• Great articles on other sites
  • RSS Great articles on other sites

  • Internet, News - Written by on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:15 - 17 Comments

    iiNet, Internode implement Conroy’s new filter

    news National broadband provider iiNet and its subsidiary Internode have pledged to implement the limited child abuse Internet filtering scheme adopted as policy last week by the Federal Government, noting they had received independent legal advice advising them to comply with a new “compulsory” request by police to do so.

    Last week, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the Federal Government would abandon its highly unpopular and controversial mandatory Internet filtering policy in favour of a more limited scheme that will see Australian ISPs forced to block a much smaller list of child abuse sites supplied by international policing agency Interpol. The legal mechanism for the scheme to proceed is Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act, which allows the Australian Federal Police to request assistance from local telcos. Telstra and Optus implemented the scheme in mid-2011; Conroy said last week that it will now be extended to other ISPs.

    In mid-2011, a number of ISPs, such as Telstra, Optus, iiNet and Internode, received such requests from the Australian Federal Police to implement such a filtering scheme for the Interpol list. At the time, Telstra and Optus complied with the request and have had their filters working for more than a year with no known public complaints, while a number of other ISPs, such as iiNet and Internode, declined to do so, citing uncertainty about the legality of the request.

    However, posting on broadband forum Whirlpool this week, iiNet group chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby noted that the Section 313 notices received in mid-2011 by the ISPs had made it clear the scheme was “voluntary”. New notices issued to ISPs recently, however, he said, had the word “voluntary” removed from their text.

    “… the AFP advised us that compliance was voluntary. As a result we declined to participate,” Dalby wrote. “Now it is clearly no longer voluntary and we are obliged to comply, which we will. As you will no doubt have read from the press release, all ISPs will be served notices by the AFP. I’m sure most will take legal advice on the effectiveness of the notifications and act according to that legal advice.”

    Dalby noted iiNet had sought legal advice on the Section 313 notice, and added: ” … we are satisfied that both the advice and our obligations are clear.” However, he declined to release that legal advice to iiNet’s customers and the public, or to release the text of the Section 313 notice issued by the Australian Federal Police to iiNet.

    “There’s no need for a press release,” he told Whirlpool users. “We see the matter as ‘business as usual’ – we comply with legitimate request or directions from law enforcement agency all the time. This is no different, now that the element of volunteering has been removed.”

    “It’s not complicated,” he added. “The Act hasn’t changed, the section 313 notice has. Previously, it seems, some ISPs were prepared to act on the ‘voluntary’ s313. We declined. Now that it is no longer voluntary, we are complying … The word ‘voluntary’ was deleted from the MS Word document. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?”

    However, not everyone believes that the Section 313 notices which are being used by the Australian Federal Police to implement the limited Interpol filtering scheme are in fact legal.
    For example, this week Australian free market thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs accused the Federal Government of relying on an “obscure” section of telecommunications law in a way that was never intended to implement its new limited Internet filtering scheme, and warned of the potential for scope creep under the scheme.

    “The Gillard government is handing over control for the list of banned websites to the international police agency, Interpol, and is using an existing law in a way that was never intended,” said Simon Breheny, director of the IPA’s Legal Rights Project.

    “The use of an obscure provision of the legislation raises serious legal issues – it is highly doubtful whether the law can be used to compel ISPs to block websites at the Minister’s behest. If the Minister always had the power to impose an internet filter without the need for new legislation section 313 would have been used from the beginning,” Breheny added.

    Last week, most digital rights, political and telecommunications organisations in Australia – including Electronic Frontiers Australia, the Pirate Party of Australia, the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU), the Greens, the Opposition, the Internet Industry Association and others welcomed the Government’s backdown on the mandatory Internet filter and the implementation of the new scheme. However, some, such as ISOC-AU, noted that they still had concerns with the details of the new setup.

    Delimiter has encouraged the Minister to hold an open press conference on the issue to take questions from the media, as well as to issue a discussion paper on the issue which would allow the public to comment on the scheme formally. In addition, we have invited the Minister to respond to the following questions in writing:

    • Given the wide-ranging nature of the Interpol filter — affecting most Australian Internet users — why was no public consultation held before the Government decided to take take this step? I note that the Government has never held a formal public consultation into Internet filtering in general.
    • How would the Government respond to the claim that there will be no civilian oversight of this Interpol filtering scheme, with key information about it only being released over the past several years through Freedom of Information requests filed with the Australian Federal Police?
    • ISPs such as iiNet, Internode, TPG and Exetel have declined to participate in this scheme so far over the past 12 months, with some citing uncertainty of the legal situation. How would the Government address the claim that the legal ground of this Interpol filtering scheme, notably the process whereby the AFP issues notices to ISPs, is not clear?
    • Which further ISPs will the AFP issue notices to? Has the Government already received support from those ISPs for the scheme? How will the Government react if an ISP declines the notice?
    • How would the Government respond to the claim that there is the potential for the AFP to issue notices beyond the Interpol list to ISPs, in an approach which could be dubbed ‘scope creep’?
    • Neither Telstra nor Optus explicitly notified customers that they had implemented the Interpol filter when they did so last year. What guidelines will the Government be placing around ISPs’ participation in this scheme?

