Mandated Filtering

Lately there have been many ideas about what kinds of things might be screened from the Internet user by their ISP (internet service provider), or perhaps monitored. Suggestions include things that are illegal, content which infringes other people's rights, and things that others just don't like.

Within Australia there has been recent discussion around the so-called "clean feed" has been based on requiring ISPs to block some categories of material. The focus has been on material which is refused classification - banned - in Australia. A recent report in The Australian (26 February) outlines plans by the Commonwealth Government to test ISP-based content filters.

One of the ambiguities in the whole debate about clean feeds and other filtering approaches is the lack of clarity over just what would be filtered out. The use of vague terms like "harmful and inappropriate material" compounds confusion and rightly attracts derision, according to a recent piece in Business Week.

In fact, ISPs already filter out a great deal of material, and you may not have a clear idea of what they do filter out. They may not.

Discussion of what may be monitored or filtered out from your internet experience is much wider than pornography. It has extended to the copyright sphere.

Michael Geist has an interesting post on mandated filtering in relation to copyright here. He points to recent developments in Belgium, France and the UK where music and movie interests are seeking mandatory filtering of Internet content by ISPs to identify and block "copyrighted content." "Such an approach", Geist suggests, "would be an enormous threat to the free flow of information online, it would curtail consumer rights, place new burdens on education and research, and create great harm to personal privacy."

An interesting piece in PC World discussed the work between AT&T and the Motion Picture Association of America on a fingerprinting system that could identify copyrighted material on the network. AT&T has no current plans to be "an enforcement agent or a policeman for content transported on our network", according to AT&T, "and in fact, there is no technology solution available at this time."

Plans for filtering are not just confined to pornography and copyright infringement - here is another example. ACMA (the Australian Communications and Media Authority) produces a blacklist of web pages which are refused classification, and sends this list to Australian ISPs. These are sites which it is, generally speaking, illegal to possess. The Australian reported recently that ACMA has also recently sent out a list of illegal gambling pages for ISPs to block. ACMA clarified that they normally send out a list (about 800 web pages) which combines illegal online gambling sites with other illegal material. The term "inappropriate" was used the describe the gambling sites.

There are so many things on the internet that someone thinks should be blocked to everyone. The new government has issued statements about access to information on the internet, but they are all about blocking things. Where is the balancing statement about our right to access information? Does the Government have a point of view?

Filtering the Internet

We at ALIA have recently issued a media release drawing attention to the recently-completed report of a survey of filtering in public libraries. The survey is the third we have conducted since 2002, and these surveys track the way in public library approaches to managing use of the internet have evolved over the past five years. For me, nostalgia is one of the responses to the issues raised.

I was involved in the introduction of the internet into public libraries in Victoria from the very beginning (1995), when Vicnet rolled out public library access to Victorians, actively supported by the Victorian (Kennett) Government. I was also a member of the Australian Broadcasting Authority's Children and Content Online Task Force which in 1998 reported on online content and its issues for children. From 1999 until its recent (mid-2007) incorporation into ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority), I was a member of the Board of NetAlert Ltd, Australia's internet safety organisation.

Looking back recently at the 1998 report that we put together, I was gratified that the recommendations of the Task Force still seem reasonable, and a good guide on how to handle children's access to the Internet. All the things I still want to say are there - the Internet is for children too, free access to online content must be safeguarded for adults, parental supervision and guidance are the key strategies, and filtering is a supplementary approach. The practical, commonsense - and principled - approach we took then is still valid. The values are clearly stated and shared by Australians generally. There has been a consistent and balanced approach taken, with broad support, for the past decade. It would be a pity if the issues now became politicised.