Australian Internet Censorship Jan 2008 - December 2008

Stephen Conroy Announces internet censorship.

On December 31st 2007, just over a month since winning government,  Labor announced  plans to censor the internet.

Conroy announces mandatory internet filters to protect children abc.net.au 31.12.07

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," he said.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.

He says the Government will work with the industry to ensure the filters do not affect the speed of the internet.

"There are people who are going to make all sorts of statements about the impact on the [internet] speed," he said.

"The internet hasn't ground to a halt in the UK, it hasn't ground to a halt in Scandinavian countries and it's not grinding the internet to a halt in Europe.

"But that is why we are engaged constructively with the sector, engaging in trials to find a way to implement this in the best possible way and to work with the sector."

***

Onus on providers to clean up web content. news.com.au 31.12.07

....Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said everything possible had to be done to shield children from violent and pornographic online material.

"We have always argued more needs to be done to protect children," he said.

Senator Conroy said the clean feed, also known as mandatory ISP filtering, would prevent users from accessing prohibited content.

"We will work with the industry to get the best policy," he said. "(But) Labor is committed to introducing mandatory ISP filtering."

Senator Conroy said the Australian Communications and Media Authority would prepare a "blacklist" of unsuitable sites.

It is unclear exactly what will be deemed inappropriate material.

The adoption of mandatory ISP filtering comes on top of the former government's offer of free internet filtering software for home computers.

***

Electronic Frontiers Australia Opinion

Government porn filter to slow down the internet. news.com.au 31.12.07

Readers' Comments on Porn filter may slow internet. news.com.au 31.12.07

Chair of the internet user group Electronic Frontiers Australia, Dale Clapperton, said mandatory ISP filtering eroded internet freedom and would not improve online safety for children.

"China, Burma and Saudi Arabia and those type of oppressive countries are the only ones that have seriously looked at doing something like this," he said.

"In Australia, which is supposedly a Liberal democracy, the government is saying that the internet is so full of this material that it must protect us from it by trying to block it."

Mr Clapperton feared that parents would be lulled into a false sense of security.

"Parents should not allow their children to use the internet unsupervised," he said.

"Stuff that should be blocked will inevitably get through."

***

NSW Council for Civil Liberties Opinion

Minister warned on porn filters. SMH 01.01.08 

LABOR'S plan to introduce mandatory internet filters will send Australia down a censorship path similar to China's and Singapore's, but will not stop computer-savvy children looking at banned sites, according to the NSW Council for Civil Liberties.

The council's vice-president, David Bernie, said the Federal Government plan was political grandstanding. It would force users to ask internet service providers to lift a block on extremely violent and pornographic sites.

"It is a gimmick," Mr Bernie said. "It's been sold to the public as protecting children from pornography but what is dangerous about these filters is that parents will think their children can't access pornography on the internet when in fact they can.

"Anybody who's computer-savvy can work their way around these filters in about two minutes maximum," he said.

Mr Bernie said the filters would lull parents into a false sense of security and discourage them from monitoring their children's internet activities. Only adults would be restricted by the filters, he said.

"Will there be some database of people who want to access adult pornography, which is legal in most democratic countries?"

"It has serious implications for freedom of expression. When you start filtering material on political grounds - even if the material is objectionable or quite awful - we're heading in the same direction as China and Singapore."

***

Internet Industry Association opinion

No porn, no promise. news.com.au 01.01.08

Internet Industry Association spokesman Peter Coroneos said yesterday the industry is working closely with the Government on the policy to be trialled later this year.

But he warned it could never be completely successful in blocking access to all pornographic sites, just the ones on the blacklist.

If new sites were launched that were not included on the blacklist the clean feed would not restrict access to them, he said. "You've got to be aware of the fallibility of the approach," he warned.

There were millions of pornographic websites and if all of them were included in the blacklist "there is a potential for slow downs in access to occur", he said.

"The more sites you attempt to block the greater the effect on the network performance and speed," he said.

This is because every time you type a request into your search engine it will have to be checked against all the sites on the blacklist, he said.

In Britain where a clean feed policy is being pursued, only between 200 and 1000 child pornography sites have been included on a blacklist.

But if Australia insisted on including millions of general pornography sites and others that include violence it could undermine internet users' speed of access to websites, Mr Coroneos said.

Mr Coroneos said any clean feed policy would have to be carefully balanced.

He said households that really wanted to block out pornographic material would be better off investing in a home based filter system.

***

Paul Syvret's opinion piece

Nanny Rudd censors the internet. news.com.au 01.01.08

KEVIN Rudd's fledgling government has just made its first major policy blunder. And it's a doozy.

This is a piece of political lunacy that will intrude into all our lives whether we like it or not – somewhat like a blunt instrument used to bash down your bedroom door. What's more astounding is that for a Prime Minister who campaigned on his relative youth, and the value of new technology and the information age, is that this is a policy that flies in the face of any such alleged revolution, education or otherwise.

What the Rudd Government is proposing is compulsory censorship of the internet in Australia.

Sure, they'll spin it with words like "filtering" and "optional" and "protecting children" but ultimately it is censorship at a government level, nothing less.

In a nutshell, every internet user in the country will have their web content automatically censored by some faceless mandarins to block anything that is deemed "inappropriate material" – which will be an interesting definition in itself.

This will be done at an internet service provider level.

To obtain an unfiltered internet feed you must contact your ISP and ask that the filter to your particular connection be removed so you can view material that may be "R" or "X" rated or otherwise offensive to whomever will decide what spins their moral compass.

***

Sydney Morning Herald Editorial

The great firewall and net porn SMH 02.01.08

The zeal of the Rudd Government in getting down to hard work on its election promises is commendable, but someone should quietly advise its Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, to take a break and reflect more on the pledge to provide porn-free internet feeds to schools and homes. Senator Conroy wants the Communications and Media Authority to draw up a blacklist of unsuitable websites, which internet service providers will then be required to block to their customers unless they specifically request an uncensored feed. 

Rather than giving parents a false sense of security, the money would be better spent on more resources for the Australian Federal Police to pursue child-porn rings, which often involve transnational investigations with foreign police, and on educating parents about home-based filters and activity monitors they can install to help them protect and guide their children.

***

Electronic Frontiers Australia on Labor's censorship proposal.

Electronic Frontiers Australia
Media Release 
2 January 2008

EFA Attacks Clean-Feed Proposal Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today attacked a government plan, championed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, that would mandate "clean feed" filtered Internet connections to all homes and schools. This scheme, which will supposedly censor the Internet of pornography and other "inappropriate material", goes further than the Coalition's previous policies, by requiring individuals to opt-out of the scheme rather than request filtering from their service provider.

"Waving the 'save the children' flag may be good politics, but it ignores serious technological problems which will likely cause the proposed scheme to fail," said EFA Chair Dale Clapperton. "Furthermore, Australia is supposed to be a liberal democracy where adults have the freedom to say and read what they want, not just what the Government decides is 'appropriate' for them."

"These announcements smack of the condescending paternalism which contributed to the downfall of the Howard government," Clapperton continued. "The proposals threaten the free speech rights of every Australian, and our concerns will not be silenced by Government sound bites equating free speech with access to child pornography."

EFA has previously raised concerns about Australia joining North Korea, China and Burma in the club of nations who censor their citizens' access to the internet. While the Minister makes no apologies for this alarming development, he has given us little reason to put our faith in his bureaucrats to administer such a system competently, transparently and fairly.

"Who decides what is 'appropriate' for adult Australians to read on the Internet, and according to what standards?", asked Clapperton. "What will happen if the Government decides that information about abortion or gay marriage is 'inappropriate' at the behest of Family First Senator Steve Fielding?"

In an attempt to dismiss the policy's critics, Senator Conroy said "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree." EFA notes, however, that child pornography is already illegal, and very unlikely to come to the attention of either the casual web user or the censors themselves. "senator Conroy's attempt to equate freedom of speech with access to child pornography is a transparent attempt to deter criticism of this fundamentally flawed proposal," said Mr Clapperton.

Implementation of the proposal, insofar as it is technically possible, would cause significant technical and administrative headaches for Australia's Internet Service Providers. "This can only have the effect of making Australians' access to the internet slower and more expensive," said Clapperton. "Given the Prime Minister's election promise to focus on improving the nation's access to broadband, the fact that the first measures put in place should do the exact opposite is as disappointing as it is bewildering."

With billions of web pages available on the internet and changing every day, the crucial technical and administrative details of how the clean feed will be created have not yet been made available. Although the Minister has asserted that the Internet will not "grind to a halt", he has yet to explain to Internet engineers how he plans to accomplish a feat that experts acknowledge would be very difficult. "Anyone with a better understanding of the Internet than the Minister will tell you this system simply will not work," said Clapperton. "But a lot of taxpayers' money will be wasted if we try."

EFA supports measures to provide filtering software to homes where it is requested, and to educate parents on monitoring their children's online activities. "Unfortunately, ISP based filtering will not make the Internet safe for children, and may even cause harm in and of itself. If parents are deceived into believing that a 'filtered' Internet service is safe for children, they will be less likely to take sensible precautions such as supervising their children while they use the Internet."

At a time when all sides of politics acknowledge the importance of developing our information economy, EFA feels that this announcement sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. "The Coalition was rightly ridiculed by the rest of the world when they announced in the late 1990's that they would censor Australian's Internet access. The Coalition, at least, sensibly realised that their proposals were technologically infeasible. It seems that the current Minister with responsibility for the Internet has yet to learn that lesson."

-- Ends --

Below is: - Background information - Contact details for media

About EFA: Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. ("EFA") is a non-profit national organisation representing Internet users concerned with on-line rights and freedoms. EFA was established in 1994, is independent of government and commerce, and is funded by membership subscriptions and donations from individuals and organisations with an altruistic interest in promoting online civil liberties.

Media Contacts: Mr Dale Clapperton Mr Colin Jacobs EFA Chair EFA Board Member Phone: 0416 007 100 Phone: 0402 631 955 Email: dclapperton at efa.org.au Email: cjacobs at efa.org.au

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc
http://www.efa.org.au

***

Australian Privacy Foundation Opinion

Censorship trapped in net, taking on water Daily Telegraph 02.01.08

A seething Dr Roger Clarke, chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, bluntly described the proposal as "stupid and inappropriate".

He said not only was it unworkable, but it was a sinister blow to an individual's rights to use the internet without censorship.

"Not only will it not work, it is quite dangerous to let the Government censor the net and take control out of the hands of parents,' Clarke said.

"It is an inappropriate thing for them to be doing. Mr Conroy is like a schoolmaster playing God with the Australian population, all because of the dominance of a moral minority."

There are genuine concerns that the Government - backed by morals groups such as Family First - will in time extend the powers outside of their intended target area.

The truth is, despite the policy having been part of Labor's manifesto since 2005, and following claims the Government is "engaged constructively with the sector", no one has the faintest idea how such a system would work.

***

Courier Mail Editorial

Censorship must be left to parents. Courier Mail 03.01.08

BLANKET censorship of any kind in a democracy should be viewed with deep suspicion.

Ostensibly the move is designed to protect children from accessing unsavoury web content, but it will catch every Australian internet user in the process. Some cynics might also suggest that the policy is at least in part aimed at appeasing some independent members of the Senate, such as Family First's Steve Fielding.

The other danger with this style of censorship is the ability of regulators, once it is in place, to extend the parameters of what is unacceptable and deserving of a ban – a creeping cancer of government censorship in the worst-case scenario.

Ultimately, however, it comes down to parental responsibility. Sex and violence have existed since the dawn of time, and responsible parents have managed to shield their young from the worst of it without the compulsory help of a Big Brother.

The Rudd Government should concentrate on delivering on its promise to improve broadband access and efficiency in this country, and not try to impose itself as some draconian nanny watching over all of our shoulders.

Leave the parents to do the parenting.

***

The Australian Editorial

Net-nanny state worth watching. The Australian 03.01.08

Like Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, The Australian's definition of free speech does not extend to the right to view child pornography. But that does not mean we do not have some concerns about Labor's plan. In August, when John Howard raised the issue of net censorship in response to Labor's proposal, we said it was always prudent to maintain a healthy scepticism about government censorship of any type. Dealing with child pornography, we maintain, is foremost a matter for the police.

Despite its good intentions, there are worrying aspects to Labor's censorship plan. Among them is the fact that Labor's sweep will be much broader than what happens elsewhere, notwithstanding Mr Conroy's European comparisons. The plan risks giving parents a false sense of security because it will not be possible to block all offensive material. Equally, educational and other non-offensive sites will almost certainly be blocked in error. And research shows blanket restrictions can have a dramatic impact on the speed at which broadband services operate.

It is possible, however, to be simultaneously opposed to spreading images of child abuse and concerned about state programs that restrict the performance and worth of new technology. The opt-out provision contained in Labor's plan suggests an uncensored version of the internet will remain available for those who resent state intrusion to block otherwise legal material. However, it is difficult not to conclude that the Howard government's proposal for an opt-in system for concerned parents would be less demanding on the system and far preferable.

***

Clean Feed will slow internet

Rudd porn filter fails: experts. The Australian 03.01.08

THE "clean feed" filtering system Communications Minister Stephen Conroy hopes will halt internet porn has already been defeated by British researchers.

Online filters could block some undesirable websites but it would come at the small cost of slower broadband speeds Richard Clayton, of the University of Cambridge's Computer Laboratory, said the innovative blocking system CleanFeed, devised by British internet service provider BT, could be circumvented in a number of ways.

"At first sight, it's an effective and precise method of blocking unacceptable content," Mr Clayton said. "But there are a number of issues to address as soon as one assumes that content providers or consumers might make serious attempts to get around it."

"However, for larger ISPs with faster upstream connections, the use of such filters would severely reduce their performance levels."

***

Dr Peter John Chen Opinion piece.

Who's afraid of the net?. The Age 03.01.08

..... there are a range of fundamental problems with what Conroy is proposing.

