• Home
• Analysis
• Policy
• Central Government
• Local Government
• Healthcare
• Education
• Digital Inclusion
• Technology
• Security

Central Government, Policy

Australia’s net filter plan under attack

By Alice Kok | 25 February 2009

Australia’s controversial Federal Cyber Safety Plan (FCSP), which could see internet service providers filtered for illegal and illicit content, has come up against staunch resistance from citizens and ISPs involved at the test stage.

From the announcement of the net filtering initiative in 2007, to the latest announcement that six ISPs would be trialed this year, FCSP has garnered vociferous protest campaigns from ISPs and citizens. Twitter— now among the 100 most visited sites on the internet— has been one of the primary conduits for protests.

The FCSP is expected to cost AUS$189 million (US$123 million) to implement. That money would go toward imposing filtering requirements on ISPs, who would have to use the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s official blacklist, which is tuned to filter out what the government deems as illegal content.

News portal “Australian IT” has hosted a series of “Super Blogs” hosting nine bloggers, including Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, who argue for and against the project.

Conroy explained: “The live pilot will provide evidence on the real-world impact of ISP content filtering, including for providers and internet users. It will look at the efficiency and effectiveness of a range of technical solutions, as well as other issues such as the ease of circumvention, impact on internet speeds and user experience.”

One of the participating ISPs, iiNet, said that they are participating to prove that the project won’t work. “It needs to change both at a technical level, and in how promotes the responsible use of the internet, said Michael Malone, Managing Director of iiNet.

“The Federal Cyber Safety Plan would see the blacklisting of over 10,000 RC (refused classification) sites and the establishment of an opt-out child protection filter,” added Malone. “However logical this may appear at face value, iiNet believes it is a simplistic response that places too much confidence in the efficacy of a filter, while failing to acknowledge the wider and undesirable impact it will have on all internet users. Filtering websites misses the target altogether.” Conroy responds by saying that several technical claims have been made about ISP filtering –that it will slow down the internet or result in over-blocking of content. “It is only responsible that we put those claims to the test.”

Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, is sitting on the fence. “The decision requires us to weigh up the benefits of filtering against the costs, including the financial costs (which we know will be small) and the costs associated with degradation of internet service. I am waiting for the results of the Government’s trial before making up my mind.”

The government has previously spent $116 million on a different anti-porn initiative based on PC-based filters, which failed when a 16 year-old bypassed the filter in half an hour.

---