Australia's Censored URL List Remains Hidden

kinsalis writes: "There is an article about the Electronic Frontiers Australia's failed attempt to have access to a list of sites which where deemed worth of censorship under Australian Internet censorship law. While it stands to reason that most of the sites would be child pornography, what is to stop someone slipping in any old url if no one can check the list?"

Comments

I can see how this will be misused

[Tiado]

If the censorship lists are to be kept secret, how can the Australian people know that there aren't sites or pages being put up because they offer a differing political view of something done by governments?

I can imagine that a list like this can (and probably will) be misused by the Australian Government in order to block the sites of certain people or organizations that dare to question the government, especially during political campaigns like elections.

Now I live in Canada and I can see some examples of attempted censorship by our news and media because they question the ethics of the polictial party currently in power.

EFA Board Members

[Anonymous Coward]

Having never heard of this group before now i decided to check them out

Executive Director Irene Graham
Chair Kimberley Heitman
Vice-Chair Greg Taylor
Secretary/Treasurer Dale Clapperton
General Board Members Roger Clarke
Nick Ellsmore
Amit Khanna
Richard Rannard
Craig Small
Danny Yee

10 years in IT and i have never heard of any of these people - any other aussie /. able to comment ?

Re:How does the censorship work?

[Brissie_lad]

The censorship only applies to sites hosted in Australia. They can order an ISP/hosting company to remove a site once a complaint has been recieved and the ABA has investigated and determined that the content is illegal. But they don't want us to know what has been removed and why. And for the information of US /.'ers we don't have any 'freedom of speach' or 'bill of rights' laws down here.

The Facts

[q-soe]

Looking past the EFA post (an organisation that i have never heard of an have never done anything that I can find) the entire information regarding this storm in a tea cup can be found on the ABA site

The Regulations explained

And here it discusses the type of information blocked...

What is prohibited Internet content? The co-regulatory scheme covers content on World Wide Web sites, Usenet newsgroups and other types of stored information that can be accessed over the Internet. Ordinary email, chat and other content that is accessed in real time (for example, some types of streamed audiovisual content) are not covered by the scheme. Under the Act, the following categories of Internet content are prohibited: * Any Internet content that is classified RC or X by the OFL Classification Board (PDF file - 65k). This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality and material containing excessive violence or sexual violence. * Content hosted in Australia which is classified R (PDF file - 65k) and not subject to a restricted access system. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes. Further information about the types of content covered by the scheme is in our complaints section. Internet content that has not been classified but which, if classified, would be prohibited content is regarded as potential prohibited content and is dealt with in a similar to prohibited content. Unless the content is in one of the above categories, the ABA cannot take action over Internet content that you simply don't like or do not agree with. In such cases, you should raise your concerns directly with the operators of the site in question.

And of course this forms part of the NON MANDATORY code of practice Found Here which states

While these Codes are not mandatory, the Broadcasting Services Act provides that once the ABA directs an ISP or content host to comply with a registered code, they must then do so. This is similar to other codes currently operating in the telecommunications industry and forms the practical operation of what is known as 'co-regulation'.

So basically the code is only enforced when you have done something worthy of enforcement - perhaps like hosting kiddie porn sites ?

So what we have is an orginisation who is trying to make a name for itself (having no actual cases to fight in australia aside from this) by filing a freedom of information request that they no doubt knew would fail and then when it does and the press release hits the news getting one of their members to post a story here....

Maybe im cynical but there is no story here that i can see ?

Re:The Facts

[justin.warren]

Firstly, disclosure: I am a member of EFA.

That said, I'm disappointed in the quality of responses to this article here on slashdot. Had I known, I'd have posted a link to EFA's press release on this issue earlier:
http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR020613.html

Now, the problem here is that EFA attempted to get access to the blocklist being implemented by the ABA by using the Freedom of Information Act. Not the content, just the blocklist. In much the same way that censorware publishers won't allow anyone to view their blocklists, the AAT refused, but cites highly suspects reasons, to wit:

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal yesterday ruled that the Commonwealth Government's Internet censorship regime would be ineffective if it did not operate under a veil of secrecy, unlike offline censorship laws.

[...]

Therefore, the AAT ruled that the information requested by EFA was exempt from disclosure on the ground that "disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct" of the ABA's operations (s.40(1)(d) of the FOI Act) and that the public interest in disclosure (s.40(2)) was outweighed by the adverse effect on the ABA's operations they considered would result from disclosure.

