ISPs won’t talk about Interpol filter support

23

news Three of Australia’s major ISPs — TPG, Dodo and Primus — have not responded to repeated requests to disclose whether they are planning to implement the limited Internet filtering scheme which is being promulgated by the Australian Federal Police in cooperation with international policing agency Interpol.

So far only three Australian ISPs — Telstra, Optus and a smaller ISP, CyberOne — are known to have implemented the filtering scheme, which is voluntary for ISPs but compulsory for their customers. The filter, which is being seen as a more moderate industry approach developed in reaction to the Federal Government’s much more comprehensive filter scheme, is seeing the ISPs block a “worst of the worst” list of child pornography sites generated by international police agency Interpol.

However, in a response several weeks ago published to questions posed to it by Greens Senator and Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam in a Senate Estimates committee hearing in October, the AFP revealed that two more ISPs had signed up to support the scheme. To participate in the scheme, ISPs must confirm their interest with the AFP, which will then issue them with a request under section 313 of the Telecommunications Act to filter certain material.

In the wake of the revelation, Vodafone confirmed that it was planning to implement the filter in 2012, but had not yet been issued with a section 313 notice, leaving the identities of the remaining two ISPs unclear.

iiNet and Internode confirmed last week that they hadn’t received a request from the AFP to implement the filter, and Exetel is believed to remain opposed to the filtering scheme, which the company’s chief executive John Linton has previously shunned as “pointless”. This is consistent with previous statements which the ISPs have made on the matter.

However, when contacted by Delimiter last week, TPG declined to comment on the matter, while spokespeople from Dodo and Primus had not responded to repeated requests for comment on the issue over a period of a week, leaving their attitude towards the Interpol filter unclear.

Several smaller specialised ISPs — Webshield and ItXtreme — who had previously been associated with the filtering scheme have confirmed they have not implemented the Interpol filter and are not immediately planning to — already offering more comprehensive filtering services to their customers upon demand.

When Telstra and Optus implemented the Interpol filter, the two telcos did not immediately broadcast the fact to their customers, although both have acknowledged the filtering scheme is in place in customer information published since.

In addition, it is believed that the AFP will only issue a Section 313 notice to ISPs when the ISPs have confirmed that they have put the technology in place to send their filters live. This appears to suggest that two other ISPs — aside from Telstra, Optus and CyberOne — are currently filtering their customers’ broadband connections for the list of sites promulgated by Interpol without those customers’ knowledge, and without the knowledge of the general public.

Initially the filter scheme was being pushed by the Internet Industry Association, which represents ISPs and other companies with an interest in the Internet. However, last week, the company acknowledged it did not know which Australian ISPs had signed up to implement the filtering scheme — with the initiative passing out of its remit and into the direct control of the AFP.

The AFP has declined to reveal which ISPs had signed up to implement the scheme, stating that as it was voluntary for ISPs, it was up to the ISPs themselves to announce their participation in the trial. However, participation in the trial is not voluntary for customers of ISPs, whose Internet connections will be filtered without their knowledge.

Some civil libertarians have raised the issue of scope creep and whether the section 313 process could be used by the AFP to request that other forms of content illegal in Australia — such as detailed instruction in crime or even information about euthanasia — to also be blacklisted by the AFP. It has been speculated that this could lead to a defacto scheme similar to the Federal Government’s more comprehensive filter scheme, which does not currently have the parliamentary support to become law — although it remains Labor policy.

23 COMMENTS

  1. Its going to block the “worst of the worst”…

    So we can feel just as “safe” as when David Hicks was locked up in Guantanamo Bay ?

    Doesnt really matter who does the censoring, before it happens;
    here still needs to be oversight, a presumption of innocence, and an effort made to prosecute the site owner.

  2. Its going to block the “worst of the worst”…

    So we can feel just as “safe” as when David Hicks was locked up in Guantanamo Bay ?

    Doesnt really matter who does the censoring, before it happens;
    – there needs to be oversight of processes that add and remove sites from the list.
    – a presumption of innocence
    – an effort made to prosecute the site owner.

    • Some of these things are enshrined in the Interpol process. I’m not personally that worried about the oversight of the Interpol list; that seems to be pretty OK, and adopted by a few countries now. I’m worried about what happens if the AFP starts asking ISPs to filter things that aren’t on the Interpol list. And currently, it is likely that we wouldn’t even know when that happened; there is no requirement, as far as I know, for the ISPs or the AFP to disclose all of what is requested via Section 313 etc.

  3. iiNet and Internode conform they haven’t received a request from the AFP. Have they asked for one though? The vagueness of that response concerns me.

