Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Credit Dr Ron/flickr

Senator Conroy,

Your attack on fundamental human freedoms through the introduction of a mandatory Internet filtering scheme demonstrates not only an abject perversion of the principles of the labour movement but also a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the issues at hand.

There are three main areas of concern underlying the protest we lodge herein. These are;

* the technical, in that the scheme will not achieve its goals, despite reducing the social value of existing technologies;

* the moral, in that removing the ability of the individual to decide to act illegally is akin to persecuting thought crime, and denudes the individual of their freedom to choose and sculpt their own identity; and

* the social, in that the imposition of mandatory government censorship of arbitrary content (with or without full public disclosure of the nature and source of that content) runs counter to the founding tenets of our liberal democracy, including the assumed protections of freedoms of communication and press.

To deal with the simplest first – in purely technical terms the Internet Filtering Scheme is infeasible. Despite the somewhat ambivalent conclusions of the recent Enex report, it is quite clear all of the proposed filtering solutions are not adequate to the task. The report itself makes this clear, stating that while the sites blacklisted were effectively blocked, any competent user would have little difficulty in bypassing the filter, and the proposed solutions placed great strain on our Internet infrastructure.

However, not only can the information presented by Enex be seen as supporting the case against the scheme, but the report was manifestly inadequate in terms of measuring the viability of any of the proposed options. There are several major objections to its findings on methodological grounds, including that: the final report document is ambiguous and lacks a great deal of necessary information, leading to significant difficulties determining the accuracy of the findings; the opt-in nature of the trial does not reflect the true nature of the proposed scheme; only one of the nine participating ISPs tested the various filtering technologies on ADSL2+ or higher speeds; the lack of real statistics in participant terms provided in the final report document throws doubt on a number of the performance related findings; the questioning methodology indicates that inferences as to the efficacy of the filtering technology in terms of protecting unwitting Internet users from accessing information regarding ‘sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent’ behaviours are highly flawed; the majority of results from the majority of participants are derived from non-live testing environments rather than live or live-simulation trials, and thus do not accurately reflect real world conditions; and in those few live trials which were performed there was no rigorous attempt made to examine the true efficacy of filters – reliance was placed solely on consumer action and reporting.

It should also be noted, according to the Enex report, Telstra – the largest ISP to test the filter, despite not being a formal part of the trial – found the various filtering solutions it examined were not effective in the case of non-web based protocols such as instant messaging, peer-to-peer or chat rooms. Telstra also reported that heavy traffic sites could overload its trial filtering solution. This is the case for all filters in the pilot. Considering there are over 10,000 adult websites which receive over 50,000 hits per day, a fair portion of which come from Australia, and that google (the highest traffic site in the world) provides easy access to myriad pornographic images, not to mention gambling and other apparently ‘revolting or abhorrent’ behaviours, it seems unlikely any filtering scheme will be able to cope.

Additionally, the report found that any attempt to block people circumventing the restrictions imposed by the filter would lead to a significant degradation of Internet performance. The report states “as a general rule there appears to be a relationship between measures to counter deliberate circumvention and impact on Internet performance, i.e. stronger circumvention prevention measures can result in degradation of Internet performance.”

Not only do the various proposed schemes fail to deliver adequate results in terms of performance, the effect any filter will have on the distribution of illegal materials such as child pornography is negligible. The belief that any significant proportion of child pornography is distributed via open Internet websites (or even closed sites to which specialist Internet crime taskforce members could gain access) is simply wrong. The majority of such media is distributed over point-to-point, or peer-to-peer protocols which will be largely unaffected by any filtering scheme. However, not only do those producers, distributors and consumers of child pornography and other such illegal material not generally use resources affected by this filter to pursue their illegal activities, they also employ software which enables them to mask their activities, such as TOR.

We must, therefore, conclude that not only will the proposed filter be ineffective, it will also reduce the speed and usability of the Internet – depriving it of social value. On technological grounds alone, this is enough to scupper any such plans, and should form the basis of your rejection of any such proposal.

To move on to our second major objection – it must be seen the imposition of an arbitrary morality, as your policy entails, runs counter to the values of our nation as a democracy and of we, the people, as determiners of our own values. You seek to denude the people of Australia of the ability to choose to act illegally. You desire the eradication of freedom of choice (including freedom to take the consequences).  Your purpose is nothing more nor less than the downright degradation of our sentience.

The ability to chose one’s course of action – to not be dictated to – is the right of any capable, rational individual. The only human beings denied the right to self-determination are those incapable of rational thought; undeveloped children, those who are intellectually challenged and those presently without capacity. Denying adults the ability to decide to act illegally denies them the right to sculpt their own identity and to choose to accept the consequences of their actions.

An anonymous commenter on the Sydney Morning Herald Online noted that “[his] daughter sees more porn in the servo, than she does on the Internet.” Surely, Mr Conroy, your double standard in terms of filtering the Internet but imposing no such inescapable restrictions on any other medium demonstrates not only a perfidious hypocrisy but also base and vulgar politik? You are using the irrational public fear of Internet predators, child molestation and novelty to legislate an outmoded moral code. This is beyond your purview – as a Minister it is neither your right nor duty to determine or mandate public values or morality, but rather to protect their rights and freedoms.

