This page is located at
http://www.caudit.edu.au/codes/RMApps2Plus.html
© Committee of Australian University Directors of I.T., 1996, 1997
CAUDIT licences the use of this document by any party, but not for profit, provided that the document is copied in its entirety, including this copyright notice
Broadly speaking, there are two ways in which content filtering can be performed.
A user can depend on a service that pre-filters material. Such a service can either block access to a defined set of sites, or permit access to a defined set of sites. In either case, the user is very likely to be relying on someone else's blocking or selection criteria. The processing would generally be run on the service-provider's machine, but could be performed on the user's own workstation. Delegated censorship is the function of services like CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, NetNanny and Surfwatch.
The Singaporean Government, through the Singapore Broadcasting Authority has imposed a requirement that, with effect from 14 September 1996, local ISPs are to use a nominated proxy-server, which will implement site-blocking.
For an argument as to why even schools (let alone universities and companies) should be very wary of applying delegated censorship, see McKenzie (1996).
A user can filter out material by applying their own criteria to someone's classification of it. Naturally the user needs to be satisfied that the classification is properly done. This would generally be done on the user's own workstation, but could be done on a service-provider's machine.
Civil libertarians put up strong arguments for not delegating censorship to someone else, but instead performing it as close to the individual as practicable, e.g. Rheingold (1996), Barlow (1996).
The ABA Report's recommendation is for ISPs to be required to support personal censorship, using the PICS infrastructure, and applying a yet-to-be developed content-classification scheme based on the existing Australian classification structures.
The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) is an infrastructure, developed by the World-Wide Web Consortium, which extends the web to support rating schemes for individual web-pages. It enables:
PICS enables delegated or personal censorship, because material can be filtered at either the service-provider level, or the user level, or both; for example, a user can filter out material that is classified less seriously than, or differently from, the 'official' classifications.
An index to material on content filtering is provided in Clarke (1996a). A description of PICS is provided in Clarke (1996b), and a deeper analysis of PICS is available in Whittle (1996).
A significant number of organisations claim to represent the interests of the the whole or particular parts of the Internet community and industry. A list is provided at http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/NetGroups.html.
This groups of Appendices contains information drawn from all relevant draft Codes that have been identified. They are:
The Western Australian Internet Association's Draft Code is at http://www.waia.asn.au/Documents/CodeOfConduct.html. At 27 October 1996, it was still at version 1.02, but version 1.03 was stated to be pending, with negotiations with the State's Censorship office to be completed and approval to be gained at the Association's special general meeting. The substantive version is reproduced below.
An "online service provider" includes an internet access provider, an internet service provider and a bulletin board system operator. The obligations and duties of an online service provider may vary depending on the nature of the service provided and upon the nature of the user access.
1. I , as an online service provider shall not:
2. I , as an online service provider shall:
A Draft Code was issued by the Internet Industry Association of Australia ( INTIAA's First Draft Code) on 17 February 1996.
INTIAA stated that it was based on Australian Standard AS-4269-1995, the Guidelines for Implementing Codes and Guide to Fair Trading Codes of Conduct published by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. It further stated that "[the Code] attempts to comply with the requirements described in those documents while being reasonable, fair, practical and justified on the basis of actual experience or likely consequences". The Code is intended to apply to all members of INTIAA as a condition of membership; and to members of the industry who are not members of INTIAA but register under the Code.
The key provisions of the First Draft were that "Commercial and Public Sites" who are members of INTIAA together with registered industry members must ensure that what INTIAA refers to as 'adult services' "are:
"Commercial and Public Sites who are members of INTIAA or registered industry members must work towards and support the adoption of a system of tagging [based on PICS?] as related to adult services".
Discussions about the content of the Code have included the following:
The original INTIAA draft and subsequent discussions suggested that considerable further effort was needed if a workable Code or Codes was to be achieved.
17 September 1996 saw the release of INTIAA's Second Draft Code.
The Draft Code deals with a wide range of matters, of which content is only one. Excerpts of relevant elements are as follows:
...
