Lyle, thank you for posting perhaps the clearest statement of ACL's position on this issue that I have seen.

What threw me (and therefore Glynis when I rang to check) was the way the Sydney Morning Herald reported the issue as following:

But he [Conroy] has since backtracked, saying the mandatory filters would only block content that has been "refused classification" (RC) - a subset of the ACMA blacklist - amid widespread concerns that ACMA's list contains a slew of R18+ and X18+ sites, such as regular gay and straight pornography and other legal content.

"That doesn't meet the election promise as far as we're concerned at all," Wallace said in a phone interview.

"The promise was clearly about providing a safer internet environment for children and to do that you need to mandatorily block in the first instance pornography and R18+, and then provide an opt-in system for those adults who want to access it."

Your statement here presents an entirely different picture:

ACL welcomes the Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s commitment to blocking Refused Classification (RC) material which includes child, bestiality and rape pornography.

However, we have made it clear to the Government that meeting their election commitment means that children must be protected from “legal porn” in the X18+ and R18+ categories, as the harm of this to kids (and adults) is well-documented in scientific literature.

The Government has always indicated that adults would be able to opt-in to receive legal porn. Whilst ACL and many experts do not believe legal porn is healthy even for adults, we have supported this position because it is a superior way to protect children and is in line with existing laws applying to other media.

I can see now that Herald journalist has confused the issue of the Tier 1 mandatory blacklist RC filter with the Tier 2 dynamic opt-out R18+ filter in the explanatory paragraph that frames Jim's quote.

As a result I had read Jim's quote as saying that you need the Tier 1 mandatory filter for R18+ material and then you also need the Tier 2 opt-in filter as well.

I can now see that he didn't mean that at all.

It was unfortunate that when I rang ACL on Friday we weren't able to clear this up properly

Hi Lyle, I hope you'll continue the discussion in the comments here.

I have a few questions about the ACL's position, & the way it has conducted itself during this debate:

(i) Why has the ACL characterized opponents of the filter - which includes a number of Christians such as myself - in it's current campaign as "The porn lobby and some in the internet industry [...] trying to scuttle the Government’s plan to clean up the internet for our kids."? Can you understand why myself and others might find that unhelpful?

(ii) How can you argue against a Charter of Rights because "It will give unelected judges power to pressure politicians to fall in line with a 'rights' agenda" and suggest "It is vital we take action now to stop this and to protect our freedoms" while, on the other hand, arguing for secret Government censorship of the internet handled by unelected bureaucrats?

(iii) How do you feel that the mandatory blacklist will, by my conservative estimates, not block 99.74% of sexually explicit material on the web (let alone p2p)? Will this really "clean up the internet for our kids" with 99.74% of material available? Why is this preferable to home based PC-level filtering?

(iv) How do you feel about the take down notices issued to sites discussing the (now not so) secret blacklist?

Thanks!

And just to follow up Jeremy's comments, and some more on the ACL position: this technology, this 'safer environment' is already available: it's PC-based filtering like NetNanny et al. You can shop around for the best product, and set it up to your own personal preferences I'm sure, right now.

You would think, given the ACL's comments, that this software didn't exist.

You don't need to wait for the Government to 'clean up the internet' (were that possible) for you or your kids - you can install the software yourself, right now, and save everyone the hassle.

The previous Government tried to give it away, and wasted $90 million in the process, as there was only 1% actual use vs estimated demand. But the products still sell so the market is obviously there in the private sector, so take advantage of it.

If a few more people made a trip to Harvey Norman, maybe this issue would have been resolved long ago...

It is clear now from Lyle's statement here that I agree with ACL about the importance of the mandatory filter on illegal (RC) material.

But it would be wrong to conclude that we are 100% in agreement and that there aren't further questions about free speech worth pursuing about the so-called 'mandatorily imposed opt-out' R18+ filter.

From my understanding of how a dynamic filter works, I am not convinced that false positives wont be a significant issue.

Furthermore, as I said in my previous article: R18+ is a fairly lower bar (and one that excludes plenty of content not of a sexual nature) and it is highly likely therefore to censor some Christian content.

It may put Christian organisations like mine in a difficult position of having to decide whether we 'opt-out' of a 'mandatorily' imposed porn filter.

To take a more extreme example - as a journo I need to access o/s photo sites that display images from disaster zones. Some of these (inevitably) are graphic. Would I be restricted from accessing such sites under this filter?

It would be better if the 'opt-out' filter only banned X-rated material.

