news The Opposition has formed a new working group to deal with the issue of online safety for Australian children, stating that its rival policy will avoid the “ham-fisted” “cyber-censorship” mandatory Internet filtering approach that remains Labor Federal Government policy for dealing with the issue of how children are protected from Internet nasties.

Labor’s highly controversial Internet filter policy was introduced before the 2007 election and would have seen Australian ISPs forced to block a blacklist of sites containing illegal content as defined by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. However, it has not been implemented yet, due to a high degree of public opposition to the proposal that has seen both the Coalition and Greens oppose it, meaning Labor is unlikely to have enough parliamentary support to push through necessary legislation for the policy.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbot issued a statement last week noting that in a relatively short period of time, the Internet has transformed the lives of Australians. “However, there are also risks, and children are particular vulnerable,” Abbott said. “These risks include children being exposed to illegal or inappropriate content and the increasing use of social media as a forum for online bullying.”

“Today’s online environment,” Abbot added, “extends well beyond accessing websites and email through the family desktop computer. It also includes a range of interactive activities like social networking sites, SMS messaging, Skype, apps and games. It is also becoming far more accessible with children and young people connecting with each other through computers (in homes, schools and libraries), game consoles and mobile devices like smartphones and tablet computers.”

Abbott said the Coalition would not seek to repeat “Labor’s ham-fisted attempt to put a filter on the internet” or to “hinder the dynamic nature of the online environment”. “This is about protecting cyber-privacy. It’s not about trying to enforce cyber-censorship,” he added. And separately, at a press conference last week: “… this is not about censorship of the internet. I don’t believe in internet censorship, never have and never will. This is about online protections, not about online censorship.”

However, the Liberal Leader added, the Coalition did want to assist and equip parents and teachers in their work protecting children and preparing them for adulthood.

To this end, he said, said the Coalition would set up a working group to tackle the issue, with the aim of reporting back to him by mid-2012 on how the issue could be tackled. The group will be chaired by Liberal MP Paul Fletcher, who is one of the Opposition’s chief parliamentarians interested in telecommunications, with a background as a senior Optus executive.

Also joining Fletcher in the group will be Senator Gary Humphries, MP Alex Hawke, MP Natasha Griggs, MP Wyatt Roy, MP Patrick Secker, Senator Stephen Parry, Senator Bridget McKenzie and MP Luke Simpkins. Hawke is notable for regularly commenting on matters in the technology portfolio, while Roy is the Federal Parliament’s youngest member, at the age of 21.

Abbott noted that the working group would also work closely with shadow ministers with portfolio responsibility for online safety — “particularly the shadow ministers for education and communications” (Malcolm Turnbull and Christopher Pyne). A series of roundtables and community forums will be held across Australia as well as online over the coming months to take feedback on the issue.

At a press conference last week, Abbott took a question on the extent to which Internet service providers — which have largely remained opposed to the Internet filter project — would be involved in the consultation. “Look, certainly we welcome the input from the sector and yes, internet service providers are a very important part of the sector,” Abbott said. “We welcome their input. As I said though, our focus is going to be on hearing from parents, teachers and other carers, what tools do they need, do they think they need to keep our kids safe.”

However, Abbott also noted that one of the “real problems”, “one of the very hard problems” to deal with, is what could be done about web sites based overseas, “which contain offensive and defamatory material”. It is this problem which the Government’s Internet filter policy has been aimed at resolving.

opinion/analysis
It seems very much like someone — likely Paul Fletcher — has gotten to Abbott and convinced him that the Coalition needs to take a proactive stance on this issue, as it is an obvious area where Coalition policy can be demonstrated to be more desirable than Labor policy, given the unpopularity of the Internet filter policy.

In addition, by investigating the issue, Abbott can be seen to be actively doing something about it — which should do much to placate some of the more conservative elements of society, which have been demanding action on the issue from both parties for years.

Now, I won’t say that I am completely confident of the Coalition’s stance on protecting children online, as we have yet to see what the working group will recommend, come the delivery of its report in mid-2012. However, I have to say that early indications are positive. For once, Abbott and his team appear to understand what they are dealing with when it comes to technology, and I am expecting good things to come out of this initiative.

Certainly, anything that the Coalition proposes couldn’t possibly be a worse policy than Labor’s Internet filter, which still remains on the books.

news Australian ISPs iiNet, Internode and Primus have expressed an interest in implementing the limited Internet filtering scheme promulgated in Australia by the Australian Federal Police in cooperation with international policing agency Interpol, the AFP stated in documents revealed last week.