First, it's a dumb idea. The underlying belief that computers can perfect or protect our morality smacks of a strange mixture of technological ignorance and faith. While a basic banned list of websites would reduce our exposure to "offensive" content, our use of the internet has changed since the Howard government's first forays into web censorship. The internet may be a primary source of pornography, but it is made up of an increasing array of dynamic sub-media that are not easily regulated: will these magic programs reach inside our Second Life environments and filter out the nudist avatars and saucy chats?

Will it be riding shotgun over our email and instant messaging? Will it be sitting on the ports we use for peering? Will our IP telephony be protected? The Government's proposal aims to swat flies with a hammer.

Second, the online "banned book" list is not transparent to public interest oversight in the way that attempts to ban films are. Efforts by the libertarian group Electronic Frontiers Australia to examine what has been banned in Australia have been met with considerable resistance by government. For lists maintained by private companies, Australia's weak Freedom of Information laws will be of no use: you'll not know what you're not supposed to know.

Most importantly, the idea of an invisible "safety net" that covers all Australians is troubling because it will arrest our natural development as internet users. What will putting an invisible set of training wheels on everyone's bicycle mean for our understanding of the risks and nature of our online world? The policy is reminiscent of Douglas Adams' anti-panic glasses, which turned black when confronted with something that might scare you.

Dr Peter John Chen is a research associate with Monash University's National Centre for Australian Studies.

***

Comment from Senator Conroy's office

Conroy wades into child porn net flood. The Australian 08.01.08

BROADBAND Minister Stephen Conroy faces an uphill struggle in his plans to increase internet censorship by boosting the official blacklist from a puny 1000 web pages to many millions of banned websites.

Senator Conroy's office is, however, not deterred.

"Admittedly, it will be difficult, but that's the intention," Senator Conroy's spokeswoman said yesterday. "Obviously there are many sites out there and they change their names. It's going to require a fairly vigilant monitoring system and it's not going to be 100 per cent foolproof."

The internet regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, has struggled to stem the flow of prohibited web content, as most of the material is hosted offshore. Moreover, it can only act on complaints.

ACMA's Donald Robertson confirmed there were "currently 1000 pages on the blacklist".

"We're also part of an international network that generates 300,000 investigations per year into offensive and illegal internet pages," he said. "The majority of these investigations relate to child pornography."

Senator Conroy's spokeswoman said the blacklist would be expanded through liaison with the Australian Federal Police, and international agencies such as Interpol and the FBI. She said technical difficulties would be resolved in filtering trials being conducted by the ACMA in Tasmania. "We have a lot of experts coming to us saying, this can be done," she said.

"We'll be testing the best overseas models, the best advice and the best new technologies." 

Senator Conroy has been prodded into action by Family First senator Steve Fielding, and the Australian Family Association, which scorned the former government's $85 million free filters for families package as wholly inadequate.

It called for automated content filtering technology to scan for objectionable content, and a new "grey list" of sites, such as those promoting anorexia.

***

The Liberal's Bruce Billson MP on Conroy's Filtering Plan.

The Hon Bruce Billson MP Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy 
Liberal Party of Australia

Friday, 11 January 2008 
Media Release 
Labor's ‘Clean Feed’ Enigma Needs Answers 

Nobody of decency would disagree with the broad notion of guarding against our children being exposed to explicit, disturbing or inappropriate material via the internet. 

However, achieving this end is far more complicated than throwing out shallow motherhood statements aimed at attracting media headlines. While the Government's 'clean feed' proposal did attract the headlines, 

I’m certain they weren’t the type Communications Minister Stephen Conroy was banking on. 

When a proposal is put forward by Government people expect and deserve to see the detail; they want to be assured that some serious thought and hard work has gone into it. They want to know how it will work, they also want to know that the proposal reflects a thorough understanding of the complexities and intricacies of the technologies involved. 

Most importantly they want to be satisfied that this isn't the seed of some extreme measure that sees the Government assume the nanny role by making blanket determinations about what web content is appropriate or inappropriate for Australians. What will be determined a clean feed? Who will determine it and how? 

How will the feed be delivered without compromising system performance or without inadvertently blocking 'clean' content? This is an important question when you consider Labor's mantra for the past 12 months has been its objective to deliver some mythical level of superfast broadband. 

Also, does a blocking system exist that would enable to Government to even fulfil its objective? Many who specialise in this highly technical field have serious doubts. We've already seen how Cambridge University claims to have found shortcomings in the CleanFeed package developed by British ISP BT. We've also seen many examples of techno-savvy kids who have found ways of circumventing content filters. 

The reason the Government's proposal was so roundly attacked was because it lacked answers to any of the questions just put. By not providing the detail and clarity Senator Conroy left the plan open to not only valid technical criticism, but also speculation about potential censorship levels akin to a totalitarian regime and the erosion of personal freedoms that these would bring. 

Where the new Government's approach differs markedly from the previous Government's stance, is at the end of the day parental supervision has to be front and centre of any effective response to content access concerns.

 The approach many web users prefer, is parental or adult supervision complemented by optional value-add filtering technologies that can be tailored to a particular user setting. These filtering options are quite readily and freely available and offer scope for ISPs to work collaboratively with their customers to respond more precisely to users' needs. 

Computer usage is very situational and circumstantial, it is not universal and the settings that are suited to a particular household or school are something the users and supervisors need to work through. There is no techno-substitute for the role of appropriate supervision. 

There is also a darker threat to children that the Government's proposal appears to completely ignore and that is those chatrooms where pro-active, predatory risks can lurk. There is also the sphere where explicit material, whether it be images or literature, can be quite freely exchanged or forced on a recipient through message boards and email. These very real threats appear to be well outside the scope of the Government's proposed 'remedy'.

The hysteria generated by the Government's half-baked proposal is purely of its own making. They flagged a major policy direction that is of enormous interest to all those Australians who have a stake in the internet. The fatal error was failing to provide the necessary detail that a policy of this magnitude warrants. Detail and answers that the Government is now frantically trying to find. 

***

Senator Conroy on Safe Internet Day

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Media Release
12 February 2008
Safer Internet Day 2008 

Today is Safer Internet Day and Australia will join some 50 countries around the world in activities designed to raise awareness of the safety of children in the online environment, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, said today.

“The internet has much to offer our children but we also need to ensure that they have sufficient knowledge to enjoy a positive online experience,” Senator Conroy said.

“Initiatives such as Safer Internet Day provide an important focus for our efforts to educate our children in safe online behaviour as they use the web to exchange information and for entertainment, school work, research and social networking.

“I welcome the initiatives from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to use Safer Internet Day to help children across Australia to gain a broader understanding of the impact of their behaviours in the online environment.”

Senator Conroy said the Government's plan to provide online safety, especially for children, has a number of elements.

“These include education programs for parents and teachers as well as children. We will establish a youth advisory group which will report to an expanded Consultative Working Group on cyber-safety issues. We will undertake further Australian research into the changing digital landscape, provide greater resourcing for policing illegal content and introduce ISP level filtering to deliver a ‘clean feed' to homes, schools and public internet points,” said Senator Conroy.

“The Government is undertaking a number of activities to inform the development of the implementation framework for ISP filtering. ACMA's ‘blacklist' of websites will be made more comprehensive to ensure children are protected from harmful and inappropriate online material. “The Government is committed to working closely with industry to address any concerns over costs and internet speeds.”

Activities organised by ACMA for Safer Internet Day include a worldwide ‘blogathon' which Australian children will participate in. Cybersmart Detectives, a cyber-safety role play game will be run in Western Australia whilst ACMA staff are also participating in an online forum at ‘Habbo Hotel' (a virtual community for teenagers) to discuss safety questions.

***

Senate Estimates: ISP Filtering Part 1

Senator Steve 
Fielding Senator for Victoria Position
Family First Party

Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp 
Senator for Victoria Party
Liberal Party of Australia

Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy 
Senator for Victoria Positions: Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Australian Labor Party

Mr Abul Rizvi, Deputy Secretary, Broadcasting, ICT, Regional Strategy and Corporate
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Executive

Ms Patricia Scott, Secretary
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Executive 

Mr Chris Chapman, Chairman
Australian Communications and Media Authority

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS: Australian Communications and Media Authority: Discussion

Date 18 February, 2008 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS
Department Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Program Australian Communications and Media Authority
Page 4 
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm. 
Source Senate

Senator FIELDING—I have some follow-up questions on the internet filtering scheme. Today I read in the Canberra Times that there have been delays to the government’s plan to implement the ISP based filtering to protect children from internet pornography. Is that true?

Talk Senator Conroy—I read that article and was somewhat bemused by a number of the statements in it. As an example, there was a suggestion that I have met with the Eros Foundation twice since the election. That would make them the winner of the group that had met me the most since the election. Could I indicate just on a purely factual basis I have not met Eros at all since the election. That should give you an indication that I am somewhat bemused by the rest of the commentary in that article. We have indicated all along—I think ACMA has indicated—that the testing will commence. The contract has been let. It will be completed by 30 June, as we originally planned. We have indicated that there will be a field test that will follow that. I was, like yourself, somewhat perplexed by that article, which contains a number of factual errors.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Thank you for clarifying that. What is the time line? You gave a couple of dates before. Could you go through the time line?

Talk Mr Chapman—The contract for that trial has been let. We are on track to deliver the report on that trial to the minister by the requested date of 30 June.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I take it the other dates follow on from that date?

Talk Senator Conroy—Yes.

Talk Senator FIELDING—The Herald Sun reported on Sunday that the previous government’s PC based internet filter software program was a failure. Does the department regard it as a failure?

Talk Senator Conroy—That is an opinion.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Yes, it was. It was covering the PC based—

Talk Senator Conroy—That is an opinion on policy. I am not sure they are in a position that they can comment on either the previous government’s policy or the incumbent government’s.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Has the department surveyed families to find out the level of uptake, the usage, and why the usage is at quite a low level? Do you have any details at all?

Talk Mr Rizvi—We are conducting a survey on that matter at the moment to examine those sorts of issues. Once we have developed our thinking on that, we would brief the minister, who would need to make a decision on the nature of that survey.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Is there a time that the survey will be finished by?

Talk Mr Rizvi—We would be aiming to get a brief to the minister in the very near future on that.

Talk Senator KEMP—Is that days or weeks?

Talk Mr Rizvi—That would have to start probably within the next three to four weeks, subject to the minister’s decision on the survey.

Talk Senator FIELDING—A couple of weeks? Can you give me a time line so I know when to ask more questions?

Talk Mr Rizvi—We aim to run the survey for a period of approximately six weeks after we start it up.

Talk Senator FIELDING—I refer the department to a question on notice from May last year, to which I received an answer today. Does the department think that nine months to answer a question is acceptable? I will go through the question in a moment but does it think nine months—

Talk Ms Scott—I did answer a number of questions on this earlier in the day. I am happy to go through the information again about when the answers were submitted. There was a delay created by the change of government. That was a substantial delay. I will go through the earlier information.

Talk Senator KEMP—Mr Chairman, I am very happy for Ms Scott to tell us when the questions were submitted. But I would point out to her that she is setting a cracking precedent for future estimates committees. If she wants to do that, that is fantastic; I am very supportive of that. But I will leave it to her.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Perhaps I could direct a question to the minister in parallel with that question while they are coming back with that. The question revolves around the communications powers in section 51(5). The question was about public libraries in Australia, local libraries. It was referred to as being a state issue, of which I am fully aware. But the department has used, I think at maybe even the minister’s request, section 51(5) of the communications powers in regard to gaming when looking at states’ online gaming industries, and the federal government stepped in and used those powers. I asked a range of questions about why the minister could not direct the use of those same powers in directing local libraries to those at state level to use filters, rather than their saying they could not do that. In other words, at the federal level we intervened on internet gaming, but we seem reluctant to use those same powers to address internet filtering at the state library level. The advice came back that, yes—

Talk Senator Conroy—I appreciate the answer given by the previous government. As you would know, our policy that we have been advocating is that these would be mandatory in libraries. We probably have a different approach from the previous government’s.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Will you be using those communication powers under section 51(5) of the Constitution that were used federally, not by this government but by the previous government, on gaming? Will you use that to ensure that the state libraries use the filters?

Talk Senator Conroy—As you know, this is a process that we are developing at moment. We will be consulting the state and territory governments about the implementation of our policy. We will be taking advice on the best way to achieve the mandatory filtering in libraries. That is an option that will be part of that consideration. Unlike the previous government, which was opposed to this aspect of the policy, as you know well, it is certainly something we are prepared to consider.

Talk Senator FIELDING—The federal government can intervene, as we have seen in the last few years, where there is a matter of urgency and when the states may not have been able to do things themselves. We have used those powers before. I do not think it is acceptable even at federal level to assume that kids can walk in off the street and go to their local library and have access to internet pornography. I think that is absurd. Most families would find that confusing. I placed a question on notice and got an answer back that, yes, they did rely on those constitutional powers under section 51(4) for gaming. I thank the government for those answers, albeit it that they were awfully late. We should be directing the states and using those powers to filter internet pornography.

Talk Senator Conroy—As I have said, we are pursuing a different approach. And we will certainly consider that as part of our deliberations on the best way to achieve the outcome of our policy.

Talk Ms Scott—In response to your question about the timeliness of the answers, 74 four responses were provided to the committee on or before the due date of 31 July 2007; 106 responses were provided to the committee on or before 13 September; 74 were answered on 31 July; 15 on 8 August; one on 15 August; two on 22 August; one on the 29th, and 86 on 12 September; and one on 13 September. That meant 77 were then around at the time the caretaking took effect. There were 73 submitted on 16 February. I appreciate that is very difficult for senators. And then four were submitted today. Long delays occurred. But the answers had been completed. The delays occurred in large part because of the change in government.

Talk Senator FIELDING—Thank you.