So, basically, they were saying that if people were able to see what was being blocked, the system wouldn't work. Excuse me? What sort of dodgy system is that? If it can't work with disclosure of the blocklist, then I would say the system is fundamentally flawed. Indeed, that's what EFA and numerous others were saying when this system was first proposed. Now that those concerns have been borne out, will the system be scrapped? No, it will continue to operate under a veil of secrecy, wasting my tax dollars on something that is inherently broken.

That is the problem the EFA, and I, have with this thing. That is the reason we're unimpressed with this decision.

Re:How does the censorship work?

[chamenos]

I'm living in Singapore, and when net access started becoming more and more common, proxy servers were implemented to censor certain porn sites like penthouse, etc.

For the most part, I don't really notice sites that are blocked, and it certainly doesn't do an effective job. Its most probably just lip service to "concerned parents" as usual, as is the case in Australia which the parent post suggests.

As a sidenote, all ISPs in Singapore require the use of proxy servers, except the SCV (Singapore Cable Vision) cable service, which does not block any sites.

A fuss was kicked up about it a few years ago, but after a while it died down and if I'm not wrong, sites are still not blocked through the cable service. Once the public outcry died out, so did any efforts to block those sites.

What's more, SCV is one of the most widely used broadband services, next to other ISPs that provide ADSL. Reason being, most people living in public housing, subscribe to the cable service as all public housing flats have cable access points. It was only recently that there were complaints about slow access due to the large amount of new subscribers to the SCV cable service, so its not as if SCV users make up a small percentage of net users, which would otherwise warrant the lack of censorship.

It just enforces my belief that the blocking of websites was merely just done just to please "concerned parents" because if they were really concerned, they would have made an effort to require SCV to filter out whatever sites the rest of the ISPs were filtering.

So long as the "concerned parents" (which make up the majority of voters) are happy, no one really cares. Internet censorship is one of many stupid laws that concerned parent voters have helped put in place, and this is not just in Singapore, I believe.

Re:Speaking as an Australian

[Anthony]

Have never heard of this group anywhere but slashdot. The URL list is indeed kept hidden but the average man in the street is not in the least bit interested in it - i have never come across a site that i cannot get to and from memory the submission is voluntary.

Never heard of EFA? You must be new to the Internet in Australia. Many of us in Australia in a number of organisations and Political parties have banged our head up against the brick wall that is Richard Alston, John Howard and Brian Harradine to get Australia's naive censorhip laws stopped/repealed/fixed. You never saw the "Global Village Idiot" Campaign? The EFA was at the forefront of this campaign. A last minute semi-sensible implimentation was nutted out with the IIA at the 11th hour(see URL ref below)

A country has a right to prohibit the import or availity of certainf thibgs, publcations, movies, pictures, magazines etc - no one will argue that the prohibition of kiddie porn mags is a bad thing (no one i wont shoot on sight will argue it anyway....) but they will argue about this mythical list that may not even exist (no one has ever actually seen it)

The IIA Code of Practice shows that Overseas URLs are not blocked but can become the subject of investigation with cooperation of the relevant overseas authorities. It is the list of sites taken down that is the subject of the secrecy. It is absolute stupidity that the names and description of the sites are not published. The URLs are immaterial. Democracy requires transparency in decision-making, not this secrecy.

The ABA can issue takedown notices to Australian-hosted sites that fail the Censorship guidelines. This just means the site often goes overseas. If the Government says that the list will direct people to disgusting sites, then that means that the takedown of Australian content just caused a relocation of the content. The Overseas Content reported list is still important, however they don't need to quote URLs here either.

Basically i see this as a storm in a teacup and im sure other aussies feel the same way.

I think you should speak on behalf of yourself and leave it up to others to express what they think and say.

Re:How does the censorship work?

[Slurpee]

No effect at all.

Have worked with ISPs in Oz for 5 years.

There is no censorship in place. In any way, shape or form.

It is not mandatory, and not followed.

Re:How does the censorship work?

[Charm]

Censorship in Australia is like the wearing of seatbelts in America. It is not mandatory. By law we are meant to use filtering software. But there is no enforcement of that law.

So basically the mythical blacklist exists but can do nothing to us. No one ever checks that the filtering software is on.

Normally ISPs are meant to use filtering software but consumers can opt out of it if they use their own filters. There are no real approved filters, none that I know of. The only filter I use is my mind. Mainly to watch out for the link traps on ./

The reason this is happening is the government is too gutless to legislate real laws. Instead it trys to appease the conservatives with laws that sound good on paper but don't work in reality. In particular this man is responsible

Brian Harradine, Senator for Tasmania

Sen Harradine is one of those people who hold power in the senate. Because he is not with either of the major factions they need to bribe him with his legislation to get their legislation passed. Basically he is not a problem because the major political parties Labour and Liberal dance around his silly issues.

