Australian Internet Censorship Jan 2008 - Present

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.

Back to Page 1

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com