***

Senate Estimates: ISP Filtering Part 2

Senator Guy Barnett 
Senator for Tasmania Party
Liberal Party of Australia

Senator Simon Birmingham 
Senator for South Australia Party
Liberal Party of Australia

Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald 
Senator for Queensland Party
Liberal Party of Australia

Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy 
Senator for Victoria Positions: Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Australian Labor Party

Ms Nerida O’Loughlin, General Manager, Industry Outputs Division
Australian Communications and Media Authority

Mr Marcus Bezzi, General Manager, Legal Services Division
Australian Communications and Media Authority

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS: Australian Communications and Media Authority: Discussion

Date 18 February, 2008 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS
Department Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Program Australian Communications and Media Authority
Page 4 
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm. 
Source Senate

Senator BARNETT—In terms of the CDMA trial in Tasmania, could you advise the committee and table the terms of reference for that trial and advise the report date?

Talk Senator Conroy—I am sorry, could you repeat the question?

Talk Senator BARNETT—In terms of the ACMA ISP trial, with which I have some history in Tasmania, as you know, could you please advise the committee of the terms of reference, table the terms of reference for that trial and advise the committee of the report date?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The terms of reference were contained in the ministerial direction that we received in June last year and we are happy to table that direction again for you. That also indicates that the report date is by 30 June this year, which we are on track to deliver.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Is the second ISP trial on track as well?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The second ISP trial?

Talk Senator BARNETT—I understand there is a second trial.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The minister has indicated that he is in favour of doing a live trial after our trial, and I think he mentioned earlier that that would follow on after we have completed our trial by June.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Has the Internet Industry Association feasibility study of ISP filtering and a survey of like filters been received by the department and is it available to the committee?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—That is a matter for the department.

Talk Senator Conroy—Can you just repeat the question? We are just gathering information for previous questions.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Has the Internet Industry Association’s feasibility study of ISP filtering and the survey of the like been received by the department and is it available to the committee?

Talk Mr Bezzi—We have received a draft report from the IIA. The report has not yet been approved by the board of the IIA. Once it has been, we will have a final and we will then brief the minister on that particular report.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Will you make it available to the committee?

Talk Mr Bezzi—That would be a matter for the minister.

Talk Senator Conroy—I will take that on notice. I would like to read it before I make a decision.

Talk Senator BARNETT—Would you confirm your commitment to mandatory ISP filtering?

Talk Senator Conroy—That is the stated policy. As you have seen, I have been out there campaigning for it. If I could just update the committee on some information that was being sought by Senator Macdonald and Senator Birmingham about the actual release of the drive-through sites. After some conversations, we are happy to release the details of the drive-through site routes and where the base station is. ACMA is happy and I am happy for that information that you were seeking earlier to be released.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Are they in response to the questions on notice?

Talk Senator Conroy—We should be able to get it up on a website or circulated to the committee members as soon as it is possible to actually compile it.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—That is fantastic.

Talk Senator Conroy—We will release the cell sites and the drive.

Talk Senator IAN MACDONALD—Just give me a sneak preview.

Talk Senator Conroy—I do not have any more information than they—

Talk Senator IAN MACDONALD—All you are telling us is that they are going to do it?

Talk Senator Conroy—I am just reassuring you that it is going to happen.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—You are reassuring us that we are not going to get an answer that tells us it cannot be done.

Talk Senator IAN MACDONALD—Thank you for your additional assurance.

***

Senate Estimates: ISP Filtering Part 3

Senator Simon Birmingham 
Senator for South Australia Party
Liberal Party of Australia

Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy 
Senator for Victoria Positions: Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate
Australian Labor Party

Ms Nerida O’Loughlin, General Manager, Industry Outputs Division
Australian Communications and Media Authority

Ms Andree Wright, Executive Manager, Industry Outputs Division
Australian Communications and Media Authority

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS: Australian Communications and Media Authority: Discussion

Date 18 February, 2008 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS
Department Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Program Australian Communications and Media Authority
Page 4 
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm. 
Source Senate

Senator BIRMINGHAM—We have obviously covered the testing that is taking place already on mandatory ISP filtering. What work is being done on the scope of blacklist?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—We are currently looking, in line with the government’s policy, to expand the ACMA blacklist. We are currently investigating ways in which we can do that. At the moment we are talking to our international organisations that we deal with, particularly hotlines that deal with child pornography sites, and we are discussing with them the capacity to get some of their international sites on to our blacklist as well.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—How wide is the brief for this blacklist?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—At this stage, that is where we are looking at, but we are also talking to the government about how wide they want the blacklist to go.

Talk Senator Conroy—Should I take it that in fact you have waited until Senator Barnett left before you started asking these questions?

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—I was very polite, allowing Senator Barnett, Senator Nash and others to all have their turns.

Talk Senator Conroy—I should not engage in a conspiracy theory that you waited until after he left before you started on this particular line?

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—No. There is no conspiracy theory. Senator Barnett and I can have robust discussions about this without needing to have you here, Senator Conroy, with your entourage. How many sites are blacklisted under the trial taking place in Tasmania?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—As part of the trial, all of the filters that are requested—I will look to Ms Wright, who will correct me if I am wrong—will need to be able to block the ACMA blacklist.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Sorry?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The current ACMA blacklist.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—The current ACMA blacklist?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—How many sites are identified on the current ACMA blacklist?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Currently there are about 800 URLs rather than sites.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—How many URLs would you expect to be on the blacklist to meet the Labor Party’s policy of prohibiting sites such as those containing child pornography and X-rated material?

Talk Senator Conroy—As we have not completed our discussions I do not think Ms O’Loughlin will be in a position to answer that at this stage.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—As in ACMA has not completed its discussions with you, Minister?

Talk Senator Conroy—Yes. She mentioned that it was based on discussions with the government, which are not completed yet.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—So, you have not worked out how broad this blacklist will be?

Talk Senator Conroy—We are in discussions with ACMA about that and we are happy to take your question on notice and give you a response when we finalise the matter.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—What technologies are currently used around the world to ban, blacklist or prohibit large numbers of URLs?

Talk Ms Wright—We understand that filtering, as it is done around the world, draws on a combination of techniques—white lists, blacklists, dynamic filtering. As to the idea of a list as the only approach to filtering, probably it is better to see it in combination with other techniques. We understand that commercially provided filters draw on a number of techniques, some of which are technical means, to assess material. Some involve human intervention and some involve lists. Ms O’Loughlin has mentioned our own list and the fact that we endeavour to keep that up to date, because lists change very quickly, and this is why we understand that commercial filters use a combination of means. I hope that is of assistance.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—What international examples can you give in terms of blacklisting numbers of URLs greater than 800?

Talk Ms Wright—We can refer to BT Cleanfeed and to similar systems in Scandinavia. We understand those lists are regularly updated but they would have in the vicinity of 1,500 URLs at any one time, but over the course of a month or so all of those URLs would turn over. For example, as they either moved around or law enforcement took action. So those lists can be very dynamic; they change very rapidly.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Fifteen hundred still sounds like an incredibly small number to me, given the scope of the Labor Party policy.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—I would just re-emphasise what Ms Wright said: that, while filter providers are often provided with a blacklist through a regulator or through another body who focuses its attention in most cases on child pornography sites, many commercial filter providers expand on what other things that they allow to be filtered out as part of their commercial offering to customers.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Is work still being done on updating the existing ACMA blacklist and supporting the existing NetAlert program within that?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Was there a particular aspect of that you were interested in? We have indicated that we have looked at expanding the list around child pornography and that we are discussing with the government what the extent is.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—There is an existing ACMA blacklist that is used for the NetAlert program; is that correct?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—That is right.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Is that existing list being updated?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—It is updated on a weekly basis.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Permanently updated?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Is there still the same level of support for that?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes. Also, obviously that blacklist comes from an ongoing process of where we receive complaints and find overseas hosted sites to be prohibited content and so we are constantly adding those new URLs to the blacklist.

***

Senate Estimates: Net Alert

Senator Ruth Webber 
Senator for Western Australia 
Australian Labor Party

Mr Abul Rizvi, Deputy Secretary, Broadcasting, ICT, Regional Strategy and Corporate
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Executive

Ms Patricia Scott, Secretary
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Executive 

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS: Australian Communications and Media Authority: Discussion

Date 18 February, 2008 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS
Department Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Program Australian Communications and Media Authority
Page 4 
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm. 
Source Senate

Senator WEBBER—I have one question. Of the NetAlert filters that have been downloaded, how many have been installed? I kind of lost that with Senator Kemp carrying on. And from that, if there is a big discrepancy—if there is a much lower number that were installed—is that because they are too hard to install and, perhaps, are a bit hard for people to use?

Talk Mr Rizvi—The website provides consumers with an option of selecting from a range of filters. They are able to select one filter and try it, and if they wish to then remove that from their computer and perhaps try another one that might be more suitable they can. There are four different filters, or filter vendors, on the website, as a result of which I think we would be seeing a portion of people trying more than one filter. As a result, you would not get—

Talk Senator WEBBER—I am sorry to interrupt because I know my colleagues opposite are a bit anxious about timing, but I got the impression from what the minister was saying that there did seem to be a big discrepancy between download and installation. I was wondering whether that is because the filters are actually difficult for people to use, in which case that would be another reason to stop advertising them.

Talk Mr Rizvi—The distinction we make is between the number of people who have downloaded a filter or ordered a CD-ROM and the number of people at a point in time in the future who are still using a filter—that is, their computer is continuing to make contact with the filter vendor’s website and is continuing then to receive the benefits of, for example, updates of the ACMA blacklist and other materials. The ongoing figure relates to the portion of people who are still using the filter some point into the future.

Talk Senator WEBBER—I am finding it a bit difficult to concentrate now. I just want to quickly turn to the NetAlert call centre. How many calls have been made to the call centre and how many of those were related to installing the product?

Talk Ms Scott—My notes suggest that the call centre operates between 8 am and 10 pm seven days a week on all Australian time zones and has been receiving 20 to 40 calls a day. I hope I have got that right.

Talk Senator WEBBER—Twenty to 40 calls a day, seven days a week?

Talk Ms Scott—Twenty to 40 calls per day.

Talk Senator WEBBER—Is it currently operating within those hours seven days a week?

Talk Ms Scott—It is.

Talk Senator WEBBER—At 20 to 40 calls. How many of those would relate to actually installing the product?

Talk Mr Rizvi—We do not have a breakdown of the number of calls that would relate to installing the product. There are two ways in which people can obtain the product. One is by directly visiting the website and downloading directly from the website—

Talk Senator WEBBER—I am sorry, I am trying to speed you up so that they calm down.

Talk Mr Rizvi—and the other way is to contact us via the call centre and to order a CD-ROM.

Talk Senator WEBBER—How many people are working at the call centre?

Talk Mr Rizvi—We would have to take that on notice. How many would actually be in the call centre right now?

Talk Senator WEBBER—Yes. And it is still working seven days a week?

Talk Mr Rizvi—Yes, it is still working seven days a week.

Talk Senator WEBBER—Is it still working, Ms Scott?

Talk Ms Scott—Yes, my notes suggest it is still operating between the hours of 8 am and 10 pm.

Talk Senator WEBBER—And the cost of the call centre, please, if you could take that on notice.

***

ACMA: First Internet Filtering Report

Australian Government
Australian Communications and Media Authority

Developments in Internet Filtering Technologies and Other Measures for Promoting Online Safety 

First annual report to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

This report investigates developments in internet filtering technologies and other safety initiatives to protect consumers, including minors, who access content on the internet. The report was prepared in response to a ministerial direction received in June 2007. ACMA will report annually on its findings for three years. This is the first report.

***

Stephen Conroy responds to the ACMA report

Senator the Hon Senator Conroy 
MINISTER FOR BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY DEPUTY LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

Press Release
Date: 21 February 2008

Government welcomes ACMA report on internet filtering 

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, today welcomed the Australian Communications and Media Authority's (ACMA) report on international developments in internet filtering technologies and other safety initiatives. 

The report, Developments in internet filtering technologies and other measures for promoting online safety, draws together current key trends and makes observations about content, communication and e-security risks online. 

“The Government's cyber-safety plan presents a comprehensive range of measures that involves education, international co-operation, research, law enforcement and internet service provider (ISP) filtering,” Senator Conroy said. 

“ACMA's report also identifies that there is no silver bullet solution to the problem of online risks, especially as there is a shift from webpages to interactive internet technologies, such as chat rooms. 

“The Government and the ACMA report also agree on the importance of education, and information and empowering people to manage online risks. A large component of the Government's cyber-safety plan is raising awareness of online safety issues and providing information on the strategies that can be undertaken to mitigate against these risks,” Senator Conroy said.

“However, there are ever-evolving risks that arise when online. The Government has committed to ongoing research and industry consultation through a new consultative working group and youth advisory group.” 

“This will ensure we are able to provide relevant policy responses to new technological developments as they arise.” 

The ACMA report notes that a number of overseas countries currently filter their content. ISPs in a number of countries, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and Finland, have successfully introduced ISP level filtering. 

“The Government is undertaking a number of activities to inform the development of an implementation framework for ISP filtering, including extensive consultation with industry and examining overseas models,” Senator Conroy said. 

“These filtered services will provide protection for children from internet websites containing harmful content.” 

For a copy of the ACMA report, visit www.acma.gov.au 

***

Conroy addresses the Internet Industry Association

February 21st 2008
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

In order to address content risks, the Rudd Government has an election commitment to the introduction of ISP level filtering to reduce the exposure of children to illegal content that is identified by ACMA.

The ACMA blacklist of prohibited websites is currently compiled by a complaints-driven mechanism.

The list will be expanded through international co-operation.

The Government does not believe children using the internet should be exposed to this material.

Labor has never argued that ISP filtering is a silver bullet solution, but it is an important step in the overall strategy to make the internet a safer place for children.

I acknowledge industry concerns that filtering will affect internet speeds or will result in over-blocking or under-blocking.

These issues will be addressed through the trial process.

After the ACMA trial we intend to hold a pilot trial in a ‘real world' environment.

I can assure you that we will go forward through an informed, consultative and considered process to ensure that a workable solution is found.

This evening, I ask the industry to continue engaging with the Government and with my Department to ensure that we achieve an outcome for ISP filtering that meets the needs of industry and the wider community.

But ISP filtering is only one component of a program that involves education, international co-operation, research and law enforcement activities.

As I said at the outset, the digital economy is the transformative driver of our age.

