Labor backs off filter during election campaign

Image via Wikipedia

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan has suggested changes could be made to the Federal Government's proposed internet filter. He has publicly suggested for the first time that the filter could make some changes or "move in different directions" in response to concerns voiced by many who claim it will slow download speeds and lead to unwarranted censorship. "Stephen Conroy... has announced some changes to the filter - he's talking to industry about those now," he said.

"We have responded to the legitimate concerns of many of your listeners in this area and Stephen Conroy is going through that process now. "It's possible that we could move in slightly different directions."

But Greens Senator Scott Ludlam believes the program has been deferred until after the election due to the unpopularity of the proposal. "There has been a huge outcry over this and I think all they've done is Labor just backed it off to make sure it didn't play off into the election campaign," he said. 

"The Labor Party policy going into this election is for internet service provider-level mandatory censorship of the internet after the election - that's still their policy." Senator Ludlam says moving the filter in a "different direction" is not what the public is calling out for. "I haven't heard a lot of people demanding that Stephen Conroy move in a slightly different direction. People want the filter scrapped," he said. "They want to start again with some more intelligent ideas and better ways of dealing with this material, whether it be law enforcement, education, home-based filters or whatever.

ISP network engineer and filter critic Mark Newton is also sceptical over what direction Senator Conroy will take the filter. "The most common responses Senator Conroy has been making to the criticisms of this policy is to assert that his detractors are supporters of child pornography," he said. "He doesn't tend to address the comments of detractors in any great detail. He just sort of brushes them off and the attitude is always, 'I'm right, you're wrong and this is what we're going to do'. "So we haven't really seen a lot of good faith from the minister."

Opposition spokesman Tony Smith says Labor was wrong to cancel John Howard's previous online protection programs. "The Coalition believes Government, regulators, internet providers, teachers and importantly parents should all have a role to play in protecting children online," he said. "While Labor has fumbled around for three years, the only concrete decision Senator Conroy has taken is to cancel the Howard Government's practical program, Protecting Australian Families Online."

Related articles

• Conroy, Smith And Ludlam Debating ICT Policy August 10 (gizmodo.com.au)

Conroy delays internet filter because of election back lash

Controversial policy to filter the internet have been shelved by the Gillard government for at least two years.
As the government clears the decks for the coming federal election and dealing with a fierce backlash against the policy, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday planned a year-long review into subject matter that has been refused classification. He said laws for the filter would not be released until the review was completed.

And a spokesman for Senator Conroy said the filter -- that  was a 2007 Labor election promise -- would not be carried out until 12 months following the legislation was approved. While Senator Conroy insisted the government's resolve toward introduce a compulsory internet filter had not changed, the opposition said the postponement was a "humiliating backdown". The deferral comes after a fierce anti-filter campaign from activist organisation Get-Up! and condemnation from internet companies such as Google, and the US government. They have warned that the filter will not be of use, would slow the internet and would set a precarious precedent for web censorship.

Greens senator Scott Ludlam said it was clear the government did not have the stomach to discuss the filter in the course of the election campaign. "I think what it is doing is giving the government time plus a bit of a get-out clause to have an evidence-based policy," he said. Senator Ludlam said the filter, which has been strongly supported by church groups, would not eliminate child pornography from the internet, most of which was traded on peer-to-peer networks rather than on live websites. "It will not take a solitary picture off the web, won't point to a single prosecution and it will not lead to any of this information being taken down," he said.

Google Australia and New Zealand managing director Karim Temsamani said he was happy the government had taken account of "genuine concerns" regarding refused-classification content.
"While our standing on the government's future filter has not changed, we approve of the recommendation to conduct a review of the RC classification," Mr Temsamani said. "Our main concern has always been that the scope of the planned filter is far too broad. It goes way further than child sexual abuse information and would block access to important online information for all Australians."

The review was introduced as three of Australia's largest internet service providers -- Telstra, Optus and Primus -- agreed to block a list of child abuse websites compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Senator Conroy said the government's promise to force ISPs to filter content from the internet had not wavered.

aussie internet filter growing list of complaints

THE US has weighed into the row about the Rudd Government's strategy to censor the internet, saying it has raised issues about it with Australian officials. The Obama administration needs to promote an open internet to boost global financial growth and security and is mounting a diplomatic assault on threats to the open net across the world.

The US State Division, America's foreign office, has publicly aired concern concerning the internet filtering plan championed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Responding to questions concerning the filter from commentary web site The Punch, US State Division spokesperson Noel Clay said: "The US and Australia are close partners on issues related to cyber issues usually, including national security and economic issues.

