webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2010
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Thu Apr 01 2010 - 21:42:39 EST
Google and Yahoo criticise Australia's 'heavy-handed' internet filter plans
US is also 'concerned' at plans to block flow of information and experts
say state-controlled check will slow browsers
Tweet this (2)Comments (…) Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk, Monday 29
March 2010
Australia came under fire today from the United States for its proposed
internet filtering system, which, if implemented, would be the strictest of
any democracy.
A US state department official said that it had raised concerns with
Australia over the plans, which are to be voted on by its parliament.
"We remain committed to advancing the free flow of information, which we
view as vital to economic prosperity and preserving open societies
globally," Michael Tran, a state department spokesman told the Associated
Press.
"We don't discuss the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but I can
say that we have raised our concerns on this matter with Australian
officials."
Internet companies Google and Yahoo have already condemned the proposal as
a heavy-handed measure that could restrict access to legal information.
Australia's communications minister, Stephen Conroy, said the filter would
block access to sites that include child pornography, sexual violence and
detailed instructions in crime or drug use. The list of banned sites could
be updated based on public complaints. But he declined to say what the US
had told Australia.
National censorship of overseas sites is becoming a trade issue. Sergey
Brin, co-founder of Google, told the Guardian last week :"Since services
and information are our most successful exports, if regulations in China
effectively prevent us from being competitive, then they are a trade
barrier."
Many countries – including the UK – use filtering systems to limit
access to outlawed material: in the UK the independent Internet Watch
Foundation lists sites internet service providers (ISPs) are asked to
block. The list is secret, and frequently updated. In Germany and Canada
ISPs use similar blocking systems; in Italy gambling sites are blocked.
But critics say that the Australian plan, which has been proposed
repeatedly over the past five years, exceeds what is necessary and strays
into matters of free speech.
"Our primary concern is that the scope of content to be filtered is too
wide," Google wrote in its submission to the Australian government,
suggesting that the filter – which would be mandatory and
state-controlled – would slow browsing speeds.
The company said it already had its own filter to block child pornography.
"Some limits, like child pornography, are obvious. No Australian wants that
to be available and we agree," Google said. "But moving to a mandatory
ISP-level filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material
is heavy-handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on
access to information."
Lucinda Barlow of Google Australia told the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation the proposal raised the possibility of banning politically and
socially controversial material and went beyond filters used in Germany,
Canada and Italy. Other critics say the filtering would put Australia in
the same censorship league as China.
Yahoo said the filter would block many sites with controversial content
such as euthanasia discussion forums and gay and lesbian forums that
discuss sexual experiences. Yet it would not block peer-to-peer
file-sharing, nor prevent predators approaching children in chat programs
or social networking sites.
Conroy said his department would take the comments from Google and Yahoo
into consideration before sending a proposal to parliament later this year.
The US State Department sided with Google in its row with China over
censorship when in January the search engine company complained that its
systems had been hacked into in what it implied was an attack all but
government-sanctioned by China. Last week Google moved its search systems
to the Chinese island dependency of Hong Kong. The communist government
responded by blocking searches from the mainland for forbidden topics such
as the pro-democracy movement.
David Vaile of the Cyberspace Law and Policy Center at the University of
New South Wales said China and Australia had markedly different approaches
to restricting the Internet.
"China's filter is explicitly about discouraging access to and discussion
of certain clearly political topics," he said, while Australia's filter
would focus on specifically restricted material.
While some critics of Australia's filter have said it puts the nation in
the same censorship league as China, Vaile pointed out that the
freedom-of-speech argument used by American companies follows a legal
tradition that other countries do not necessarily share.
Yahoo and Google are accustomed to the protections of the First Amendment
of the US constitution,which guarantees freedom of speech and elevates it
to a very high legal status, Vaile said.
"In Australia there is no equivalent," he said. "There is no law that says
you've got free speech. Having a lack of any legal protection for free
speech for any effective restraint on [filters] is something that's
worrying."
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010