Its impact and its benefits continue to spread, but its real potential remains largely unexplored.

It is the key long-term economic and social challenge, not only in this country but around the world, and the actions we take now will dictate just how much we benefit from the period to come.

I want to assure you this Government is determined to meet the challenges of the digital economy.

Thank you for this opportunity to outline some of this Government's goals.

I am very much looking forward to working with you all in the coming months and years as we set our nation on a course to succeed.

Thank you.

***

Porn obsessed Steve Fielding censors Senators

Brian Harradine's Senate successor Steve Fielding has achieved an early win with his Christian views being imposed on all other Senators. Crikey are reporting that Senators are being prevented from accessing "inappropriate" internet content at his request.

Senators caught up in the Fielding Filth Filter Crikey 11.04.08

Steve Fielding, the Senate choice of 1.88% of Victorians, is obsessed with pornography. Since he arrived in Canberra, no Estimates session has been complete without Fielding earnestly declaring that Australian families weren't safe from the flood of porn ready to roll out of their PCs. His greatest direct contribution to public policy since he was "elected" was to badger the Howard Government into wasting tens of millions of dollars on the ludicrous Netalert internet filter scheme.

Now he has managed to impose the views of his bizarre monotheistic cult on other Senators and their staff. Since 28 March, Senators have been prevented from accessing "inappropriate" internet content at the request of Senator Fielding, who has convinced Senate President Alan Ferguson to impose the same filter as that in place for bureaucrats, though not the Parliamentary Library.

Accordingly, anything related to sex, drugs, weapons or other "inappropriate content", regardless of what it actually is, is blocked.

Senator Lyn Allison has written to Ferguson demanding to know why Fielding was permitted to impose his own reactionary view of the online world on other Senators, who determines what is "inappropriate" and how Senators are supposed to do their job properly.

Allison reels off a number of topics now blocked by the Fielding Filth Filter: reproductive health; sexualisation of children; drug abuse and rehabilitation, the opium crop in Afghanistan, weapons trading – all issues of legitimate interest to those engaged in the policy process, and all now blocked as "inappropriate".

Perhaps Ferguson is concerned that Australia’s Senators are a bunch of sex-crazed, coke-snorting would-be terrorists. Of course, this only describes the Australian Greens. The only available evidence that any politician has been using the Parliament House network to look for inappropriate content comes from the culprit himself – Senator Fielding, who last year boasted of his ability to obtain porn from his Parliament House computer with two (presumably one-handed) clicks.

Strangely enough, Fielding will be one of the senators critical to the passage of the Government’s legislation after 1 July. But only a conspiracy theorist would think the Government had caved in to Fielding in the hope of attracting his support for its bills later in the year. After all, the Government itself wants to replace Netalert with an even sillier ISP-level filtering scheme to stop people from accessing "inappropriate sites". Maybe the Senate is a trial run for the entire country.

***

The Democrats question Steve Fielding internet censorship.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: Internet Filtering
Date 13 May, 2008 
Database Senate Hansard
Questioner Allison, Sen Lyn (Leader of the Australian Democrats, AD, Victoria, Opposition) Responder PRESIDENT, The (N/A, PO)
Page 17 
Proof Yes
Source Senate 
Type Question
Context Questions Without Notice Size 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Internet Filtering Question 

Senator ALLISON (2.33 p.m.)—Mr President, my question is to you. I refer to the decision made last month to filter websites used by senators and their staff. Is the occurrence of the problem with senators looking up pornography on websites? If so, will you name them? Is the aim of this filter to protect the laurels of senators and their staff? If so, doesn’t it strike you as odd that we can make laws for the country but are not adult enough or competent enough to make our own decisions about what is an appropriate web site?

Answer The PRESIDENT—The decision to put filters on senators’ websites was a decision of the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure after much discussion. There were a variety of reasons for that happening. Because staff members in this place who are employed by DPS and others have filters on their computers it was considered by their committee that it should apply to all senators and members as well. If senators choose to have the filter removed from their computers, they are entitled to request that and it can happen.

Question Senator ALLISON—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Who decides what sites are deemed inappropriate? What are the grounds for refusal in those cases? What is the reason for filtering out websites that refer to illegal drugs or illegal weapons? Is there a problem of senators and their staff dealing with either of those? And why was it that the views of senators were not canvassed before making this decision?

Answer The PRESIDENT—When you say that the views of senators were not canvassed, the procedure committee does have a variety of senators on that committee. So it was taken into account when the decision was made. I will look at the details of your question and I will provide you and the Senate with a detailed answer.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS: Internet Filtering
Date 13 May, 2008 
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker PRESIDENT, The (N/A, PO, Government) 
Page 21
Proof Yes 
Source Senate
Type Speech 
Context Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Internet Filtering 

Speech The PRESIDENT (3.00 p.m.)—I have further information in response to Senator Allison’s question but I must firstly say that I did say during the answer to my question it was the Procedure Committee when it was the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, which was my mistake. In March 2008 the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee—not the Procedure Committee, as I stated previously—considered the matter of the parliamentary computer network and internet filtering. The committee noted that the parliamentary computer network computers of departmental staff—that is, the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services except the Parliamentary Library—are filtered for inappropriate internet content, including pornography, illegal drug references, gambling, games, racist or hate sites, violence, illegal weapons of manufacture or procurement, but the computers of senators and members and their staff are not. The committee also noted that the current filtering mechanism is a black list supplied by the vendor but the Department of Parliamentary Services is currently engaged in identifying a replacement filtering system.

Members of the committee expressed the view that senators should not be treated differently from others who use the parliamentary computing network and therefore their computers should be filtered. I note that the Australian Democrats were represented on that committee.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Continue The PRESIDENT—Order! I am on my feet. I suggest you look at the standing orders. Having sought further advice from the Department of Parliamentary Services on the filtering system and consulted with the Speaker on the matter, I made the decision that, in accordance with the view of the committee, the same filtering should be applied to senators and their offices. I remind senators that this filtering provides a message to users that the site they are seeking to access has been blocked because it falls within one of the areas on the black list of subject matters used by the software. It is open for any senator or staffer who needs to pursue access to a particular site for work related matters to have that access provided by contacting 2020.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS: Internet Filtering
Date 13 May, 2008 
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Allison, Sen Lyn (Leader of the Australian Democrats, AD, Victoria, Opposition) 
Page 26
Proof Yes 
Source Senate
Type Speech 
Context Questions Without Notice: Take Note of Answers

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Internet Filtering 

Speech Senator ALLISON (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Democrats) (3.31 p.m.)—I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the President to a question without notice asked by Senator Allison today relating to the parliamentary computer network and Internet filtering.

This may seem like a small thing, but it seems to me to be a form of censorship which has absolutely no purpose. I object to the fact that someone else is deciding what is and what is not a morally appropriate website for me to observe. We are not clear on the rules here. We do not know what sorts of sites are going to be banned. We know pornographic sites are one of them.

I was looking up on information on the web on the debate a couple of weeks ago about clean coal and the split in conservation groups on this issue, and the Herald Sun report on this matter was denied me because it was ‘malicious’. So, apart from the fact that the filter is unlikely to filter out those things which are truly dangerous and offensive to us, I think this is the thin end of the wedge in terms of determining what senators and their staff can and cannot see. As we know, there is an exemption for the library. Why? Because they do research. What do we do on the web? Research. Instead of that, we have this lame excuse by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee that the department has this filter and so should we—what is fair for one is fair for all. Well, it does not seem to me to be self-evident. There need to be cogent reasons why we have this filter.

The President says: ‘Look, it’s all all right. If you find you’ve been blocked on a site and you really need to get to it, ring up 2020.’ I do not know about you, Mr Deputy President, but I am often looking up websites at 11 o’clock at night, and certainly on the weekends, and, if you have tried ringing 2020 at that time, you will know that there is no response.

I do not object to illegal sites being banned. I think it is perfectly appropriate that, if someone is doing something illegal on a website, in the same way as on the road or anywhere else, they should be properly penalised for it. There is the capacity to interrogate the website access actions of senators and their staff. My question to the President was: where is the problem? Show us. Are there people around this chamber who are accessing pornography which is not related to their parliamentary duties? I do not think so. Are there members and senators who are looking up illicit drugs for the purposes of trading in drugs or using drugs themselves? I do not know. Is it a big problem? Let’s find out. Instead of that, we have a filter imposed on a website which affects us all.

Since I have raised this issue a number of senators have come to me and told me stories about the sorts of harmless, morally sound information that they have been searching for on the web and has been filtered out. So I think this is a ridiculous concept. With the health portfolio, I look up many sites to do with sexual and reproductive health. It is pretty obvious that a lot of those will fall foul of this filter. Illegal arms is apparently one of the categories which will also trigger the filter. Does that mean North Korea and its nuclear weapons? Does it mean the small arms trade, the illegal transfer of guns to developing countries? These are things I am interested in, and I do not want somebody else telling me: ‘That’s not your job. You’re not to do that.’ I do not mind if there is a filter on things which are not for use in our parliamentary activities. Let’s put the filter on footy tipping; let’s put the filter on booking theatre tickets. That is fine by me. But what we have is a controlling act of censorship which is about morals.

We know that Senator Fielding was the one that raised this with the committee. We know that he, the moral protector of all of us in this place, went to them. I do not need that moral protection. I have been in the parliament for 12 years. We are elected to make laws and decisions for this country that affect the lives of humans in this country, but apparently we are not entitled to make decisions for ourselves about what we can and cannot see on the web. We are being treated like children. We are adults, we are fully human, and it is not up to somebody else to say this is or is not appropriate. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

***

Budget 2008: Internet Censorship Funding

Tougher blocks for net porn

INTERNET providers have been handed the task of blocking people from accessing illegal pornography, as part of a revamped Government internet safety policy.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy committed $125.8 million over four years for a Cyber Safety plan, which includes extra funding for police and other authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute people involved in online child abuse.

The new policy will require internet providers to install a filter between their customers and the rest of the internet, which will rely on a pornography blacklist compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Internet providers will be given a one-off subsidy to help pay for the software, to be tested by ACMA next month.

The Cyber Safety plan will save the Government $14.6 million over four years, because it replaces the former government's $163 million Protecting Families Online scheme.

It will also result in the staged scrapping of the NetAlert software introduced by the former government, which sought to block access at individual computers.

***

Senate Estimates: Internet Filtering trial and Gambling sites.

During Senate Estimates in May 2008, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham questioned the ACMA and Stephen Conroy regarding the internet filtering trial, and access to gambling sites.

The speakers are:

Senator Simon Birmingham (SA) Liberal 
Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy (NSW) Labor

Ms Nerida O’Loughlin, General Manager, Industry Outputs Division, Australian Communications and Media Authority

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS: Australian Communications and Media Authority: Discussion
Date 26 May, 2008 
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS
Department Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Program Australian Communications and Media Authority
Page 97 
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm. 
Source Senate

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM— I want to start with the black-listing of websites and ACMA’s work in that regard. In February, I understand the ACMA black list contained around 800 illegal gambling websites—is that correct?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—It had about 800 black-listed sites. They were not necessarily all gambling. They were illegal content.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—There were 800 illegal content in total?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—URLs, yes.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—800 hundred illegal URLs in total. Are you able to break that number down in to sites that may be related to gambling versus other illegal content?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—I do not have that material with me and I would have to have a look at whether we can do that. I would expect that we can, given that it is complaint based, so they are things that have come to us and that we have found to be illegal. I could take that on notice.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—If you could, that would be helpful. Is ACMA playing a role in the testing of the cybersafety initiatives that have been taking place in Tasmania?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—We are conducting an ISP filter trial in Tasmania at the moment.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—That is ACMA?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Can you give us an update on progress with that testing, please?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes. That is on track. We are to deliver that to the minister by 30 June this year and it is on track to deliver on that date.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—How many URLs are contained in that ISP filtering test that you are doing at present?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—It is quite a complex and different sort of testing environment. It is a mixture of testing both URLs and what is called dynamic filtering, which is not based on a black list of just URLs. It is testing whether or not filters can pick up things that dynamically it identifies on the web in terms of content rather than just URLs.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—So it is not URL based at all; it is the entire test?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—There is some testing around URLs, but there is also different testing around different ways of filtering.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—So is it to be taken that there are simultaneous tests being undertaken of different options for how you would undertake ISP filtering?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—There are different ways that ISP filtering can be conducted and we are testing as many of those as we can.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—In terms of those that are URL based, is there a range of sites that are being listed for blockage in those attempts?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—At the very basic level, it needs to block the ACMA black list.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Is there an upper level to that, if we take the 800 on the black list as a minimum?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—That would be a minimum.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Yes. Is there an upper level that you are working on in that regard?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—I would have to take that on notice because the way that the filter trial is being undertaken, as I said, is not just around URLs. It is about a whole different range of testing different filters and the way that they dynamically, or through different URLs, actually block, so it is not an easy question to answer.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—In terms of the content based filters that you are using, what types of content are you attempting to block in those tests?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—I think it is fair to say that the direction itself and the way we are approaching the trial is to try and test a broad range of content; not only content that is illegal but also content that may be of concern to people. We are testing a broad range of different types of content.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—You are testing, obviously, the gambling sites, for example. You are testing the illegal sites relating to child porn and so on. Are you also testing a broader scope of pornography? Is that to be expected?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—A broader scope of content, yes.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—A broader scope of content across all of those types of genres of internet sites?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes, things that might be of concern to people in accessing sites on the net, not necessarily just things that are prohibited under the current law.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—How many ISPs are involved in the test?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—I do not have that detail with me at the moment. It is really about testing ISP filters rather than ISPs’ involvement.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—How is the test working, then, if it is not working through operational ISPs?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—It is a laboratory test.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—It is all in a lab setting?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes, that is right.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—The time line you are expecting for reporting to the minister is the end of June—is that correct?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Are there other tests planned, aside from the current ones in Tasmania or will all future work depend on the outcome of this program?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—That is a matter for the minister. I think the minister has indicated previously some potential for a live trial, but that would be a matter for the minister and the department.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Minister, the potential for a live trial depends entirely, at this stage, on the outcome of this testing. Is that a fair assessment?

