Disruptive Thought

Tony Ponton's Agile thoughts, I'll elucidate, you ruminate and then we'll debate!

March 31st, 2010

The Internet Filter has me on the soapbox. For those of you of that listen to techblah the podcast, you will know that I am an ardent opponent of the Rudd Government’s proposed Internet Filtering policy. Those who haven’t, welcome to my latest rant!

The Government policy claims that the filter will obstruct those trading in child pornography. They have also indicated that one of their goals is to “protect” the general public from access to “refused classification” sites.

This policy is flawed on so many levels – technically, monetarily, morally and democratically. Let’s look at each these levels more closely.

Monetary

To understand how this will affect your pocket, you need to understand that this policy will essentially force all Australian ISPs to filter content at their level. To comply, ISPs will have no choice but to implement expensive infrastructure changes. To recoup the cost, they are going to charge someone.

If they charge the government, they will pass it on in taxes. If they don’t, they will charge you.

Anyway you look at it, the Internet just got a whole lot more expensive for everyone!

Technically

Quite simply the technical solution is poor; it doesn’t filter the very mechanisms that the perpetrators it is targeted at treasure so much.

  • Email
  • High traffic websites
  • Secure http enabled sites
  • BitTorrent
  • Instant Messaging
  • Peer to Peer

So what will it filter then?

It will filter websites and content that the Government deem unsuitable, or, to use their rhetoric, “Refused Classification”. This means that sites that even discuss issues that are deemed unsuitable by a Government official will be blocked.

We are talking subjects like abortion, euthanasia, political commentary and a host of other content. What’s worse is that they have nothing to do with the so called target of blocking Child Pornography. If a website has been unknowingly hacked or compromised they stand at risk to be filtered.

This puts Australia’s whole Internet-based economy at risk. I struggle to understand how the Government even thinks they will be able to keep up with the demands of the Internet to block the so called “bad” sites and content. The Internet is growing so rapidly that over several billion pages a day are created.

Any way you look at it the solution doesn’t make sense.

Morally

This is censorship at its worst and totally Un-Australian. If the filter is allowed to be implemented then we will become the most monitored and filtered country in the world, more so than the likes of China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

This gives our Government the right to dictate what you can and can’t see (yes there are technological ways to get around it; however you would be breaking the law).

Democratically

Our democratic rights are at risk. If we let this Government implement the filter, it negates our basic right to Freedom of Information. Searches for material with strong social, political and/or educational values will be blocked.

This means if you were searching for information on safe injecting or graffiti art it would be blocked. Yahoo’s recent submission to the Government highlighted these issues.

When it all comes down to it, the so called blacklist that drives what can’t be seen, could be subject to abuse by overzealous Government officials and politicians with personal or monetary agendas. Once the filter is implemented it will become a fixture and no Government will roll it back because of the cost. They will also have a mandate to expand their scope to other mediums such as television and gaming platforms.

Is this what Australians want?

Now that you have read this,I implore you to go forth and explain to your less informed friends what this means to them.
I believe our Government is relying on the general lack of understanding in the community to get this through parliament.
This really hit home with me when discussing the subject with a number of people who were not tech savvy on the weekend.
When they realised what it actually meant they were genuinely shocked. Before that they’d heard of it and just thought why should I care?

So what can we do to stop it?

Take up the challenge attend the rallies, write to your federal member, sign the online petitions, stand up and be counted as members of the Internet community and spread the word.

  • peterkoevari

    There are many sides to this filter.

    I completely disagree with the immoral and unaustralian thing about the filter. Is it Australian to give an open door to corrupting children? I think not. Do we want a society without respect and decency? I think not. Is it related to each other? Absolutely.

    I think what is immoral is the ease of access for children to content that quite literally, should never even be on the internet. In comparison to China, I actually strongly support the chinese filtering as a whole, without the exceptions of political views… it is incredibly effective in eliminating illegal material from the webs. Adults who are hardcore users can still access the LEGAL material by other means.

    Some stats for thought:
    Pornography Time Statistics

    * Every second – $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography.

    * Every second – 28,258 internet users are viewing pornography.

    * Every second – 372 internet users are typing adult search terms into search engines.

    * Every 39 minutes: a new pornographic video is being created in the United States.

