Australian Internet Censorship

---

Censorship is always a touchy subject particularly when you bring it up in countries that like to refer to themselves as the "Free World", however we're also quick to judge those that suppress information from their people. We have largely wo...

Censorship is always a touchy subject particularly when you bring it up in countries that like to refer to themselves as the "Free World", however we're also quick to judge those that suppress information from their people. We have largely won the right to freedom of speech in Westernised countries, but there now looms an impending threat against the online world for Australians; or at least some would see it that way.

The Australian Federal Government is planning to impose a controversial internet filter on Australian Internet Providers spearheaded by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy.

Why Do We Need It?

The main goal of the filter is to block all forms of Refused Classification content; including: child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates what would be deemed a terrorist act. Generally it is understandable that this content is not suitable for society, in particular children. Having the filter would prevent children from accidentally stumbling across content that could be particularly harmful to them.

Why Is It Controversial?

The Internet filter has come under heavy criticism due to its secrecy, cost, drastic consequences and overall ineffectiveness. The filter involves the use of a website blacklist at the ISP level as well as individual site content filters.

The notion of having a blacklist struck a sore point with many people over the way it would be managed; as the actual list will be kept completely secret from the general public. Additionally there were numerous wrongly-included websites found within the list when it was posted on the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks. The Australian Communications and Media Authority threatens fines of up to $11,000/day for linking to any site on the list, something that could have extreme repercussions should a wrongly-included site be discovered and fined.

Putting aside the blacklist management, there are great concerns for the way internet traffic speed will be affected by the filters. The blacklist will contain both entire websites as well as individual pages on otherwise allowed websites, thus there is a need for more than one type of filtering. When blocking entire websites, a technique called DNS Filtering can be used which should have a relatively low performance loss. However when only certain parts of the website are to be blocked, this will require a much more time-expensive process. In fact, the speed reduction concerns are so great that The Sydney Morning Herald has likened it to installing "speed humps every 100 metres on all Australian freeways."

One solution for reducing the speed impact of content filtering is to get larger websites, such as YouTube, to implement their own content filtering based on the location of the user. However after talks with Conroy, Google has refused to voluntarily comply with the government’s request to censor videos that fall under Refused Classification. This leaves Conroy and his filter in a tough place, as any other form of external filtering will significantly affect the speed of accessing all other videos on the entire website.

Should We Let It Go Ahead?

It is clearly stated that “A technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology”, using methods such as Peer-to-Peer (P2P) or Virtual Private Networks (VPN). The question then is how technically competent do you need to be, to be regarded as technically competent? Considering that the majority of internet users would have at some point come across P2P, a method where the vast majority of child pornography is transferred, it has been argued that the standard is set fairly low.

There have been numerous websites set up to inform the public about the downfalls of such a filter being implemented and countless petitions lodged to get it removed. ABC program, Hungry Beast performed a survey with surprising results however, with 80% out of the 1000 people interviewed in favour of having a mandatory filter to block overseas content containing material with Refused Classification. But who can say no, when by declining, you’re refusing to protect the children from all those harmful things that can be found out there.
When asking people about this issue two questions should be asked and the answers compared:

1. Do you support the filtering of generally unsavoury content containing material with Refused Classification?
2. Would you still support the filtering if it was generally ineffective, operated under a veil of secrecy yet impose heavy fines for those linking to banned sites, cause a significant decrease in internet speed across the country and leave Australia viewed as a technology backwater compared to the rest of the world?

The results would probably be quite different for each of those questions.

So should we let it go ahead? Perhaps we should think twice before we spend millions on a system that is fundamentally flawed. Apart from reducing our internet speed which will affect both personal and corporate users, the filter can be easily by-passed by a competent and willing person. It’s also likely that we could see a reduction in foreign investment in Australia, particularly in the technology sector and  become the first country in the Western World to enforce mandatory filtering.