Talk Senator Conroy—We are certainly planning on conducting live trials at the end of this laboratory test, yes.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Sorry?

Talk Senator Conroy—We are certainly intending to conduct a live test at the end of this trial process. That is the intent, absolutely.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Before we get to a blanket introduction of ISP filtering, you are committed to—

Talk Senator Conroy—No, we are committed to work with the sector to go through a process of laboratory trial and then a live trial after that. We have been working well with the IAA and a number of other organisations and they are giving us valuable input.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Is the industry assisting in some manner with the current testing, being the laboratory testing, being undertaken in Tasmania?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The industry has assisted by providing ISP filters to be tested.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—So the industry has identified the potential filtering mechanisms in conjunction with ACMA?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The industry generally puts forward a range of different types of filters that we could test and we have chosen a number from those.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Is industry involved in observing the trials?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—No. As it is a laboratory trial, it is not.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Will the outcome of the trial be made public and made known to industry? I mean in terms of the findings more generally, not just whether it was successful or not.

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—The findings will be provided to the minister under the direction.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Minister, will it be your intention to make those findings available publicly?

Talk Senator Conroy—We had not considered that. I will take that on notice.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—If you could. There is certainly an expectation though, I am sure, from industry to know if it is providing different types of filtering methodologies to understand which of those methodologies are more successful than others.

Talk Senator Conroy—The purpose of the trial is to establish these things. I just have not considered that at this stage, but I am happy to take that on notice and get back to you.

Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Thank you. Are a range of gambling sites being tested in this regard?

Talk Ms O’Loughlin—I would have to take that on notice. As I said, there would be gambling sites on the black list, and that is certainly part of the trial. I do not have with me the detail of other matters.

***

Conroy responds to ACMA filtering report

Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy 
MINISTER FOR BROADBAND, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE DIGITAL ECONOMY DEPUTY 
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

Media Release
Date: 28 July 2008

Minister welcomes advances in internet filtering technology 

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy today welcomed a report demonstrating advances in internet content filtering technologies. 

“The internet is a wonderful tool that is delivering benefits to increasing numbers of Australian families but the Government wants to find ways to make it safer, particularly for children. This report will assist the Government to deliver on its election commitment to create a safer online environment,” Senator Conroy said. 

Senator Conroy today released the findings of the report by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Closed Environment Testing of ISP-Level Internet Content Filtering. 

The report details the results of extensive laboratory tests into the current effectiveness of commercial Internet Service Provider (ISP) filtering products. 

ISP filtering is one element of the Government’s $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety which also includes education, international cooperation, research and law enforcement. 

“The next step is to test filter technologies in a real world environment with a number of ISPs and internet users,” Senator Conroy said. 

The Australian Government is committed to ensuring all Australian families can utilise ISP filters that block prohibited content as identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Families should also be able to access filters that can be customised to block more material if they choose. 

Tests undertaken during the laboratory investigation found that the quality of ISP-level filtering technology has significantly improved compared with the technology used in a previous trial conducted in 2005. 

“It is very encouraging to see that the industry has made significant progress with ISP filtering products and we are heartened that many of the products tested are commercially available, with many of them already deployed overseas,” Senator Conroy said. 

The results in the ACMA trial were based on illegal and inappropriate content. The tests included filtering over and above simple black-list filtering, and the trial did not specifically test the impact of black-list filtering on its own. 

“Filtering specifically against a black-list of illegal content as well as the ability to filter additional material will be one part of the upcoming pilot trial,” Senator Conroy said. 

“We are interested to see the results of filtering in real-world conditions and I encourage ISPs to participate. This will enable the implementation of ISP filtering in Australia to be undertaken in an informed and effective way.”

An Expression of Interest request will be released shortly seeking participation in the live pilot from ISPs. 

 The ACMA report Closed Environment Testing of ISP-Level Internet Content Filtering can be accessed via the ACMA website: www.acma.gov.au

 ends 

Date: 28 July 2008 

Contact: Tim Marshall 0408 258 457 

Background 

The previous Government issued ACMA with a Direction in June 2007 to conduct closed environment testing of ISP level content filters. 

The laboratory trial looked specifically at the effect of a range of filter products on network performance, effectiveness in identifying and blocking illegal and inappropriate content, scope to filter non-web traffic and adaptability to differing requirements of end-users. 

The report found: 

.. The median network degradation of the tested filters dropped indicating a significant improvement since the previous trial. The performance or ‘network degradation’ for one of the tested products was less than 2%, whilst three products were less than 30% and two products were in excess of 75%. 

.. Successful blocking (the proportion of illegal and inappropriate content that should have been blocked that was successfully blocked) was between 88% and 97% with most achieving over 92%. The median rate of successful blocking was improved from the previous trial. 

.. Overblocking (the proportion of content that was blocked that should not have been blocked) was between 1% and 6%, with most falling under 3%. The median overblocking rate was significantly improved from the previous trial.

.. All filter products tested were able to block traffic entirely across a wide range of non-web protocols such as instant messaging and peer-to-peer protocols. However, most filters are not presently able to identify illegal content and content that may be regarded as inappropriate that is carried via the majority of non-web protocols. 

.. All filter products tested allow for the customisation of filtering levels for groups of users, for individual customers of an ISP and for individual users. 

***

No opt out under Conroy's censorship system

And the Wankley Award goes to ... Conroy's net filtering scheme Crikey 17.10.08

Minister Conroy has publicly stated on more than one occasion that Australian internet users would be given a choice to opt-out of the filtered "clean feed." While an opt-out model has issues itself, such as those opting out becoming potential targets of the State (if you’re not interested in looking at “illegal material”, why opt out), it was at least an out from the dictation of the nanny state on what you could and couldn’t view.

The bad news, and something the Government has never mentioned until now, is that Australian internet users will not able to opt out of internet filtering. Instead, users will be offered two choices, a “child friendly” feed that blocks lots of things, or a basic list which blocks illegal material, and possibly more, given the Government has previously included “p-rnography and inappropriate material” in the list of things to be blocked.

R and X rated p-rnography has already been named by the Government as being included on the list, despite R rated material being readily available in most states in service stations or newsagents. The debate around the rights of adults to view material of this nature, where that material doesn’t involve children, is a debate others can have. But in the context of content being legally available offline, it makes no sense that the internet would be treated differently.

Could a site be added to the filter due to an offensive comment left by a reader for example? What if the site was an open forum, and somebody made an offensive entry? The ability to filter out “illegal” content on a page by page basis would be beyond onerous, so we would presume a full site would be banned under the scheme. Site owners could wake up one morning to find themselves completely blocked within Australia, and in the case of Australian online businesses, that could be a fatal move.

***

Senate Estimates: Conroy Question on Internet Filtering

Senator Scott Ludlam - WA Greens
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy - Vic Labor
Senator the Hon Nick Minchin

Ms Patricia Scott, Secretary, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Executive

Mr Abul Rizvi, Deputy Secretary, Broadcasting, Regional Strategy, Digital Economy and Corporate, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Executive

Title ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS PORTFOLIO
Database Estimates Committees
Date 20-10-2008 
Source Senate Committee Name
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS 
Place Canberra 
Reference Estimates

CHAIR —Senator Ludlam?

Senator LUDLAM —I would just like to bring us over to the government cybersafety plan, if there is someone here?

Ms Scott —I will just ask Mr Rizvi to come to the table, and other relevant officers.

Senator LUDLAM —We are okay to proceed?

Ms Scott —We are ready now, thank you.

Senator LUDLAM —I am just wondering whether we could start with a bit of a general overview. I note there is a big jump in anticipated funding for 2009-10, in the order of the factor of 10, from the funding that is expected for this year. Can you give us a bit of a sense of how the scheme is progressing and how you see it rolling out over the next 24 months or so?

Mr Rizvi—The government in the 2008-09 budget allocated funding of $125.8 million over four years for its cybersafety package of measures. The measures included elements associated with education, international cooperation, law enforcement, research and also filtering. Would you like me to go into the details of the breakdown of that $125 million?

Senator LUDLAM —Maybe that would be worthwhile. I am particularly interested in the law enforcement side and the net filtering proposal.

Mr Rizvi —In terms of law enforcement, $49.0 million over four years was allocated to the Australian Federal Police’s child protection operation’s team. That would enable the team to gradually grow, and at the end of the fourth year it should have grown by something in the order of 90 AFP members. In addition, $11.3 million over four years was allocated to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the increased activity resulting from the additional allocation to the Australian Federal Police; $44.2 million over four years for both ISP level filtering and PC level filtering; $9.9 million over four years to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to implement education and outreach activities; $4.3 million over four years to ACMA to further develop its cybersafety websites and online helpline; $800,000 over four years for a consultative working group on cybersafety; and $3.9 million over four years to the development of a youth advisory group to advise on cybersafety issues from a young person’s perspective.

Senator LUDLAM —How do you qualify ‘young’ in that context?

Mr Rizvi —Young in that context is under the age of 17 and around 11 and above.

Senator LUDLAM —Can you take us back to the appropriation for the filtering, which was $40 something—

Mr Rizvi —The allocation was $44.2 million over four years.

Ms Scott —Senator, would it assist you if we give you at the end some of that detail?

Senator LUDLAM —Yes, I would appreciate that. Can we go to the internet filtering or the ‘clean feed’ internet, as it is being discussed. Can you give us a sense of that component of your budget? Where are we up to? How is that scheme progressing?

Mr Rizvi —What we have been doing is consulting with industry on the conduct of a live pilot of ISP level filtering. That follows a laboratory trial that was conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority on a variety of ISP filtering product. So that was a laboratory trial. It did not actually test things in terms of an actual customer. What we want to do now is test in a live environment with some ISPs who are delivering services to customers. We have been consulting on a technical testing framework for ISP filtering.

Senator LUDLAM —Consulting with whom?

Mr Rizvi —With a range of ISPs both large and small as well as the internet Industry Association and the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association. We have contracted with a testing expert group known as NX Test Laboratories, who operate out of Melbourne, who are assisting us in the design of that pilot. Only last week we had a very lengthy telephone conference with a handful of ISPs as well as the internet Industry Association to gauge their views on the draft technical testing framework for the live pilot. Those views we have now examined closely and we will be shortly briefing the minister on the next steps with the live pilot.

Senator LUDLAM—So within the constraints of not having briefed your minister yet, how much can you tell us about how you see that project rolling out in terms of timetables for the live trial and then what happens after that?

Mr Rizvi —At a very broad level, the purpose of the pilot is to look at two streams of potential filtering. The first stream of filtering is in terms of just filtering the ACMA black list and different methodologies for filtering the ACMA black list. What we will seek to test is the impact of that type of filtering in terms of a range of criteria. We will also test more sophisticated types of filtering that go beyond just simply testing the ACMA black list through to filtering larger black lists and also looking at other types of filtering including dynamic filtering, filtering using key words—those sorts of methodologies—to see what the impact of that type of filtering is in terms of both the ISP and the customer.

Senator LUDLAM —So who is determining what is on these different categories of black list?

Mr Rizvi—In terms of the ACMA black list, that is determined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority based on a list of requirements. Beyond that, what is actually filtered in using more sophisticated tools varies quite considerably, and most of those tools enables the individual user to determine what is to be filtered.

Senator LUDLAM—I believe we are seeing ACMA a little bit later in the evening, so I suppose I can ask them about their criteria. Presumably you would have people like the AFP feeding them the criteria for the sorts of things they are trying to block. I am trying to get a sense of where ACMA is getting its—

Senator Conroy—There is a black list that exists at the moment. ACMA can you give you the full details. One of the things we have been encouraging—and I have spoken at international forums about—is cooperation between the various international policing authorities. This is not a problem you can solve with one jurisdiction. The internet is international. So we have been encouraging greater cooperation between law enforcement agencies across the world so that we can try, where possible, to combine black lists. That will stop us reinventing the wheel, so to speak. So different jurisdictions have a range of different black lists. They have not been coordinated at this stage. We have been trying to drive some international cooperation on that.

Senator LUDLAM—Presumably the two fronts, if you will—if you have drawn the black list up—are that you are attempting to create software filters that will automatically block some content from leaving the ISP in the first place and you are also attempting to coordinate law enforcement agencies to go after the source and take the stuff off line. Is that right?

Senator Conroy —Yes.

Senator LUDLAM —I am not trying to put words in your mouth.

Senator Conroy—No. I am just trying to think whether that totally describes it. When you say ‘block content from leaving the ISP’, this is to work with the ISPs—and that is why we have been consulting so much with them—to minimise any impact on the actual operation of the net. That is why we are going through the trials. We are going through the laboratory trial that you heard about and we are going to go down the path of a real world trial, because we have committed to consult extensively with the sector to ensure that we do not have the impact that some wild claims make.

Senator LUDLAM—To be clear, this is software that is not sitting at the client end. Where does it reside? Is it on every ISP in the country? Will every server in the country be required to host something? Where is it actually resident?

Ms Scott —It is a live trial, so the purpose is to trial a process.

Senator Conroy —You are jumping ahead of where we are actually at in the development of it.

Senator LUDLAM —I know. But, if there is any intention to establish some form of internet filtering, you are obviously trialling some kind of model, so you have some idea.

Mr Rizvi—I think what the trial is about is to test an objective rather than to test a particular technology. What different ISPs may come up with is different approaches to doing the filtering and achieving the objective but there will be different technological solutions to the same objective. What we are interested in is testing a range of solutions to see what the features of the different solutions are.

Dr Pelling —And some of those solutions will be software and some of them will be hardware.

Senator Conroy —That is why I did not want to be too prescriptive when you said ‘software’.

Senator LUDLAM —Some will actually be hardware. Can you describe what that might consist of?

Dr Pelling —Typically a hardware filtering device will be a computer-sized box, for example, which will have built into it an underlying software platform that will assess the internet stream going through it against, for example, an extensive black list or a series of categories of sites which are often developed by the service provider. They will filter the internet stream against those sites which are continually updated. When we say ‘hardware versus software’, the hardware platforms would be typically an integrated platform in a small box which would be plugged in and can be customised to a certain extent.

