microsoft, munging and being a mercurial iconoclastic geek.

• Home
• About
• General Melchett
• LOLs-n-Stuff
• Photos
• Shared News Items

Find Stuff

Meta

• Register
• Log in
• WordPress

About Me

Nick Hodge is a Professional Geek for Microsoft Australia. More info lives underneath the About Box...

33.831416, 151.222526

MrCell+61.417.212181

Work:

1 Epping Road

North Ryde, NSW 2113

Australia

Stuff

• AU Web Thinkers

  • Cameron Reilly’s G’Day World
  • Des Walsh
  • Duncan Riley
  • Jo White
  • Kate Carruthers
  • Laurel Papworth
  • Mark Pesce
  • Mick Liubinskas
  • Stephen Collins
  • Steve Noble
  • Stilgherrian

• Ego Links

  • basketweaving for the mind
  • Last.fm Music List
  • Live Spaces sand-pit
  • My blip.tv Videos
  • My Youtubes
  • Nick’s Flickr Photos
  • RSS: Nick Hodge: The Complete Feed
  • Slides Shared to the World
  • The Geek Stories; on10.net
  • Twitter
  • Viddler videos

• Friends

  • Mark Szulc
  • Nick Hodge, Excel MVP

• Geek Gods

  • Gary Barber
  • Jed White
  • Lachlan Hardy
  • Myles Eftos
  • Paul Stovell
  • Tim Lucas

• Microsoft Peeps

  • Andrew Coates
  • Andrew Parsons
  • Catherine Eibner
  • Frank Arrigo
  • Jeff Alexander
  • Jorke Odolphi
  • Michael Kordahi
  • Nic Fillingham
  • Paul Foster
  • Roger Lawrence
  • Shane Morris

A Pragmatic Proposal: ISP Filters

By Nick Hodge | November 14, 2008

Dear Australian Federal Politicians

re: Australian ISP Internet Filters

As a parent, a technology industry veteran and citizen who works via the Internet, I feel it is my duty to provide a pragmatic perspective on the Federal Government’s proposed plans to adopt Mandatory Filtering of Australian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for the benefit of Child Safety.

Current statements from Senator Conroy highlight the need to protect Australian Children from undesirable corners and content found the Internet. This is a worthy ideal, but Senator Conroy's proposed solutions go nowhere near far enough to truly keep our children safe. Any half-hearted attempt at filtering exposes the Government to legal liability and voter discontent when their kids see any undesirable material that will fall through the cracks of a pure technology-based solution.

The blocking of internationally recognised child p-rn sites; and additionally adding warning bells to people accessing these sites is a must. Whilst the need for security, and the sequestering of these sites for criminal investigations is understandable - to counter claims of "censorship by stealth", these sites should be reviewed by an Ombudsman on a regular basis.

The current rhetoric from the pro-filter lobby purposely associates children online with reprehensible child p-rn. I seriously doubt that children are going to purposely or not stumble on child p-rn. Rather, undesirable people will find children in the "clean" internet. This online safety aspect requires more than 1,000 or 1,000,000 sites on a filter list: it requires strong policing, parenting and school education: just as road safety is taught. Connecting two disparate and highly emotive issues obfuscates and politicizes the real need of parents.

However, the call for "undesirable" sites to be censored does cause alarm. "Undesirable" is an emotive, and very subjective definition for each parent and family: based on their own moral, religious, cultural, ethnic and many other highly personal considerations. 

Today, Education Departments provide Children-safe Internet access. This is treated much the same way as Kids-safe playgrounds and excursions: The legal principle of In-loco Parentis applies. To implement a Kid-safe filter of any less quality for kids at home seems counter productive. Experts in the field of internet-based education also note that these filters are very disrupting and significantly slow down access to the Internet: but it is a cost that is born out of necessity.

By having a laudible goal of implementing an Opt-out, completely filtered truly Kids-safe Internet, the unitended impact to Australian business and the economy will great. Therefore, filters should be Opt-in for ISPs and Consumers.

Both a "Kid-safe Internet" needs to be created as an Opt-in for Home access; backed by a strong education campaign from the Government to Parents, and a standard speed Filter-free Internet for the Australian Economy. 

Also, a "Kid-safe Internet" is much more than just what can be seen or read: there must be a code of conduct for advertising, safe social communities and business when interacting with our Children. For instance, the new phenomena of Cyber-bullying.

