in

Well-meant Bill Won't Work

---

Tuesday 11 May 1999

ANDREW FREEMAN

Today is the deadline for the Senate Committee on Information Technology to report on its investigation into Internet Regulation.

It's imperative the Australian community have time to consider this important public policy position which will set a precedent for how we utilise technology in the information age. If we make the wrong decisions on these issues today, we could limit our ability to access and take advantage of future technologies.

The issue of whether and how to regulate the Internet has sparked an enormous furore, with a diverse range of industry groups and recognised experts expressing varying levels of outrage at the contents of the Government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999.

It is heartening to see that Australians realise the gravity of this situation.

The ACS, through the activities of our Community Affairs Board, provides a forum for developing ideas and gathering community input into the ACS policy-making process. The Board's Economic, Legal and Social Implications Committee (ELSIC) has spent several years discussing issues relating to Internet regulation and made various submissions to Senate Committees, most recently on Wednesday 28 April 1999.

The ACS position put forward in that submission is detailed below.

While the ACS supports some aspects of the public policy as proposed by the Bill, we have serious concerns about its ability, in its current form, to achieve its stated objectives.

We are concerned the Government has unrealistic expectations of what technology could achieve and believe more time should be spent in discussing this important issue before a final resolution on the draft legislation is made.

As a strong proponent of freedom of speech, the ACS advocates self-regulation wherever possible. We don't believe the involvement of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA), which is not subject to direction from a governing body representative of the Internet industry, is consistent with a self regulatory model.

Having said that, we've made it clear to both the ABA and the Senate Committee that we are not debating the pros and cons of Australia having a censorship regime, although this remains a matter of strong concern for many of our members.

The issue we are debating is whether it is appropriate to impose heavier obligations on Internet industry players than are placed on those in the non-electronic world, such as libraries.

The Bill appears to treat the Internet as being analogous with broadcasting. We disagree with this approach.

Someone using the Internet generally searches for material that suits their interests. However, with most broadcast media, the recipient might have no notice of the material they are about to see or hear.

It is more appropriate to compare the Web with books, which people seek out and choose to read. In relation to e-mail and newsgroup distribution, the most analogous vehicle is the postal system.

The ACS believes any regulation of the Internet should be consistent with measures already applied to books and other published documents, and should focus on the producer of the material rather than distributors such as ISPs, who are generally not aware of the nature of the subject matter they distribute.

Any proposals for regulation should also recognise the specific characteristics of the Internet, by which we mean that it is difficult to prevent access to information, and any attempt to filter or block material could adversely impact network performance.

We suggest that any filtering should be done at the individual level using software tools designed for the purpose of limiting children's ability to access inappropriate material.

Parents and other custodians of children should be given access to these tools, rather than Governments attempting to re-design the Internet so that all the material on it is suitable for people of all ages.

Another area of concern is the apparent lack of protection for user privacy since the legislation disregards the accepted principle that email is a private form of communication.

Nor does the Bill provide any protection for users' freedom to read from a wide range of information sources.

If, for example, an ISP is given notice to block scores of different pages located on Geocities (a large site which provides free web hosting), the ISP might choose, for technical reasons, to block all of Geocities. This would drastically affect users' freedom to read extensive amounts of perfectly legal material.

The Bill does include several positive aspects, such as giving a government agency the responsibility to interpret content/rating/suitability guidelines rather than requiring ISPs to fulfil this role.

We also objected to ISPs having to install expensive equipment or being asked to do technically inappropriate or impractical things. The Government has stated that what constitutes 'reasonable steps' will be determined by the relevant industry-developed code of practice, although this would benefit from further elaboration.

While commending the Government's public policy desire to protect children from objectionable material on the Internet, we believe technically, self-regulation is a better and more feasible way of approaching the problem.

The interests of all parties would benefit from greater examination and public debate as well as extensive consultation both within Australia and internationally.

Andrew Freeman is Director of the ACS Community Affairs Board.

To contact the ACS, call on (02) 9299 3666, email: info@acs.org.au or visit the ACS Web site