Senator LUDLAM—I suppose I would put to you that there is a big difference between category of site and category of content. Sites can host all sorts of things. One example that has been put to me, for example, is somebody posting an article on a controversial topic on a website and someone then leaves a comment on that website and neither the ISP nor the person who posted the original article has any control over the kinds of comments that might be added. What are the odds that the filtering software in that case is going to start knocking out content inadvertently and start returning fairly serious false positives?

Senator Conroy —Underblocking and overblocking are obviously issues. That is why we are engaged in conversation with the sector about it—to specifically try to minimise this sort of impact.

Senator LUDLAM —So what are your benchmarks or what is acceptable?

Senator Conroy—We are just at the very early stages. You are actually jumping ahead. I can understand that if you have been reading some of the wild and—

Senator LUDLAM —Some of it is not so wild, Minister.

Senator Conroy—enthusiastic commentary that I keep seeing both in blogs and in the media. But we are actually only in the early stages and we have committed to consult with the sector to work through these very issues. We have not set some of those benchmarks. What we are seeing is what is the impact, but we have not said, ‘Right, three per cent is acceptable and seven per cent is not acceptable.’ We actually have not done that.

Senator LUDLAM—Okay, so there are no benchmarks yet. Are there any countries around the world where this has been tried, where this is actually being attempted?

Mr Rizvi —There are a number of countries around the world where some degree of filtering is utilised.

Senator LUDLAM —China for example?

Mr Rizvi—No. Actually, China was not one that I had in mind. I had more the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands in mind as examples of countries where some level of filtering has been introduced. Predominantly the filtering that has been introduced there is similar to that first stream of filtering that I described—that is, filtering what is known as the equivalent of the ACMA black list, which is at the moment predominantly child pornography sites.

As the minister mentioned, he has been consulting with a number of these countries about the idea of sharing these black lists so that we can take advantage of the economies that that might deliver us. ACMA has been consulting in particular with the United States and the United Kingdom about sharing websites, and they are making good progress in that regard. That would enable a more efficient management of the equivalent of the ACMA black list for Australia. Most Western countries that have introduced filtering have been focusing on the equivalent of the ACMA black list.

Senator Conroy —Just to indicate the countries that have implemented along the lines that Abul is talking about include Sweden, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. This is not some one-off excursion.

Senator LUDLAM —I understand that.

Senator Conroy —They have different parameters and we have not set any parameters at this stage. We are going through that process.

Senator LUDLAM—Of those countries that you have named, I am not expecting that they are all identical in form, because I understand that your proposal is not opt in or opt out. It will be mandatory content blocking across all Australian ISPs.

Senator Conroy —We are—

Senator LUDLAM—Just let me finish. In terms of the countries that you have just listed for me, it is mandatory or is it an opt-in system that, for example, concerned parents could take advantage of?

Senator Conroy—Illegal material is illegal material. Child pornography is child pornography. I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.

Senator LUDLAM —No. That is why I was interested in asking about the law enforcement side of it as well.

Senator Conroy —No, we are working both angles at it. We are just trying to use technology to enforce the existing laws.

Senator LUDLAM—I am just wondering if I can put these questions to you without being accused of being pro child pornography. That would assist.

Senator Conroy —I was wondering if I could get the questions without being accused of being the Great Wall of China.

Senator LUDLAM —I have not—

Senator Conroy —Oh, okay. As long as you are allowed to have value in your questions I will have no value in my answers.

Senator LUDLAM—All right. Let us pursue this and see where it goes. I did put a question to you. In terms of the other countries that you have just listed for us, is the content blocking mandatory or is it an opt-in, opt-out system in those countries?

Senator Conroy —We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material—illegal material.

Senator LUDLAM —I understand that. And in the other countries?

Senator Conroy—We are looking at the opt-out provision. It depends on which way you are looking at it. It can mean the opposite to what it sounds like, so it does get a little confusing. But in terms of the policy, what we are investigating is whether it is possible to ensure that people can opt out of an ISP filter if they wanted to look at material that is legal as opposed to not allowing an opt out for material that is illegal.

Senator LUDLAM —I am not sure if that was a double negative or not.

Senator Conroy —Yes. As I said, it gets—

Senator LUDLAM—And I am not sure whether this issue has been misreported or not, but the way that this issue has been reported in some sources is that the government has decided that there will be two layers—that you can opt out of the deadly illegal stuff or the category B list, or however we want to define it, but that there will not be any other choices other than those two. So I am interested to know whether that has been misreported, whether you have come to the final decision—

Senator Conroy—No. As I said, we are in the early stages. But we are looking at two tiers—mandatory of illegal material and an option for families to get a clean feed service if they wish.

Senator LUDLAM —And an option for an opt out of—

Senator Conroy—Yes, that is what an option means. It means if you want to opt out, then you can continue to look here. But families can get a clean feed and if people want to opt out of the clean feed then they can. That is actually our policy as opposed to what probably you have read.

Senator LUDLAM—Okay. That is very interesting. Will you be publishing benchmarks as opposed to just going back to the thresholds that you will be adopting for underblocking and overblocking?

Senator Conroy—As I said, we are at the early stages. We have not made any decisions along those lines, so we are taking it step by step. This is a complex issue. Notwithstanding some of the commentary that borders on hysterical at times that you have possibly seen, we are just slowly and methodically working our way through and gathering information through this trial.

Senator LUDLAM—Some of the comments that I have seen did not approach hysterical at all. I think there have been some quite well thought through concerns.

Senator Conroy —I am sure I have unfortunately probably seen a wider range of commentary than you have, Senator Ludlam.

Senator LUDLAM—You probably have. I will hand you back to the chair in a moment, but can I just go back to my earlier question. In terms of the countries that you are modelling the scheme on that you listed for us before, is internet filtering mandatory in those countries or is it opt in, opt out?

Mr Rizvi —The situation across the countries actually varies quite considerably, Senator. The situation in the United Kingdom, for example, is that a range of ISPs have introduced black list filtering—that is, the filtering of their equivalent of the ACMA black list. In respect of that filtering in the United Kingdom, the consumer does not have the option of opting out. They get an ISP feed which has those illegal sites filtered out. What is different there is the ISPs that are participating—and it is in fact now in the United Kingdom that the majority of the large ISPs are participating—on a voluntary basis rather than on a legislated basis.

Senator LUDLAM—I will take you back to the chair, but can you just tell me whether, in terms of discussing finishing up where we started, who is going to be determining what is on these black lists. Is that a question to you, Minister, to the department, to the AFP or to ACMA?

Senator Conroy—As I said, we are enforcing current law and ACMA determine this based on the existing law. So we are happy to have a chat with them. I think they are coming up next as you have indicated, so you can have a chat with them about how they go about determining it. But the general sort of stuff that we are talking about is child porn and they are the sorts of sites that we are targeting. We do not believe that you should be able to opt in to child porn. I am sure you do not either.

Senator LUDLAM —What about, for another controversial example, euthanasia related material?

Senator Conroy—You would have to ask them whether that falls within their definition. There are calls for, as an example, banning pro anorexia websites. Again, it falls into that sort of category. So there are calls for a whole range of material to be included in the black list, but I do not think that they fall inside the existing definitions under the law. I do not think that they are caught.

Senator LUDLAM—Can you then see the basis on which some people might be raising concerns that once we have such a list it can go from being a black list to a very grey list very quickly, depending on how much the government thinks should be filtered. It is almost reversing the burden of proof, which is a very different approach to sending law enforcement agencies after people who are posting—

Senator Conroy —I do not agree with the basis of your assertion that we have—

Senator LUDLAM —You have not heard the assertion.

Senator Conroy —You said it basically reverses the onus of proof. I do not agree.

Mr Rizvi —The ACMA black list has been around for quite a number of years now. It is not a new list.

Senator LUDLAM—I suppose what is new is having complicated automated software deciding what Australians can and cannot see on the net. The black list, as the minister is rightly pointing out, can become very grey depending on how expansive the list becomes—euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet.

Senator Conroy —Existing provisions under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 are able to deal with suicide related material that provides detailed instruction or promotion of matters of crime or violence. It is an existing law.

Ms P. Scott—Chair, I wonder whether this is an appropriate time to table the overview with details that we volunteered to provide earlier, where Mr Rizvi had read through a number of criteria relating to the funding that might assist the senators in their further questioning of other agencies.

CHAIR —Thank you.

Senator MINCHIN—On cybersafety, you have referred to a number of other countries that are adopting this ISP filter approach. What, if any, evidence is available from those jurisdictions with respect to the impact on internet speeds of their filtering?

Senator Conroy —They closed the internet in the UK a while back, if you believe the publicity.

Senator MINCHIN —I appreciate that is one of the allegations made. I want to go to the evidence.

Mr Rizvi —The discussions that we have had with the United Kingdom people who have been providing the clean feed there is that, in their view, the impact on internet speeds has been negligible—unnoticeable to the user.

Senator MINCHIN —That is what you would anticipate here. You have no reason to believe there would be any other—

Senator Conroy —That is why we are going through the testing process.

Senator MINCHIN —Where does the 30 per cent figure I hear come from?

Senator Conroy —I think there was a former minister who liked to champion it extensively. If you set out to design a filter that wants to cripple the speed of your computer, you can do it. Let us be clear: you can definitely do it if you want to. That is why we are not setting out to do that. That is why we are working with the sector to try to ensure that this is a workable policy in the real world as opposed to a theoretical debate around a table.

Senator MINCHIN —Fair enough.

Senator Conroy—Can I come back to Senator Ludlam’s comment about euthanasia. I was halfway through a sentence in the Broadcasting Services Act. The sort of material I described would be refused classification currently and regarded as prohibited content now. That is what I described before. I am happy to repeat that.

Senator LUDLAM —Have we got time for one more question?

CHAIR —You can have one more question and then Senator Parry will have a turn.

Senator LUDLAM —Do you want to read that again?

Senator Conroy —I am happy to do that.

Existing provisions under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 are able to deal with suicide related material that provides detailed instruction or promotion of matters of crime or violence, and such material would be refused classification and regarded as prohibited content currently.

You might want to ask for the interpretation of that when ACMA comes to the table. That is the existing law. If you want to argue for changes in the existing law around euthanasia—I know many have—then that is a worthy debate and we should have it.

Senator LUDLAM —Probably not here. That was not the point, I suppose. It is just an example of that kind of grey area. I believe with a few minutes online you could probably find that kind of material whether it has been declared illegal in Australia or not. Is it the intention of the government to have that material become unavailable?

Senator Conroy—We would be enforcing the existing laws. If investigated material is found to be prohibited content then ACMA may order it to be taken down if it is hosted in Australia. They are the existing laws at the moment.

***

Conroy attempts to silence censorship critics

Filtering out the fury: how government tried to gag web censor critics. SMH 24.10.08

The Federal Government is attempting to silence critics of its controversial plan to censor the internet, which experts say will break the internet while doing little to stop people from accessing illegal material such as child pornography.

Internet providers and the government's own tests have found that presently available filters are not capable of adequately distinguishing between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up to 86 per cent.

Documents obtained by us show the office of the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, tried to bully ISP staff into suppressing their criticisms of the plan.

Mark Newton, an engineer at Internode, has heavily criticised the Government and its filtering policy on the Whirlpool broadband community forum, going as far as saying it would enable child abuse.

He said the plan would inevitably result in significant false positives and degrade internet speeds tremendously. Those views were subsequently widely reported by technology media and blogs.

Although Newton identified himself as an employee of Internode - as Whirlpool's rules stipulate - he always maintained his views were personal opinions and not necessarily shared by the company.

On Tuesday, a policy advisor for Senator Conroy, Belinda Dennett, wrote an email to Internet Industry Association (IIA) board member Carolyn Dalton in an attempt to pressure Newton into reining in his dissent.

"In your capacity as a board member of the IIA I would like to express my serious concern that a IIA member would be sending out this sort of message. I have also advised [IIA chief executive] Peter Coroneos of my disappointment in this sort of irresponsible behaviour ," the email, read.

It is understood the email was accompanied by a phone call demanding that the message be passed on to senior Internode management.

Newton said he found the bullying "outrageous" and Senator Conroy was "misusing his influence as a Commonwealth Minister to intimidate a private dissenting citizen into silencing his political views".

A spokesman for Senator Conroy said Newton's accusation that the Government was promoting child abuse was "disappointing and irresponsible". He said the purpose of the email was "to establish whether Mr Newton's views were consistent with the IIA position".

Ironically, Senator Conroy has himself accused critics of his filtering policy of supporting child pornography - including Greens Senator Scott Ludlam in Senate Estimates this week.

***

Family First calls for all hardcore porn to be filtered.

Net filters may block porn and gambling sites SMH 27.10.08

Family First Senator Steve Fielding wants hardcore pornography and fetish material blocked under the Government's plans to filter the internet, sparking renewed fears the censorship could be expanded well beyond "illegal material".

The Opposition said it would take "a lot of convincing" for it to support the controversial mandatory ISP filtering policy, so the Government would need the support of Senator Fielding as well as the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon to pass the legislation.

Industry sources said Senator Fielding's sentiments validated ISPs' concerns that the categories of blocked content could be broadened significantly at the whim of the Government, which is under pressure to appease vocal minorities.

A spokesman for Senator Xenophon said, should the filtering plan go ahead, he would look to use it to block Australians from accessing overseas online casino sites, which are illegal to run in Australia.

"Family First would consider a mandatory ISP-based filtering system that protects children by blocking illegal content like child pornography, but allows adults to opt out of filtering to access material classified R18+ or less," Senator Fielding's spokeswoman said.

The online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia expressed fears that the internet filters could be used as a bargaining chip every time the Government needed to pass a piece of important legislation.

"Any group with an axe to grind and political clout will be lobbying the Government to blacklist websites which they object to," EFA spokesman Dale Clapperton said.