Any implementation of Opt-in Filters, Authorities and broad-based education campaigns should also realise that there is no absolute in safety. Just like pools, bicycles and cars: accidents can and will happen. The Internet itself is in constant change: therefore, any management system must be created with continual improvement as a strategic imperative.

My thinking and research on this matter has led me to the following structured recommendations:

Toward A Kid-Safe Internet:

1. Children must have access to the Internet. It is a fundamental part of our world economy; central to our future as humans in the 21st Century. Ignoring the Internet will seriously disadvantage future Australians from the world economy: similar to neglect teaching mathematics or literacy skills. Simply banning the Internet would be a draconian move that only a luddite minority would advocate. (Recent study on Childhood casual access to the Internet)
2. The world is a large and potentially dangerous place for young humans. That is why today Governments across the world regulate what/when children can see in movie theatres, read, smoke, drink, engage in sexual activity and drive. Therefore a strong precedent has been set for the Government to equally protect children when using the Internet.
3. The Internet is unlike other previously invented mediums, modes and technology of communication: highly distributed, uncontrollable, two-way, multi-faceted (for instances: video, text and sound in a myriad of formats). Therefore, a unique administrative mechanism for protecting those who need protection is required. Simply “listing” web sites with movie ratings will not work as will miss other content. A central filter for all internet traffic into and out of Australia is technically not economically nor technically feasible with current computer technology.
4. Equally, the Government should not be in the business of creating filtering software for all internet connected devices a child has access to. These devices number in their hundreds of millions, across thousands of versions shapes and sizes: PCs, Macs, non-Windows OS PCs, the wide range of internet-able mobile phones, Game stations and Music players. The NetAlert program of the previous Government has shown to have a low installation rate, and also misses the Internet connected mobile phones many children currently posses.
5. Having Kid-Safe filters at the ISP level seem to be a sound and logical solution.
6. If the Government initiates the process of protecting our children whilst they are on the Internet, and makes a public promise that "the internet is now safe for our Children": simply relying on existing the existing static list-based systems provided by ACMA as proposed by Senator Conroy the Government will ultimately fail.
7. Senator Conroy talks of a list of ~1,500 sites, and is testing filters with a listing of 10,000 sites. If you assume 1% of the 1 billion web pages are not suitable for children; Senator Conroy's plans is a few orders of magnitude out to safely restrict indecent sites.
8. Basing filters purely on HTTP/HTML protocol (that is, just Web browser traffic) will result in a filtering fail as the Internet comprises many protocols. Adding other protocols such as instant messaging (chat rooms), file downloads, sound and video doubles the load on filters for each new protocol added.
9. Keep Children "safe" on the Internet must be more than just blocking static pages, sites, protocols and streams. True Online Child safety must include Cyber-bullying, Social Community codes of conduct, Inappropriate Advertising (similar to Child TV advertising guidelines) and many other associated issues with a broad, two-way communications system.
10. Of greater concern is what our kids: either accidently, or on purpose; publish to the internet. With rampant identity theft, and the ability for people to publish video and images to the world: we need to ensure this is addressed by any kid-safe internet.
    

    My suggested approach:

