Conroy gets easy out on filter

Conroy gets easy out on filter

Summary: The Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC) suggestion of only filtering sub-categories of content classified as "prohibited" gives Communications Minister Stephen Conroy a nice out for his controversial policy.

SHARE:

The Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC) suggestion of only filtering sub-categories of content classified as "prohibited" gives Communications Minister Stephen Conroy a nice out for his controversial policy.

The ALRC yesterday released its lengthy review into the classification system, bringing attention back to the Labor government's controversial mandatory internet filter for all "refused classification" (RC) content.

Conroy delayed the implementation of his government's policy to force internet service providers (ISPs) to filter out certain blacklisted URLs until the review of refused classification (the type of content that would be on the blacklist) could be completed.

The review said that RC should be renamed as "prohibited" content, and that the scope of this classification should potentially be narrowed to exclude certain types of crime and sexual fetishes.

The ALRC also recommended that should an internet filter be brought in, given the mass amounts of content available online it may be more prudent for the government to only block a sub-category of prohibited content, like child-abuse material.

This one suggestion gives Conroy a free ticket to implement a filter, but one that's no different to the Interpol filter currently in place with Telstra and Optus. These companies voluntarily began blocking sites on Interpol's blacklist of the "worst of the worst" child-abuse material online.

Although there was a bit of controversy when the filters were implemented, they went largely unnoticed, even though Telstra blocked 84,000 attempts to visit these websites in just three months.

It wouldn't be too difficult for Conroy to use the ALRC's findings and evidence of the success of the voluntary filter to bring about milder legislation, forcing reluctant ISPs — like iiNet and Internode — to filter an Interpol-like blacklist administered by the new regulator suggested in the report.

The government was really too brash when it first announced its filter policy in 2009, and, after the public outcry, the government has been slowly backing away ever since. Although Conroy has remained committed to implementing the filter, he's had a bit of a breather since the launch of the review, but it's now back in his hands.

The signs are there that this may be his plan, too. Earlier this week, when asked about the government's internet-filter policy, Conroy pointed to the success of the voluntary filter, and how it has had no impact on internet services.

So I won't be surprised if we soon see a much more watered-down plan brought in based on these recommendations, but, given the opposition by the Coalition and the Greens to the original legislation, if they remain opposed to the new version of the legislation, the government will need to rely on the support of independent MPs in order to secure passage through the lower house, and it would be unlikely to pass the upper house if the Coalition and the Greens vote against it.

Updated at 2:29pm, 2 March 2012: Removed Primus from filter list.

Topics: Censorship, Government AU, Telcos

About

Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

9 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • How much public money was wasted so Conroy can massage his bruised ego and leave us in a state we were already in?
    Pachanga-4184c
  • Why set up a new agency to administer? Why not just send any newly discovered sites across to Interpol for them to maintain?
    arowell
  • No. Nonononono. Make it clear that we do not want a filter of ANY sort brought in. You want to catch the kiddie fiddlers, DO YOUR DAMN JOB RIGHT.
    Hyperion09
  • The 84,000 hits on the Telstra voluntary filter are meaningless they could have been generated by a crawler or a botnet. That number of hits on about 400 domains which are very obscure to say the least is doubtful, especially considering the majority of child abuse material is never posted on the world wide web.

    Considering that the states also have a say in censorship/classification in Australia I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for a quick decision from Conroy. His recent remarks seem to indicate he is happy with the current voluntary Interpol filter but unfortunately you can never be sure with this Communications Minister.
    brownbear1947
  • Start using a VPN and stop **** and moaning. Problem solved.
    Jingles-8366c
    • The annoyance with your suggestion is the extra cost you have to go to with it.

      What gets me with the filter is the way that it also kicks innocent sites off the net.
      greg-w-h
  • If the intention of the watered-down filter is to just block child-abuse material and absolutely notihing else, I don't really have a problem with that.
    rayjaymor
  • Dictator Conroy caused a huge collapse in support for Labor pre last election.
    Never underestimate the strength of social media.

    Labor and their big brother approach to censorship may work in supressed countries such as China, Iran and North Korea but AUstralians will not stand for it!!
    Come next election tell these enemies of the internet where to go!!
    chris868
  • What is the point of a filter when it is laughably easy to bypass it? Like all latter day laws, all it does is affect those who dont know HOW to bypass it and for those who WANT to bypass it, they either already know or go to Google and you will find out how in seconds.

    Honestly, Conroy - BUY A CLUE!
    greg-w-h