The initiative was proposed by the Internet Industry Association in late July this year, as a voluntary code of practice that would see ISPs block a list of a “worst of the worst” list of child pornography sites generated by Interpol and overseen by the AFP. It has been seen as a more moderate industry approach developed in reaction to the Federal Government’s much more comprehensive filter scheme.

Only three ISPs are known to have signed up to the scheme so far, which has largely moved from the IIA’s remit: Telstra, Optus and CyberOne. It now appears that the scheme is primarily overseen by the AFP directly, with the IIA unaware of which ISPs have signed up to the scheme. Vodafone has indicated it is preparing to implement the scheme in 2012.

However, in documents released last week by the AFP under Freedom of Information laws, the AFP stated that iiNet, Internode and Primus had also “expressed interest” in the scheme and were “preparing to use the list”. It also revealed that Internet gateway filter manufacturer ContentKeeper had already implemented the scheme. The document concerned was a list of talking points which had been prepared by AFP staff for AFP National Manager High Tech Crime Operations Neil Gaughan at a Senate Estimates session in October. During the session, however, Gaughan did not mention the interest of iiNet, Internode and Primus in the trial.

The mechanism for ISPs to implement the scheme is that ISPs speak to the AFP directly about it. Following their pre-consent, the AFP will then issue them with a notice under Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act which requires them to filter certain content from reaching their users. The AFP briefing document produced in October noted that iiNet — but not Internode or Primus — had in fact received a Secion 313 notice under the Telecommunications Act to request the ISP commence filtering.

iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby acknowledged the ISP had had conversations with the AFP over the filter, but hadn’t agreed to participate in the scheme, although he noted that the content being filtered was “really horrible stuff”. “It’s not for lack of wanting to stamp down on the distribution of illegal content,” he said.

“We think whatever process has used whether it’s a secion 313 notice or something else, that the ISPs should be not given discretion in whether to comply,” he said.

Internode chief executive Simon Hackett declined to comment on the matter, although Internode is believed to be in a similar situation to iiNet — it would implement the Interpol filter if required to by law, but not before. A Primus spokesperson issued a statement noting it did not comment on “law enforcement activities or processes”, and stated that the company would not be making any further comment on the matter.

iiNet has previously stated that it would comply with the law in respect to the Interpol filtering scheme. And in July, the company’s chief executive Michael Malone went further, sarcastically asking a commenter on broadband forum Whirlpool whether whether the Australian Federal Police should “do nothing about a foreign site that they know contains genuine child pornography” and whether “iiNet should refuse to comply with a lawful order issued by the AFP”.

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.

However, in July, Malone wrote that iiNet remained “a most vocal opponent of the government filter”.

“They were proposing a secret list of sites, covering “objectionable” material, or at least the murky refused classification,” Malone wrote. “The AFP is considering a small list of child porn, assembled by law enforcement bodies, reviewed by multiple countries. We need to ensure this is not confused with the government’s proposed filter. That is not dead yet either and needs to be opposed. An order from the AFP to blackhole a site containing internationally recognised child porn is not the same as the government filter.”

Internode chief executive Simon Hackett has previously stated that if Internode was required by law to comply with the scheme, it would. “The law hasn’t (yet) directed us to do something in this realm. So we haven’t yet done so,” he wrote on Whirlpool in July. “The point is that Internode obeys the law.”

“We hope that the government won’t repeat its previous activity in this realm, of framing ISPs who don’t act ahead of, and in the absence of the protection of, some new or existing law as being supporters of the ‘bad guys’. We are, of course, not ‘supporters of the bad guys’. But we’re also not disposed to take actions to impact our customers’ Internet services that are not (yet) the subject of any form of legal direction to do so.”

“We feel that if the government wishes to pass a law that has the effect of legally requiring us to do something, thats fine – we’ll do it. Until then, we will wait and watch with interest.”

When the limited Internet filtering scheme was first proposed back in 2010, Primus was listed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy as supporting the scheme. However, in July this year it revealed it may have changed its mind about the filter.

news The Australian Federal Police has confirmed there is no obligation by Internet service providers participating in its voluntary Internet filtering trial to collect data about how many requests to visit the sites they block under the trial — or to disclose that data if it is actually collected.

The voluntary filtering initiative is a stop-gap measure agreed to by ISPs and the Federal Government in mid-2010 while a review is carried out into the Refused Classification category of content which Government’s wider mandatory filter project is slated to block. It has initially been implemented by Telstra, Optus, and a smaller ISP known as CyberOne and blocks a list of ‘worst of the worst’ of child pornography sites as supplied by international policing agency Interpol.

