SYDNEY, Australia -- Australia's 16-month-old Internet censorship law, while less intrusive than originally feared, is largely ineffective, a waste of tax dollars and gives a false sense of security, critics say.
"The law argues against Australian claims to being a technologically savvy nation," said Peter Coroneos, executive director of the Australian Internet Industry Association.
The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2000, applies a ratings system for Internet content similar to that for movies and books in Australia.
Responding to complaints, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) can have specific Internet content rated by the national Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). If the material is deemed X ("Sexually Explicit") or RC ("Refused Classification") and is hosted in a server in Australia, the ABA can legally order an Australian ISP to take it down.
If the material is overseas, the ABA can do little but refer the site's URL to domestic content filtering companies, software which Australian ISPs must make available to subscribers.
Australian Communications Minister Richard Alston this week released the second six-month report on the functioning of the law. The report disclosed that during the period July 1 to Dec. 31, 2000, the ABA issued 67 take-down notices for Internet content housed in Australia, two-thirds of which involved child pornography. By contrast, the ABA made 136 referrals about content housed outside Australia to domestic filtering companies.
In a press release accompanying the report, Minister Alston said Australian families will no doubt welcome the continued removal of offensive material from the Internet, and the law addresses public concern about the nature and accessibility of some Internet content.
But to Irene Graham, executive director of Electronic Frontiers Australia, the report merely indicates the ABA is spending two-thirds of its time referring overseas sites to domestic filtering companies. This represents, essentially, a government subsidy to an industry that's probably already way ahead of the government anyway, she said.
"We question the merits of this whole system," she said. "The ABA seems to be spending its time either referring overseas sites to content filter makers, or issuing take-down notices for domestic sites that could largely have been caught through existing laws."
Child pornography is already covered under state statutes throughout Australia. For Coroneos, the online content law -- as its generally known here -- points to a much larger issue: whether a purely legislative solution to regulating Internet content is effective.
"It was pretty clear from the outset the creation of a take-down mechanism in Australia was merely going to cause the last remaining adult sites operated here to move offshore, and that's clearly happened," Coroneos said. "I think it's pretty clear people have reconciled themselves to the fact that the nature of the Internet itself means a pure legislative solution was never going to work."
Far better, he said, is a four-pronged approach: a light-touch regulatory system, industry codes of practice, educated end-users and international cooperation in tracking down and prosecuting universally condemned child pornographers.
For instance, prior to the law's passage in June 1999, industry lobbying removed requirements for ISP-level filtering, and also removed most legal responsibility for ISPs to monitor content flowing over their systems. Even so, some tough language remains in the law, Coroneos says. As such, the industry remains hostage to fortune should any future Australian government decide to interpret the law aggressively, he said.
Ultimately, Coroneos wants the law reworked. He said the organization is pursuing an ongoing dialogue with national-level politicians, but prospects for reform of the law remain uncertain.
In the first six months that the law was in effect -- during the January-June period of 2000, the ABA issued 62 take-down notices domestically, and referred 94 items to filtering companies.
For 2000 as a whole, a total of 129 take-down notices were issued, with 230 referrals to filtering companies.
For Graham, the numbers indicate the futility of attempting to impose top-down control.
"The government trumpets this as having made the Internet safe for children, but we think that's merely giving a sense of false security to parents," Graham said. "What they're doing is making, at best, a miniscule difference to how safe the Internet is for children."
