Report on Sydney Consumer Consultation Meeting, 18 May 2009
'Unacceptable' Content on the Internet: What Problem? Whose
Solution?
The TCCM meeting was held on Monday 18 May 2009, 4.30-6.30 pm, at Google Offices,
Level 5WP6, 48 Pirrama Road Pyrmont, NSW.
Welcome and Introduction
Tony Hill, President of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU),
welcomed participants to this meeting and said that this panel discussion
is supported by the Australian Government through the Consumer
Representation Grants program of the Department of Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy.
To date, much of the debate on Internet content has focused on the minutiae
of technical and legal issues around filtering. It is an issue of
importance to ISOC-AU as well as the much larger number Internet users.
Indeed, just over a year ago, we held a seminar that looked at the issues
of Internet security, including a presentation by one of the ISOC-AU
Directors, Dr Paul Brooks, on the technical issues involved in Internet
filtering. (Presentations from that meeting are available on our website).
The focus of this panel discussion is on the larger questions: what are the
problems that filtering is supposed to solve - the availability of illegal
content to anyone, unacceptable content to children, harmful use of the
Internet against others, or something else. Are there other problems that
aren't being talked about? Presentations by the Panelists were followed by
general discussion.
Sue Beveridge
Sue Beveridge is the Educational Outcomes Business Change Manager Schools,
Department of Education and Training, in the New South Wales Connected
Classrooms program. The Connected Classrooms Program is a NSW state
government initiative into public education and includes as part of the
program the Interactive Classrooms project.
Sue has been a teacher and school executive with the NSW Department of
Education and Training for more than 30 years in a range of schools in
rural and inner Sydney. During her career she has also held a number of
State Office positions.
Sue gave background to the Connected Classrooms Program of the Department
of Education and Training. It has three components - an upgrade of
bandwidth available, interactive classrooms project and learning tools for
the students. Students also have been provided with customised gmail
accounts, and they are currently trialling a blog and looking at Web 2.0,
which provides a range of opportunities for students.
The overall policy is guided by the duty of care owed to students, and
dealing with issues including cybersafety, cyberbullying and copyright
issues. They filter out social networking sites - teachers do not always
have the time to understand and control students' use of such sites.
However, while filtering is used, it can be unblocked by a teacher for a
specific educational task.
In the program is the value of authentic resources - using tools to ensure
currency of knowledge. An example is the interactive whiteboard which a
teacher can use to display websites with current information.
However, there is also a need to educate parents. Students understand the
difference between use of computers/the Internet at home and at school and
what they want in school is for teachers to assist them to understand what
counts for knowledge. At home, there is need for parental responsibility.
David Vaile
David heads the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre based in the Law
Faculty of the University of NSW. David holds a Law degree and Arts degree
from UNSW, is a former practising solicitor and also a former IT and
communications consultant focussing on databases and online collaborative
systems for professionals and advocates.
David discussed the two seminars held by the Cyberspace Law and Policy
Centre as part of their Internet Filtering and Young People's Interests
Research Project. The first seminar, in November 2008, was on Internet
Filtering and Censorship, focussing on the Government proposals for the
Internet filtering trials. The seminar explored the technical parameters
of the Government's proposals, and issues raised on the technical
implications of the proposals, including implications for systems
administrators. It looked at the legal framework, including the
classification regulations and their application to the Internet. And it
looked at the protection of children, particularly questioning whether ISP
based filtering would be an effective mechanism for child protection.
The second seminar focused particularly on Young People and Parents. This
seminar first explored the role of ISPs, including providing filters and
their role as 'content hosts'. The seminar then looked in depth at the
technical architecture of the Government's proposal, including what is -
and is not - possible. The seminar then reviewed the role of classification
in Internet censorship, including what content is 'prohibited' or
'potentially prohibited' online in Australia, and thus what could
potentially be included on the ACMA 'black list' which the proposed
mandatory ISP filter will apparently use.
A key question raised by the seminars was to ask about the specific aims
of the ISP-based Internet filtering proposal, which still remain somewhat
opaque. In particular, which of the following increasingly broad potential
options most closely match the actual aims of the proposal?
- only to avoid inadvertent or unintended viewing, only of child pornography
materials, and only while surfing the Web (and in the Hamilton 2003
version, only by young people);
- to also prevent, detect, block, and help prosecute deliberate access to,
publication or circulation of only child pornography or abuse materials,
using the Web and possibly other Internet methods (whether by young people
or by adults); or
- to block and deter both inadvertent and deliberate interaction with a wider
ambit of 'illegal', 'prohibited' or otherwise deprecated material using any
Internet method (by young people and adults)?
Separate from the question of the aims of the proposed ISP based Internet
filtering, other issues include:
comparison with other means towards those aims
consequences and implications of the proposed models, or alternatives
gaps in knowledge or evidence about the effectiveness of particular
approaches for specific purposes
priorities for further research, trials and collaborative initiatives.
David then raised issues arising from both seminars including the issues
around whether Internet filtering adequately addresses child protection
issues, the possible reasons on why there is a slow take down rate for
pornographic materia (including unintended adverse consequences of
excessive criminalisation of child porn, for instance where sysops or IT
security staff feel they must be concerned for their own legal 'safety' or
liability if they reveal they have come into contact with child porn
material by reporting it, and thus avoid reporting it in the rapid way they
would deal with defamatory material or copyright infringements), and
concerns of the Internet Industry Association and the problem with
classification of Internet material.
Philip Argy
Philip Argy has worked for many years as a solicitor, specialising in
intellectual property, technology and competition law. He recently left
the law to establish ArgyStar.com - to 'evangelise and implement dispute
resolution strategies in the IT sector'. He is a director and founder of
the Technology Dispute Centre and is on the World Intellectual Property
Organisation (WIPO) panel of arbitrators for the resolution of intellectual
property disputes, especially those involving domain names. Philip is the
immediate past president of the Australian Computer Society (ACS) and a
member of its e-security task force.
Philip recalled a submission that he, as president of the ACS, prepared ten
years ago on Internet content. The starting point should be the premise
that Australian adults should be able to see and hear what they like. The
issue is the growth of a 'nanny' society. The object now should be how to
help the Government deliver on a promise they made on Internet filtering
without unduly restricting adult access to material of their choice. The
ACS is currently working through the issue, and is exploring options. One
of them, that has been raised earlier, is content labelling - requiring
content providers to label their content, and providing legal penalties for
content that is mislabelled. However, that is only one facet of the issue
- which is much broader. The approach must be holistic, including
providing better education and help for people to have access to available
material - or not. It is a problem created by politicians and the
challenge is to help the 'problem' be 'solved'.
Discussion
Issues raised in discussion:
- The central role of spam as part of the problem, acknowledging that, while
it is well controlled in Australia, the issue is global
- The need for Australia to support international cooperation on spam and
objectionable content
- The issues in defining what is 'illegal' content, what is 'unacceptable
content, and who should be the arbitrator
- What is or should the role of
ACMA and the OFLC be in deciding what is on a 'black list' of sites?
- The openness and transparency of what is on the 'black list'
- Should the on-line rules for content be the same as rules in the off-line
world?
- How effective could a content rated system be for material that is globally
generated and available?
- What abut non-compliant material that is user generated?
- Part of the problem is that it is the vocal 15% of the population who
object to material that is heard
- What about the 85% who may or may not
care, and how to motivate others to lobby for access to material they
believe should be accessible?
Conclusion of the Event
Again, Tony Hill acknowledged the support of the Australian Government through
the Consumer Representation Grants Program of the Department of Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy in convening this forum.