"Having all Australians' internet access subject to a secret and unaccountable government blacklist is completely unacceptable in a liberal democracy such as Australia."

Clapperton said most adult pornography on the internet was already "prohibited content" under the Act, and pro-euthanasia, pro-anorexia and pro-piracy websites could easily be caught by the system.

Today, such prohibited content, if hosted overseas, is added to ACMA's blacklist but Australians are still able to access it if they wish. This would not be the case if mandatory ISP filtering was introduced.

"Senator Conroy talks about blocking access to 'illegal material', but the ACMA blacklist of 'prohibited content' is not limited to material which is illegal - it includes X-rated material, and R-rated material unless it is protected by a government-approved restricted access system," he said.

John Lindsay, carrier relations manager at Internode, said: "I don't see that what Fielding has just described to you is necessarily any different to what the public should expect from the Government's as yet unstated filtering regime, because we haven't got a clear explanation as to what the Government's actual mandatory blacklist looks like."

The Opposition's communication spokesman, Nick Minchin, said it would take "a lot of convincing" for the Coalition to support the Government's filtering plan.

"That's the problem with having this sort of highly centralised government-mandated nationwide filtering system," Senator Minchin said in a telephone interview.

"The argy-bargy that would result over what is in and what is out strikes me as being almost impossible to manage and it would be a cat chasing its tail.

***

ABC RADIO: Conroy on Filtering

The Great Firewall of Australia ABC: The Media Report 30.10.08

Stephen Conroy: Well what we're proposing is that we actually have an election commitment. It was stated clearly before the election to protect Australian families and kids from some material that is currently on the net. Now at the moment there is illegal material on the net, things like child pornography, things like ultra-violent sites; and so what we're seeking to do is take technology and actually enforce the existing law. Now no-one is suggesting, I don't think so far that I've heard, that people want to be able to access child pornography sites, or should be able to access child pornography sites. So just to give this a context: we're seeking to use new and emerging advances to block access to sites like that.

Antony Funnell: But as you'd be aware, I mean there are reports that various senators, including Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding from Family First, there have been reports that they're keen to access to sites like online gaming sites and also general pornography sites included as banned sites with this filter. What's your view on that, and is that a consideration being taken into account by the government?

Stephen Conroy: This is a long-standing election commitment. We made this commitment back when Kim Beazley was leader of the Labor Party, so just to give you an indication, this is a long-standing position we've been advocating. The trouble is ...

Antony Funnell: But could things like general pornography sites and gambling sites be included on the list of banned sites?

Stephen Conroy: Well as I said, what we're seeking to do is implement our election commitments and Senators should be aware what our election commitments are. There's been a number of wild and inaccurate assertions about what Labor's policy is, and let me be clear: we are committed to work with the industry to see if it is technically feasible. That's why we've conducted a laboratory test, and we're moving to conduct a live test with ISPs. That's Labor's policies. At this stage, the very early stages of working with the industry, because there's a lot of claims about the degradation of the internet. If I could just address those for a minute. You've seen the sort of filtering we're talking about introduced in a range of other countries like the UK, Sweden, Norway, France and New Zealand, and there has been no determinal effect on internet speed or performance. We're aware of the concerns...

Antony Funnell: A lot of people will be concerned about what will be on that list of banned sites. Who will determine what are the banned sites, and will that list of banned sites...

Stephen Conroy: There's actually a list today.

Antony Funnell: Well what will be included on their sites?

Stephen Conroy: There's actually an existing list. I mean people are saying suddenly 'Where's this list come from?' It actually exists today. If offensive content is hosted by Australian ISPs now, and when we say offensive, refused classification content, then it gets issued with a take-down notice today. This is an existing blacklist. So people are trying to - a whole range of people have said, 'Hey, let's expand this'. That's a debate that we will come to. What we're trying to establish at the moment, we're no further than establishing at the moment, whether it's technically feasible. So in terms of what some of the senators want to claim should be included on the blacklist, I'm sure that when we get to the debates down the track, if it proves to be technically feasible, there'll be a whole range of people with a whole range of demands about what should be on the blacklist. But what we've committed to do is practically implement what's on the blacklist at the moment, if it is technically feasible. So as I've said, a lot of wild claims are being made, and now a number of new Senators have bought into the debate, the Greens, Xenophon, Fielding, and they've all got ideas about what they think should or shouldn't be on the blacklist. I mean as an example, I had an argument, not an argument, a discussion with Senate Estimates with a Greens Senator, who believed that euthanasia websites shouldn't be blacklisted. But they're currently illegal under the existing laws. So there's people who would argue something should be taken off the list and there's people who argue something should be included in this list.

So, let me be clear: this is about establishing whether or not it is technically feasible. We're no further down the process than that.

***

Ludlam vs. Conroy: Round 2

Three weeks after his questioning of Conroy in Senate Estimates, the Greens Scott Ludlam was back for some clarification.

Date 11-11-2008
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Ludlam, Sen Scott
Party AG
Responder Conroy, Sen Stephen
Party ALP

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE - National Broadband Network

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (2:27 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer to the statements made by Minister Conroy in Senate estimates hearings on 20 October 2008, in which the minister said that Sweden, the UK, Canada and New Zealand had mandatory internet filtering systems similar to those now being trialled in Australia. Can the minister explain why he made the statement in light of the fact that in not one of those countries is the filtering system mandatory and, in fact, the various systems in those countries are entirely voluntary if they exist at all?

Senator CONROY (Victoria) (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) —I thank the senator for his question and further thank him for providing me with notice of the question. The government’s ISP filtering policy is one component of the government’s comprehensive, $125.8 million cyber-safety plan. This plan contains a comprehensive set of measures to combat online threats and help parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material. I can assure the senator that the government will implement the ISP filtering component of this policy in a considered and consultative way. We are aware of technical concerns with filtering technology. That is why we are conducting a pilot—to put these claims to the test. We are happy to have an open debate about these technical issues.

ISPs in a number of Western countries, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Canada, have voluntarily introduced ISP-level filtering. The government is of course considering the experience of these countries in the development of its own policy. This international experience will also inform the government’s upcoming real-world live pilot.

On 10 November I released an expression of interest, seeking the participation of ISPs and mobile telephone operators in this live pilot. The pilot will specifically test filtering against the ACMA black list of prohibited internet content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content. While the ACMA black list is currently around 1,300 URLs, the pilot will test against this list as well as filtering for a range of URLs to around 10,000 so that the impacts on network performance of a larger black list can be examined. The live pilot will provide valuable real-world evidence of the potential impact on internet speeds and costs to industry and will help ensure we implement a filtering solution that is efficient, effective and easy for Australian families to use.

The pilot is intended to take a very flexible approach and will cover a range of different ISPs and types of connections. The technical testing framework for the pilot indicates that a range of speeds will be tested, based on what most households can currently access. This range is not a hard and fast limit. Some people currently have connections above 12 meg and the framework notes that consideration will also be given to testing performances above 12 meg. Should an ISP wish to extend the pilot above 12 meg, they are invited to state this in their expression of interest. The technical testing framework also notes that costs, including upfront costs to acquire and implement the technology and costs to maintain the ISP-filtering solutions will be examined during the pilot. The costs are expected to vary, depending on the size and complexity of the ISP, the type of filtering solution chosen and the manner in which filtering is deployed by the ISP. The pilot is an opportunity for the Australian industry to now come forward and engage directly with the Australian government in the development of ISP filtering. I strongly urge industry to become involved. As I said earlier, the government intends to take a consultative— (Time expired)

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) —I thank the minister for his attempt to answer the question. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question in two parts. Will the minister be providing a retraction to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, as the answer he gave then was substantially different to the answer that was provided to that committee? Will the minister provide us with a definition of what he meant by ‘unwanted content’ and inform us as to where we might find a definition of ‘unwanted’? Will the minister acknowledge the legitimate concerns that have been raised by commentators and many members of the public that such a system will degrade internet performance, prove costly and inefficient and do very little to achieve the government’s policy objectives? Furthermore, I suggest that the government’s proposal for dynamic filtering is the equivalent of the post office being required to open every single piece of mail.

Senator CONROY (Victoria) (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) —The senator asked a very large range of questions, which it would be impossible for me to answer in one minute. I will happily get you some further information on that very long list of questions. But I just again emphasise that the government have taken a consultative approach with industry. We have invited them to participate in the trial and we have asked for the industry to come forward and work with government. That is the basis on which we are progressing. We are seeking to test the claims—and they are many and varied—and that is why we are conducting a live trial. In terms of further detail—and it was quite a comprehensive list of questions—I am happy to come back and provide the senator with further information.

Date 11-11-2008
Database Senate Hansard
Party AG
Speaker Ludlam, Sen Scott

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Mandatory Internet Filtering 

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (3:32 PM) —I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to Internet filtering.

I want to briefly comment on the response by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to my question earlier about mandatory internet filtering. The reason I put the question to the minister in the form that I did was to clarify whether the government’s intention is to provide an opt-in internet filtering system in Australia for concerned parents or other people who might want to provide a filtered internet system for their families or for themselves, or whether the minister intends to go down the track of a mandatory feed. With some regret, I must admit that the minister’s comments have caused a great deal of concern. He has probably inadvertently muddied the waters quite substantially about the system that the government is proposing.

In estimates hearings on 20 October the minister listed a number of countries as trialling or having in current use mandatory internet filters. He listed a number of countries, including the UK, Canada and those that I mentioned in my question earlier. The reason I put the question to the minister in the form that I did is that none of those countries—the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Finland—has mandatory content blockers on their service providers. That is not even under trial in these places. It was trialled briefly, I believe, in Sweden, but it was optional, not mandatory, and that was embroiled in controversy last year when police tried to add certain kinds of peer to peer trackers to the list of what were meant to be simply child pornography sites. So we immediately saw the proposed expansion of the list that was being run in Sweden by police for completely unrelated purposes. I would put it to the minister—and I hope he would agree—that the list of countries which have mandatory filtering is not one that we particularly want to join. I am speaking of Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, India, Burma and some other countries. These countries are in many ways highly repressive, and I do not think that is a precedent we want to follow in Australia.

The problem with the concern and alarm that has been raised in the online community is that the minister has been very careful not to clarify what kind of system the government is proposing for use in Australia. We saw the same rather evasive approach in response to my questions earlier. All we are really after from the minister is, firstly, a retraction of the statements that he made before the estimates committee on 20 October, because quite clearly the story has changed—and at least that is quite welcome. The minister is not proposing that the countries that he listed a couple of weeks ago have mandatory content blockers. Also, we would like a clarification of what the government intends. What the minister said in the press was that, when this trial is proved successful, the government will move to institute such a system in Australia and that the process will be consultative. I do not see a great deal of consultation going on. The process is just rolling out, and a great deal of concern has reached my office and I presume also the minister’s office. So I would really appreciate some of those concerns being taken seriously.

Question agreed to.

Date 13-11-2008
Database Senate Hansard
Party ALP
Speaker Conroy, Sen Stephen

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
National Broadband Network 

Senator CONROY (Victoria) (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) (3:03 PM) —I wish to add to an answer I provided on Tuesday in response to a question from Senator Ludlam. Specifically, the senator asked:

Will the minister be providing a retraction to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, as the answer he gave then was substantially different to the answer that was provided to that committee? Will the minister provide us with a definition of what he meant by ‘unwanted content’ and inform us as to where we might find a definition of ‘unwanted’? Will the minister acknowledge the legitimate concerns that have been raised by commentators and many members of the public that such a system will degrade internet performance, prove costly and inefficient and do very little to achieve the government’s policy objectives?

Given that there was only one minute to answer those questions, I undertook to provide the senator with further answers to the questions at a later time. Regarding the first answer, I draw the senator’s attention to the Hansard of the hearing by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts on 20 October. At that hearing I indicated that we are implementing ISP filtering, taking into account arrangements in countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. The point I made was that these countries have introduced technologies that demonstrate that filtering is technically possible. I did not claim that arrangements in those countries are mandatory. This advice was confirmed by officials at the meeting, who stated quite explicitly that the arrangements in these countries are voluntary. At no time did I mislead the committee, as alleged by Senator Ludlam.

In answer to a further question, the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s black list of sites is determined using processes set out in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. These processes involve classification of content by the national Classification Board and include classifications which are determined prohibited. Prohibited content hosted outside of Australia is added to the black list, which is provided to ISPs and filter providers. The government will also ensure that the ACMA black list includes international content of this nature identified by such agencies as Interpol, Europol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

Senator Ludlam also raised issues around the impact and performance of filters. I acknowledge, as I have continually acknowledged, the concerns raised by some members of the public about the possible impact of filtering on internet performance and costs. This is one of the reasons we are undertaking the live pilot—that is, to test these issues in a real-world environment. The government intends to take an evidence based approach to this issue. The results of the live pilot will inform the government’s policy in this area.

The senator also had a question about dynamic filtering and the opening of private mail. The government have made no commitment to require ISPs to implement dynamic internet filtering. This is, however, one of the different approaches to internet filtering  that we intend to test in the upcoming live pilot. The government have absolutely no intention of requiring ISPs to open private electronic communications such as email.

Finally, I go to issues raised in subsequent motions to take note of answers. Yesterday, Senator Ludlam asked further questions about the precise approach to filtering that the government will adopt. The government does not intend to make firm decisions about specific issues before it knows the outcome of the upcoming live pilot of filtering technologies and has consulted the industry. The government, as I have said, intends to take an evidence based approach to «internet» «filtering, and the sensible thing to do is to wait for the outcome of the live pilot before dealing with detailed questions.

******

Greens to oppose Conroy's censorship

Australian Greens
Media Release
11/11/2008

Too many unanswered questions on net censorship: Greens

The Australian Greens have warned there are too many unanswered questions about the government's internet filtering plan, as the government calls for Internet Service Providers to participate in its trial.

"We still don't know how this filter would sift through the billions of websites on the internet in search of the 'unwanted' material referred to in question time today by Minister Conroy," said the Greens Communications Spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam.

Last month at Senate Estimates, Senator Ludlam queried the focus of the filter and in particular, whether similar schemes have been implemented overseas. The Senator queried the issue again today to establish why the Government had compared Australia's proposed mandatory system with a number of other countries where net filtering is not mandatory. Again the Minister failed to answer the question directly.

"Unfortunately, the Minister did not respond to my question. He still hasn't explained why the proposed mandatory filter is being compared to optional filters operating overseas. It's like comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't advance the debate in any way."

"The internet has not traditionally been the focus of censorship in democratic countries, and the online community has been tenacious in its pursuit of straight answers from the Minister. I'll be doing what I can to get those answers on the record so we know what we're dealing with," concluded Senator Ludlam.

Greens won't back federal plans for internet filters news.com.au 25.11.08

"We're very, very concerned that there's going to be a unnecessary clamp down on the internet and it has to be watched," Greens leader Bob Brown told ABC Television on Tuesday.

His colleague Scott Ludlam has been lobbying against the changes.

"He's working very hard with community groups in Australia to oppose the current proposals by the Government," Senator Brown said.

******

The Greens put Questions on Notice to Conroy

Senator Scott Ludlam from the Greens has asked the following of Conroy's censorship plan. These cover pretty much every question we wanted answering. If we get straight answers then this will be one great read!

Title Senate Notice Paper
Database Senate Notice Papers
Date 27-11-2008 
Source Senate 
Parl No.42 
NP Number 47 
Period of Sitting Spring System 
Id chamber/notices/2008-11-27/0030

Notice given 20 November 2008

831 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—In regard to the recently announced ‘live pilot’ of Internet content filtering:

(1) Why does the pilot aim to test the impact of filtering on Internet connections ranging up to 12 Mega bits per second (Mbps) when 12Mbps is the minimum speed which the National Broadband Network project is claimed to deliver.

(2) Why will the pilot test the capacity of the filters to ‘detect and provide warnings on circumvention attempts’.

(3) What is meant by ‘provide warnings on circumvention attempts’.

(4) Does the Government propose, or is it considering, the criminalisation of circumventing or attempting to circumvent the proposed filtering regime.

(5) Will Internet Service Provider’s be required, or permitted, to apply any level of filtering to the Internet connections of people who have not volunteered to participate in the pilot.

(6) If the customers participating in the pilot are volunteers, how will the results of the pilot be of any worth when they will be affected by self-selection bias.

(7) How does the Government propose to prevent technological tools such as proxies, Virtual Private Networks, the Tor service and encryption from being used to circumvent the Government’s filtering regime without adversely affecting the ability of Australian businesses and residents to conduct their online business in a safe and secure fashion.

(8) Are technological tools such as Virtual Private Networks, Peer-to-Peer applications and encryption, being used by persons trafficking in child pornography online; if so, how will the Government’s proposed filtering regime prevent this.

832 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—

(1) On what basis does the Government claim that Internet service provider (ISP)-based filtering is more effective than personal computer-based solutions.

(2) What is the Government’s justification for making the dynamic content analysis filtering component of the regime opt-out rather than opt-in.

(3) Why is it necessary to compel all Australian ISPs to supply a filtered Internet service when there are already some ISPs offering such a service in the market.

(4) If the demand within the Australian public for filtered Internet connections from their ISP exists as claimed by the Government, why has this not manifested itself in the market to date.

(5) What evidence does the Government have to support the claimed public demand for filtered Internet connections.

(6) Can details be provided of organisations that have assisted the department through providing advice, information and examples that have contributed directly to the Government’s proposed filtering plan.

833 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—

(1) What is the current number of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) on the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s (ACMAs) list of overseas-hosted prohibited or potentially-prohibited content.

(2) How many unique domain names are within the URLs which are currently on the ACMA blacklist.

(3) (a) How many active URLs are currently on the ACMA blacklist; and (b) of these, how many have been, or in the ACMA’s view would be:

(i) classified MA15+,

(ii) classified R18+,

(iii) classified X18+,

(iv) refused classification, and

(v) refused classification because they contain child pornography, and in this case, how many were referred to: ( a ) Commonwealth, state or territory police, and ( b ) an overseas agency.

(4) (a) How many active URLs have been placed on the ACMA blacklist as potentially-prohibited content but which upon classification were found not to be prohibited content; and (b) what is the average period of time that such content has been incorrectly blacklisted.

(5) (a) Is it currently unlawful for an Australian adult to access Internet content that is hosted overseas where that content according to ACMA is:

(i) classified MA15+,

(ii) classified R18+,

(iii) classified X18+, and

(iv) refused classification, other than content defined as ‘child pornography material’ and ‘child abuse material’ in section 473.1 of Division 473 of Part 10.6 ‘Telecommunications Services’ of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ; and (b) if so, on what basis.

(6) Which categories of legal material, that is, material which Australian adults can legally access on the Internet, will be subject to mandatory Internet service provider (ISP)-level filtering that is not optional for end-users.

(7) In regard to the proposed expansion or augmentation of the ACMA blacklist by obtaining alleged child pornography blacklists from overseas agencies:

(a) does the criteria for inclusion on these overseas blacklists align with the Australian classification scheme;

(b) what mechanisms will exist to ensure the accuracy of these overseas blacklists;

(c) is the Minister aware of serious inaccuracies and over-blocking in the blacklist of alleged child pornography that is voluntarily used by some ISPs in Finland;

(d) is the Minister aware that a website which criticised and exposed serious inaccuracies in the Finish blacklist, in an act of apparent retaliation by the Government or police agencies, was itself placed on the blacklist; and

(e) how can the Australian public be assured that controversial yet legal content will not be blocked by its inclusion on overseas blacklists.

(8) What safeguards will be put in place, or what assurances can the Minister give, that the scope of the mandatory blacklist will not, once the filtering regime is implemented, be expanded to include politically controversial material such as websites which allegedly promote anorexia.

(9) How can Australians be confident that the Government’s proposed filtering regime will not wrongly block access to material dealing with political, activist, creative and governmental matters.

(10) What is the mechanism by which the complaints-based ACMA blacklisting will be expanded to examine a broader range of Internet content.

(11) What resources and expertise are to be provided to ACMA to enable it to properly identify illegal or prohibited material under an expanded scheme.

(12) What assurances can the Minister give Australian businesses that access to their websites will not be wrongly blocked by the Government’s proposed filtering regime.

834 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—

(1) With reference to the statement on the department’s website ‘Online Content Regulation’ (last modified: 12 May 2008)

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers
/internet/online_content_regulation

which says that ‘For overseas-hosted content the prohibited categories are RC and X’: is this correct; if not, what are the prohibited categories for overseas-hosted content and on what date did the change to the categories commence operation.

(2) How many items of Internet content were classified by the Classification  Board for the year ended 30 June 2007 in response to an application for classification by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

(3) Of the total number in (2) above: (a) how many were items hosted in Australia; and (b) how many of those items were classified in each of the following categories G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, X18+ and RC.

(4) Of the items in (3)(b) above that were classified G, PG, M, or MA15+: (a) how many have been the subject of an interim take-down notice; and (b) what was the average period of time from the date of issue by ACMA of the notice to the date of issue by ACMA of a notice revoking it.

(5) Of the total number of items in (2) above: (a) how many were hosted outside Australia; and (b) how many of these were classified in each of the following categories, G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, X18+ and RC.

(6) If any of the items referred to in (5) above were classified G, PG, M, MA15+ or R18+: (a) how many of those items had been placed on the ACMA blacklist as potentially-prohibited content; and (b) what was the average period of time during which such content was incorrectly blacklisted.

(7) What is the total amount paid by the ACMA to the Classification Board for the classification of the items referred to in (2) above.

(8) Will access to services such as Google Translate, Google Cache and similar tools provided by various other search engine providers be blocked to prevent circumvention of the filter.

(9) Given that the Australian Labor Party’s policy document ‘Labor’s Plan for Cyber-Safety’ discusses dangers such as online identity theft, cyber-bullying, publication of photographs without permission and online activities of cyber predators (such as using chat rooms): how will the proposed filtering regime address these issues.

******

Liberal Party to oppose Conroy's censorship

Liberal Party of Australia
Media Release
Tue, 25th November 2008

Labor's arbitrary internet filter plan misguided and deeply unpopular

Senator the Hon Nick Minchin Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

A Labor plan to implement a mandatory, national web content filter at Internet Service Provider (ISP) level is misguided and deeply unpopular said Shadow Communications Minister Senator Nick Minchin.

Senator Minchin said nobody of decency disagreed about the importance of working to ensure the online world is safe.

“The Opposition firmly believes that adult supervision, supported by optional user-end filters, effective law enforcement and education should be front and centre of any efforts to keep children safe online,” he said.

“In relation to criminal conduct online, our nation’s law enforcement bodies must be adequately resourced to monitor and investigate unlawful activity.

“There is no technical substitute for appropriate adult supervision when it comes to keeping our children safe online and most parents and teachers take that responsibility very seriously and any suggestions to the contrary are patronising and offensive,” Senator Minchin said.

“Labor’s plan to implement a mandatory Internet filter at ISP level has been roundly attacked with valid concerns raised about its likely effectiveness, the adverse impact it would have on Internet speeds and performance and also the precise nature of the content the Government plans to filter.

“The Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has further fuelled concerns with his talk of filtering not only illegal content, but also unwanted and inappropriate content. This policy proposal is also causing Australia embarrassment internationally, with comparisons to the world’s most repressive regimes,” Senator Minchin said.

The Government is planning a ‘real world’ trial of mandatory filtering before the end of this year and needs the cooperation of sceptical ISPs and their customers.

“If adequate numbers of Internet users cannot be roped into this trial on a voluntary basis, Senator Conroy needs to clarify whether the trial itself will become mandatory, or will this policy be implemented regardless?” Senator Minchin asked.

The Opposition continues to consult widely with stakeholders and will monitor this trial very closely. In the mean-time, it also urges the Government to re-think its plan to stop providing Australians with free pc-based Internet content filters at the end of 2008.

***

Liberal's put Questions on Notice to Conroy

The Liberal's Stuart Robert's has asked the following questions of Conroy's censorship plan. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

Mr Stuart Robert MP
Electoral Division of Fadden (Qld) 
Party: Liberal Party of Australia

Title Senate Notice Paper
Database House of Reps Notice Papers
Date 25-11-2008 
Source House of Reps 
Parl No.42 
NP Number 62
Period of Sitting Spring 
System  Id chamber/noticer/2008-11-25/0008 

422 MR ROBERT: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—

(1) How many websites are currently on the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blacklist.

(2) For each month from November 2007 to November 2008, how many websites were on the ACMA blacklist.

(3) In the current move to force Internet Service Providers to censor content, is the Government proposing to use the ACMA blacklist as the central list for filtering out inappropriate material.

***

The Greens challenge Conroy

The Australian Greens
Show Trial: Conroy's ISP Trial Flawed 
Media Release
Spokesperson Scott Ludlam 
Tuesday 9th December 2008, 2:36pm 

The Australian Greens have called on the Federal Government to abandon its internet filtering trial as it's flawed and doomed to failure, while Telstra and Internode announce they're boycotting it.

"These internet service providers are sending a clear message to the Government - they don't think mandatory internet filtering will work and they don't want to participate in it," said the Greens Communications Spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam.

"This trial is simply all show. It won't give any meaningful indication of how mandatory internet filtering would work in practice. One of the few Internet Service Providers participating is only doing so to prove to the Government that it won't work. We won't even get a sense of the impact of the filter on internet performance, because the trial is not even going to be using real customers. "

Senator Ludlam has questioned Communications Minister Stephen Conroy about the filter in Senate Estimates and Question Time.

"It is clear that the community is profoundly concerned about the filter - its impact on civil liberties and the performance of the internet. The government's policy is flawed and won't work. It will slow down the internet at a time when they are trying to speed it up, especially in regional Australia," concluded Senator Ludlam.

***

Cory Bernardi
Liberal Senator for South Australia

Cory's Comment - ISP Filtering
December 12 2008

I might surprise you today.

For someone who is a confirmed conservative and has an internet reputation as 'the man who wants to ban swearing' - thanks to my senate inquiry into the broadcasting codes of practice; I want to share my thoughts on Labor's proposed ISP filtering.

It will likely surprise many readers that right now, I cannot support it.

Let me confirm that a big part of me wants to support it. Surely anything we can do to prevent access to illegal material is a lawful and moral obligation.

However, the proposal that is being debated in the blogosphere is so devoid of detail that no-one can form a considered opinion of the policy or reasonably become an advocate for it.

Strong words, but true.

Firstly, even the Minister Stephen Conroy could not or would not provide any detail of the scheme, or the trial, or what content would be banned when questioned by me in the Senate.

Already we have a filter on the internet for all parliament house computers. It blocks some political sites, alternative lifestyle sites and other sites that, while not to my personal taste, are hardly grounds for censorship.

Imagine if such censorship was extended to every computer in the country through mandatory ISP filtering. Who would be the ultimate arbiter of what is permissible content?

I have recently met with some advocates of this scheme and frankly have not had any of my concerns allayed.

In some cases, advocates believe illegal content should be extended to all nudity and even stories featuring consensual relations between adults. (I had to describe it like that because the word s_x would likely prevent this message from getting to you!)

It has been suggested that there should be a rating system for Internet content similar to how ACMA rates media content.

When I have asked how this could work, no one that I have spoken to has any clear idea, yet they all maintain that 'it needs to be done'.

That may be so, but at what cost?

There is no stronger supporter of families than myself. My political life is a commitment to strengthening families and changing our nation through the development of our children. However, I also believe that families know better than government what is best for their children.

Parental responsibility cannot and should not be abrogated to government - if it is, our society will only become weaker.

Yes, illegal content should be banned from the web. It is illegal after all, but it is wrong to give the government a blank cheque to determine what is appropriate for us to view on the Internet. That is a job for families, working with government.

And until someone can fill in the detail that is so sadly lacking in Labor's latest 'shoot first, aim later' policy proposal, I remain a mandatory ISP filtering sceptic.

Back to Page 1

   www.refused-classification.com

| Online Since April 2002