Internet Filtering Gaining Traction?

Australia is in the midst of a heated debate over blocking websites citizens can view. The controversial ban has been postponed for a year -- conveniently after the country's elections -- so that an independent review board could determine exactly what controversial websites should be banned. Internet Service Providers have already agreed to block access to certain sites known for posting child pornography.

Some explanation from an editorial in the Monday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald:

[Australian Communications Minister Stephen] Conroy's announcement might have been all to do with political timing - getting one difficult issue out of the way while public attention is diverted to a bigger one; the more likely reason, however, is that it might have dawned on the government that mandatory filtering of internet content is unwieldy and unworkable and, to its legion of opponents, unpopular. Under the legislation, intended to be introduced earlier this year and now twice postponed, service providers would be forced to block access by their customers to prohibited websites, deemed RC [Refused Classification] by the Australian Communications and Media Authority -- the RC list would not be made publicly available, and there would be no opportunity for judicial oversight.

Then there are the technological obstacles that allow users to bypass filters and the problem that most illicit material isn't on publicly available websites but rather available only through peer-to-peer networking.

The Herald has been covering Internet filtering as it plays out in other countries, including looking at efforts in the United States. A May 7 article reported on a Washington state Supreme Court decision that ruled public libraries can filter Internet access, a practice that is much the same as deciding what books and magazines to purchase.

Hat tip: Risk factor blog