11. A new Authority is created; resourced to keep Australian Children Safe Online.
12. This Authority is commissioned to address all the above issues, using the knowledge that already exists in the community
13. This Authority has the power to Certify Kid-Safe Internet Filters at both end Device and at ISP level. For the sake of this document, these are named Filter Devices.
14. This Authority also has the important responsibility to educate and communicate Internet Public Service Advice for Parents.
15. The Authority own a central policies and procedures to control the Filter Device Certification; and processes of continual management of the Filters. The Authority has the power to Certify and de-Certify Filter Devices installed at any point in Australia. Similar standards exist for toys that show child safety breaches. Parents rely on thse standards, recalls and Authority vigilance to offer a greater level of protection to children.
16. The Authority would have executive oversight over a distributed Filter Management Body. This body would be crowd-sourced, and be the clearing-house of filters, codes of conduct, industry best practices and connections with local Education departments and law enforcement. 
17. A central registry of what a Filter Device must clean, and other child-protection guidelines is managed by this management body. This registry may contain proscribed (child p-rn) sites, but to a larger extent all the child-inapproprate material on the internet. This list will be larger than the proposed 10,000.
18. Additionally, there must be Industry-based codes of conduct for online forums; age verification; phishing and other internet-related communities. This body would could use internet technology for rapid response, voting and sharing best-practise amongst all ISPs.
19. As much a legally possible, this body of filtering knowledge must be transparent to bona-fide interested parties, and would reflect community "norms" as the information comes from the community.
20. Every ISP who has a commercial wish to market and sell “Kid-Safe Internet” must comply with the Authorities policies and procedures (ie: Each ISP chooses to Opt-in).
21. And ISP may only sell a Kid-safe Internet connection if certified by the Authority. This could also apply to Education departments and private school groups where their connection to the internet should also be through a Certified Filter Device.
22. The knowledge of what is to be filtered/codes of conduct must be collectively shared so smaller, regional based ISPs can provide an equity of protection for rural children. These smaller ISPs will not have equal resources available to their own filter managers.
23. Parents and others interest parties have an internet-speed mechanism to report and escalate breaches to the Authority; all parties must have transparent access to these reports; and like Wikipedia: a history of decisions made.
24. The Authority also has the important responsibility to educate Parents and Guardians about the Internet. Parents have personal experience of morals, road rules, social norms, cultural expectations passed to them from their parents. The internet, being extremely new, is alien to today’s parents , and is incorrectly feared. Like in previous times where the Government has provided information on AIDs, currency changes (to decimal) : it also has a responsibility to educate today’s Australian parents on the Internet. The Authority must embark on a campaign to educate Parents as they are the last lines of defence. Parents must also be encouraged to purchase a Kid-safe Internet connection from their choice of ISP.
25. Parents who are internet-savvy could opt-out of the Kid-safe Internet system; thereby taking the responsibility for the protection of their children, or a range of filters based on a range of classifications could be created. A teenager will not want to view the internet as if they are 6 years old.
    

    The Cost of Filters

26. Any reasonable Adult Australian does not want a child-like view of the Internet as described above,
27. If left Opt-out, the resulting ISP Filtering speed-tax will reduce investment in Australian businesses, and due to the international nature of the internet drive employment and investment offshore.
28. As the deeper level of filters and codes of conduct as described above are enabled to rightly protect Children; there will be a slowing down of internet response for these filtered users. And just as alcohol, smoking, voting and other rules are relaxed for adults:  the same must apply to internet access.
29. General ISP connections should therefore be unfiltered, and Opt-in. Turning the internet into a pure-children’s playground will only hamper Australian businesses and governments as they conduct operations in the emerging global Digital age. Businesses do not conduct business in a playground.
30. The impact of Australia-wide mandatory filters would hurt Australia’s economic future across all sectors of industry. Email traffic, online banking, business to business commerce: will all slow due to mandatory filters.
31. Other competing economies do not have the same ISP Filtering-speed-tax, and can therefore out-compete Australian businesses.
32. Therefore, the filters must be Opt-in and kept separate from the grown-up, business internet; but to a deeper level as the Government takes on partial responsibility of In loco parentis
    

    Vigilance

33. Apart from child p-rn, there are many other insidious dark corners of the internet that impact all Australians. Nigerian scams, phishing attacks on bank accounts, general spam, cyber bullying: all drain our economy. The Australian Federal Police must be given more experienced and trained officers with strong Internet skills to protect all our citizens by policing those who embark on illegal activities. The Government must address these increasing risks, too. (reference: Online fraudsters 'steal £3.3bn')

The current confusing statements of policy by Senator Conroy strikes me as policy-on-the-run with a dearth of grass-roots (electorate) demand and little to no publicly articulated strategy. Therefore, fear-mongering and ad-hominem attacks from all sides of this argument have arisen. At this stage, it is in Senator Conroy's hands to clearly articulate the strategy outside of pure technical "trials" and emotional and glib "child p-rn" arguments.

The lack of clarity and transparency is of deep concern as it thrusts at the heart of people's desire for the freedom access to information as adults: uncensored and unfiltered.

Now that the Pandora’s box of a Kid-safe Internet is opened, it is in the Government’s hands to do the right thing for our kids without hurting the economy and freedoms we all enjoy. For the sake of Australia's collective future.