    Image credit: iiNet

    submit to reddit


    You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    1. ferretzor
      Posted 14/11/2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Couple of questions people may know the answer to off the top of their heads.

      Is this list of filtered sites publicly available, and how often is it updated? Also, many people use like Google DNS servers (, are ISPs going to be filtering the actual DNS queries, or just manipulating their own DNS servers?

      • Posted 14/11/2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

        There is nothing to stop people using different DNS servers. History has *already* shown that the Interpol filter in place with Telstra and Optus is trivially defeated with a DNS change:


        The ISPs could do some funky firewalling to force you to use their DNS servers – (many corporate networks do this for security purposes) – but then you could just use proxies and the like to get around those firewall rules to.

        Most people won’t want to do this, or care about this, or even know how to do this.

        It’s the people who WANT to get around this who will know how to, which is why the whole process/concept of ‘blocking’ questionable content is pointless anyway. It won’t stop the people who want to get the ‘blocked’ content from getting the ‘blocked’ content.


        It’s all about politics – be seen to be doing something, when you’re doing nothing – (or very little) – at all.

    2. jon
      Posted 14/11/2012 at 1:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’d be very surprised if the list was publicly available, given how easy it is to get around such filters.

    3. Sathias
      Posted 14/11/2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Red underpants deployed.

    4. belize
      Posted 14/11/2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      huh – a filter article with no comment from law enforcement specialist/online rights activist/network engineer/child abuse expert/lawyer/allround great guy Mark Newton?

      • Duke
        Posted 15/11/2012 at 2:37 am | Permalink | Reply

        He is busy posting on Twitter and Whirlpool…

        …ps, still chasing McAfee?


    5. Posted 14/11/2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is the quote from Steve Dalby that keeps bothering me.

      “It’s not complicated,” he added. “The Act hasn’t changed, the section 313 notice has. Previously, it seems, some ISPs were prepared to act on the ‘voluntary’ s313. We declined. Now that it is no longer voluntary, we are complying … The word ‘voluntary’ was deleted from the MS Word document. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?”

      Just because the AFP took the word ‘voluntary’ out of the notice doesn’t change the law, so it shouldn’t make a difference.

      • ferretzor
        Posted 14/11/2012 at 2:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Its probably a “regulation”, which is able to be modified without the law itself changing. That is to say, the legislation delegates administrative power to adjust the regulations to another body.

        Or I could be wrong.

    6. Soth
      Posted 14/11/2012 at 4:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Not happy Jan! :(

    7. Ron
      Posted 14/11/2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Australian governments also made 92 requests to remove items from Google websites, including YouTube and search engine results.

      Most of the requests were made for “”privacy and security” reasons, or over defamation and copyright issues.

      A small number were removed for reasons of “government criticism”.”

      Government criticism?


    8. Simon Shaw
      Posted 16/11/2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink | Reply

      I still don’t see how the AFP can compel an ISP to filter, without legislation, since the ISP is not breaking any law by not filtering.

      Requesting an ISP blocks a site, (or compelling them to), seems to me to be a big stretch.

      • Michael
        Posted 16/11/2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Is this really so hard?

        The law DOES actually permit them to request illegal content not be accessible. They simply have not exercised their powers in that way in the past, but the law is quite clear that they CAN in much the same way it’s clear that they can ask for the details of a user who has broken the law.

    9. bobsta
      Posted 21/11/2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Leaving the list of banned sites in the hands of Interpol and other o/s agencies as regards child porn sites leaves a gap between what will be banned from overseas and what will be banned here. As the Sex Party’s Fiona Patten has repeatedly pointed out, Australian law which describes child porn ignores the actual age of participants in sexual media and relies almost exclusively on how old they ‘appear’. No other country in the world does this and its the reason that people are busted on a weekly basis for bringing Japanese manga back into Australia that was purchased at the newsagent atTokyo airport. The characters ‘appear’ to be young teenagers to the people in the Classification Board and at Customs who are judging this. If child porn is the basis of the new internet filtering scheme, then Interpol will only be interested in the parameters of Regulation 2257 which provides for incontrovertible evidence about age as the be all and end all of what is child porn. They will then apply that to websites that come to their notice from other countries. There are hundreds of thousands of perfectly legal R2257 regulated sites in the US, with all the legal documentation necessary to prove that there are only above 18 year olds modelling on them, that would have you thrown in jail if you uploaded them from Australia. The government needs to update the Refused Classification category as Conroy promised to do over a year ago and it needs to look at bringing Australia’s child porn laws into line with the US and Europe. A good start on this would be for the government to reply to the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s enquiry into classification.

