Senator Conroy’s ISP filtering plans are certainly causing a stir. There has been hype, there have been reasoned responses, but overall, I think true debate has been lacking. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a story on the matter for a uni subject I’m doing (reproduced below), and it prompted me to think. So, here’s my two cents’ worth:

I think the plan is ridiculous, overall. Filtering is hardly in demand - that is patently obvious by the woeful PAFO scheme of the previous Government: $84.8 million spent for ongoing usage of just 30,000 filters, despite a $22 million advertising campaign.

The real problem is the opt-out “clean feed” filtering of grey area material. Who decides what is on that list? What age will content be made appropriate for (a big difference between 5 and 15, for example!).

Blocking the ACMA blacklist, though, I think is less bad, provided there are safeguards against using the blacklist innapropriately. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam told me one suggestion was for an independent panel of reviewers (such as judges) to be responsible for the list.

But consider: if the blocking the blacklist meant reduced supply of child pornography, that’s effectively a drop in demand, and hopefully a drop in production. Obviously, that needs to be examined properly, but really, should people have a right to view it in the first place? Should ISPs have a right to pass it on? In a very real sense (because it is a market, and big business at that), viewing child porn is to be complicit in its production, hence our tough laws on viewing paedophilic material. I consider blocking this stuff could be a reasonable part of wider law enforcement activity.

Anyway, I think if we want to seriously look at Conroy’s proposal, debate along the following lines is helpful:

1. Why should the “clean feed” option be opt-out? Why not opt-in?
2. Just who is the “clean feed” making the Internet appropriate for?
3. Should ISPs be allowed to transmit child porn sites to their customers?
4. Is continued education for parents and children a better way to spend money? What other initiatives have been considered? What’s the Government’s aim, anyway?
5. Should the contents of the ACMA blacklist be reviewed by an independent panel to ensure the Government can’t use it for political purposes?

Conroy should be able to provide reasoned defences for his policy on all five counts. I doubt he’d be able to.

Story on the Government’s Mandatory ISP-level Filtering Plans
07/11/2008
by Amanda Singh

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should voluntarily block child pornography from reaching Australian Internet users, a leading child protection advocate said this week.

Cyber-Safety Consultative Working Group member and CEO of Child Wise Bernadette McMenamin AO made the comments in response to censorship concerns over the Federal Government’s mandatory ISP-level filtering plans.

“The [blacklist] filter isn’t about censorship, ISPs should willingly block child pornography – no one should have a right to access that material,” Ms McMenamin said.

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Senator Stephen Conroy will oversee a pilot for two tiers of filtering: a mandatory blocking of illegal material and an opt-out clean feed for families.

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam questioned the Minister in a Budget Estimates Committee hearing last month but said uncertainties remain in the Government’s filtering policy.

“There’s been no community consultation and we’re not clear on who this clean feed will make the Internet safe for – a 15 year old or a 5 year old,” Senator Ludlam said.

Ms McMenamin, however, said the Government had listened sufficiently and understood concerns for child protection, despite the lack of formal consultation.

“I totally support blocking the [ACMA] blacklist because stopping even 40 per
cent of the traffic of this material reduces demand, and we can’t price protecting children from abuse,” she said.

Senator Ludlam said the Greens would seek safeguards against inappropriate censorship included in any legislation the Government proposed, if the policy makes it that far.

“One suggestion is for a panel of independent reviewers to be responsible for the ACMA blacklist of illegal sites,” he said.

The pilot will determine whether the blacklist filtering and optional clean feed is feasible for real world conditions.

The Minister’s office this week confirmed the pilot’s configuration, but no timelines have been made public.