In Bernard Keane’s response yesterday to my article before Christmas — “Filtering the facts: Conroy slips up when hitting back” — he again makes several claims that are wrong.
The closest Keane is prepared to go in admitting he was wrong when he claimed that the independent Enex filtering trial saw 3.4% of over-blocking of the ACMA blacklist, is when he says he is conveniently, happy to “leave aside the point”.
But he still wishes to dispute the independent trial report’s finding that all filters were able to achieve 100% accuracy in blocking the ACMA blacklist.
Keane seems to think he has stumbled on some sinister secret in a paper written by one of the trial vendors — Watchdog. The fact that some participants, including Watchdog, had initial difficulties in loading the ACMA blacklist was no secret.
As previously stated, the ISP content filtering pilot showed that a specified list of URLs can be blocked with 100% accuracy. I quote from the Enex TestLab report Internet Service Provider (ISP) Content Filtering Pilot Report:
Initially, several participants experienced difficulty loading and blocking the complete ACMA blacklist. Some of the filters needed adjustments made so that they could recognise URLs that were long and complex and included spaces. Others included colons, question marks and percentages. Some URLs were associated with more than one IP address and some URLs redirected the user to a second URL.
Following consultations with the product vendors, all issues experienced with loading URLs contained on the ACMA blacklist were resolved (page 11).
These issues were resolved by the filter vendor making adjustments to the filtering device so that it would accurately block URLs of the nature described above. Contrary to Keane’s claims, these URLs were not removed from the testing process.
The lists used in the testing, including the ACMA blacklist, were washed before testing to remove any URLs that were no longer live — that is, the URL no longer existed so the filter would not be able to find it. This is a process ACMA currently carries out periodically.
Enex TestLab also checked the lists used for testing:
Prior to performing the testing during the pilot using the three lists, each site on each list was tested by Enex to ensure that is was still live. (page 11)
Keane also points out what he calls the “well-known problem” that blocking a YouTube page could cause problems to the load on the filter. The reason this is a well known issue is because it is in the Enex report (page 19):
Capacity of filters to handle high traffic loads/sites
In a pass-by filtering solution the actual traffic load placed through the filters is very low because only a small percentage of end-users would be attempting to access sites on the blacklist at any one time. However, in situations where there is a potential for very high traffic sites, such as YouTube, to have pages on the filtering list, this could result in significantly higher traffic rates passing through the filter, even though the specific pages being accessed are not those on the blacklist. This could cause additional load on the filtering infrastructure and subsequent performance bottlenecks.
As Keane points out, the issue is also addressed in the FAQs on the department website.
Keane’s speculation of whether Google will comply with the laws of the Australian Government is interesting, however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years. It also abides by the laws in Thailand requiring it to filter from its search results any criticism of the Thai king and filters Nazi propaganda content from its German search results.
As Keane points out there are many videos on YouTube “about euthanasia and suicide, some offering instructions or recommending it”. Euthanasia has long been a hotly debated and divisive issue in Australia but the fact remains that instruction in self-harm in Australia is a crime and therefore content containing such instruction is deemed Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme guidelines.
A time may come where instruction in self harm is no longer a crime under Australian law and such content would therefore not be deemed Refused Classification. People who object to this content being included in the filtering policy should turn their focus to changing the laws regarding euthanasia in Australia.
Keane criticises the Department’s website for pointing out what RC-rated content is, but it is very clear from the opponents of the policy that either they do not know or are wilfully misleading the public. Colin Jacobs, the CEO of the Electronic Frontier Association, wrote in his article in Crikey on 21 December that “subjects such as abortion, anorexia, Aborigines and legislation on the sale of marijuana would all risk being filtered.”
RC-content can’t be found on the library shelves, it is not available in the newsagency, you won’t see it in the cinema and you certainly can’t watch it on DVD or television. That is why the Government will continue to explain to the Australian people what RC content is.
The Government has never claimed that ISP filtering is a silver-bullet solution and that is why our cyber-safety policy includes $49 million in funding for an additional 91 Australian Federal Police officers for the Child Protection Unit, additional funding for prosecution of offenders, $32.8 million for education and outreach programs for teachers, parents and students, research into cyber bullying and online threats, and the establishment of a Youth Advisory Group on cyber safety.
Filtering is one component of the policy but unfortunately the rest of the policy is largely ignored by those who oppose it.
The rest of Labor’s cyber-safety policy receives vastly less attention — and yes, is perhaps at risk of being ignored — because one aspect of it stands out like a sore thumb.
The problem is broader than this, however: Labor’s fantastic policy work and achievements in the digital economy space — largely attributable to your office — similarly receives less attention and admiration due to the Internet filtering policy. It’s not evidence-based, it’s not future-proof, and it has been defended with hyperbole and threats.