"content" means all forms of information and, without limitation, includes text, pictures, animation, video and sound recording, separately or combined and may include software.
"Content Provider" means a person who controls the content of a Web Site or database on the Internet and includes advertisers, information providers and Vendors.
...
"ISPs" stands for Internet Service Providers and includes those providing connectivity to the Internet and those hosting Web Pages for users.
...
"user" means a customer of a Code Subscriber.
"Vendors" means the vendors of products, information and/or services via the Internet and, without limiting this definition, includes ISPs.
"Web Page Developers" means those who make Web Pages for users.
This Code is intended to cover those agree to be bound by the Code and whose business is to provide the products and services that comprise the Internet or who make use of the Internet to supply or service their customers.
The Internet industry includes Content Providers, ISPs, Programmers, Vendors and Web Page Developers
...
...
...
...
"It appears that the ABA has been influenced by a particularly complicated proposed industry code of practice drafted by Patrick Fair of a Sydney corporation "The Internet Industry Association of Australia". That proposed code of conduct, released on the 10th September 1996, proposes a top-heavy industry body, drawing extensive levies from the Internet access providers in order to sustain a professional council as well-funded and well-staffed as a national professional body.
"INTIAA was established with board members representing hardware and software vendors, a national law firm and several large Internet access providers. Other members of the company include media and the Taxation Institute of Australia. It is fair comment that INTIAA represents a sector of the market with deep pockets and contacts in government, as indeed the Minister for the Communications and the Arts launched INTIAA on the 15th December 1995. The proposed code of practice makes use of the ABA's favoured PICS web page rating standard compulsory, creates an Administration Council with a government appointee as Chair and no direct voting by member service providers on changes to that Code.
"For those worried about censorship of the Net through the back door, the proposed Code places on service providers the obligation to block "X-rated" material as if it were child pornography. A further problem for service providers is the requirement that they report "illegal" sites to the authorities, report "RC" violations to other site administrators and delete users to enforce compliance with censorship.
"INTIAA's code of practice does not represent a consensus within the industry. There are State Internet Associations (WA Internet Association, South Australian Internet Association, ACT Internet Association) which do not subscribe to such a bureaucratic system and which instead are developing codes of practice which more fully fulfil industry aspirations and conform more fully to industry experience. The State Internet Associations are much more "grass-roots" organisations and better represent the position of Internet service providers. The codes of practice developed by those associations make it quite clear that an Internet access provider cannot be held responsible for content not originating on his or her system under any circumstances. The complaints handling procedure is restricted (as it should be) to complaints of a contractual nature with the IAP concerned and complaints of a technical nature arising from the IAP's responsibilities within a global network.
"The suggestion that a user of the system is acting illegally is not enough to institute the complaint process, such conduct must be identified as illegal by competent law enforcement authorities. The gloss and complexity of the INTIAA code by comparison has obviously promoted to the ABA the notion that the industry can self-fund a policing function as the government may direct.
"For this reason, the ABA proposal for the development of self regulatory codes of practice must be taken in a more sinister context. The ABA has proposed that a government agency have a registration and monitoring role in relation to the codes of practice and further it is stated within the report that such a code of practice must contain elements that the ABA finds appropriate. This defeats the entirety of reliance upon self regulation, it is in fact government regulation through the mechanism of a compulsory professional organisation.
"The ABA took the view that the Internet's own self-regulation procedures, commonly known as "netiquette" do not "address community concerns to the extent they should be included in a codes of practice. Further the evolving nature of netiquette may render it inappropriate for inclusion in a code of practice". This therefore leaves a void within the code of practice as to professional conduct within a global on-line industry. If the Net's own regulatory mechanisms have been so swiftly dismissed then it must be left to the laws of each State, Territory and Nation to determine what constitutes lawful service provision in that place. Very swiftly, it appears that the void is to be filled not by an Act of Parliament which may be subject to the scrutiny of those concerned with civil liberties, but instead by requiring the insertion of censorship and responsibility for content within a code of practice else punitive laws will be applied against the Internet access providers.
