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

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: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.