Customers who visit one of the sites on Interpol’s list are greeted by al ‘stop page’ which will explain that the content they have attempted to access is illegal, along with instructions as to how they can challenge Interpol’s ruling. Those who believe their web site has been inadvertently blocked by Interpol are able to ask for a review via the agency’s own website, or will be able to contact the AFP.

Last week the AFP revealed Telstra had blocked more than 84,000 requests to access blocked sites on Interpol’s list since the start of July this year. However, in response to questions on the matter this week, the AFP confirmed a report by iTNews which quoted the organisation as stating that ISPs did not actually have to provide data under the trial.

“Yes, the AFP can confirm that the provision of statistical data by ISPs is not compulsory,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “It is a decision for each individual ISP as to whether they provide statistical data. “Telstra is the only ISP that has provided the AFP with statistical information in relation to the amount of redirections that have occurred. ISPs are asked to provide non identifying statistical data when joining the trial; however the decision to provide the statistics remains with the ISP.”

They added the goal of the Interpol list was not to generate cases or investigations into Internet users who had attempted to access the blocked information; rather the main aim of the use of the blacklist was to protect the rights of the children depicted in the offensive material, by preventing further distribution.

A review of the trial is slated to be carried out later this year. Asked whether the AFP believed the provision of statistical data would be useful in judging whether the voluntary Internet filter was a useful tool, the AFP spokesperson said it was “difficult to judge” how successful the trial would be in blocking online access to child pornography. “Statistics are only one of the many measures which will be utilised to gauge the trial’s effectiveness,” they wrote.

“However, the AFP remains committed to ensuring children are safe on and offline and embraces any initiatives that work towards combating online child sexual exploitation,” the spokesperson said. “The AFP supports blocking as an initiative that protects the rights of the children depicted in images of abuse by preventing further distribution of these images. Removing access to images of exploitation and abuse is a valid tool in combating this crime. The AFP welcomes the voluntarily blocking scheme, in addition to the tools currently available to combat cybercrime.”

The AFP told iTNews that in some cases, due to the infrastructure being used, it may be cost-prohibitive or not technically possible or for ISPs to provide statistical data regarding their filtering. However, this week the AFP did not directly answer a question on whether it believed collecting data might not be technically possible. “Each participating ISP has advised if they can or cannot provide the statistical data, however the reasons may not have been provided to the AFP,” the organisation said.

In Senate Estimates hearings last week, AFP high-tech crime chief Neil Gaughan mentioned other ISPs had approached the AFP with interest in participating in the trial. However, this week, the AFP declined to detail which ISPs had done so, confirming that only the initial three ISPs had so far signed up.

“The AFP will continue to engage with them, as part of its overarching goal to disrupt the availability of child abuse material within Australia,” the spokesperson said. “As these ISPs are not yet confirmed, the AFP is not at liberty to mention which ISPs have approached the AFP with interest in participating. It is difficult to predict if and when these ISPs will participate in the trial. As it is a voluntary scheme, it is up to the ISP concerned to announce their participation in the trial.”

Telstra’s methodology in tracking web traffic blocks occurring during the trial has been questioned by independent commentators such as Michael Wyres; however the telco has not as of yet provided any further detail on how it collects its filtering data.

Delimiter has filed a Freedom of Information request with the AFP to request any email communication to or from Mr Gaughan over the past few months which refers to the Telstra results, with a view to obtaining further clarity about how the traffic was measured and how the results can be interpreted. The AFP has acknowledged the request and pledged to respond within two weeks.

opinion/analysis
If ISPs are not required to provide any statistics about how much traffic they block under their voluntary filtering schemes, it should be plain as day that there is simply not going to be any real way to measure how effective the voluntary filtering scheme is.

As I wrote last week, taken in isolation, Telstra’s statistics sound pretty onerous — 84,000 is a lot of requests for very disturbing material. However, we don’t know how these statistics were collected, or what percentage of Telstra’s overall traffic they represented. If it was something like one in a billion percent, for example, is that percentage worth enforcing a national filter system on every Australian, with the potential for scope creep which exists? We need to know more.

I am also disturbed at the lack of transparency which both Telstra and the AFP are demonstrating when it comes to this trial. Sure, right now the filtering trial only blocks sites which allegedly contain child pornography. But there is nothing to prevent scope creep to other subjects — such as borderline offensive but not illegal material — occurring; and the filter mechanisms are already in place.

