Internet Filters?
There has been a lot of press lately surrounding our government’s intent on implementing compulsory Internet filters at the ISP level. The proposed “Clean Feed” scheme would mean government regulated filters on every Australian Internet provider, granting the government complete power over what Australian Internet users can view online.
Given that the stated intent of this scheme is to prevent access to illegal content, such as child pornography and violent material, and given that various Christian groups are some of the most vocal supporters of the scheme, it would seem like something to get behind and promote.
I’m very much opposed to the planned filters however, and here are some of the reasons why:
1. Illegal content is shared almost exclusively through peer-to-peer systems such as Bittorrent and Limewire, these channels cannot be monitored by the proposed web-only filters.
2. Internet filters will always have false negatives, ie blocking content which looks suspicious to the filter but is in fact completely innocent, legal, and innocuous.
3. Any internet filter can be bypassed without much effort by your average teenager, let alone someone conducting illegal activity online.
4. Internet speed takes a huge speed hit from being filtered at an ISP level, the speed hit being proportionate to the accuracy of the filter. The more accurate the filter the more it will slow down a connection.
I’m only iterating what a lot of network and Internet experts are saying, I’ve yet to find one that believes proposed filters will do anything but cripple our Internet without offering the proposed benefits.
If you’re interested in reading up about this, here are some links to get you started.
Have you heard about this before? What are your thoughts on the proposed filtering scheme? I’d love to know what you’re thinking, especially if you disagree with my conclusion.
When you comment, please keep these guidelines in mind. You can find an explanation of our commenting guidelines here.
Stay connected by subscribing to our RSS or email feed! Or print this post.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I like the idea of government sponsored optional filtering, but I’m seriously concerned with the scheme as you describe it. How long do you think it would be before Christian “hate” sites would be shut down under the scheme?
As always, there’s a tension between protecting free speech (which is *crucial*) and protecting citizens from legitimately evil content.
End-user Internet filters are the most configurable and robust, you previously covered the NetAlert project which I believe to be a great initiative.
Definitely in agreement over the need to protect people from evil content, I just believe this initiative is a dangerous and irrelevant one when it comes to doing that.
Accountability and monitoring are far more effective than any filter when it comes to the Internet.
Wouldn’t all four points above apply just as much to end-user Internet filters?
At least if it was done at the ISP’s it would presumably be harder to get around. (Assuming they block overseas proxy’s and things…)
The proposed filter would be a lot less restrictive then the ones in use by China for example, so proxies won’t be blocked from what I’ve read.
The stated goal is good, righteous even, but the proposed means aren’t going to achieve the stated goals, they might even make it easier to find child pornography by people using the blacklist as a roadmap!
I have no problem with filters in themselves, but making them compulsory and at an ISP level is the danger. If anyone wishes to filter out any content on the Internet, the government already makes provision for doing so.
Sorry didn’t see this post.
I would agree with Farid. I really think it’s unnecessary and leads to more harm then good.