Internet Filtering Doesn’t Work
According to the trial of the Rudd Government’s internet filtering plan, internet filtering slows down connections, blocks false positives and can not effectively block the downloading of copyright material without blocking the protocol in toto.
I wrote to Stephen Conroy earlier regarding the internet filtering plan, including an excerpt from Lawrence Lessig’s “Code 2.0” which explains why mandatory filtering can not work. It took a long time to get a response from Conroy’s office and I was thoroughly underwhelmed with their waffling about protecting the children (at some point, I will scan and upload the response). There are other ways to protect children from porn on the internet (i.e. not using computers as babysitting devices) and to crack down on child pornography (current techniques are doing a good job). Crippling the internet is not the way to go about it.
Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy has a bigger post with the figures showing just how ridiculously bad this will make the Australian internet. Anywhere from 20-75% slower internet means either a reduced speed or ISPs charging more for the same level of access as before. False positives will make accessing legitimate sites harder and the entire idea of mandatory filtering means anyone looking for “adult” material will have to contact their ISP and say “Yes, I would like to opt out of the puritan internet because I am a filthy pervert”.
Between mandatory internet filtering and the refusal to bring in an R18+ rating for video games, the ALP certainly has a long way to go with its communication and digital economy policies. I prefer John Howard’s government’s program of providing home-based internet filtering software to parents who want it. I would still prefer to see parents educate their kids about safe internet use and be there with them when they’re using it. Giving a kid access to the largest body of human knowledge without any tips on how to a) find what they’re looking for, b) stay away from the internet’s red-light district is a recipe for disaster.
OS X has “parental control” measures, as do a number of Linux distributions. I’m not sure whether Windows bundles anything but most of the browser addons and child protection software (at the client level) would surely target the operating system which is installed on the majority of home computing systems. Filtering at the server level has now been shown to be a completely ineffective way of blocking “inappropriate” content; will the government persist?
More, including links to analysis, etc. from tigtog at Hoyden About Town and at Larvatus Prodeo.
It’s infuriating, isn’t it?
The easiest way for parents to control what their kids access on the internet is so simple – don’t let kids have computers in their bedrooms, and make sure you glance at what they’re browsing as you wander past the computer(s) in the living room/family room.
Our house is fully networked, but apart from the office where my partner and I work, the other computers that the kids use are all in public areas.
But I’m cruel, apparently: my kids don’t have TVs in their bedrooms either.
I’m not certain the government will scrap the program on the back of this trial. If they don’t, the internet community will vote against the ALP in droves. Whether they go for the Liberals, Greens or other minor parties is anyone’s guess.
My parents have two computers in an office which gets locked at night. It’s not locked during the day, though, so my 12 year old brother manages to get a few hours of Runescape in before they get home. Thank goodness he knows exactly what he wants (video games) and doesn’t start typing stuff into Google regarding sex.
I think that “the talk” is going to have to be updated for the new generations so that parents can warn their kids about illicit internet content. I don’t know how many parents of 10-15 year olds now, though, are all that clued in when it comes to internet porn.
It really is up to parents to create an environment where the computer can be used with a moderate amount of privacy (MSN, Facebook, Myspace) but still have computer use public enough that parents can supervise.
Wholesale blocking of the internet might go some way to protecting children from hardcore pornography online but it’s going to make it harder for consenting adults (who are well within their rights) to access what they want to. Not only that, but society at large is going to get burdened with worse services and/or higher prices for what is already a substandard internet system.
I totally agree with tigtog. The only security children have is their parents. Children should not be allowed to take their laptops in the bedroom even wireless or not.
Lot of Techy parents think it is “cool” that their children have wireless internet in their room. But do they really know what “cool” website or “cool” chatroom they have been to!
Parental controls are never 100% and never will be!
Here’s a nice piece of satire:
http://www.netalarmed.com/
Unfortunately I can see the current government implementing such a draconian policy without much forethought as to the consequences. Frankly any filtering technology is unacceptable purely because it is a form of censorship. And to make it opt-out is outrageous. As Sam mentioned it essentially gives the government a “pervert” list, where they are free to define pervert in any way which they see fit…
And while I think even mentioning how Orwellian this seems is a little too close to a conspiracy theory version of Godwin’s law for my taste, it is a little scary…
As for Windows products containing parental controls, Vista certainly does, and it was created by consulting with The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) –
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/parental-controls.aspx
and the control it allows is extremely fine grain. You can very easily set everything from the rating of games that can be played, the exact websites which can be viewed, to the exact times when the computer can be used. Filtering technology is also included which allows concerned parents to remove the ability to view specific content. Microsoft also provides software solutions for XP in the form of their “OneCare” program, although I don’t think it is as well integrated into the OS…
This policy to me seems quite at odds with the Rudd government’s push for a better broadband network for the nation. Filtering technology can be extremely expensive even without concerns over reduced bandwidth; this places the burden of cost on ISP’s and could very likely reduce competition in the sector, which as Sam mentions is the last thing the Australian broadband market needs right now… Filtering technology is also normally quite easy to subvert given that the pace of technological growth far outstrips the rate at which a monolithic legislative system can adapt to change.
And quite frankly, I think this sort of hysteria over children accessing sexual material is slightly unwarranted. I would never allow a child below say, 12 years old, to be on a computer unsupervised. As for teenagers, from what I remember of high school a fairly significant percentage of children over 12 are engaging in sexual behaviour as it is…
Educating children about the internet and sexual education in schools coupled with a healthy dose of parental supervision is in my opinion all that is needed to give children the tools they need to make appropriate choices regarding inappropriate pornographic material.
Howard’s Government introduced many of the most draconian elements of Internet censorship through its Cyber Crimes Act (now incorporated as part of the federal Criminal Code). For some time there were warnings made about Rudd’s position on Internet filtering.
In December 2007, Conroy announced that ISPs would be required to enforce mandatory filtering before they were forced to reconsider this, hence a farcical investigation. Rudd’s Government seems to be very keen on limiting access to information on the Internet just like Howard’s Government, and a number of other regimes around the world.
I wonder at what point Conroy et al will start claiming mandatory Internet filtering is about the war on terror and protecting Australians?
Alex, I came to a similar conclusion towards the end of my new post on the issue. A mandatory internet filtering system and a moral panic involving the “War on Terror” is a bad combination indeed.
Steven is quite right regarding the offer of faster internet while at the same time crippling the internet with mandatory filtering. Why spend all that money on two projects that negate each other? The federal government apparently has unlimited licenses for NetAlert yet it’s not being rolled out. Perhaps the next lot of letters from Federal MPs to their constituents could be bundled with a simple A5/A6 flyer from the Dept of Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy alerting (not alarming) parents to the fact that the government is providing them with a free way to protect their kids from online nasties.
Or, you know, the federal government could tell people to look after their kids and not use the computer as a babysitter. It’s the ultimate in anti-Nanny-Statism and would catch the “Rudd is a Chinese Mandarin dictating how we live from on high” crowd off guard.
Adrian, I got a huge kick out of NetAlarmed the first time I saw it. Political satire is awesome.