      • Ron
        Posted 21/11/2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

        Yes, it’s ridiculous that a model in her/his mid-to-late 20s but looks like a teen is considered child porn.

        I think a model wearing school uniforms, nappies or cartoon characters (as the Qld/Simpsons case showed) also falls into the category of CP.

    10. club goer
      Posted 04/03/2013 at 9:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Lucky they don’t use that terminology for getting into clubs..

      Sorry, you look under ’18’, even though your I.D. says otherwise.. Your not allowed into the club.

      Come back when you look 18+ :P

    11. Bourkie
      Posted 26/05/2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      ‘Telstra and Optus complied with the request and have had their filters working for more than a year with no known public complaints…’

      WTF? I find it very hard to believe that no one complained!

      At least one person has complained – me!

      Total lies. Then again, that’s pretty much par for the course for Telstra and Optus.

    Leave a Comment


  • Get our 'Best of the Week' newsletter on Fridays

    Just the most important stories, one email a week.

    Email address:

    Follow us on social media

    Use your RSS reader to subscribe to our articles feed or to our comments feed.

  • Most Popular Content

  • Enterprise IT stories

    • Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp facepalm2

      If you have even a skin deep awareness of the structure of Australia’s superannuation industry, you’ll be aware that much of the underlying infrastructure used by many of the nation’s major funds is provided by a centralised group, Superpartners. One of the group’s main projects in recent years has been to dramatically update and modernise its IT platform — its version of a core banking platform overhaul. Unfortunately, the $250 million project has not precisely been going well.

    • Qld’s Grant joins analyst firm IBRS peter-grant

      This week it emerged that Peter Grant, the two-time former Queensland Whole of Government CIO (pictured), has joined well-regarded analyst firm Intelligent Business Research Services (IBRS). We’ve long had a high regard for IBRS, and so it’s fantastic to see such an experienced executive join its ranks.

    • Westpac dumps desk phones for Samsung Android mobiles samsung-galaxy-ace-3

      The era of troublesome desk phones tied to physical locations is gradually coming to an end in many workplaces, with mobile phones becoming increasingly popular as organisations’ main method of voice telecommunications. But some groups are more advanced than others when it comes to adoption of the trend. One of those is Westpac.

    • Ministers’ cloud approval lasted just a year reverse

      Remember how twelve months ago, the Federal Government released a new cloud computing security and privacy directive which required departments and agencies to explicitly acquire the approval of the Attorney-General and the relevant portfolio minister before government data containing private information could be stored in offshore facilities? Remember how the policy was strongly criticised by Microsoft, Government CIOs and Delimiter? Well, it looks like the policy is about to be reversed.

    • WA Govt can’t fund school IT upgrades oops key

      In news from The Department of Disturbing Facts, iTNews revealed late last week that Western Australia’s Department of Education has run out of money halfway through the deployment of new fundamental IT infrastructure to the state’s schools.

    • Turnbull outlines Govt ICT vision turnbull-5

      Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has published an extensive article arguing that the Federal Government needed to do a better job of connecting with Australians via digital channels and that public sector IT projects needn’t cost the huge amounts that some have in the past.

    • NZ Govt pushes hard into cloud zealand

      New Zealand’s national Government announced a whole of government contract this morning for what it terms ‘Office Productivity as a Service’ services. This includes email and calendaring services, as well as file-sharing, mobility, instant messaging and collaboration services. The contract complements two existing contracts — Desktop as a Service and Enterprise Content Management as a Service.

    • CommBank reveals Harte’s replacement whiteing

      The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has promoted an internal executive who joined the bank in September after a lengthy career at petroleum giant VP and IT services group Accenture to replace its outgoing chief information officer Michael Harte, who announced in early May that he would leave the bank.

    • Jeff Smith quits Suncorp for IBM jeffsmith4

      Second-tier Australian bank and financial services group Suncorp today announced that its long-serving top technology executive Jeff Smith would leave to take up a senior role with IBM in the United States, in an announcement which marks the end of an era for the nation’s banking IT sector.

    • Small business missing the mobile, social, cloud revolution iphone-stock

      Most companies that live and breathe the online revolution are not tech startups, but smart smaller firms that use online tools to run their core business better: to cut costs, reach customers and suppliers, innovate and get more control. Many others, however, are falling behind, according to a new Grattan Institute discussion paper.

  • Blog, Enterprise IT - Jul 5, 2014 13:53 - 0 Comments

    Super funds close to dumping $250m IT revamp

    More In Enterprise IT

    Blog, Telecommunications - Jul 5, 2014 12:12 - 0 Comments

    What should the ACCC’s role be in guiding infrastructure spending?

    More In Telecommunications

    Analysis, Industry, Internet - Jun 23, 2014 10:33 - 0 Comments

    ‘Google Schmoogle’ – how Yellow Pages got it so wrong

    More In Industry

    Blog, Digital Rights - Jun 30, 2014 22:24 - 0 Comments

    Will Netflix launch in Australia, or not?

    More In Digital Rights