Here is some of Harradine's first speech.

I was committed to uplifting the poor, to championing the cause of the underprivileged - not only in this country but also in the developing countries to our near north - and to representing the aspirations of the workers.

And

Why was all that pressure exercised? Because almost 10 years ago I declared that the friends of the communists were attempting to silence me. The friends of the communists have never silenced me and I do not intend to be silenced by them in this chamber.

I don't live in his electorate.

Re:There is NO censorship in Australia

[jamie]

"We do NOT, I repeat DO NOT have any internet censorship in Australia."

I contacted Irene Graham of Electronic Frontiers Australia about this, to see if she had any comment. She did. And she invited me to quote from her email, so I will:

Utter nonsense. Refer: The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999

Under the above Commonwealth law, "prohibited content" on Australian sites is text and images classified R18+, or X (non violent sexually explicit activity between consenting adults) and RC (refused classification). Content that has been banned/taken down from Australian sites, under that censorship law, in the past two years and half years includes material that is legally available offline - that adults can see at the cinema, rent on video and buy in magazines at the local shop.

Under that law, when the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) finds "prohibited content" hosted in Australia, the ABA issues a take-down notice to the ISP or Internet content host, who has 24 hours to take the content down. If they don't, they are subject to a fine of AU$5500 for individuals or AU$27500 for corporations, for each day during which the failure to take the content down continues. The ABA also notifies police when they consider the content is "sufficiently serious".

When the ABA finds "prohibited content" hosted on sites _outside_ Australia, they notify commercial censorware providers of the material with the intent of it being put on the censorware blacklist. (Use of censorware is *not* mandatory). This is completely different from what happens when "prohibited content" is found on Australian sites. Content on Australian sites is taken down/banned.

In addition, some Australian States and Territories have had Internet censorship laws since 1996 (e.g. Victoria, Western Australia and Northern Territory) that include jail terms or fines under criminal law applicable to Net users for making available online material that is deemed unsuitable for persons under 18 years, etc. The wording of these State/Territory laws varies, as does what is prohibited and in what circumstances. Further, in South Australia a similar Internet censorship law is before the Parliament and likely to be voted on in July.

Regards
Irene
Executive Director, EFA.
http://www.efa.org.au/

Electronic Frontiers Australia

[danny]

There are quite a surprising number of people posting saying they've never heard of EFA - and even some attacks on our activities and the composition of the board.

I find this somewhat odd because Slashdot has run quite a few stories referencing EFA media releases and other materials. And if anyone actually went looking for us, we should be pretty easy to find - if you put "censorship Australia" into Google (as of 19 June 2002), the top six results consist of EFA pages and the personal pages of two EFA board members. Heck, even on a search as general as "internet censorship", EFA and EFA board members manage two of the top ten results!

Anyway, if you want to know what we do (and who we are), that's all on our web site.

Danny (EFA board member).

False "Facts"

[danny]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. People have been forced by ABA take-down notices to remove R-rated content from web sites. To be "not prohibited" under the law, content on an open web site has to be MA-rated.

MA-rated content (from the the Office of Film and Literature Classification's own guidelines):

• can only "imply" sexual activity
• can't include "gratuious" coarse language that is "very strong, aggressive or detailed"
• can't contain depictions of violence that are "high impact" unless they are infrequent and not "prolonged or gratuitous"
• can only treat "adult themes" (such as suicide and marital difficulties) if it's done discreetly or at low intensity.

I think that's enough to give the idea. It may also be useful to think of films that are R-rated in Australia and hence would, if put online, be subject to takedown notices (if there was a complaint about them): Hannibal, Apocalypse Now, The Exorcist, The Godfather, Lolita, Mad Max, ... The IMDB lists 827 films that are R-rated in Australia.

Danny.

Re:There is NO censorship in Australia

[starduste]

To clarify, it works like this:

There are two websites, hosting basically the same content: rape porn - one hosted here in Australia, another overseas. There are two sets of teenagers viewing the said sites. Both parents come home, and are horrified to see what their child is viewing. Both write in to the ABA about their disgust of the site.

The ABA reviews the site, and because rape is illegal, the sites are both classified RC - or in other words, refused classification. The ABA than can only do something about the site hosted in Australia, with a cease and desist type letter. In no way can access to sites overseas be restricted.