Zerloch posted on March 10, 2010
09:17
Mid 2010 will see the Federal Government introduce legislation that will attempt to 'oversee' the Internet in Australia. A compulsory ISP level filter will be put in place for all Australian Internet users that will see 'refused classification' material blocked. The government contends that only the 'worst of the worst' media content will be blocked, and in no way are we looking at a Chinese style widespread censorship regime. Lets cross our fingers shall we? For what we could be seeing is the attempted reigning in of the Internet by a government bureaucracy intent on an almost maternal mission. As Minister for Broadband and Communications Senator Conroy explains,”It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material.”
The filter will block material sourced from a 'Black List' maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Senator Conroy has steadily maintained that this black list will wholly consist of refused classification material such as child pornography, sexual violence and terrorist instructional videos. Bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that the vast majority of Australians would rightly find repulsive.
The government's sales pitch started to look shaky when in 2009 a purported copy of the proposed blacklist was leaked, listing a surprising variety of web links. The reported sites included online gambling destinations, pro-euthanasia sites and anti-abortion websites. It would seem we are to be 'protected' against various opinions and ideologies as well. More recently Senator Conroy admitted that Google had been approached by the government to also censor Youtube in line with government content guidelines. Yes you heard right, Youtube. A site hardly known for hosting the 'worst of the worst', that is unless the government is declaring war on bad karaoke and animal antics. Google, fresh from its stoush with Chinese authorities, was far from impressed.
Google is not the only major opposition to this proposed online regulatory regime. Amongst a legion of groups standing against the plan are the Librarians Association of Australia, The Computer Research and Education Association, and importantly the child advocate organisation Save the Children. They rightly argue that the filter far from adequately addresses the issue of children accessing inappropriate material online.
If increased costs of Internet access, potential data speed losses and government bureaucrats dictating what we can and can't see are not bad enough, we come to the torpedo that should sink this exercise in censorship mischief. The facts are, it simply won't work. VPN and Web proxies will easily bypass the filter, as will Bit-Torrent technology. And finally it's just plain zany to even imagine that a manually compiled list can even begin to touch the edges of constant and vast content creation and distribution that defines today's Internet.
An argument is not being made here that the Internet by its existence justifies a stance of 'anything goes'. Far from it. Online criminal activity such as child pornography and terrorism should rightly fall into the jurisdiction of investigation and prosecution by law enforcement. Another effective tool is investing in education for both parents and children on how to effectively deal with unwanted online content. This is vital, as parents are the best guardians for safeguarding children online – not software.
The Internet is extreme in its nature. There is wilderness and evil, yet there are opportunities to educate and communicate on a scale that empowers humanity like no other technological advancement in our history. Governments can play a viable role as educator and infrastructure provider in this new online frontier. Attempts to play the role of information gatekeeper are naive, ineffective and detrimental.