The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill

This is a bad piece of legislation. It won't stop pornography on the Internet, but it will violate the Australia-United States Joint Statement on Economic Commerce. It will tend to give parents a false sense of security that Big Brother is looking after their kids, and it will damage the Australian economy.

It is not only bad legislation, it is also dumb legislation . Moreover, our government appears to be deaf. They haven't listened to business leaders, they haven't listened to their own agencies, and they haven't listened to their citizens.

Senator Alston says that there is widespread demand for legislation to block inappropriate material on the Internet. Yet one of his own agencies has told him that this is not the case. The National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE) informed the Minister in their Telecommunications Performance Report 1997-8l, at page 116 that, 'Inappropriate content was the smallest concern of Internet users surveyed.'

Every recent Australian survey confirms this. Another survey, undertaken early this year by the widely recognised www.consult, the same company that had previously been commissioned by NOIE, found that only 9.9% of respondents thought that the government should censor the Internet. Nearly two thirds of those surveyed (62.5%) said that parents should be responsible for their kids, and 22.2% said that no one should censor the Internet.

Yet Senator Alston continues to insist that there is a widespread community demand for censorship. When pressed for evidence of this by Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, the best he could reply was to refer to a vox pop in the Herald Sun quoting five teenagers and to a US survey by Wired magazine which reported that those surveyed wanted their privacy protected on the Internet and wanted offensive material on the Internet treated the same way as it is in the physical world. However the Online Services Bill makes material that is perfectly legal in the physical world, illegal online.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey commissioned by the OFLC explored community perceptions of film, video and computer games. In relation to adult material, i.e. X-rated videotapes, two out of three respondents who held a firm opinion believed this material should be available to adults. A follow-up survey conducted by the Bureau in August 1994 indicated that 78 per cent of respondents supported the availability of R classified films and videos. Source: ABA On-line Services Investigation Final Report, 1996.

An AGB McNair poll showed 83 per cent of Australians thought non-violent sexually explicit X-rated videos should be legally available. Source: The Age, 25 Apr 97

The Managing Director of IBM in Australia, Mr Bob Savage has said that the Bill "could put restraints around Australian business that other countries don't have to worry about and that makes us less attractive" (The Australian, May 6). The local Managing Director of Cisco Systems, quoted in the same article, has said that the Bill will not be effective.

So has the CSIRO, the , the Australian Computer Society and the Australian Library and Information Association. See also DCITA's media release.

In reply Senator Alston says that somehow new technology will come to the rescue, and puts his faith in 'guessing engines'. He seems to be very impressed with Clairview Internet Sheriff. When tested by EFA this product blocked access to Mick's Whips, one of the Prime Ministers favourite examples of Australian online commerce, and to the home page of the Deputy Prime Minister's National Party.

Other filtering software, in use in schools in Utah, was found, when tested, to block access to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the home page of Dr. Walter Wager. Dr Wager is an expert in distance education at Florida State University, and his page was blocked on the ground that it promoted gambling!

Senator Alston is at odds with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) which has announced, after an inquiry lasting almost a year, that it will not regulate Internet content. The CRTC said that it was concerned 'that any attempt to regulate Canadian new media might put the industry at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace'. The CRTC is the equivalent of the Australian Broadcasting Authority.

The Canadian concern has been echoed by the Malaysian Government. Not noted for liberal attitudes, the Malaysian government abandoned attempts to regulate Internet content on economic grounds.

Our government is also at odds with the United States over this issue, causing US Senator Ron Wyden, to write to the Australian ambassador in Washington, criticising Canberra's plan to put international Web content under the control of the Australian Broadcasting Authority.

"Such an approach would clearly violate the spirit and the letter of the policy statements contained in the Australia-United States Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce," Senator Wyden's May 13 letter stated.

"Only two nations have attempted wholesale centralised regulation of the content of the Internet – China and Singapore – and both have found their efforts ineffective," the letter added. The text of the Agreement is here.

The legislation purports to be about protecting children, and "measures to stop paedophiles, drug pushers, bomb makers and racists from using the Internet to spread their poison". But child pornography, drug trafficking and terrorism are already illegal, everywhere, on the Internet or off. This legislation will make those crimes no more illegal than they already are. However, on the pretext of protecting children, it will block access for adults to other material that is now legal.

By suggesting that filtering technologies such as Internet Sheriff and Smartfilter will be suitable, the government is suggesting that parents allow a computer to raise their children. Moreover, they are suggesting that a piece of software should decide what they, the parents, can read. The State should have no role in the relationship between a parent and a child, except in the most extreme circumstances.

As the CSIRO reported, blocking technologies can be circumvented by a variety of means. In summary, the CSIRO reported (pdf available here):

"Packet level blocking is too indiscriminate, and its use would create unintended ‘holes’ all over the emerging global digital infrastructure, which could isolate Australia to a large degree in the emerging digital global infrastructure. It is inconsistent with Australia’s desire to become an electronic commerce hub for South East Asia.

Application level blocking is technically possible, but it can easily be circumvented by users in more ways than can packet level blocking. Mandating its use may result in black lists becoming ‘hot property’, with the result that the black-listed sites may actually become more popular than if they were not black listed at all.

Our conclusion is that Content blocking implemented purely by technological means will be ineffective, and neither of the above approaches should be mandated. Any technology-based solution can be worked around – purely as a result of the sheer pace of technology change on the Internet."

This legislation has a King Canute approach. It is like legislating that motor accidents are forbidden to happen, but ignoring sensible measures such as limiting speed, prohibiting drink driving and requiring seat belts and airbags.

There is material on the Internet that parents may not wish their children to see. There are sensible and practical ways for supervising children's use. Parents may wish to sit beside very young children when they use the Internet. For older children, they may decide that the Internet should only be available in a public room, like the family room. Parents can purchase filtering sofware of their own choice, to be installed on the family computer, rather than at the ISP level. While EFA does not recommend any of the filtering software we have seen, this is an affordable option for parents.

As well as listening to business, the government's own agencies, and the citizens, Senator Alston should remember that freedom is an essential ingredient of free enterprise, and listen to his colleague, Tony Abbott. Mr. Abbott wrote, in the Australian (12 April 1999) of the crucial importance of the Internet to the Australian economy, and how it could help to overcome the tyranny of distance. In this context he wrote that Australians must lose 'our habit of relying on government to make things happen'.