At this point it might be raised that the government presently does control the content of media outlets through the imposition of broadcasting and publications laws. This has often been used as a basis for the justification of Internet censorship. However, these cases are most definitely not the same. The various media outlets are both free and able to take action which contravenes the law – they may, if they so desire, distribute illegal material. This may entail punishment, but punishment  entered into through choice. It is neither arbitrary, nor universal. Internet censorship, on the other hand, is predicting crime; disallowing the Internet user from the ability to decide to commit a crime, and thus placing them in quite a different situation from media outlets presently regulated. The proposed mandatory filter is, in effect, instituting a punishment for thought crime – a punishment without trial, evidence or sentencing criteria – a punishment for ‘our own protection’.

From where does this ability to strip away our rights originate? Upon what basis, may we ask, do you found your belief you have the right to legislate social standards of morality, decency and propriety? Who shall judge the ‘revolting’ or ‘abhorrent’ nature of material, and by what authority do they claim the power to govern individual proclivities? Considering your scheme will blacklist a number of otherwise non-illegal, and non-harmful activities (including sites distributing information about euthanasia, pornography involving bondage and sado-masochism, information about illegal drugs, and other such harmless information), you propose not only the ‘protection of children’, but also the removal of social rights.

The imposition of such a scheme is, therefore, patently amoral. It degrades the humanity of any person whom it affects, and serves as the foundation for a nanny-state. On these grounds the scheme must be opposed, and we stand firmly against it. We ask you see sense, and do the same.

To address our third major concern, we turn to you. You state, in the advertisements for your speech to the recent convention on the digital economy that Australia stands on the cusp of a digital transformation. We agree entirely. This transformation you desire seems akin to that of the Weimar Republic devolving into the Third Reich. With the suppression of freedom of communication, and freedom to choose necessarily comes the institution of repression in other fields of life.

The proposal you put forward entails unusual government attacks on the rights to freedom of expression and communication. It is censorship, plain and simple. Senator, your daughter will not thank you for this act. Rather, when she is grown, she will turn to you and ask “daddy, what are these things called books?” The filter you propose is the first brick in the wall of moral imposition – the first step backward in the great race to the moralistic theological inquisition. It smacks not only of the work of Goebbels, but also Madame Mao and the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. It is, truly, the steepest of slippery slopes.

The first rule of censorship is one does not talk about censorship. Considering the lack of communication involved in the implementation of this new filter, and the general lack of reportage surrounding the incompetence of the Ministry involved with the initial proposal of such a policy, it seems the government have taken this rule very much to heart. The governmental spin machine has been working double time diverting attention from this very pressing issue, with great success. Yet it is testament to the strength of feeling among the Australian populace that there has been at least a modicum of reporting on the issue, all reflecting negatively on the proposal. This reporting has been successful in raising public awareness and ire.

Among the many vocal opponents of the proposed Internet filter scheme stands Former High Court Judge Michael Kirby, who has confessed his abject terror at the notion of mandatory censorship. If such an august personage, a messiah of the left, has declared himself afraid of a scheme proposed by a Labor government then there is clearly something wrong. Combine this with the fact you have been labelled as the 2009 Internet Villain of the Year by the British Internet Industry, it seems you have alienated not only your party’s traditional support base but also your traditional enemies; the business lobby. From the variety of enemies arrayed against you, it should seem fairly clear something wicked this way comes.

To conclude, we implore you – and, as citizens of the society you serve, command you – to give up this proposal. It is amoral, infeasible and irresponsible. Do you truly desire your legacy to be one of imposition, indoctrination and failure? Or returning Australian Internet technology to the dark ages? Of placing us in the same league as China, Iran, North Korea and Cuba? If you are committed, you should understand you will face rebellion at every turn – we will fight you in the media, through the Internet and in the Courts. You will not prevail.

Yours Sincerely,

Simon Hukin, Esq.
General Secretary,
Western Australian Secondary Students’ Association
General Manager,
Quantum Butterfly Studios.

James Shield,
IT Manager,
Quantum Butterfly Studios.

Post scriptum: If you would like to append your signature to this document, please do so in the comments. Signatories prior to posting:

List of Signatories:

Tobias Grey.

Luke Mundy.

Billy Alan Richards,
Youth Minister for Energy,
YMCA Youth Parliament 2009.

Chad Satterlee,
Public Relations Manager,
Quantum Butterfly Studios.
Acting President,
Western Australian Secondary Students’ Association.

Arina Vasilieva

Shivon Veal,
Trainee Teacher.

Rich Bowden
Editor, co-founder
theangle.org

Anthony Wilson,
Senior Application Developer,
Two’s Complement Computing Pty. Ltd.

Tags: Internet filter, open letter, Senator Steven Conroy, Simon Hukin