Click any of the facts below for more information.
The Australian Government have proposed a mandatory internet filter which requires your internet service provider (ISP) to monitor all web pages you browse. The filter would then block any pages you request which are found on its banned web page list. The pages on this list have been rated as Refused Classification (RC) by the National Classification Board (NCB).
To rate these pages the NCB use a set of guidelines—set by the Government—which broadly define what type of things they should consider RC content. The types of content that the Government likes to point out is RC are child pornography, sexual violence, bestiality and instructions on terrorism. You are not allowed to legally view or own any of these in Australia.
But the RC rating extends further into areas such as euthanasia, safe drug use, some controversial films and R-rated computer games which are legal in the other countries. It is legal to own this material, you just can't buy it in a bookstore or shop. The filter would block access to any web pages which describe or display this type of content.
The Government is doing this in the name of greater internet safety for families. Outlined below are reasons why this will not be the result of the filter and some potential harm and side effects which it may cause.
Here are some of the problems and effects of this proposed filter.
Click any of the facts below for more information.
Most parents would primarily like to limit or block their child's access to hardcore pornography. Given the filter only blocks Refused Classification material, which does not include X-rated material, the filter will do nothing to protect children from this content.
It is widely accepted in law enforcement circles that most child abuse material is obtained and trafficked using means other than the open Internet. Technologies such as peer-to-peer networks, secure forums and newsgroups, all of which the filter will do nothing to block. This means that one of the major goals of the filter will be a complete failure.
There is a known risk that children can be contacted by online predators in places like chat rooms and forums. The filter would not monitor or block these types of channels.
Children need to be taught about these risks and avoid talking to strangers while on the Internet. There are several tips to avoiding bad encounters, such as refusing contact and not giving out any personal details online. The same advice applies in the real world. Stranger danger must be taught to all children to avoid potential dangers.
It maybe helpful to watch this introductory video to online safety. Some other online resources are available:
- Raising Children
- Think U Know - School education program
- Stay Smart Online - Cyber security information
The filter itself will be very easy to bypass for most pages that are on the banned list. If your child was to stumble on or be emailed a link to such a web page, it will be a simple matter of appending a little bit of extra info on the end of the URL to get to it.
It is not uncommon for teenagers to be exposed to such explicit material by a friend emailing a link to them. It would be only a matter of the person sending the link to append the necessary extra info to allow the recipient to see the content, without having direct knowledge of how to bypass the filter themselves.
In cases when manipulating the URL won't bypass the filter, there are several other slightly more detailed methods available. No matter the means, it will be legal to bypass the filter and legal to share the methods of doing so. Neither will attract any sort of penalty or be considered a crime.
Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.
Albert Einstein
There are justified fears amongst many people in the social and welfare sector[1] that by the Government promoting the filter as a way to increase internet safety, it will do the opposite in some cases.
If parents believe the Internet is safe once the filter is in place, they may reduce or stop the monitoring of their children's internet usage. If this were the case, the remaining dangers on the Internet would become of even greater risk given the child has less or no supervision.
[1] Prof. Catharine Lumby, UNSW. Untangling the Net. Key findings, pg ii (3rd page).
There are certainly many things on the Internet that no reasonable adult would want to be accessible. There are however some topics to be blocked by the filter which are of a much more controversial nature. Content on these topics is not illegal and could be legally owned (but not distributed).
Some examples of these topics are instructions on euthanasia and safe drug injection. While perhaps not everyday issues, they are relevant to ten of thousands of Australians, if not more. Once the filter is in place this content could not be viewed anywhere, by anyone, unless the bypass methods are known. This is despite there still being an open debate on the right to access such material.
With the increasing reliance on the Internet as the single resource for information, there would be no unrestricted source of information to educate yourself about these issues in depth. If there is nowhere to become more informed on these topics then the debate is completely stifled, even though the public could have one day found that they should be legal.
The list of web pages on the banned list will be secret and only the NCB will have access to it. This poses some fears of unchecked Government censorship. Exactly what and why a URL ended up on the list would never be known by the public.
The Government would like to think it can be a major force for internet safety. But the reality is that parents and teachers will always be the front line in educating and keeping children safe from harm when using the Internet.
While there are certainly dangers, it's important to remember that there is a wealth of healthy, entertaining and educational content on the Internet. It will be a matter of schools and parents adjusting to its presence and increasing usage within the home.
After all, many if not most children will grow to have jobs centred on the usage and development of Internet tools and content.
The Government must be honest with the Australian public and either demonstrate any possible real world increase in internet safety, or admit that it is a very weak censorship device. As it stands, the only real effect would be to dramatically complicate the Internet infrastructure, put some children at greater risk and block pages on controversial issues.
