[MLB-WIRELESS] Government Internet Filter - What do you think?

[Tyson Clugg]

First of all, thanks to everyone that has taken the time to reply
already.  Keep your thoughts and ideas coming, I appreciate your input!

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 12:27 +1100, emdeex wrote:
> Conroy can't just decide to block something, it has to be passed into
> law by parliament, to ban something, am I right?

If the government applies their policies in an unlawful manner that is
distinct from having bad policies in the first place.  I'd rather keep
focus on what the proposed policies are, as opposed to how they become
law.

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 02:01 +1100, Sunnz wrote:
> I think the internet is often incorrectly compared to TV and magazines
> - ISP are not the content provider per se, but a communication
> carrier, more like faxes and phones for example.

It is worth noting that the Broadcasting Services Act (1992) was written
before the Internet became such a fundamental part of our society.  It
was written with the view that a central provider uses "datacasting"
equipment to broadcast content "to persons having equipment appropriate
for receiving that content".  The Internet has made it possible for
Australian citizens to broadcast content to the world, and for citizens
of other nations to broadcast content to all Australians.  This presents
legislative challenges to the government who need to be seen to be
providing a duty of care to minors - including restricting their access
to content that parents find inappropriate.  What actions can the
government take instead of mandatory content filtering to be seen as
addressing these challenges?

For the most part, ISPs act as "carriage service providers" by providing
an Internet connection, and often as "content service providers" by
providing web hosting for their users - these roles are defined by the
Telecommunications Act (1997).  This Act provides the regulatory model
that ISPs operate under, including the development of any industry
"Codes of Practice".  Paraphrasing section 112 of the Act:
 "The Parliament intends that [ISPs] should develop [industry codes]
that [have regard to] the public interest, including the public interest
in the efficient, equitable and ecologically sustainable supply of
[internet services] in a manner that reflects the legitimate
expectations of the Australian community."

It could be argued that the government is trying to get ISPs to clean up
their own act by providing content filtering services as some members of
the community could legitimately expect.  Furthermore it could be argued
that the ISPs have been dragging their heels on this issue, forcing the
government to consider alternative means of meeting expectations of the
Australian community, rather than through self regulation.  What should
our response be to this type of argument?

It is understandable that ISPs want no part in this - implementing
content filtering raises their costs which they must pass on to
consumers, and degrades services which draws complaints.  But by not
implementing filtering it could be argued that the "legitimate
expectations of the Australian Community" have not been met.  How much
of the community shares this expectation is an issue on its own, but a
portion of the population will indeed want such filtering, and will
expect the government to provide it.

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:26 +1100, mw at freenet.net.au wrote:
> Personally, I reckon that the previous govt policy of providing
> client-side filter software to all who wants it, is easily the most
> effective and least invasive.

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:39 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote:
> Do you mean?  http://www.netalert.gov.au/filters.html
> 
> $85 million spent, downloaded 100,000 times in the first 1.5 weeks,
> and two weeks later still being used by less than 3000 people.

I have spoken with some "baby boomers" and found those I spoke to feel
that anything that has to be installed on an individual PC is too hard
for most parents to do, and that children are likely to find ways to
disable it anyway.  This leaves the ISP as the next likely point to
implement content filtering, but if the ISP doesn't want to provide
filtering services what should be done?  It could be argued that the
current proposed policy is an attempt at redressing this scenario.  How
do we counter this argument?  What about the costs of maintaining and
supporting the existing filter software?

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:53 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote:
> I'm worried that you've made the assumption that filtering has
> to be implemented in some way.  It doesn't.  Not filtering is a
> perfectly viable alternative to the government's plans.  I hope
> that point gets presented.

You've failed to present any arguments supporting your statement.
Please elaborate as to why not implementing any content filtering is a
viable alternative to mandatory content filtering for all citizens, then
we can form policy based on your supporting arguments.

On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 00:41 +1100, Mike Everest wrote: 
> Although I still think that it is important to keep up the pressure,
> it looks like this one is increasingly likely to go the way of the
> last attempt to do something similar about 10 years ago.

I am aware that recent news reports suggest the government is already
looking at scrapping their current policy.  However...

There are a growing number of parents with young children in Australia,
especially since the Federal Government "baby bonus" scheme came into
effect in 2002.  Many of the baby bonus children are now aged 5 years or
older and are starting to use the Internet.  Parents want to protect
their children, baby boomers want to protect their grandchildren... a
significant portion of the public will eventually form strong opinions
on this issue.  Public support for content filtering may be low at the
moment, but public opinion may be swayed by the next round of propaganda
by various parties with vested interests in content filtering.  I feel
that this issue is not likely to go away in the long term.

Whatever your take on the current situation, I'd still love to hear it.
Please keep the responses rolling in!

Sincerely yours,
Tyson Clugg.
President, Melbourne Wireless Inc.