InvestSMART

The article you are trying to access does not exist, however, here are some articles you may be interested in.

Child porn filter move hits snag

HOPES that a voluntary filter of child pornography will become industry standard across all internet service providers have been dealt a blow, with significant mid-sized carrier Internode declaring yesterday that it will not participate.
print
InvestSMART
By InvestSMART · 13 Jul 2010
print
Share
InvestSMART
By InvestSMART ·
13 Jul 2010
Share
comments Comments
print Print
HOPES that a voluntary filter of child pornography will become industry standard across all internet service providers have been dealt a blow, with significant mid-sized carrier Internode declaring yesterday that it will not participate.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy late last week announced the government would hold off on its filter proposal until a year-long review of refused classification rules had been completed.

At the same time the government said three internet service providers Telstra, Optus and Primus, which between them represent about 70 per cent of Australian internet connections would voluntarily block child abuse content, with the prospect that others might follow.

But yesterday, Internode declared it had significant concerns with administration of the blacklist of child porn URLs (uniform resource locators, the technical name for web addresses) used for the voluntary filter, and refused to apply it.

"It covers a tiny proportion of the content that would need to be blocked for it to be effective and has already been shown to contain URLs of legal content that Australians would expect to access," Internode's regulatory and corporate affairs manager, John Lindsay, said.

The list of child porn websites is maintained by the government's Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will add web addresses of child abuse imagery obtained from lists maintained by reputable overseas agencies.

Last year, a leaked blacklist maintained by the authority was found to contain online poker sites, YouTube links, regular porn sites, and websites of fringe religions, as well as the child porn sites it was intended to identify.

Adelaide-based Internode is the country's sixth-largest internet service provider, with about 190,000 customers.

Large-scale resistance to the voluntary proposal will lead to further pressure on the government to push ahead with its mandatory filter. Australia's third-largest provider, iiNet, was yesterday mulling over whether or not it would participate.

A spokesman for the Perth-based provider, which holds about 12 per cent of the Australian market, said the company had not yet made up its mind on signing up.

"We'll have a look at what they're doing, see whether it's feasible and practical and make a decision," he said.

Despite the timing of the announcement of the voluntary filter, the Internet Industry Association yesterday denied the decision was part of a deal with the government to shelve its mandatory proposal.

"We're not introducing this as a condition of them dropping the legislation this is something that we just think is worth doing anyway," chief executive Peter Coroneos told The Age. "This initiative effectively voids most of the objections that people have raised and, hopefully, fills the void with a better alternative."

The industry association, which embraces most internet service providers, announced it would develop an industry code of practice to block child porn websites.

Google News
Follow us on Google News
Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.
Follow us
Share this article and show your support
Free Membership
Free Membership
InvestSMART
InvestSMART
Keep on reading more articles from InvestSMART. See more articles
Join the conversation
Join the conversation...
There are comments posted so far. Join the conversation, please login or Sign up.

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

The government announced a voluntary scheme under which some ISPs would block web addresses identified as child abuse content. Telstra, Optus and Primus — which together represent about 70% of Australian internet connections — said they would voluntarily block that content while the government delays any mandatory filter pending a year-long review of classification rules.

Internode said it had significant concerns about how the blacklist of child-porn URLs would be administered. The company argued the list covers only a tiny proportion of the content that would need to be blocked to be effective and that the list has already included URLs of legal content Australians would expect to access.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) maintains the blacklist and adds addresses obtained from reputable overseas agencies. A leaked version last year was found to contain online poker sites, YouTube links, regular porn sites and fringe religious websites as well as the child-porn sites it was intended to identify, raising concerns about accuracy and scope.

Adelaide-based Internode is the country's sixth-largest ISP with about 190,000 customers. iiNet is described as Australia's third-largest provider and holds about 12% of the market. Size matters because larger providers (Telstra, Optus, Primus represent roughly 70% of connections) will shape how widely a voluntary filter is implemented and how regulatory pressure on the industry might evolve.

Yes. The article notes that large-scale resistance to the voluntary proposal could increase pressure on the government to push ahead with a mandatory filter, even though the government has deferred mandatory action while it completes a year-long review of refused classification rules.

The Internet Industry Association said it would develop an industry code of practice to block child-porn websites. The association denies the voluntary initiative was a deal to shelve mandatory legislation and says the initiative could address many objections raised about filtering.

The article highlights operational and reputational risks for ISPs: concerns about blacklist accuracy and administration, potential blocking of legal content, customer backlash, and the possibility that unresolved industry resistance could lead to mandatory regulation. Investors should note these are regulatory and customer-experience issues rather than immediate financial outcomes reported in the article.

Customers could have legitimate websites unintentionally blocked if the blacklist contains legal content, as past leaks suggested. The list also may only cover a small portion of problematic content, limiting effectiveness. Investors should monitor which providers sign up, any updates to the ACMA blacklist or industry code of practice, and government decisions from the year-long review.