Nick Hodge

Interesting Links

• Nocleanfeed started out with Mark Newton.
• What children need is censorship Article from The Guardian by Aric Sigman. P-rn is only one of the many things on the internet that we must protect children from; and ultimately parents must take control.
• Internet Censorship, Blogs, And The Government View More indepth results of the filtering trials
• Why internet filtering is bad for business post on Smart Company by Paul Wallbank. Apart from the potential accidental inclusion on a filter, the Internet-speed-tax on all Australian individuals, businesses and government agencies would make Australia an Internet back water
• Fireside chats in the 21st century by Barry Saunders on the ABC web site.  
  
• Elias Bizannes on The Rudd Filter: one of the original, and well thought and more importantly, well referenced out posts on the matter.
• With a public intellectual like this, who needs barbarians? by Jon Seymour, detailing the lack of logic from the mandatory filtering side of the argument; especially the "internet has p-rn, therefore opt-out all encompassing filtering is required.
• Glenn Milne of news.com.au writes a cohent and concise article on Internet Filtering and Censorship
• Senator Nick Minchin (Liberal-SA) on NBN and filtering. I like the quotation: "The opposition senator additionally claimed that Conroy's policy was causing Australia embarrassment internationally, giving it a reputation as a repressive regime." Ouch. The full statement from Senator Minchin has also been published.
• Tom Edwards and Gareth Griffith wrote in a special research note published by the NSW Parliamentary Library Service, reported in ZDNet: "NSW calls Conroy on Euro filter fudge"
• Mark Newston's second, follow-up letter to his local Labor member.
• Libertus on Statistics Laundering: false and fantastic figures in regards to child p-rn online. Well researched, with many links. Highlights the current emotional, McCarthy-ist level of witch hunting with knee-jerk reactions does not help. Parental vigilance is a must.
• Background on The Australia Institute, and history of filtering prior to the current Government The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were.
• iiNet's statement iiNet and Internet filtering
• Kathryn Small of IT News reports on Net filters debated by experts at cyberlaw forum held on 27th November.
• Neutering the net is about repression, not protection In the Age, by Chris Berg of the Institute of Public Affairs. "wowserism dressed up in concerned rhetoric about the sanctity of childhood is still wowserism."
• Children's Welfare Groups slam Conroy's Filtering Plans by Asher Moses, The Age
• Clive Hamilton, "Net porn: Whose rights matter most?". Some notes: argument has moved from children to teenagers, two very different beasts as far as parenting is concern.
• Labor Plan to censor internet in shreds by Asher Moses, Senator Conroy has said that, under his filtering plan, Australia would sign up to the same IWF blacklist
• and in relation to the Internet Watch Association, the recent blocking of Wikipedia editing in the UK does not lend itself creditability.
• LeWeb'08 Attendees note that Australia is planning to Filter the Internet
• Australian Information Security Association on Mandatory Internet Filtering
• 37% rise in 2008 "money transfer scams" in Australia resulting in AU$33million in lost funds. (Choice magazine). Choice has more detail on how to avoid online scams. The failure of the Federal Government to make the broad populace aware of this is more problematic for kids than "p-rn".
• Dept's Response to postings to its "blog" about Internet Censorship. I just love the double-speak/managerial speak of the title, and the requests to stop calling it censorship, please!" Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online.
• The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a secret report: Fatal flaws in website censorship plan, says report. Again, excellent reporting from Asher Moses
• Duncan Riley, Australia's premiere blogger with logical analysis: Great Firewall of Australia. I agree with Duncan: we need to keep the Government out of our bedrooms. To quote Duncan's last paragraph, to which I agree and further echo:
  

  Today I am ashamed to be Australian, ashamed that my Government should seek to implement draconian 19th century style censorship laws over the marvel of the modern age: The Internet. Free Speech may not be totally dead in Australia yet, but it’s about to be placed on life support. Conroy can say all he wants that this isn’t about free speech, but speech censored by Government isn’t free, no matter which way you want to spin it. 

• Response from the Sydney Morning Herald front page: Conroy and Prof Landfeldt respond to secret report article, trial delayed. I find it contemptable that Senator Conroy has access to this report in February 2008, yet continued to waste our money on "a trial". A trial that is delayed until mid January 2009. The more that is revealed, the more this whole situation looks like a pure political play to ensure Senator Fielding's votes in the Senate. So, who is genuinely looking after the kids?

Notes:

• need to find references to fact to back up some of the statements
• there are some leaps of logic that need to be addressed.
• I will modify as comments come in
• I have linked to various postings from all sides as the debate has raged. One day someone will find this useful

Tweet This Post 

No related posts.

Topics: australia, politics | 19 Comments »