Australian ISP-Level Content Filtering Report Released

by on July 28, 2008 · 26 comments

The Australian government has been running a trial of ISP-level filtering products to determine whether network-based filtering could be implemented by the government to censor certain forms of online content without a major degradation of overall network performance. The government’s report on the issue was released today: Closed-Environment Testing of ISP-Level Internet Content Filtering. It was produced by the Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA), which is the rough equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission here in the U.S., but with somewhat broader authority.

The Australian government has been investigating Internet filtering techniques for many years now and even gone so far to offered subsidized, government-approved PC-based filters through the Protecting Australian Families Online program. That experiment did not end well, however, as a 16-year old Australian youth cracked the filter within a half hour of its release. The Australian government next turned its attention to ISP-level filtering as a possible solution and began a test of 6 different network-based filters in Tasmania.

What makes ISP-level (network-based) filtering an attractive approach for many policymakers is that, at least in theory, it could solve the problem the Australian government faced with PC-based (client-side) filters: ISP-level filters are more difficult, if not impossible, to circumvent. That is, if you can somehow filter content and communications at the source–or within the network–then you have a much greater probability of stopping that content from getting through. Here’s a chart from the ACMA’s new report that illustrates what they see as the advantage of ISP-level filters:

ACMA 1

Of course, that’s the theory and it remains to see how well it would work in practice. In today’s report, however, the ACMA claims that network-based filtering generally did work well enough in practice during the Tasmanian trial such that all 6 filters tested scored an 88% effectiveness rate in terms of blocking the content / URLs that the government was hoping would be blocked (and 3 of the products scored above 94%). The report also claims that overblocking of acceptable content was only 8% for all filters tested and 3% for four of the services. Finally, the ACMA said that network degradation was not nearly as big of a problem during this round of tests as it was during previous test, when performance degradation ranged from 75-98%. In this latest test, by contrast, the ACMA said degradation was down, but still varied widely—from a low of just 2% for one product to a high of 87% for another.

So, what to make of this report? There are a couple of interesting caveats in the report which raise some questions regarding overall effectiveness and feasibility of such ISP-level filtering being applied on a broader scale. For example, the report mentions of p. 45 that the scope of network filtering is mostly limited to HTTP and HTTPS. For other services and protocols, including peer-to-peer, IM, e-mail, newsgroups, or custom protocols, the services could generally not filter properly. The report notes, “No products are capable of distinguishing illegal content and content that may be regarded as inappropriate on non-web protocols, excepting two products that can identify particular types of content carried via one email protocol, and one product that can identify particular types of content carried via one streaming protocol.”

ACMA 2

Of course, the filters could block those services and protocols outright, but that’s not a workable solution in the long-run, of course, since people demand those services. As the ACMA notes later in the report (on p. 53), “Where such protocols are used to carry legitimate traffic and are widely used by children for study and social interaction, ACMA regards the absence of a more targeted capability as a deficiency.” Indeed, that’s a pretty significant deficiency!

But here’s the more interesting question: Would a centralized filtering mandate by governments encourage people to shift content or communications to those other protocols or services, or encourage others to create new protocols or services that would be more likely to evade centralized ISP-filtering? I don’t want to overplay this point because it is certainly true that much (perhaps most) of what governments want censored today would likely be captured by such centralized filters. But what sort of filtering failure rate is acceptable, and what will happen in coming years as a result of such a mandate? I’m not saying I have any answers, but it is certainly worth exploring those questions.

More importantly, I have obviously not even gotten into the threshold question here about what sort of content or materials governments would deem “illegal” such that they would be filtered in the first place? That’s obviously a very significant and controversial question. Moreover, why should the decision to censor in such a sweeping fashion be transferred to the network-level instead of remaining at the individual household level?

Of course, governments might require that every ISP simply offer such a network filtering solution and then let individual households choose to opt-out of or to opt-in to the system. But who decides what is blocked at the headend under such a scheme? That determination is currently left to private filtering companies here in the U.S. and in many other countries, but the Australians have a different sort of regime and history when it comes to content regulation. They and other countries would likely be more comfortable making those determinations about acceptable content and then requiring the ISPs to act as deputized agents of speech and morality enforcement. And there’s no First Amendment in Australia to stop them from doing so.

Beyond such issues about the wisdom and scope of government censorship, there’s also the question of whether such centralized filtering poses other concerns about the extent of government authority. Many people will be put off by the prospect of national governments playing the role of national nanny via centralized network filters. (Fill in your own “Big Brother” or China analogy here). But many others will be left wondering what else such a move subsequently allows the government to do in terms of network snooping and surveillance. And there are other concerns here regarding the ongoing cost of the process (who pays for network upgrades?) and how else those resources might have been used.

But make no doubt about it folks, this debate is about to get red-hot here in the States as lawmakers increasingly look for new ways to ‘deputize the middleman’ and require greater policing of the Net by online intermediaries—and not just for ISPs. If ISPs are required to engage in such centralized filtering, then one can easily imagine how other online intermediaries—search providers, social networking sites, online gaming platform providers, other application vendors, etc—would be expected to play ball too, especially for all that user-generated content out there that could evade centralized ISP filters. If they don’t play ball, one could imagine the government seeking to impose some sort of liability on them. And that then opens a debate about the applicability of Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has generally immunized intermediaries from such liability.

I hope our readers will provide additional thoughts and comments about the Australian scheme and centralized, network-based, mandatory ISP filtering more generally. Specifically, I am hoping some of our savvy readers can identify some of the technical hurdles standing in the way of such schemes, or what unintended consequences they might create.

  • Ryan Radia

    Low Probability of Circumvention?