Even worse, it is precisely the audience who are excited about your other work — on the NBN, structural separation of Telstra, and Minister Tanner and Ludwig’s work on open government issues — who are disgusted and concerned about this policy.
I’m a Labor voter, and frankly, my vote is unlikely to change over this issue. But it has shaken my trust, and led me to get involved in actions against this terrible policy from a government I otherwise support. It worries me that people in my age group and below (who are not as firmly in the Labor camp as I) won’t see past this policy when they reach the voting booth. It’s hard to win back trust after a terrible goof-up such as this.
Jeff Waugh
Online co-ordinator of the Great Australian Internet Blackout
I take it that all the different components of the “Cyber-Safety Policy” are intended to address or solve one or more perceived problems.
Could the Minister please describe, for the enlightenment of his detractors, precisely which perceived problem(s) the ISP-Level Filtering component is intended to address or solve, that cannot be addressed or solved by any of the other components of the policy?
Could the Minister also please describe precisely HOW the ISP-Level Filtering component is expected to address or solve the specified problem area(s)?
Ah, yes: “Not a silver bullet,” which is politician-talk for “We know this won’t work but we’re going to do it anyway.”
“The rest of the policy is largely ignored by those who oppose it” because if you take the “clean feed” out of the ALP’s (ridiculously-named) Cyber Safety policy you end up with something that’s largely supportable.
But even there the Minister isn’t quite on-point, because he misses the fact that some of us actually have spent time talking about other parts of the Government’s policy. For example, where he points out that his policy includes “$49 million for an additional 91 Australian Federal Police officers for the Child Protection Unit,” some of us have made hay about how that’s actually a budget cut, given that the previous Government committed nearly $3 million more for staff that’d have started work an entire year earlier. Rudd’s razor-gang cut it back and delayed it, yet now Conroy portrays the reductions as some kind of triumph.
Oh well. If he wants to draw attention to it that’s his loss.
The other thing the Minister has defended in this article is the use of the Refused Classification category for a mechanism to ban content for adults.
Despite his contentions in this article, the Minister knows that RC content has never been illegal.
Australia is unique in the world in having a “Refused Classification” category. In any other place, content is split into “legal” and “illegal,” and the classifiers deal with the legal bits and the police deal with the illegal bits.
In Australia, however, we still have, “legal,” and, “illegal,” categories like everyone else, but we have a third category which I could call, “legal but we’d really like you to think it’s illegal”: Content which law enforcement isn’t particularly interested in regulating, and which adults can enjoy in the comfort of their own homes without breaking any laws.
The moralizing lunatic fringe absolutely wets the bed in terror over this stuff, it’s extraordinary. And everything they don’t like gets shoved into it: Abortion, voluntary euthanasia, computer games, controversial cinematic releases like Salo and Baise-Moi which citizens of other civil and confident societies get to watch, enjoy and debate (are citizens of all other countries more emotionally mature, less intellectually fragile than Australians, that they can withstand the assults of Ken Park where Aussies can’t?). Margaret Pomeranz has some interesting things to say about RC, if only the Minister would listen.
We saw this during the Bill Henson controversy: Our Prime Minister couldn’t get out of his own way quickly enough, channelling Helen Lovejoy as he declared Henson’s photos to be “absolutely revolting,” as if the Prime Minister’s opinion was even remotely relevant. What was the very first thing the lunatic fringe did? Exactly the same thing they always do when something they don’t like appears in public: They went running off to the Classification Board to try to use it as a political tool by having them declare the content they didn’t like as “Refused Classification.” (Result: “PG”. Score one for the good guys)
Despite Conroy’s facile attempts to demonize it, the only practical purpose the Refused Classification rating serves is to create a category of content which is completely legal but which moralizing busybodies can try to ban anyway.
And I cannot for the life of me imagine why a social-justice-driven Labor Government, lusting after a “civil and confident society,” wouldn’t be leading the charge for the abolition of the RC category, rather than cementing it into Australia’s Internet infrastructure.
– mark
“No, no, Minister, the government will not explain to the Australian people what RC content is. We will explain to -you- what it is.”
“RC-content can’t be found on the library shelves, it is not available in the newsagency, you won’t see it in the cinema and you certainly can’t watch it on DVD or television.”
Interestingly, we cannot view it, but we can DO it. The Minister ought to explain why it is harmful for consenting adults to view something, but not harmful for them to do it.
“however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years”.
Shame on Google for actually complying with the will of a dictatorship, however i’m not particularly happy having to be lumped in with China in any way, shape or form when it comes to the internet censorship debate.
Also Minister, if send if your flunkies are reading this, I followed Bernard Keane’s wonderful advice a few months back and sent a letter to your office enquiring about a number of issues. A reply would be appreciated.