support ALIA through your membership contribution to ensure that we can continue our advocacy work in this and other important areas.
4. Update your knowledge on the issues, and the specifics of the proposed internet filtering. Take a few minutes to view Cybersmart resources for library staff and send this link to your colleagues.
5. Use Safer Internet Day on 9th February 2010 to highlight online safety messages and cybersafety resources to your customers, networks and friends. Check out the ‘Think before you post’ downloadable poster, tips and YouTube.
Happy Australia Day. Lets continue to live in a truly democratic society where censorship will be rejected.
Sue Hutley, ALIA Executive Director
January 27th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Thank you very much for your post, but I would like to address one minor issue.
You suggest that illegal material should be reported to ACMA. I would contend that GENUINELY illegal material (such as child abuse material) should be reported directly to the Federal Police, not a broadcast regulator.
After all, if you witness a child kidnapped in the street, would you report it to the traffic authority?
While it is true that ACMA have a complaints form, it is really intended for “offensive” content, as evidenced by ACMA’s control over the old “Prohibited Content” list, which can contain material rated as low as MA15.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:19 am
I think most reasonable persons - information workers included - agree that some form of control of internet content is supportable. As Harold says, illegal content ought to flag legal outcomes - if child pornography exists online, find those who produce and distribute it and treat them according to current law. Also under Australian law, the offending content should be removed from the internet. If the illegal content is not hosted in Australia, how can the authorities accomplish its removal? To protect Australians from this content, the filter would be designed to block access. Whilst the idea of censorship does rankle some of us, we should (reluctantly) accept that some mandatory filtering of content may be justified.
The biggest problem with the proposed filter, in my view, is not its existence but its opacity. Detractors have challenged its openness to abuse (e.g. suppression of websites critical to the current government); its potential for bias (e.g. blocking a site on homosexuality as being out of line with community standards); and its capacity for error (e.g. blocking sex education sites, or Queensland dentists. Certainly nobody likes dentists but they don’t deserve that…).
The proposed filter doesn’t just block sites, it does so invisibly. Internet users would have no way of telling that the content they want to access is blocked, or why. This leaves no visibility of the accuracy of the filter, and it leaves no recourse for those who have a valid reason to access content or who are adversely affected (such as Queensland dentists). A viable mandatory filter system ought at minimum to provide basic information about the site that has been blocked and the reasons for its suppression, and a system needs to be in place whereby such a filter can be challenged for any specific content.
A knee-jerk reaction to internet filtering serves nobody and puts information workers at odds with the majority of the Australian populace. We should instead be working to mitigate the risks and dangers of the filter so it can serve its valid purpose without endangering our “truly democratic society”.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
If the illegal content is not hosted in Australia, how can the authorities accomplish its removal?
They contact the authorities in the host nation, or the hosting service itself. Few things are more universally despised than child pornographers; as a result you will find, almost without exception, that the material is brought down in a matter of hours - unless it’s being used to conduct a police sting operation. Arrests are made. On the other hand, it’s been demonstrated that adding material to the current ACMA blacklist can take upwards of legally-mandated two months. Even with a massive injection of funding to administer the new blacklist, I expect that timeframe would not improve as the number of complaints, particularly tricky requests made by politically motivated filtering opponents well versed in the peculiarities of our classification code and guidelines, soar.
Additionally, child abuse material appears on the web only rarely, typically briefly, and in particular circumstances. The vast majority of it is traded via encrypted peer-to-peer networks by people who are well aware of the illegality of what they do and no desire to be caught. As a result, filtering is utterly ineffective in this arena - the Australian Federal Police and various child protection and welfare organisations have said as much. The only solution is dedicated police work.
February 7th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
[…] our opposition to mandatory filtering and pulling together case studies and comments for the ALIA submission. Also catching up on Parliament too - and the positive and supportive comments by Senator Trood […]