EFA Chair Nic Suzor explains EFA's ongoing struggle to defend civil liberties online, in the first of a series of blog posts on the importance of online civil liberties as part of EFA's 2010 Fundraising Campaign ...

I am very excited to announce the start of EFA's fundraising campaign for 2010. We are asking for your assistance in our ongoing struggle to defend civil liberties online and work for sensible regulatory technology and communications policy. With your help, we can continue to represent the interests of individuals in an environment that is increasingly dominated by private industry on the one hand and misguided government regulation on the other. I believe that EFA plays a fundamentally important role in ensuring that both government and industry are informed of user interests and are accountable to the Australian public.

Read more ... »

For the next two weeks Electronic Frontiers Australia is running a fundraising drive so that we can continue to expand and campaign for your online civil liberties.  Although EFA has been leading the Open Internet campaign against the Government's proposal to censor the Internet, that is just one aspect of our activities and interests.  In addition to Internet censorship, EFA campaigns on a wide range of issues relating to Internet regulation, including copyright, defamation, R18+ for computer games, telecommunications, ISP liability, privacy, domain names, trade marks, and the digital economy.

To highlight the diverse range of topics EFA is engaged in, and to demonstrate the importance of online civil liberties in this country, we have invited ten digital thought leaders to write a blog post on an aspect of online civil liberties of their choosing. For the next two weeks, we will feature each day a different post from one of these online thought leaders.

As you read these posts, we hope you will appreciate the vital role EFA plays in this space and will be encouraged to contribute to our fundraising drive.

Appropriately enough the first post in this series is from EFA Chair Nic Suzor, who explains EFA's ongoing struggle to defend civil liberties online and work for sensible regulatory technology and communications policy.

Over the past few months, EFA has been working hard campaigning for an Open Internet against Government censorship of the Internet.  While we are proud of what we have achieved in that campaign, the Government's decision to delay the introduction of the legislation means that it will be prolonged and ongoing campaign.  Moreover, that is only one example of EFA's activities and interests.  In addition to Internet censorship, EFA campaigns on a wide range of issues relating to Internet regulation, including copyright, defamation, R18+ for computer games, telecommunications, ISP liability, privacy, domain names, trade marks, and the digital economy.

Most of this campaign work is carried out by elected Board Members, who act in a voluntary capacity and are not remunerated for their time spent on EFA projects.  This will not change.  However, if EFA is to continue to expand and launch further campaigns, we need money for media, organisation and lobbying.

That is why, starting today, we are launching a fundraising drive so that we have the necessary funds to effectively protect online civil liberties in this country.

Learn more about what it is that EFA does and what your money will be spent on, and then please give whatever you can afford.  The recent debate in this country around Internet censorship demonstrates that we cannot take our civil liberties for granted and that EFA is in the best position to campaign on your behalf.

After you have donated, please encourage others to support EFA:

	Tweet Your Support
	Add to Facebook
	Share this Page
	Email to a friend

We also have a badge and/or a banner that you can use to help promote this fundraising campaign. If you would like to help publicise this fundraising campaign, you can copy the code and embed it on your blog or website. Or feel free to right click on the image, save it, and use it however you would like.

Embed this badge on your blog or website:

<a href="http://www.efa.org.au/support2010/" mce_href="http://www.efa.org.au/petition/"> <img src="http://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/EFA_badge.jpg" mce_src="http://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/EFA_badge.jpg" alt="Support EFA" border="0"/></a>

Embed this banner on your blog or website

<a href="http://www.efa.org.au/support2010/" mce_href="http://www.efa.org.au/support2010/"> <img src="http://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SupportEFA_banner1.jpg" mce_src="http://www.efa.org.au/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SupportEFA_banner1.jpg" alt="Support EFA" border="0"/></a>

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) has responded to the extraordinary challenge and attacks directed at it by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Senator Stephen Conroy in Question Time yesterday and today.

In a response to a question asked by Senator Sue Boyce about Australia recently being added to a watch list of countries with worrying Internet censorship trends by Reporters Without Borders, Senator Conroy accused EFA of misleading the public and international organisations.

