Networker: Privatising internet censorship

Networker: Privatising internet censorship

Censorship is a great unresolved issue on the internet. Anyone old enough to “surf the net” can gain access to much of the visual and written information available across the world.

This has sent the protectors of public morals into a rage. Religious fundamentalists have attempted to ban the internet, from the US bible belt to Saudi Arabia. This has been ridiculed by humourist Scott Adams in The Dilbert Future: “Those kids should get their pornography the same way the kids of my generation did — by shoplifting”.

Behind all the fear-mongering about pornographic and racist web site, the information that these self-appointed guardians of public morals are most concerned about is information that allows young people the opportunity to learn more about themselves and the world. Information about radical politics, sexuality and birth control are now available in the most closeted corners of the world.

Fortunately, censorship of the internet is not so simple. As long as any single part of the internet allows the existence of certain material, anyone can look at it.

Several years ago, the US government campaigned for a technical solution — inserting microchips in all computers which would act as a “Big Brother”. This proved to be technically impractical and politically indefensible. Another solution, “family friendly” filter programs was the next option.

There are basically two ways to limit access to portions of the internet. One is to scan each web site for a particular words. For example, any site that mentions of “breast”, for example, can be blocked. Unfortunately, swimming sites with breaststroke events, medical sites providing health warnings on breast cancer, shopping sites selling chicken breasts and thousands of others would also be blocked. Just about anything can disappear, especially any pictures of people.

The other way is to review each particular site and judge its “suitability” for young audiences. In practice, this is impossible given the millions of new web pages generated each week. So while pretending to use this method, programs promising this revert to the first system.

Due to the opportunism of the federal government (its desire to befriend Senator Brian Harradine and the religious right), Australia leads in the stupidity of internet censorship. Last December, the federal government adopted a “Code of Practice for Internet Service Providers”. This requires internet service providers — the firms that own the computers that allow consumers to access internet — to make sure all their subscribers have an “approved filter” to protect the minds of innocent young surfers.

The internet civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia reports that “approved suppliers are mostly United States companies or Australian companies reselling US products under different names. Such software typically reflects the values of the US 'Bible Belt', with some products openly blocking feminist, gay and lesbian, and left-wing political information.”

While this is outrageous, the outcome of such an approach is undemocratic, and probably illegal. Unlike other Australian censorship legislation, the lists of banned sites are secret. There is no avenue of appeal against being banned and any legal challenge would have to take place in US courts. So the regulations breach a principle of Australian sovereignty generally found in national law.

Even if the filters were produced in Australia the problems would not end, because the government would be passing responsibility for obligatory censorship to private organisations. This has always been a problem with “voluntary” self-censorship. Now it is becoming wider. It is an issue angering a broad range of people.

By Greg Harris