Australia is on the verge of passing a law that would restrict porn and other "offensive" content on the Internet and levy fines on ISPs that fail to respond to takedown orders.
While free-speech activists rally against the Online Services Bill, and ISPs bemoan what they say is unenforceable, the bill's supporters say it's about time someone made an effort to limit access to Net porn.
Senator Richard Alston, Australia's minister for communications, information technology, and the arts, authored the controversial bill. Alston, in Silicon Valley on a trade mission, spoke with Wired News about the proposed law, which he said has been a "non-issue" on his trip.
Wired News: Your legislation is being decried by Australian activists and Internet users worldwide as a threat to free speech on the Internet. Is it?
Richard Alston: There are always going to be constraints on crying fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, this is no more than an attempt to limit access to materials that [most] of the adult population regard as either illegal or highly undesirable. There is no reason, in principle, why that shouldn't apply to any medium. The real issue here is, to what extent is it practical given the size of the Internet?
The starting point [for critics] is to say "We shouldn't even try." And I don't hear that at all from the [Internet] industry itself, which has actually tried to develop practical tools to deal with this issue now for some years.
[Free speech critics of the bill and] activists have consistently declined to get down to the details, but rather have engaged in an exchange of prejudices.
There are significant differences between the US First Amendment approach and the heavy-handed initiatives that came in the Communications Decency Act. That's a long way away from what we've got in mind, which is eventually an industry-driven kind of code of practices, which encourages [ISPs] to block material that has been complained about.
If industry doesn't get those codes of practices right, then there might be a role for us to play -- an arrangement to have the authorities take action if the industry doesn't.
WN: What are those codes of practice? How does the Internet industry go about carrying out that code?
Alston: We prescribe the classification regime so they understand the benchmark. But from there on, we are entirely agnostic about the means that they apply. So we are very deliberately not going technology specific, not mandating any particular solutions, but simply saying "You work it out in the best ways in which you can tackle the problem." That seems to us to be a very flexible approach that allows the industry to respond to new technology developments.
WN: The Internet service providers themselves are among those protesting the legislation most loudly. Censorship issues aside, isn't this a financial and legal burden unduly placed on the ISPs?
Alston: There are over 630 ISPs in Australia and they vary enormously. Most of the major ones already have proxy servers because of the very significant additional costs incurred in having to access services on the Net without caching all the material in Australia.
It's got to be a matter of ISPs and their Internetworks to take whatever action is appropriate. It might be the large ones selling [blocking] services to the smaller ones. And there will be the opportunity for ISPs to get blanket exemptions. Schools, for example, that already have their [blocking] technologies may be excluded from the scheme altogether. It's quite possible that you could find individual users getting exemptions. The ISP would not have to take any action on the request of a particular user.
WN: What about mom-and-pop ISPs?
Alston: There are a lot of those and the obligations on them will be correspondingly [light], because they've only got to observe what's technologically favorable and commercially [feasible].
WN: So if they make their best effort to perform blocking services, but still fail to block some percentage of the targeted content, then they're legally OK?
Alston: If they're doing their best, that's right. If they're simply turning a blind eye, then they're not complying with the law. But we've never pretended that you're going to get 100 percent compliance.
And I know that a lot of the criticism proceeds on the basis that we might as well [ban] all of them, because some people can find a way around it. Now, in most other areas of legislation you don't get total compliance, whether it's for the criminal code or the riot traffic act or anti-smuggling, or drug running, or whatever it is. You do your best. The community would expect us to do our best, rather than say, well, a few smarties can find a way around. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to protect mainstream Australia.
WN: Critics of filtering techniques say that you split hairs and inevitably catch so much content in the Net not meant to be caught.
Alston: The basis isn't going to be sort of blindly blocking sites because of the appearance of particular keywords. This is going to be a matter of a complaint made about a particular site, which will then be investigated to see if there's a reason [to block it]. It's a case-by-case analysis.
WN: Then all blocked content would first require human review?
Alston: Not necessarily. Some of the technologies I've been told about recently involve what are called "guessing engines," which enable you to detect the characteristics of [content] without actually inspecting the site. And that gives you a very high level of probability about pornography, which has a number of unique characteristics. So it certainly doesn't have to be keyword-driven. You're able to do a hell of a lot mechanically.
WN: But even search engines still struggle to present relevant results. The filtering technology you describe is certainly not evident on the Net today, is it?
Alston: [A "guessing engine"] simply raises a high level of probability, and then you actually visit the particular site. In other words, you don't say because the site is thrown up by a guessing engine or a keyword search that then it's automatically banned without checking what's on them.
WN: That brings us back to the human resources issue. Won't this take a Herculean effort?
Alston: Well, I suspect that the bulk of the offensive services will be international and subscription-based. They'll be readily identified.
I don't think you can be perfect. If you can keep out the bulk of it, [then] by a reasonable measure maybe you can look at it as a success. If we can get the Net to a point where people don't accidentally stumble across the sites they're not looking for, and those who are [looking] actually have to make a reasonably determined effort, then I think we're probably halfway there.
WN: Many are going to say that's a pipe dream, taking that kind of control over Internet content.
Alston: Well, I think it will continue to evolve. There's no exceptional solution to any of this. That's why you have a test which operates all the way through. Different solutions may get adopted as time goes by.
WN: Then people worried that important, needed information might be blocked can rest assured?
Alston: If it's contained on a site, I can't see how that site can be blocked. Because it's only after the complaint's been made and investigated that the action would have to be taken. If the site is actually having a [legitimate] purpose then there would be no basis for blocking it.
WN: A human being would make that decision?
Alston: The broadcasting authority [which regulates film and TV content] would.
WN: Critics say the solution to this problem is to educate parents on how to control what their kids see.
Alston: Well, that's the ultimate pipe dream. [Education] is important and we'll certainly be encouraging [it] as much as possible. But at the end of the day, the reality is that there is a significant percentage of the population that is not only computer illiterate but profoundly uncomfortable with the technology. Kids can be on the Net for hours on end before their parents come home. And we just don't think that they're doing much more than turning a blind eye.
The fact of the matter is that hard pornography is something we do ban in other mediums. Generally speaking, [this is not just about] the protection of children. We ban the publication of illegal materials.
WN: Is your stance putting your Silicon Valley trade mission at risk? You've been seeking support for Australian companies.
Alston: In about eight appointments, this issue has been raised by one company only. That's Yahoo. And they generally endorsed what we were doing. They weren't aware of the detail until I explained it to them in general comments. I said that we're tackling a serious problem which I think they recognize will be a significant inhibitor to the actual growth of the Internet.
Labels: australia, porn block
Resolutions, Meeting Agenda, Minutes of Board Meeting and other pertinent information regarding the transparent conduct of the board are posted here for ready reference