As Luke says parents would be better off using PC-based net nanny filters anyway.

I still expect Glynis or Lyle to comment here. So if you have questions about the ACL position feel free to post them.

Hi Luke, Lyle Shelton is interstate at a conference today and tomorrow so I'll endeavour to reply to your queries.
(i) Activists within the internet industry and the porn industry have definitely - and very publicly - been driving the opposition to ISP filtering. This is what we have been referring to, we are not saying that everyone who opposes ISP filtering is from these industries.
(ii) The filtering blacklist would in effect be under the control of the Government, who is already talking of the possibility of a review panel or the like. The Government is elected to office and is answerable at the ballot box if people don't like what they do. They are obviously also more responsive to community concerns because of this. This is a very important safeguard that is part of what we are trying to uphold in opposing a 'charter of rights'.
(iii) I'm not sure I would agree with the figures you've put forward, but the ACL has never pretended that this will be the full solution to safeguarding children from pornographic material on the web. It is, however, a very important step which will complement other initiatives being taken in this area. It also should be effective in helping prevent children from accidentally being exposed to sex sites on the web. It is worth noting that the Australia Institute's 2003 research showed that 84 % of boys and 60 % of girls had been accidentally exposed to sex sites. Not all parents take up PC filtering for a variety of reasons.

(iv) The blacklist includes child porn and bestiality sites and the like. We think it is very important that these sites aren't promoted through people publishing them online.

Replying further on the PC filtering, many parents aren't technically savvy and don't feel comfortable installing filters. Others aren't switched on to this issue and the damage that can be done to their children. Even parents who take up this option can't control what happens if their child visits a friend's place where there isn't filtering. The damage that can be done to a child in their formative years if they have easy acces to pornography is of great concern and really needs to be the primary issue here.

I don’t think ACL and Jeremy Halcrow are too far apart in their views.

Freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Where an expression causes demonstrable harm, there are defamation, sedition and classification laws.

In the interests of community health, and particularly of children, we need to apply the same classification criteria to the internet as we do to film and other media.

Both Jeremy and ACL acknowledge that there is some material that is so harmful it should be banned.

Less harmful material (R18+ and MA15+) should be available to adults on opt-in basis if an age-verification system is in place.

Classification standards need to be fair and subject to review. There should be an avenue for appeals.

ISP-level filtering is the only method which makes sense. The free filters provided by the Howard government for use in family homes were not effective, and in any case, few parents knew enough about computers to install them.

Responsible parents who supervise their children’s internet use and install filters cannot protect their family from the actions of children whose parents have not installed filters. A Canberra Hospital report a few years ago revealed that sex abuse on children by other children is growing at an alarming rate, fuelled in part by increasing access by children to internet porn.

To continue my comments - which would not all fit in the previous box:

ISP filtering, by applying to all Australian computers, could be effective in the same way that polio vaccination has been - largely wiping out this harmful disease in Australia because almost all children are vaccinated against it.

ISP level filters would ensure that the worst material including child pornography is almost completely blocked. The technology to do this is improving all the time.

The SBS Insight program, “Blocking the net” on 31 March this year, showed some precocious children who are already being prematurely sexualised through their internet surfing. Their parents need help – and I commend Senator Conroy for trialling the best ways to provide it.

Roslyn Phillips
Research officer, FamilyVoice Australia
rhp@fava.org.au

Hi Glynis, thanks for responding!

(i) "We are not saying that everyone who opposes ISP filtering is from these industries." I think people who read your material may not get that impression. I disagree that 'activists' are driving opposition - many, many ordinary users are opposed, including many Christians like me. However from the way you frame the debate 'us vs the porn industry and internet activists', you're lumping brothers and sister in Christ with legitimate concerns in with the porn industry, which seems... unfortunate.

(ii) The blacklist would be under the control of ACMA - Stephen Conroy has made a big deal about the fact he and his dept *will not* be administering it. You could argue politicians are ultimately responsible for a charter of rights too. I don't think you have answered how you can oppose a charter of rights to 'protect our freedoms', yet insist on secret, mandatory Internet censorship at the same time. What happens when Greens start lobbying to have material deemed anti-homosexual added to the blacklist? Censorship is a two way street.

(iii) You're welcome to investigate the figures further. They're estimates which illustrate a point that of the millions of sexually explicit sites out there (as the research I used indicated), the Govt plans on blocking several hundred. I'm not sure how blocking a quarter of one percent is a 'very important step'. On the contrary - efforts to block this material have, like all pushes for censorship, done more to publicise it than anything else, and in effect create a 'honeypot' of the worst material, which will now inevitably, and very sadly, remain an open secret. Furthermore, advocating blocking 0.25% of material as a 'very important step' seems to create a false sense of security for concerned people, and detract from the fact they can filter their internet on their own terms right now. Why not throw your weight behind a commercial product?

(iv) Exactly - how many kids do you know are searching for child porn and bestiality? Conflating blocking this material with "protecting kids" is very disingenuous to my mind. Plus, the list wont be kept secret (it's not now), given 100s of ISPs will need it. The campaign has backfired in this regard - I believe it's a good case where pragmatism trumps ideology.

(v) On PC filtering - if parents aren't saavy, then the answer is to become saavy, not abdicate responsibility to the Government for one part of the internet world. To pretend that's an answer could be disastrous. Why? Chatrooms, social networking, mobile phone use (see recent 'sexting' controversy), peer to peer, internet use at friend's home (as you mention), material the filter inevitably misses, etc. You can say you're 'hoping for the technology to improve' but technology goes both ways, & will always be ten steps ahead of any token gestures of filtering. You will always be well behind the eight ball, & encouraging parents to just rely on the Government doesn't help them or their kids.

The proposed dynamic filter for all is simply unworkable, practically & politically - the 'deep trawl' effect will catch too much legitimate material (what if the ACL runs an article on dangers of pornography - will keywords filtering block it?), or not enough "unwanted" material, meaning parents will think they have a 'safe' environment when they don't (on the web), and it doesn't even touch other online environments I mentioned.

Then the politicians and supports will either look dopey for having advocated for a fundamentally flawed plan as 'making the internet safe for kids', or have to advocate for even more draconian filtering, thus scooping up even more legitimate material, and giving more ammo to other groups who want to direct the censorship at you.

Rosyln,

ISP filtering, by applying to all Australian computers, could be effective in the same way that polio vaccination has been - largely wiping out this harmful disease in Australia because almost all children are vaccinated against it.

ISP level filters would ensure that the worst material including child pornography is almost completely blocked. The technology to do this is improving all the time.

This is, to be blunt, complete fantasy.
(a) It wont apply to all Australian computers - the very dubious proposed dynamic filter is opt-out.
(b) The filter is only for the web, not p2p, chatrooms, etc. So it's neither for all computers or all online content.
(c) The technology behind p2p will always be streets ahead of filtering. If the entertainment industry couldn't stop it despite years of concerted effort, what makes you think the Australian Government can? Technology goes both ways.
(d) Almost all children? Generally speaking, lumping children aged 0-18 in one category doesn't really help here, but teenagers are far, far more savvy than you give them credit for. To pretend this is some kind of panacea similar to a vaccine is to both misrepresent the Government's plans & what those advocating *for* the filters are saying.
(e) To characterize the issue this way is to do more harm to kids & parents by pretending what you suggest is possible, when it's not. If they're concerned, they should get a PC filter *right now*. You should advocate for that.

Dear Luke,

I have a filter on my computer - better than the ones Mr Howard was offering. But it doesn't protect my family from the actions of those whose parents haven't installed filters. You seem to ignore or trivialise this very real problem.

No one is suggesting that ISP filtering would make parental supervision unnecessary. But any filtering would be a step forward.

It seems dynamic filtering is dead in the water, but given mixed messages abound, they might change their minds tomorrow.
Conroy to opt for tiered Internet filtering

Senator Conroy's office has confirmed the Government plans only to introduce mandatory internet filtering for web content that is Refused Classification (RC), with all other explicit content filtered on a voluntary basis by internet service providers.

After months of mixed messages on what content would be filtered on a "mandatory" basis and what content on a "voluntary" or "optional" basis, a spokesperson for Senator Conroy told iTnews that mandatory ISP-level filtering will only apply to RC content drawn from complaints made to the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority).

The "other unwanted content" the Senator has oft referred to in speeches - rated R18+ or X18+ - will not be included in the mandatory filtering system. It is hoped instead that ISPs will offer additional filtering services - as an optional extra to customers - to block this content.

...

"ISPs can offer to filter additional content if they choose to, as an optional service for families," the spokesperson said. "The Government would not mandate IP filtering or classifying web sites [beyond the RC classification]. Commercial offerings can do that."

The Government plans to take an active role in promoting any commercial internet filtering product offered by ISPs that goes above and beyond the mandatory blocking of RC sites on the ACMA blacklist.

So the Govt will block the few hundred ACMA urls, and encourage ISPs to offer opt-in filtering services.

So, ACL & FAVA, no opt-out, Australia wide second tier. Just blocking 0.25% of material which might, on the one hand, slightly annoy pedophiles and beastiality types, and on the other create a bow-tied honeypot which they can access via a VPN whenever they choose when the list eventually leaks, which it will. (Warning: link contains mild PG language. Kids, ask your parents, and failing that the Government, if the d-word is offensive before clicking).

From the same article I quoted above:

"Filtering out a handful of RC-only sites won't make the Internet any safer for kids, nor will it slow down the traffic in illegal material," he said. "Yet it still comes at a high cost, both financially and to our freedom of speech. It seems more about fulfilling an election promise than achieving any particular policy aim."

That seems right to me. For all the bluster, content on the internet will remain exactly the same for pretty much everyone (for now), while spending a lot of $ on a futile, token filtering plan that becomes open to political auction come election time from both sides of politics, and abuse from those interested in nasty material, all so the Govt can tick a box.

This presents an interesting litmus test for the ACL and other lobby groups: will you now advocate for practical home-based approaches including technology, education, and supervision to make the internet 'safe[er] for kids' as you've been advocating, or now the political debate is pretty much over, will you simply give up and move on?

That is, were you actually interested in helping the unaware, or non-technically savvy parents you've been advocating for, or simply the politics and your own ideology?

Luke, that line of questioning is unnecessarily provocative and OTT.

Both ACL and the Phillips have a long track record in fighting porn and I’m sure they will continue to do so.

The real issue (as we discussed in March) is the extent to which you can translate a classification system that works in analog media to the digital age.

There is really no equivalent on the web to what we see in a newsagent: the porn mags in plastic wrappers on their own shelves up the back of the shop.

Once you move beyond a limited blacklist, its very hard to isolate pornagraphic material in this way because filters operate on blocking key words etc

I know in advertising – due to ad blocking filters – we have moved from using words like ‘advertising’ and ‘promotion’ to using more innocent words to try and avoid the filters. Pornographers will do the same thing.

"if parents aren't saavy, then the answer is to become saavy, not abdicate responsibility to the Government for one part of the internet world."

Wow Luke – that is profound, parent’s get savvy! I guess the ACL and others can go home now that you’ve solved that problem…

Sorry for the sarcasm, but that is to be blunt, complete fantasy!

What about the children whose parents can’t become savvy because they are too busy working to put food on the table. What about children who live in dysfunctional families or abusive families. What about the children who have parents that just don’t care…they have neither the time nor the inclination to care what their kids are doing – on the internet or otherwise. What happens to these children…?

A recently released a report stated that there were 55,000 cases of child abuse and neglect in 2008 – I don’t think these kids have parents who are going to take your advice. So what about them…do we write them off?

Sometimes it’s not about abdicating responsibility – it’s about taking responsibility when others can’t or won’t.

Rhonda, if the Govt was planning some sort of magically-make-all-information-technology-safe solution, your questions would make sense, but they're not, so they don't. No one is suggesting we write off victims of child abuse (whatever that has to do with this issue), but if it's something you are passionate about then I imagine you'd much rather see $45 million spent directly addressing their needs, rather than blocking a handful of URLs pretty much no one is likely to see at about $90,000 a URL.

Also Rhonda, and anyone else on the 'parents don't understand' argument - if parents couldn't drive, should they just buy their kids a car, tell them to figure out how to drive it for themselves, and demand the Govt magically 'make it safe' as they're too busy/ignorant/irresponsible? I think not.

--

More generally I think it's worth looking objectively at the social and financial costs of this policy:
- The blacklist is now an open secret and honeypot for people interested in abhorrent material. The Govt is effectively maintaining a public list of the worst material for anyone interested, which is pretty much the opposite of their stated intent.

- Parents have been (& probably will be) misled into thinking the Internet is now 'safer' for their children, when it is exactly the same. They may have a false sense of security, and not pursue home-based PC filtering, appropriate supervision, educating themselves etc because of this. It's akin to the Govt saying that they've closed one dangerous road in remote WA, and telling residents of NSW 'we've made Australian roads safer,' while they effectively remain exactly the same.

- Millions of dollars that could be spent going after pedophiles and the like will instead be spent on a token political gesture that has no meaningful objective.

- And of course there's a very dubious filtering precedent set with inadequate mechanisms, transparency, and legislation.

Beware the law of unintended consequences.