"To an ISP, this is a choice between the noose and the knife. If the ridiculous and punitive laws established by some State and Territory governments (and continuing to be a feature of debate at a Federal level), had not been enacted against Industry advice , there would be no need for a code of practice to provide a defence. Thus, if the code of practice is designed to be a means of "self regulation" as approved by the ABA, it becomes a means by which a licence to provide Internet services (being able to be suspended at any time by a professional organisation) becomes an equal and perhaps more financially damaging means of control.
"Obviously, the nature and terms of the codes of practice will determine whether or not the codes as approved insert obligations which go beyond the law as it presently stands. However, while the government attempts to use a so-called "industry code of practice" as a means of regulation of content by prosecuting system administrators, the government illustrates that it has not learned what the role of on-line service operators is.
"The system administrator of an Internet site is not capable of monitoring the content that passes through his or her system. This is partly a function of the technology involved, and partly a function of the huge volume of the Internet. No decree by Act of Parliament or code of practice can change this simple truth.
"It is necessary for regulatory agencies to understand that the global Internet is not an Australian phenomenon and the best-intentioned of Australian laws will make no impact whatsoever on the content available on the Internet. If there are community concerns as to the availability of material which may be harmful to children, it is a misapprehension created by a censorious interest in a very small amount of the data available on the global Internet. If the government wishes to address the community concerns, it may do so with intelligence and an eye to the future by educating in schools and in the wider community the basics of Internet use and means by which a user may control more precisely the information that is retrieved from Internet searches.
"It is not possible for system administrators in Australia to act as the nation's child-minders. The ABA report appears to be ambivalent about the response to minors using the Internet. On the one hand it strongly recommends that service providers be required to include in codes of practice procedures that aim to verify that prospective account holders are over the age of eighteen (18) years. This is to make it effectively an offence punishable by deregistration to permit a minor to have his or her own Internet account. This is an unnecessary restriction on civil liberties, one makes no such requirements for any other form of library and to make the analogy with sex shops is to caricature the Internet as library of a same nature. The consequence that service providers lose their registration if they provide a "kid-safe" Internet environment seems to be a totally counter-productive proposal.
"Another mistake the ABA report makes here is in using an understanding of Internet access which is already dated and will soon be completely fallacious. The whole idea of restricting possession of "accounts" to adults assumes that there is some sort of account involved.
"At the _moment_ , most private users connect to the Internet by dial-up sessions over a modem, sessions which (for billing purposes) require authentication in the form of a password. This is possession of "an account".
"For users who have access through work-places and individuals with dedicated connections, this picture is already wrong. There is no clear divide between being "on" the Internet and being anywhere else. If one has a permanent, 24 hour connection to the Internet, is the user "on" the Internet all the time? Only when sitting in front of the computer? Only when sitting in front of a computer using a network application? What if the user is reading email from last year? The futility of answering these questions makes it clear that "on the Internet" is a meaningless term for such users.
"Now consider that in the not too distant future most household Internet connections will be permanent, that libraries and cafes are already Internet access points and that all kinds of other businesses and organisations will also be, and that public phone booths are likely to become public Internet access points. Any sort of clear-cut divide between life "on" the Internet and ordinary daily life is clearly illusory in this sort of world".
In about August 1996, the Service Providers Action Network (SPAN) identified a set of action points in relation to self-regulation.
The South Australian Internet Association released a draft Code in late 1996, modelled on that of the Western Australian Association (see Appendix 4A). The SAIA document is at http://www.saia.asn.au/Documents/cofcv1_0.html, and is reproduced below.
Note: An "online service provider" includes an internet access provider, an internet service provider and a bulletin board system operator. The obligations and duties of an online service provider may vary depending on the nature of the service provided and upon the nature of the user access.
Go to CAUDIT's Home Page.
Send an email to CAUDIT's Executive Officer.
Created: 26 October 1996, Last Amended: 3 April 1997