A Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety has been set up as of 15th of March 2010. While this is a good thing as far as investigating ways in which Australians might need help or guidance online, those interested in online rights might be concerned that a committee has as much opportunity to confuse myth with reality in terms of online problems, as it does to come up with real world solutions to challenges online.
EFA has received the text of a letter from Liberal Party Senator Sue Boyce to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith demanding they come clean on the nature of representations made by the U.S. government regarding their internet censorship policy.
Recent revelations that the U.S. Department of State had broached the subject with the Australian government, followed up by a diplomatically-worded but damning statement by U.S. ambassador Jeff Bleich on Q&A last week leave little doubt that Australia is on the U.S.'s watch list. The Obama administration drew a line in the sand in January with Secretary of State's Hillary Clinton's landmark speech on internet freedom. Despite disingenuous attempts to spin it otherwise, Senator Conroy's mandatory censorship scheme clearly crosses that line.
This has not been lost on Senator Boyce. In her letter, she questions Senator Conroy's assertion that the U.S. government merely asked for some background information on the censorship plan. "I am sure that [State Department spokesperson] Mr Clay would have chosen his words carefully and I find it difficult to reconcile a statement that the US Government had 'raised concerns' with Minister Conroy's assertion that the US Government had only asked for background information."
Referring to Ambassador Bleich's comments, Senator Boyce goes on to say,
It is a deplorable situation when Australians have to rely upon the frankness of a foreign diplomat to provide information about bilateral discussions on a very important matter because relevant Australian Ministers either dissemble or just refuse to say anything.
Given the Ambassador's statement that the US Government has been "able to accomplish the goals Australia has described … without having to use internet filters" I would appreciate your advice as to whether the US Government has advised the Australian Government about how that has been managed in the USA, when that advice was provided and to whom.
To those following the debate it will be well known that the mandatory filtering plan has drawn criticism for its technical flaws, confused goals, free-speech risks and ever-shifting details. The fact that it is drawing international opprobrium is not new - for instance, Conroy's receipt of the "Internet Villain of the Year" award - but the remarks by the United States show just how seriously this is being taken.
When Reporters Without Borders named Australia as a country "under surveillance" as an internet enemy earlier in the year, the Minister tried to deflect the blame onto EFA for misleading them. Are we also to blame for misinforming Secretary Clinton, ambassador Bleich, and even President Obama himself? Or could it just be that it's possible to understand Senator Conroy's policy and harbour serious concerns without being sympathetic to child pornography? While we don't expect the Minister to concede this any time soon, the broad array of organisations opposing the filter is making this line of attack increasingly untenable.
In any case, EFA looks forward to hearing the Ministers' response to Senator Boyce's timely questions.
The full text of the letter is available here.
For all his faults, Stalin was a pioneer in the field of image manipulation. Airbrushing liquidated foes from official photographs was the photoshopping of its day. And although Stalin (like modern dicatators) would have loathed the internet for its uncanny ability to let the truth slip out, he would have admired the way information can be changed in realtime and disappear instantly.
Many companies and individuals have been caught out trying to redact embarrassing material, but we can't always be sure when, how and why information is changing. When do personal and corporate interests take over, and when is the law at play? As a champion of an open internet, while at the same time a corporate citizen in hundreds of jurisdictions around the world, Google has a fine line to walk. To many, Google is the internet and they are bombarded with requests to remove unwanted material. They have no choice but to take those that come from governments and the courts very seriously.
Today Google have announced a new initiative to bring some transparency to this process. Google's Government Requests page, announced here, shows breakdowns by country of the number of requests they get to remove information by service. The statistics for Australia for the last 6 months of 2009 are interesting in particular:
155 data requests (requests for private user data for purposes of criminal investigation)
17 removal requests (52.9% of removal requests fully or partially complied with)
Despite the important role they play, Google are a for-profit company and not a government department or some kind of public utility. This can be a cause for concern; when the corporate interest an the public interest conflict, such as in matters of privacy, we can only hope that Google's directors give the latter due consideration. We also have no explicit right to know about the inner workings of Google's information management systems. We are therefore encouraged with Google's latest move which we can only take as a good faith attempt to be a better internet citizen.
Around the world it has often been difficult to get a picture on how prevalent such requests are and the Google information will be examined with some interest. The fact that they have released these statistics voluntarily is a welcome sign and Google should be congratulated for doing so. They have raised the bar for the other companies that play such an important role in managing and safeguarding the information that makes up our digital lives.
Earlier this week, I stepped down as the Chair of EFA, and will shortly be leaving the EFA Board. I'll be moving to the US for the 2010/11 academic year, and will be focusing on my academic work after completing my PhD dissertation.
I step down with some regret; I have very much enjoyed being a part of this important organisation. Over the last few years, I really think we've done some great work here; we're starting to see much wider attention on the Open Internet campaign against mandatory ISP filtering; we've been working hard on computer game classification, on ACTA, and on telecommunications interception, to name but a few topics. I've been very pleased to see EFA's profile continue to increase in the past few years, and honoured to have served with the other members of the Board and all members and other individuals who have pitched in to try to make a positive difference to Australian internet regulation and policy.
The new Chair is Colin Jacobs and the new Vice-Chair is Geordie Guy, both of whom should be very familiar names to those of you follow EFA's activities. I wish the best of luck to them both — and the rest of the Board — in the continued campaign against filtering and all of the other areas within EFA's remit.
-- Nic Suzor
This week, our former website hosts, Sublime IP, are contesting a Final Link Deletion Notice that was issued to them for content on our website in May 2009. (See the story we posted at the time.)
Sublime, with our support, are arguing that (a) the notice should have been issued to EFA, not our hosts; and that (b) the issuing of the notice infringes our constitutionally protected right to free political communication. This is particularly important as, under the legislation, only the person to whom the links removal notice was issued has standing to appeal the decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Dale Clapperton, former chair of EFA, is arguing the matter before the AAT on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
It is my understanding that the hearing will be open to the public for any members in Sydney who may wish to be present. Details are:
Tuesday and Wednesday this week, 10am start both days
Level 5, 55 Market St, Sydney
We will post any updates here as they become available.