EFA rejects these assertions. "We are aggressive in educating the public on the drawbacks of this and other policies that threaten our online freedoms, but take great pains to provide factual information and analysis to the Australian public," said EFA Vice-Chair Colin Jacobs. "If we have erred in any particular instance, then we welcome a correction. That said, we have carefully considered the legalities and technical issues surrounding the policy and unreservedly stand by our assessment. It will achieve nothing for parents and police, it will cost enormous amounts of money, and presents a real threat to our freedom of speech."

As an international watchdog of press freedom, Reporters Without Borders conduct their own research on events around the world. "It should go without saying that Reporters Without Borders have not been coached by EFA; they have come to that conclusion on their own," said Mr Jacobs. "Reporters Without Borders is a reputable, independent international organisation who is justifiably concerned about a tolerant and liberal democracy such as Australia taking the first steps down a path of secretive and automated censorship of the Internet."

In response to a follow-up question by Senator Boyce, Senator Conroy also challenged EFA to provide a quote where he had equated his critics as child pornography advocates. Two such instances are set out in a blog post on EFA's website at http://www.efa.org.au/2010/03/16/efa-responds-to-senator-conroy/.

"Nobody, including EFA, have ever argued that the filter is a bad idea because child pornography is not worth combating," said Mr Jacobs. "Our argument is and has always been that the filter will be ineffective in doing so yet comes at enormous cost. To rail against 'people' for equating 'freedom of speech with watching child pornography' is simply a cheap rhetorical trick. We trust that with legislation imminent, we can move past such distractions."

Accordingly, EFA hopes that Senator Conroy will now be willing to participate a national debate on the relative merits of the Government's policy. "We are still awaiting a solid defence of this policy that references any evidence, study, or reputable expert that demonstrates this filter will help Australian children," said Mr Jacobs. "We challenge the Minister to produce such evidence."

EFA welcomes the opportunity to participate in this national debate. "Instead of engaging in a rational and important debate on the issue of mandatory Internet censorship, Senator Conroy has opted to use parliamentary privilege to make attacks against EFA and its board," said Peter Black, EFA's campaign manager. "Contrary his attack yesterday, our Open Internet campaign seeks to give the Australian public all the facts they need to form an opinion on the Government's policy. Our goal is to ensure the Australian public know what they're in for."

Read more ... »

Update : The Minister followed up his attacks today, see below.

During yesterday's Question Time, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy again faced questions about the Rudd Government's highly unpopular push to introduce mandatory, nationwide internet censorship. In his answer, the Minister accused this organisation of misleading the public and international organisations. We relish the opportunity to respond and set the record straight.

The minister was asked by Senator Boyce about the reaction of international watchdog Reporters Without Borders, who have written an open letter to the Prime Minister and recently added Australia to a watch list of countries with worrying internet censorship trends.^[1]

Senator Conroy, in his answer, asserted that RWB were simply misled and continued:

Senator Conroy: What we have announced is perfectly clear. Anyone in this chamber or anyone who talks to Reporters Without Borders who tries to suggest that anything other than material included in the RC classification is subject to the filter is misleading all Australians. Let me be very clear: the material under the RC classification is material like child pornography, pro-rape websites and pro-bestiality websites— material of that nature. You cannot buy it on DVD and you cannot buy it a book store.

RWB have not been misled by EFA or anybody else. (In any case, they have not had a special briefing from us.) Neither they nor EFA are suggesting that the scope of the filter is broader than what is proposed, or that the Minister is hoping to use it to block dissenting political speech. Australia has not been placed on the "Internet enemies" list with Iran or China, but has been flagged as a country of concern. That concern is simply this: That a tolerant and liberal democracy such as Australia is taking the first steps down a path of secretive and automated censorship of the Internet. Reporters Without Borders are not alone in appreciating the enormous potential of the internet in bolstering freedom of expression, a freedom under assault in many countries around the world. This struggle has recently been fully embraced by the U.S. Government. The policy being championed by Senator Conroy is exactly counter to the ideals of complete openness that are being championed by these other entities.

