Federal Labor's proposed internet filtering policy is an attack on freedom of speech and needs to be stopped.
In the last federal election, the ALP ran with a policy of introducing a mandatory internet filtering policy. This policy has received relatively little media coverage and was not prominent in its election material.
The government is determined to go ahead with this scheme despite widespread public opposition. A recent Netspace survey found 80% of its customers disagreed with any internet filtering scheme.
The ALP policy is a two-tier system. In the first tier all content deemed inappropriate will be placed on a "blacklist" and made completely unavailable within Australia. The second tier bans all content of a pornographic nature, but people can choose to opt out of the scheme voluntarily.
Civil liberties groups are concerned about exactly what the government will restrict, and Stephen Conroy — the federal minister responsible for the legislation — has been unwilling to clarify it for them.
Electronic Frontiers Australia's (EFA) Dale Clapperton told Triple M on November 14: "The [government's internet] blacklist itself is super-secret.
"Back in 2001, shortly after the Commonwealth government started maintaining this blacklist, although not forcing anybody to actually block access to what's on it, EFA made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the government to try and find out the type of sites which were going on the blacklist.
"The government denied the FOI request. We had to appeal it … where we ultimately lost. And along the way, the government actually changed the FOI Act to make these types of documents specifically exempt. So it is, in reality, a secret blacklist."
Major concerns have been raised about the efficiency of the proposed filter. Trials of one filter revealed that one in 20 sites were blocked as a "false positive" — a site that did not contain illegal content.
Even the most accurate software the government has tested
would incorrectly block 10,000 sites in every million.
While Conroy has repeatedly denied that the intent of the filtering is censorship, its effect is just that.
No software can adequately distinguish between pornography and health advice. The alternative — that government officials determine what is or isn't "legal" — is equally unpalatable given the willingness of the government to silence groups who oppose its policies.
For example, on February 2 the ALP refused to support a Senate motion moved by the Greens to lift the "global gag rule", which bans aid agencies from receiving money from the Australian government if they provide information about abortion.
Recent government calls to ban photographs by artist Bill Henson also casts doubt on their ability to distinguish between pornography and art.
The precedent this policy sets for allowing the government to determine what is and isn't "wanted" on the internet is very worrying.
Information about abortion, euthanasia, drug-use or politics could easily be deemed as "unwanted". Given the contents of the blacklist are immune to FOI requests, the government can silence opposing views without challenge.
There are technical issues as well. Information Technology experts have warned that filtering at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level of the internet would dramatically reduce download speed.
In the government's own trials, the most effective internet filter software reduced download speeds by approximately 83%.
Any speed reduction would be most noticeable to those with poorer-quality access such as dial-up or remote satellite internet users.
More important than trying to filter the itnernet to "protest" children from its contents is increased government funding for sex education and family support services.
Conroy has even attempted to smear his critics as soft on child pornography. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor government is going to disagree", he said on December 31, 2007.
His implication is not only shameless, it disregards the reality of child pornography. Such highly illegal content is generally not hosted by public ISPs, but on secret peer-to-peer networks. Conroy's internet filter only applies to services provided by ISPs.