Australia’s new PM and the Great Firewall Reef

Australia’s path to Internet filtration has become darker even after the new Prime Minister has taken office.

After replacing the previous and unpopular head of Australia, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, the new PM, has a lot on her plate right now. Besides the challenges of being the first female PM in Australia’s history, and the fact that the religious right is on the attack after she openly expressed her atheism, the debate on Australian Internet filtration seems to get only more complex each day, and she is providing no new hope for Internet rights activists, and freedom watchdogs.

Under former Prime Minister Rudd’s administration, Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications, and the Digital Economy, was responsible for pressing forward a movement to create an Internet filter for the nation in order to sift out “restricted classification” content from the Internet.

Their system, dubbed by some as the “Great Firewall Reef”, would be a filter implemented by the ISP that would block sites based off a government-issued blacklist. The government has not publicly revealed which specific sites would be on this blacklist, but alludes instead to the “usual suspects” such as sites depicting sexual violence, drug use, child abuse, extreme sexual practices (read: bestiality), etc.

Considering Australia’s long-standing tradition as a bastion of substantial personal liberties and progressive sociopolitical posture, the threat of Internet censorship is sharp stab against much of the nation’s image.

And this threat is a real one.

Closed-system trials of the filter took place in 2008 and brought with it results that are all too typical with these types of broad Internet filters. The weaknesses were overwhelming; slowdowns for all Internet users were rampant, and the filters themselves had substantial errors of either over-filtering or missing key, targeted content. Then, in 2009, there was an opt-in trial of the system, but results remained highly unsatisfactory as many people refused to participate and many who did ultimately chose to exit the trial.

With technical difficulties accruing and political pressure adding with each day (from both within Australia and abroad), the policymakers were put in a tricky situation as to the future of the bill. With the next Australian election being held no later than April, 2011, but predicted to be called this Fall, there was substantial talk of pushing off the legislation until after the election. This was due to a delay built into the proposed law that would have the implementation of the filters take place 12 months after the law is passed. The fear was that the bill would have passed earlier this year, and the filters would have started in the middle of upcoming political campaigning. Citizens’ Internet speeds would then get slower, overblockages may occur, and then an anti-governmental/anti-Labor Party stance may creep in at the worst possible time for the party.

And this kind of political side-stepping is supposed to boost governmental support?

With this turmoil continuing, and more inter-party debates burning ahead on a wide range of topics, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, stepped down amid the negative pressures. His replacement, former Minister of Education and Deputy PM Julia Gillard, took the reigns.

Her outlook on the issue of Internet filtration and censorship remained a mystery until today.

Gillard was originally quite reticent concerning the topic of Internet policy, and many were simply left to rote speculation as to where she would stand on the issue. Her relationship with Senator Conroy was uncertain, and many hoped she would swap him out with Labor Senator Kate Lundy. Given her more notable “tech-savviness”, those concerned with the legislation felt more comfortable with her pulling the strings. Alas, Conroy remains in his position, and the Prime Minister has expressed nothing but support for his leadership around the issue.

Today, in an interview (A transcript can be seen here) with ABC Darwin, the rest of her views on the issue emerged.

It seems the new Prime Minister is just as enthusiastic as the previous about having a mandated government block of “restricted classification” materials online. In response to her views on the topic, she had this to say.

“Well look, I know that there is some concern here, and I believe that the Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, has been trying to work through to get a resolution, and I think the competing tensions are we obviously want, you know, a fast Internet that meets people’s needs, that’s why we’re rolling out the National Broadband. We’re committed to it, obviously Tony Abbott’s committed to taking it away. But there’s also a set of concerns about the dark side of the new technology, if I can use that expression, and, you know, clearly you can’t walk into a cinema in Australia and see certain things and we shouldn’t on the Internet be able to access those things either. So, Stephen Conroy is working to get this in the right shape.”

Besides a slight political side-stepping of the issue in order to highlight the broadband initiatives, her overly simplistic analogy to the Internet being like a cinema is almost as ignorant as the famed “Internet as a series of tubes” reference from American Senator Ted Stevens.

She then continued after being asked what she felt of the comparison between the proposed filter, and China’s harsh Internet censorship policies.

“Look, I’m happy with the policy aim, and the policy aim is, you know, if there are images of child abuse, child pornography, they are not legal in our cinemas. You would not be able to go to the movies and watch that, and you shouldn’t. I mean, no-one should want to see that, but you’re not able to go to the movies and see those kinds of things. Why should you be able to see them on the Internet? I think that that’s the kind of, you know, moral, ethical question at the heart of this.

But I understand that there’s a set of concerns about, technical concerns about Internet speed, and also concerns that somehow this accidentally doesn’t move into taking away legitimate use of the Internet, and it’s not my intention that we in any way jeopardise legitimate use of the Internet, but I think all of would share repulsion for some of the things that can be accessed through the Internet.”

Child pornography is a serious issue. There is neither doubt nor argument of this. Politicians cling to it though when they understand nothing else of the complexity of their Internet policy challenges. By ignorantly relying on that argument, hoping to garner support for the policy (now her policy) by giving everyone a common enemy, Gillard has fallen into the same pitfall that many politicians before her have done. Putting up a filter does not help stop the pornography and the exploitation of children. Every filter can, and has been circumvented, and the people who want use the Internet for nefarious purposes will continue to do so regardless of what isolating walls are placed online. If Gillard wants to stop child pornography, history thus far has proven that she’ll need to go about it a different way. And if she wants to seem as if she actually understands the complexity and challenges of Internet filtration, she needs a better platform.

If the law is put in place, it will be one of the first times that secular, non-authoritarian state has elected to adopt a method of government Internet filtration, and this action may have unforeseen consequences. Would other relatively “free” nations follow suit, or would this be a completely isolated event that will merely rally open Internet activists to prevent this type of poor policy making elsewhere? It is hard to tell at this point, but the best anyone can hope for is a transparent and fair process that represents the best interests and desires of Australia’s citizens.