    Some more internet statistics to take into consideration

    Pornographic websites 4.2 million (12% of total websites)
    Pornographic pages 420 million
    Daily pornographic search engine requests 68 million (25% of total search engine requests)
    Daily pornographic emails 2.5 billion (8% of total emails)
    Internet users who view porn 42.7%
    Received unwanted exposure to sexual material 34%
    Average daily pornographic emails/user 4.5 per Internet user
    Monthly Pornographic downloads (Peer-to-peer) 1.5 billion (35% of all downloads)
    Daily Gnutella “child pornography” requests 116,000
    Websites offering illegal child pornography 100,000
    Sexual solicitations of youth made in chat rooms 89%
    Youths who received sexual solicitation 1 in 7 (down from 2003 stat of 1 in 3)
    Worldwide visitors to pornographic web sites 72 million visitors to pornography: Monthly
    Internet Pornography Sales $4.9 billion

    What does this tell us? That there is a justified case for the government to introduce filtering on an ISP level. And let's not get into the good parent/bad parent dilemma… No matter how good of a parent you are, if your kid wants to find something, even by accident… chances is they will. If you have a filter at home, their mate down the road may show them something they shouldn't see.

    What the filter does NOT do:

    It does not stop the hardcore internet users from sharing, downloading, and accessing LEGAL, but also unfortunately illegal material. However, criminal agencies and specialists are cracking down on those other channels, and quite frankly… they should be cracking down harder.

    Some more disturbing facts:

    Children Internet Pornography Statistics

    Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokemon.”

    Children Internet Pornography Statistics
    Average age of first Internet exposure to pornography 11 years old
    Largest consumer of Internet pornography 35 – 49 age group
    15-17 year olds having multiple hard-core exposures 80%
    8-16 year olds having viewed porn online 90% (most while doing homework)
    7-17 year olds who would freely give out home address 29%
    7-17 year olds who would freely give out email address 14%
    Children's character names linked to thousands of porn links 26 (Including Pokemon and Action Man)

    Now, children generally do NOT have the ability to use hardcore technical methods of obtaining such evil material.

    But considering the statistics in the real world, and as a parent… I completely support the introduction of a filter, and would gladly sacrifice some browsing speed for it to be enforced. If I want to view LEGAL material that is suitable to my age group, I can go down to my local adult store that is going to check my age and enforce common sense.

    Or I can use many other methods of delivery, but the point is… I can still exercise that choice regardless of the filter. I would seriously doubt that a child is able to do that.

    Am I happy to “give up my democratic rights” for an internet filter? I dont believe I would be giving up very much at all. Information can still be obtained and is not killed off by an internet filter.

    That is my 2c.

  • http://www.disruptivethought.com/ Tony P

    Welcome Peter ,
    Interesting comments , let's examine them shall we?
    Your first comments have changed a little since you first posted them hmmm interesting?
    The thrust of this post is two fold and your very comments show that you didn't get it?
    The first was to educate people on why the filter is not the right solution and I can confidently say I am not an island on this opinion . Even the very institutions that strive to protect our children recognise that this is not the solution. Not to mention industry professionals world wide , google , yahoo, the opposition ,members of the incumbent government and the American government are they all wrong? I don't believe so!
    The second was to explain the domino affect of introducing such a ludicrous solution.

    In answer to the point that I don't explain “How it should be done” guilty as charged. Not the aim of the post and most likely the topic for another post . Also if you had selected the links to Google and Yahoo in this post you would have found they make a number of submissions better solutions.

    In reply to your points about the filter being immoral and un-australian,
    No where in my post have I said we should open the door to corrupting children,I am a father myself and am totally opposed to any type of child exploitation. Again Peter I reiterate this filter will not resolve these issues in anyway , the solution is incapable of it , the government is unable to resource it. In terms of Un-Australian , I refer to the fact that giving any government the right to censor you only leads to issues, need I point out freedom of information, news and human rights issues that are well documented the counties I have mentioned. Is that where we want Australia to go ?
    I wold also like to point out China's filter is not successful from, the point of view of limiting pornography and the like as it suffers the same issues that I have described.

    I now draw focus to the statement “Adults who are hardcore users can still access the LEGAL material by other means.” I rest my case I couldn't have put it better , this is why it won't work.

    The statistics that you have listed only serve to enforce the fact that trying to filter this at the ISP level won't work , it's reliant on a blacklist that our Government would have to keep updated… not going to happen to big to fast to much for them. I also not that you quote mechanisms such as peer to peer in your stats…. the filter does not include them so again you stats reinforce my point.

    Without getting into the whole solution phase Peter , I must disagree with you that parents are responsible for filtering their children. Yes they are , and yes they should and yes I believe it is at that level is should where the responsibility lies.

    I do like your naivety children's capability to circumvent this type of mechanism, it is record that a week after the government implemented their school filter , it was hacked by a year seven student.

    Now I respect your right to support the filter ,however for you to come out an state that you will exercise the right to use other methods of delivery. You will be breaching the legislation in doing so … therefore you have given up your democratic right of choice.

    I would suggest that perhaps you need read and review the actual legislation as it negates much of your argument.

  • peterkoevari

    Well argued, and nicely won! I have no rebuttal. I stand corrected!