"We don't talk about the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but can say that in the context of that ongoing association, we have now raised our concerns on this issue with Australian officials."

The Rudd Government has confronted rising criticism about internet filtering in current weeks after it released submissions by organizations including Google, Yahoo plus Microsoft on the approach to improve its policy. Lots of the submissions had been extremely vital of the filtering plan. Considerations included that the scope of content material to be censored was too broad, that the filter can be ineffective or sluggish internet speeds, and that the list of banned materials may very well be leaked to the public. Under the plan, Australian web service providers like Telstra, Optus and iiNet could be pressured to dam access to a secret listing of webpages containing refused classification material.

The Obama administration has questioned the Rudd Government’s plan to introduce an internet filter on the grounds that it operates contrary to acknowledged US foreign policy of using an open internet to broaden financial development and global security. The US State Division has advised The Punch its officers have raised worries in regards to the filter with Australian counterparts, as America mounts brand new} diplomatic assault on internet censorship by governments worldwide. Requested about the US stance on the filter plan US State Department spokesman Noel Clay stated: “The US and Australia are close companions on concerns associated to cyber issues generally, including national security and financial issues.

“We do not talk about the small print of particular diplomatic exchanges, but can say that in the context of that ongoing relationship, we have raised our issues on this matter with Australian officials.”

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has long confronted opposition to the plan by internet freedom lobby groups, however the circle of critics has now dramatically widened. Google - at the moment involved in excessive-profile standoff with the Chinese government over censorship - and other main tech companies made their objections public last week and the intervention of the US government will improve the pressure on the minister.

In a speech in January US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton placed internet freedom on the heart of American foreign policy as part of what she referred to as “twenty first century statecraft”. The US, she stated, could be seeking to resist efforts by governments around the world to curb the free flow of data on the internet and inspired US media organisations to “take a proactive position in challenging overseas governments’ demands for censorship”.

Clay’s statement added: “The US Government’s position on web freedom points is well-known, expressed most recently in Secretary Clinton’s January 21st address.  We are dedicated to advancing the free circulation of knowledge, which we view as vital to economic prosperity and preserving open societies globally.”

On this debate some of Conroy’s biggest allies have been his critics, permitting the minister to place himself in the political mainstream from where he can level to the filter being primarily designed to dam obscene content material, together with little one pornography.

But the criticism of the scheme’s design has been mounting, with the US Authorities and companies like Google now numbering amongst those that have publicly declared they have considerations about it. Clearly, no person goes to accuse either of being in favour of the distribution of illegal content. The considerations centre around whether it would work in the first place, but in addition a few authorities building a system is designed to control the distribution of information. Some critics argue the filter will apply to information on euthanasia and safer drug use. But there are also concerns that it is going to stop media organisations reporting sure sorts of stories akin to on crime.

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey a few of these wider concerns in a speech earlier this month when he stated: “What we have in the government’s Internet filtering proposals is a scheme that is more probably to be unworkable in practice. However more perniciously it's a scheme that may create the infrastructure for presidency censorship on a broader scale.” The Coalition’s place is that it stays to be satisfied that a filter will most likely be effective. Now I don’t doubt Conroy when he says it is aimed solely at repugnant content. Nevertheless there have been important considerations raised by specialists concerning the convenience with which it could be bypassed and the accuracy of the filtering. And as soon as the scheme is in place it at all times leaves open the possibility that it could possibly be used to censor some political views.

There’s additionally the problem, which Hockey alluded to, that it might be easily circumvented. As soon as the filter goes dwell we can expect instructions for getting round it to be simply accessed by a Google search. (In reality, you may get some fairly good results by looking “The means to bypass the Australian ISP filter” already.)

Google’s issues on the filter are primarily that it's more probably to be ineffective and received't protect youngsters Google knows a bit about filtering content, given its experience in China and its voluntary filtering of content material in other countries, corresponding to in Germany the place it filters out Nazi propaganda. In the present day on The Punch, one of the tech giant’s executives Iarla Flynn summarises the corporate’s objections, labelling the ISP filtering plan “a threat to the open web” which “robs Australians of the opportunity to make some important decisions of their lives”.

Flynn additionally factors out that other governments, perhaps of a extra sinister bent, could point to the Australian scheme to legitimise their very own plans to manage data movement in and out of their country.

The list of complaints with the filter is growing, as is the status of the agencies which have considerations about it.