If Australia is going to go down the filtering path, the nation needs more information about this entire process to decide whether it is a valid one. Right now all the discussions about it are being held behind closed doors, with no civilian oversight, and with no commitment to releasing detailed public information about it. The AFP’s disclosures this week in response to questions on the filter are a good start — but only that.

Image credit: Anja Ranneberg, royalty free

The association representing Australia’s internet industry today claimed that 80 to 90 percent of Australians would have their internet connections filtered for child pornography this year, following the release of an industry code in July that will focus on a blacklist of sites supplied by international policing agency Interpol.

“We anticipate that we will have ISPs representing between 80-90 percent of the Australian user base complying with the scheme this year,” said Internet Industry Association chief executive Peter Coroneos in a statement today announcing the imminent finalisation of the code. Both Telstra and Optus have already signed up to support the effort.

Neither Coroneos nor other spokespeople from the IIA have been available today to clarify which ISPs have signed up so far to block Interpol’s list of sites.

The news follows the revelation on Saturday that Telstra was close to achieving internal executive sign-off for its own proposal on filtering child pornography from its users. The news represented the first time that the Interpol blacklist had been named in public as a filter focus for ISPs.

Previously, ISPs Telstra, Optus and Primus had been proposing to filter a blacklist of sites containing child pornography developed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The voluntary filtering effort constitutes a limited filtering initiative agreed to by ISPs and the Federal Government in mid-2010, while a review is carried out into the Refused Classification category of content which the Government’s wider mandatory filter project is slated to block.

The Interpol list is believed to have been in use for a number of years, with telcos such as BT, O2 and Virgin having blocked addresses on it from reaching customers for some time. It believed to be a more limited list — with tighter restrictions on how sites are listed — than the ACMA blacklist.

For a site to get onto the list, it is believed that law enforcement agencies in at least two separate jurisdictions have to validate the entry and being illegal and not just objectivable. In addition, the age of children depicted through content on the sites must be younger than 13 years of age, or perceived to be less than 13.

Under the IIA’s scheme, ISPs who use the Interpol list to block access to child pornography would be doing so in accordance with what the IIA today dubbed “a legal request for assistance” under Australia’s existing Telecommunications Act (section 313). Because of this, and unlike the wider mandatory filtering scheme the IIA believes that no new legislation will be required to implement its Interpol-focused framework.

Those who attempt to access blocked sites will be directed to an Interpol page explaining why the site has been blocked, and users will not be tracked or reported under the scheme. Those who believe their site has been blocked unfairly will be able to complain to the Australian Federal Police or Interpol itself and ask for a review.

“The current role of the ACMA in receiving complaints from Australian users will continue,” the IIA said.

The IIA believes that a voluntary code focusing on Interpol will bring Australia into line with Scandinavia and Europe on prohibiting access to child pornography. “While we fundamentally maintain the internet is predominantly safe and useful, we acknowledge community and law enforcement concerns about access to illegal materials online, particularly child pornography and so we are taking these practical steps to help make a positive difference,” Coroneos said this morning.

However, it remains unclear to what extent Australia’s ISPs will actually implement the voluntary code promulgated by the IIA. The nation’s largest ISPs Telstra and Optus have already committed to filtering their traffic for child pornography, and both are now on board with the IIA’s policy.

“Optus can confirm that it will honour its commitment to block child sexual abuse material on the web,” said Optus general manager of regulatory compliance Gary Smith in a statement this afternoon. “Optus will work with the AFP to implement the Interpol ‘Worst of’ list — an approach which blocks the worst of the worst child sexual abuse material.”

“This is a safe, credible and tested approach which has been implemented in other countries with proven results. Optus will work with the IIA and other ISPs to develop a code based on the framework released today by the IIA.”

However, when asked about the issue, this morning both iiNet and Internode reiterated that they would comply with the law when it came to filtering content for their user base. “As always, Internode’s position is that it will continue to do what it is lawfully obliged to do,” a spokesperson for the ISP said. “Throughout the filtering debate, iiNet has maintained it would always cooperate with law enforcement agencies,” a spokesperson for iiNet said.

It is not clear yet whether either will support the IIA model.

Primus, which had initially signed on to support the voluntary filter in mid-2010, has made several posts on Whirlpool over the past several days (now deleted) indicating that it was still considering whether to go ahead with the proposal. Other major ISPs such as TPG have not yet responded to a request for comment.

Image credit: Adrian van Leen, royalty free

Whether it’s an effort to block Google access in China, an effort toward mandatory internet censorship in Australia, or otherwise, these efforts are truly futile.

Read the full story by Simon Hackett at Business Spectator.