Australian firewall trials start

[PoP]

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7760996.stm

The Australian government is due to start a series of field trials this month in order to filter websites that are harmful to children.

The 'cyber-safety plan', spearheaded by Australia's Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy, will cost around AUS$126m (£55m) and will be implemented over a period of four years.

However, opinion is sharply divided about how well the system will work, according to Radio New Zealand's Technology commentator Simon Morton who looked into the issue for the BBC World Service's Digital Planet programme.

Many from the internet industry and freedom of speech groups fear that if the filtering system is implemented, then other illegal content as well as material the government deems inappropriate could be added and blocked in the future.

A blacklist

"This would see the government establishing a blacklist of websites it deems harmful and ISPs providing a clean feed of the internet," said Mr Morton.

"The plan has support from groups like the Australian Christian Lobby, the Australian Family Association and Child Wise, a child protection charity working in Australia and the Pacific to prevent child abuse," he added.

Mr Morton also spoke to the chief executive of Child Wise Bernadette McMenamin, who strongly feels that the internet needs to be regulated.

Ms McMenamin notes that the public is divided among those who would like the internet left alone, and those "that say let's try some sort of filtering system that will at least reduce access to some of the most hideous and vile illegal images that nobody should be viewing".

However, she feels that the new legislation still does not go far enough.

"A home-based filtering will do absolutely nothing; it's ineffective and will probably only work for children up to seven years of age.

"We estimate that 30 to 40% of child pornography images on the internet are contained on commercial sites. [This programme] will definitely restrict access to those images and that is better than nothing," she added.

Countries like Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand have all implemented similar filtering systems, but they are all voluntary and not government-mandated.

Such systems are also limited predominantly to blocking child pornography and are run by ISPs that customers can opt into.

The internet industry has also raised concerns about internet slowing down, as previous filtering trials have reduced net speed by as much as 86%.

"The only countries that really do have a widespread technological filtering or censorship regime are China, Iran and Saudi Arabia," said Colin Jacobs from Electronic Frontiers Australia, a group that represents online users' rights.

"In countries like that, where free speech is a real issue, slowing down the internet is a secondary concern to blocking access to undesirable material," he added.

Good in principle

Senator Conroy feels that although the Australian government's idea is good in principle, the technology available cannot support it.

"Unfortunately these filters only stop access to websites. Most illegal material these days is traded on peer-to-peer (P2P) or using other technologies that can't be filtered.

"In terms of preventing access to illegal material, the policy is bound to be a failure," he added.

This is not a new concept in Australia, as the previous administration trialled a free internet filter that people could use if they wanted.

"The difference is that it was an optional filter, so Australians could choose if they wanted to use it rather than this latest plan for a mandatory filtering system," said Mr Morton.

The field trials are due to start in December following lab-based tests that were completed last month.

"If the field trial is successful, there would be a period of consultation, but at this stage there will be a blacklist of illegal sites," said Mr Morton.

"The first tier, which internet users would not be able to opt out of, would block all illegal material. This could be scaled up or down, but control of the list, which would be un-published, is controlled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

"The second tier, which is optional, would have content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography and sexually explicit material filtered out completely," he added.

Parental control

"This is about establishing whether or not it is technically feasible. We're no further down the process than that," said Senator Conroy in a statement.

"We have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the internet is no different."

Senator Conroy has since made statements in parliament saying the blacklist of sites is presently 1,300 strong, but the pilot will test up to 10,000 unspecified sites.

However, Mr Jacobs does not think a filter is the solution.

"Compiling a blacklist of sites that are forbidden is not really feasible because there are so many sites on the internet and that's just too much for a government bureaucracy to deal with," he said.

"The risks that children face online aren't browsing material that's inappropriate accidentally or on purpose. It's things like cyber bullying, inappropriate chats and identity theft.

"There are real risks that children face online and for that, parental supervision and discretion is required and there's no technological way to get around that," added Mr Jacobs.

[PoP]

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8413377.stm

Australia intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content.

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public, said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

A seven month trial in conjunction with internet service providers found the technology behind the filter to be 100% effective.

However, there has been opposition from some internet users.

Twitter users have been voicing their disapproval by adding the search tag "nocleanfeed" to their comments about the plans.

"Successful technology isn't necessarily successful policy," said Colin Jacobs, a spokesperson for Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit organisation that campaigns for online freedom.

"We're yet to hear a sensible explanation of what this policy is for, who it will help, and why it is worth spending so much taxpayers' money on."

Mr Conroy said the filters included optional extras such as a ban on gambling sites which ISPs could choose to implement in exchange for a grant.

"Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory internet filtering of RC (refused classification)-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution," he said.

The filter laws will be introduced in parliament in August 2010 and will take a year to implement.

'noble aims'

"Historical attempts to put filters in place have been effective up to a point," Dr Windsor Holden, principal analyst at Juniper Research, told BBC News.

The "noble aims" of the filter could be lost in its implementation, he warned.

"Clearly there is a need to protect younger and more vulnerable users of the net, but one concern is that it won't just be illegal websites that will be blocked," he added.

"You have to take extreme caution in how these things are rolled out and the uses to which they're put."