    • No, they haven’t asked. At this point the process requires an ISP to contact the AFP and request to be part of the program. The AFP will then issue a Section 313 notice, when the ISP is ready to start filtering. However, I think if the AFP contacted Internode and iiNet with a Section 313 request of this nature, that they would comply.

  4. @ Glenn:

    – There is already multiple Interpol agency oversight on the process of adding and removing sites from their list

    – A minimum 2 Interprol agencies agreement are requiredto add or delete a site to/ from the list

    – Interpol did not put Hicks into Guantanemo – where did you get the mega-furphy mate??

    – Interpol has always and continues to work on the basis of presumption of innocence – however once a site has been reviewed and designated by a minimum two Inrepo agencies that the sites contains CSAI, then onto the list it goes

    – Australians are not being charged or prosecuted if they attempt to land on an Interpol listed and blocked site

    – Even though presumption of innocences is assumed and practiced, policing agencies must often investigate suspected criminal actions – that is the job of policing agencies mate…

    – Are you seriously suggesting that Inperpol does not make an effort to identify and prosecute CSAI publishing websites??? lol

    • – There is already multiple Interpol agency oversight on the process of adding and removing sites from their list

      According to Interpol…

      – A minimum 2 Interprol agencies agreement are requiredto add or delete a site to/ from the list

      According to Interpol…

      – Interpol did not put Hicks into Guantanemo – where did you get the mega-furphy mate??

      Huh?

      – Interpol has always and continues to work on the basis of presumption of innocence – however once a site has been reviewed and designated by a minimum two Inrepo agencies that the sites contains CSAI, then onto the list it goes

      According to Interpol…

      – Australians are not being charged or prosecuted if they attempt to land on an Interpol listed and blocked site

      According to who?

      – Even though presumption of innocences is assumed and practiced, policing agencies must often investigate suspected criminal actions – that is the job of policing agencies mate…

      Umm…

      – Are you seriously suggesting that Inperpol does not make an effort to identify and prosecute CSAI publishing websites??? lol

      Then why are there several hundred apparently still freely available on the web?

    • “- Interpol has always and continues to work on the basis of presumption of innocence – however once a site has been reviewed and designated by a minimum two Inrepo agencies that the sites contains CSAI, then onto the list it goes”

      If Interpol find one picture on one page is CSA material then they block the whole domain. If you happen to have innocent material on the same domain then Interpol still considers you guilty and includes you in the block. It is called overblocking and is one of the problems that filters can have. Interpol don’t give two hoots about guilt or innocence it is a case of if one is guilty then all are guilty..

      If you have a close look at how this filter operates, at the Interpol web site, you will soon see the problems with it and in particular the procedure for removing CSA content and getting off the list.

    • The comment about Guantanamo wasnt aimed at Interpol, but rather at the language used to justify the censorship, i.e. when someone says “Worst of the worst”, without any further clarification, it just sounds like they are trying avoid disclosing or rationalising who that might be.

      And “worst of the worst” reminds me of Junior G. Bush (shrub)

      I dont know much about Interpol, im sure they have better procedures and oversight than National Police, but censorship is one of those things that is really hard to have proper independent oversight.

      If Interpol is capable of prosecuting owners of recognized bad content, then why do they need to resort to censorship, is it a manpower problem, or is it some countries laws protect site owners, what ?

  5. On the matter of getting off the list that blocks whole websites.

    Interpol’s criteria specified on their info about the filter allows for the site to remain on the list if there is any other material that is illegal in ANY of there member countries. This means once the hacked page is removed/fixed, then the site can remain on the list because of other material. Say India’s laws against the slaughtering of cows?

    Another criteria of Interpol’s List is that when it is distributed to a member country, it can be added to by that country’s national police force and STILL be called the Interpol list. This is perhaps more worrying than my first point. After public outcry dies down the AFP may decide that they will filter out the worse of the worse “other illegal” material. And all this without government/public oversight and maybe without their/our knowledge of them doing so.

    • “And all this without government/public oversight and maybe without their/our knowledge of them doing so.”

      But aren’t blocked users directed to a page that lets them enquire if they believe a site has been blocked incorrectly? This is oversight isn’t it? Have there been any reports of incorrect blocking?

      As to stopping what ultimately is intended to be a “good” thing (ie disrupting the perpetuation and normalisation of illegal material which everyone agrees is abhorrent) on the basis of what may/might/could happen in the future….. well you can use that to argue against everything that tries to do good can’t you? You’ll never achieve progress though.

  6. I don’t think we really need to worry about the AFP adding sites. They’re going to be using a process enshrined in law (so there’s some way to track that) and it’s based on the Interpol nasty brain rotting content.

    The concerns I have, are that AFACT and other Copyright groups will attempt to gain the ability to add to the list. Then there’s the omnipresent ACL whom feel they are the only moral compass Australia requires.