    That’s funny. From anonymizers to foreign proxy servers to SSL-encrypted VPNs, there are just too many ways to get around ISP-level filtering for censorship to be anything more than a minor hassle for a competent user.

    I suppose there’s a bright side to this filtering. More users subject to ISP-level filtering creates more demand for anti-censorware, which is a good thing. Hopefully with more smart people trying to figure out ways to circumvent filtering, it will become even clearer that the dedicated individual will always stay a step ahead.

    That said, I don’t object if ISPs want to offer opt-in, server-side filtering. If it’s easier, cheaper, and more effective than PC-filtering for concerned parents, and it keeps kids from seeing stuff their parents are uncomfortable with, then what’s the harm?

  • Ryan Radia

    Low Probability of Circumvention?

    That’s funny. From anonymizers to foreign proxy servers to SSL-encrypted VPNs, there are just too many ways to get around ISP-level filtering for censorship to be anything more than a minor hassle for a competent user.

    I suppose there’s a bright side to this filtering. More users subject to ISP-level filtering creates more demand for anti-censorware, which is a good thing. Hopefully with more smart people trying to figure out ways to circumvent filtering, it will become even clearer that the dedicated individual will always stay a step ahead.

    That said, I don’t object if ISPs want to offer opt-in, server-side filtering. If it’s easier, cheaper, and more effective than PC-filtering for concerned parents, and it keeps kids from seeing stuff their parents are uncomfortable with, then what’s the harm?

  • Adam Thierer

    A critique of the report can be found on the always-entertaining Australian blog “Somebody Think of the Children!”

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    A critique of the report can be found on the always-entertaining Australian blog “Somebody Think of the Children!”

  • http://curly15.wordpress.com Curly

    I have just read about this and am outraged! If Australia goes down this path, the precedent will be set for other western liberal democracies to follow suit.
    I would fear even more for freedoms in “Big Brother” Britain, and elsewhere.

  • Pingback: Internet Censorship: It is a big deal! - sw'as

  • Pingback: Australian Government Survey on Parents’ Ease of Managing Media Use | The Technology Liberation Front

  • http://www.facebook.com/nerdbenn Benn Probett

    There is massive upheaval about this situation amongst people in the community. The 3 largest ISP's in the country have rejected the trial and I’m not sure who exactly would want this service. The #3 ISP in Australia who is also the only Australian owned ISP in the top 6 or 7 tried layer 2 filtering about 7-8 years ago to clients that would opt in. At the height of using this service less then 1% of there client base tried the service.

    I believe this is destined to fail on a technical level and more so on a morality level. The internet is the largest communication tool we have on this planet why should so suit gets to pick and choose what content is or is not accepted?

  • http://www.facebook.com/nerdbenn Benn Probett

    There is massive upheaval about this situation amongst people in the community. The 3 largest ISP's in the country have rejected the trial and I’m not sure who exactly would want this service. The #3 ISP in Australia who is also the only Australian owned ISP in the top 6 or 7 tried layer 2 filtering about 7-8 years ago to clients that would opt in. At the height of using this service less then 1% of there client base tried the service.

    I believe this is destined to fail on a technical level and more so on a morality level. The internet is the largest communication tool we have on this planet why should so suit gets to pick and choose what content is or is not accepted?

  • uggworld

    abercrombie and fitch clothing is associated with an active, healthy and sporty lifestyle and this is clearly represented in all the the abercrombie that this manufacturer makes. The look is fresh, physical and fun and this abercrombie & fitch stores line seems to have a staying power that will ensure it will be with us for many more years to come. It is clothing for the youthful members of society and is seen being worn from the inner cities to the urban outback. a & f is durable and designed to keep up with the active lifestyles of today.
    Like all premium consumer products, abercrombie’s (ANF) sales hit a brick wall in the wake of the GFC. After delivering years of stable profitability, the company’s result for the full year to December registered a dramatic downturn. This only got worse in the opening quarter of 2009, with an uncharacteristic quarterly loss blotting Abercrombie’s copybook.

  • uggworld

    abercrombie and fitch clothing is associated with an active, healthy and sporty lifestyle and this is clearly represented in all the the abercrombie that this manufacturer makes. The look is fresh, physical and fun and this abercrombie & fitch stores line seems to have a staying power that will ensure it will be with us for many more years to come. It is clothing for the youthful members of society and is seen being worn from the inner cities to the urban outback. a & f is durable and designed to keep up with the active lifestyles of today.
    Like all premium consumer products, abercrombie’s (ANF) sales hit a brick wall in the wake of the GFC. After delivering years of stable profitability, the company’s result for the full year to December registered a dramatic downturn. This only got worse in the opening quarter of 2009, with an uncharacteristic quarterly loss blotting Abercrombie’s copybook.

  • Pingback: isp - StartTags.com

  • Pingback: How to Astral Project Easily

  • Pingback: cheap no phentermine prescription

  • Pingback: devenir rentier

  • Pingback: Sandra Crosby

  • Pingback: garcinia cambogia, about garcinia cambogia, all natural garcinia cambogia, all natural garcinia cambogia extract, all natural weight loss, all natural weight loss supplement, amazon garcinia cambogia extract, amazon garcinia cambogia extract pure, appetit

  • Pingback: Goedkope vakanties online boeken

  • Pingback: premier league football

  • Pingback: you tubeideo

  • Pingback: seo zen review

  • Pingback: this content

  • Pingback: Unlock My Pension

  • Pingback: discover my link if you can't wait to see a roulette strategy that is cool

  • Pingback: animedose stream

  • Pingback: used cars Edmonton

Previous post:

Next post: