More questions about mandatory filtering…

Uncategorized

I had a few questions that I would have liked to ask Minister Conroy the day that he announced a mandatory “cleanfeed” of the internet- meaning that citizens would receive a restricted feed unless they formally contacted their ISP, Internet Filtering to become mandatory in Australia.

Now the Australian Library and Information Association has actually asked the Minister a number of questions about it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

ALIA’s questions below:

 1. What does “clean feed” mean?

Is there a definition of the term? Does it have the common meaning people understand? Does it mean what the UK and Canadian proponents mean?

2. What exactly will be filtered out?

Is there a definition or is this yet to be developed? The current language is vague and alarming – “inappropriate content”, for example. We know child pornography and “violence” will be filtered out; what other “undesirable” content? Will the filter cover websites, chat rooms, blogs, game sites – or just some of these?

3. What rules will be used?

How will the filtered-out content relate to the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications (2005) and the National Classification Code? Will it be the same as “refused classification” material? Or will it also include X, 18 and 15 rated material or some combination?

4. Will the list of blacklisted sites be made publicly available?

The current list of sites which are banned is not made public. This makes it very difficult to argue that a mistake has been made.

5. Who will decide which specific sites are to be filtered out in the “clean feed”?

Will this be an administrative decision? Will it include any transparency requirements? Will there be any kind of appeal from decisions?

6. Who will know who has opted out of the clean feed?

Will there be any privacy provisions? What will they be?

7. How can we be sure this is not the thin end of a wedge?

What kinds of guarantee will Australians have that a policy which may initially have a narrow scope (e.g. child pornography) will not later be widened (e.g. to support and advocacy of terrorism). Will there be scope to extend the policy by administrative decision, or only by legislation?

8. Do Australians want internet filters?

In 2007 the then Government sent a brochure offering free filters to 8 million Australian households. We understand that only a very small percentage chose to take up this offer. Can we conclude that 98% of Australian households see no need for filters? What evidence is there to the contrary?

9. What happens next?

What process will be followed in Government plans to “work with the industry to ensure the filters do not affect the speed of the internet?” Is this a commitment to no loss of internet speed or response time? Is there a timeline?

10. What will it cost us?

What will the policy cost to implement – not just cost to government (though we want to know that), but cost to Australian internet users, industry and education.

Filtering our libraries

Uncategorized

The Australian government wants to help families use the internet safely. Last June they announced they would spend $116.6 million on their Protecting Families Online initiative. A key part of this is $93.3 million to provide free filtering software to families and public libraries.

Yesterday, the Australian Library and Information Association posted a survey for public libraries on the website, explaining that (emphasis theirs):

Libraries that take part in the [free filtering] initiative will be able to access ongoing technical advice from their preferred filter vendor. In addition, general online safety information can be accessed through the NetAlert website at http://www.netalert.net.au/ or via their free information hotline on 1800 880 176.

DCITA has been working with the Australian Library and Information Association with the aim of ensuring the filtering needs of libraries are adequately addressed. The following questionnaire is designed to assist in this process and reflects a collaborative undertaking between DCITA and ALIA.

At best, their position is neutral. This seems at odds with their “advocacy” page about Online Content Regulation, which is quite strongly against filtering and states that:

ALIA supports the basic right of library and information services users to unhindered access to information regardless of format.

Filtering software
ALIA does not recommend the use of internet filtering technology in public libraries. Filtering has been shown to vary in its effectiveness, blocking some sites with useful and legal information, while not fully protecting children and others from illegal, objectionable or offensive material.

ALIA urges the Tasmanian government to reverse its decision to introduce filtering software
ALIA wrote to The Tasmanian Minister for Education, The Hon Paula Wreidt MHA, on 15 December 2005 urging her to reverse her decision announced on 10 December 2005 to use filtering software in public libraries and Online Access Centres in Tasmania.

A few things about the government initiative disturb me. This bit of the minister’s press release reminds me of the provisions of the proposed DOPA (Deleting Online Predators) Act in the US, where funding was contingent on libraries regulating who accessed what:

As part of the implementation of this package the National Library of Australia will be required to provide filtering on all of its public access Internet terminals, with the option of disabling the filter when the terminals are being used by adults.

In conjunction with the responsible State, Territory and Local Governments, libraries will be encouraged to mirror the action required of the National Library of Australia and make as many of their computers as possible child-safe.

Five million dollars has been spent on NetAlert, an internet safety education site for families. Some of the information on the website is fine. It even defines unreliable information on the internet – although it doesn’t then suggest how to deal with it. (Pick us, pick us!!!)

The centrepiece to which most pages link is “A Parent’s Guide to Internet Safety“. I couldn’t find a date on the report, but it mentions plans to create and Internet Safety Education Program for Teens in “2005/2006”. Not good enough. The web is evolving too quickly.

If I wanted to have a cheap shot, I could point out the ironic juxtapositon of these two dot points outlining how to keep your teens safe (emphasis mine):

  • Keep the computer in a public area in the home
  • Reinforce safety messages and cyber rules. NetAlert has created house rules and Internet safety contracts to help families create Internet safety strategies. Younger teens in particular should be reminded of the need to protect their privacy

This suggestion from the How Do I Supervise the Internet At Home page, probably doesn’t bug most people, but as someone who is trying to teach my kids critical thinking and to find their own values, it bugs me:

Take an interest in the new sites children are finding online and spend time exploring with them. This will help children retain your values for when they are working alone.

In our house, we do restrict Mr4 and Mr9’s viewing, allowing them each day just one hour of “screen time” (ie. leisure on the PC or in front of a DVD). We are careful about the movies they watch and the books they read – to an extent that they are possibly shocked when they see the type of TV violence that I guess their peers see all the time. I’m still shocked, disturbed and depressed by much violence on the screen, and the disrespect between people shown there. I guess I am trying to get my kids to retain my values in that case.

Would we filter the internet? No. I don’t think that filters work technically. I think having a standardised, nation-wide filter is an invitation to a standardised, nation-wide hack. I want to be open to discuss with my kids what they are seeing and exploring, rather than banning it.

It’s my responsiblity to help them evaluate and learn to use the internet safely. That’s really the crux of my discomfort with filtering in public libraries – it’s shifting the responsibility from parents to the libraries. I’m hypocritical and confused enough with how to help my own kids be safe around the ‘net – I just don’t think we should have responsibility for doing this for other peoples’ kids.