Part of the hot-air during the Australian 2007 Federal Elections was the issue of Internet content filtering, which I waved off as just what I thought it was—hot-air—designed to impress and hopefully secure votes. The idea was shot down then and quickly was left alone … until now. Ashley Kyd drew this to my attention in his article Australia’s “Clean Feed”:
“The Australian Federal Government is powering full steam ahead on a $125.8 million dollar plan to enact a mandatory content-filter every single Australian Internet connection. Subtly different from the Great Firewall of China, the Australian version is to be implemented at ISP level, and will target not only illegal content, but also “inappropriate” content unsuitable for children.
The ACMA has submitted a report on the current state of the tech to Senator Stephen Conroy — so called ‘Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy’ — who’s hailing it as a modern miracle, despite what can only be seen as a startling lack of comprehension of the real world implications.”
Punctuation changes made to retain sequential quoting.
So, I got off my butt and wrote an email to Stephen Conroy. Because I doubt it will ever get past his secretary and meet Mr. Conroy’s own eyes due to his likely busy schedule I am publishing this here in the hopes that any Australians—or even Australian permanent residents (I am one)—who see this might consider voicing their concerns to the Government. The letter:
Dear Minister Stephen Conroy,
As an employed Australian permanent resident—and web & Internet professional—I have serious reservations about your new mandatory “clean feed” filter initiative.
Pursuing an expensive $125.8 billion million dollar venture that entirely fails to address the security, speed, quality of any such a filtering system, as well as the rights of both website owners in and outside of Australia and finally the civil rights of the citizens of Australia is a waste of tax payers’ money and of serious concern to every Internet user in Australia.
Concerning security, I am shocked that the report claims six of the seven solutions tested filter the HTTPS protocol (HyperText Transfer Protocol over Secure Socket Layer)—the protocol over which Australians make secure Internet banking and e-commerce transactions. This communication protocol was inherently designed specifically to promise a set level of security and privacy for its users. Furthermore, as this is a secure protocol, any filter—by logical conclusion—must use a simple keyword, or “blacklist” method which has been proven both ineffective, slow, incredibly arduous to keep updated and also prone to blacklist (block) legitimate content.
In regards to speed, the July 2008 study clearly indicates that a high-speed, accurate filtering solution is not possible. Therefore implementing any such filtering at the ISP (Internet Service Provider) level will only hamper and slow down the current infrastructure—which greatly needs speed improvements, not declines.
As noted above a blacklist filter is of serious concern to security and speed, both of which are important elements of any such a system’s quality level. The higher the blocking accuracy of such a system, the more it well hamper the speed of the network infrastructure.
If such a system is implemented I believe the Australian Government will anger and frustrate many website owners both overseas and locally. Processing blacklist removal requests will be a major undertaking that will incur continuous monetary, time and implementation costs. I believe many web content owners will consider their legal options in regards any such a move by the Government. At the very least a one-size-fits-all filtering approach as the one proposed will cast the Australian Government in a very negative light, abroad and at home.
Finally—any most importantly—I believe the Australian Government has absolutely no role in monitoring and deciding what is appropriate for myself, our children—a fact that many Australians will undoubtedly agree with.
I believe the Internet is a technology that will test society and its legal systems—common issues that have arisen include content censorship (as on the table currently), copyright, licensing and patenting, universal access availability, and more. Many of our legal systems are outdated in respect to the advances of the digital age, and this current issue is just another hurdle to be overcome as we realise we must shift our attitudes; no body will be successfully able to control and filter the expanse of information present and growing on the Internet. Any such a venture is futile, expensive and will only cause distress.
The expansive resources—125.8 billion million dollars for example—available to the Australian Government instead be focused on providing up-to-date education on Internet technologies both to students and parents to ensure we can make well-educated judgements about how we spend our time on-line.
Our digital infrastructure has been the hot-topic before, during and now as it seems even after the election—I sincerely hope the Government will reconsider this initiative and make an informed decision that takes the needs of Australians at heart.
Your sincerely,
Simon Pascal Klein
Canberra, Australia