    That’s where the “scope creep” will come from. People other than law enforcement.

      • The AFP aren’t going to be communicative about it given the subject matter may include RC content.

        Perform a FOI request if you believe there’s a great deal of shenanigans occurring.

        There’s a lot of FUD (scaremongering too; high renai!) and sod all facts.. I’d suggest sticking to the latter.

  7. I don’t see why they want to block child pornography sites anyway, what better way is there to catch pedophiles?

    • Nah throwing trampoline over the issue or painting over rust with great expense is much more or a logical thing to do, instead of going to the actual source of the problem.
      :(

      • who says they’re not going to the source as well? the two things aren’t mutually exclusive you know. And by the way, it’s law enforcement that is implementing this solution – presumably because they think it will have some effect. Tell me, on the basis that you’re not a police officer or a psychiatrist/psychologist who works with child abusers – exactly where does your expertise on the matter come from?

        • “Tell me, on the basis that you’re not a police officer or a psychiatrist/psychologist who works with child abusers – exactly where does your expertise on the matter come from?”{

          He has probably read this – http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/30/smut_freakonomics/

          and this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21116701

          “Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.”

          From a psychologist/university professor who has studied this problem for 40 years.

          I think he has got it right, hiding a problem has never ever fixed it.

          • wow, ok – so you’re suggesting the legalisation of accessing/possession of child abuse material is a step forward in addressing the occurrence of child abuse in society.

            It doesn’t seem like the right thing to do to me but I’m no expert. Plus, I’m guessing you’d probably find a swathe of similarly and/or more qualified experts who’d disagree with your suggested approach.

            I still don’t understand why you think filtering it is “hiding a problem” – sure that might be the case if that’s all that was done to address it, but I don’t think there has been any suggestion that police would stop tracking down the publishers/producers of this material just because a filter is turned on.

          • “wow, ok – so you’re suggesting the legalisation of accessing/possession of child abuse material is a step forward in addressing the occurrence of child abuse in society.”

            What I am saying is that there is clear scientific evidence that blocking or making child pornography illegal doesn’t reduces the incidence of child sexual abuse and in fact increases it. This is based on three studies done from around 1970 onward by Dr Milton Diamond of the University of Hawii.and others of the reported sexual abuses in Denmark, Japan and the Czech Republic. in periods where their pornography laws were relaxed. The same studies showed that reported sexual assaults also dropped in the same period.

            Addressing the occurrence of child abuse (including CSA) requires acknowledgement of the following:
            The vast majority of abuse is done by family or family friends of the victim.
            People who abuse children have been abused themselves in a large majority of cases.
            Youth homelessness is often caused by child abuse
            Prison Inmates have a high incidence of experiencing child abuse.

            It is clear that the only effective way to stop child abuse is to stop the cycle. This means that we have to stop the physical/psychological/sexual abuse and not only re-educate and punish the perpetrator but also re-educate and provide significant support to the victim Doing this is expensive. It is a lot easier if you can hide the problem ie censorship –filtering.

            “I’m guessing you’d probably find a swathe of similarly and/or more qualified experts who’d disagree with your suggested approach.”.
            Sorry but there are no peer reviewed scientific studies that contradict the findings of those three studies that I have been able to find. The University of Hawwi still had the Japan study on its web site last time I looked together with a lot of other work by Milton Diamond. There are certainly a lot of commentators who disagree with what I say but they also have a habit of quoting Hamilton & Flood which has been largely debunked.

            “I still don’t understand why you think filtering it is “hiding a problem” – sure that might be the case if that’s all that was done to address it, but I don’t think there has been any suggestion that police would stop tracking down the publishers/producers of this material just because a filter is turned on.”

            I don’t know anyone who doesn’t support police action against child sexual abuse perpetrators (CSAPs) but ISP filtering doesn’t do anything to stop the CSAPs or assist the victim. It is a waste of money that could be better used in supporting the police action. If we can’t see what is happening then we don’t know what is happening. If a filter is in place then it is possible that the police for financial or other reasons may not be looking at the problem or doing less than they could.

            The pros and cons of ISP filtering are pretty well covered at Whirlpool, ISP Level Content Filtering
            in 98 Parts http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum/100?g=175

          • The question is, what problem does the filter actually solve. People who want to get around it will, so all it’s stopping is “accidental” access. But how often does that happen? Has anyone done any research? In all the years I’ve been on the internet, I’ve never accidentally run across anything that would be blocked by the filter (obviously that’s a small sample size, but in the absence of actual research what else is there?).

            It’s a classic case of the politician’s fallacy. Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this. The biggest problem, to me, is that we’re spending millions of dollars on this thing, for absolutely no reason

Comments are closed.