EFA understands very well that the filter will be targeting RC - Refused Classification - material. Asserting this does not dispel our concerns nor those of many other organisations and individuals. As the Minister likes to point out, a subset of RC content is universally unwelcome, such as the illegal (child pornography) or that depicting bestiality or extreme sexual violence. However, at the edges of the RC category lies much more controversial material. Euthanasia, information on safe drug use, and adult material depicting particular fetishes would all certainly be blocked.

Setting aside questions of the filter's effectiveness, other concerns include the opaque and undemocratic nature of a secret blacklist not open to public scrutiny, and the virtual inevitability of an expansion of the list's scope by this or a future government. EFA has never maintained that the Government intends to use the filter to stifle political debate. The fact remains that, although the filter is designed with a different purpose in mind, what we are going to get is a mandatory and secret system that could one day be used for that purpose. It is this fact that concerns Reporters Without Borders, and concerns many Australians as well.

There is a widespread impression that the Minister, in lieu of tackling the issues, has sought to frame the debate in terms of those who want to do something about child pornography, and those who don't care enough about the problem. This is something EFA has indeed taken issue with in the past. Senator Boyce followed up her question by asking:

Senator Boyce: Isn’t Reporters Without Borders right when it states, ‘Even though a true national debate on the subject is needed, Senator Conroy has made such a discussion very problematic by branding his critics as child pornography advocates’?

The Minister responded:

Senator Conroy: Once again the material that has been supplied to Reporters Without Borders comes from Electronic Frontiers Australia, who have been challenged publicly on a number of occasions to produce a quote where I have ever said that.

It should go without saying that RWB have not been coached by us or approached us for comment on this particular issue; they have come to that conclusion on their own. In any case, here are two occasions on which the Minister is on record wielding the spectre of child pornography to deflect the issue.

Firstly, in one of the first public pronouncements of the policy, the Minister stated:

If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.[2]

On another occasion, when answering a question on the filter put to him by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam during a Senate Estimates hearing, the Minister dodged the question using this device:

Senator Ludlam – Just let me finish. In terms of the countries that you have just listed for me, it is mandatory or is it an opt-in system that, for example, concerned parents could take advantage of?

Senator Conroy – Illegal material is illegal material. Child pornography is child pornography. I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.[3]

We maintain that these remarks do not reflect well on Senator Conroy. Nobody, including EFA, have ever argued that the filter is a bad idea because child pornography is not worth combating. Our argument is and has always been that the filter will be ineffective in doing so yet comes at enormous cost. To rail against "people" for equating "freedom of speech with watching child pornography" is simply a cheap rhetorical trick. We trust that with legislation imminent, we can move past such distractions.

Senator Conroy minced no words in singling out EFA and criticising our campaign against his policy, saying that "Electronic Frontiers Australia have run one of the most disgraceful misinformation campaigns and have misled Australians." We are aggressive in educating the public on the drawbacks of this and other policies that threaten our online freedoms, but take great pains to provide factual information and analysis to the Australian public. If we have erred in any particular instance, then we welcome a correction. That said, we have carefully considered the legalities and technical issues surrounding the policy and unreservedly stand by our assessment. It will achieve nothing for parents and police, it will cost enormous amounts of money, and presents a real threat to our freedom of speech. For the Government's part, we have heard many  frightening statements about internet bestiality, but are still awaiting a solid defence of this policy that references any evidence, study, or reputable expert that demonstrates this filter will help Australian children. We challenge the Minister to produce such evidence.

For our part, EFA intends, as always, to stick to the facts. The many flaws of this policy require no exaggeration.

Update: Today in question time the Minister also took the opportunity to further the attacks on EFA and its board, naming myself (Colin Jacobs), Chair Nicolas Suzor and board member Geordie Guy as those chiefly responsible for a misinformation campaign being waged against the Australian public.

The specific charges stem from an article written by me for Crikey reporting on Reporters Without Borders open letter to the Prime Minister, and our supposed assertion that no child pornography is traded on the open internet. These issues have been addressed comprehensively elsewhere. Our argument is not that there is no child pornography on the web, but that the blacklist filter will not be effective in stopping it. As for supposed inaccuracies being promulgated about the scope of the blacklist, this is largely due to a lack of policy clarity from the Government; at its inception, the filter was to implement the current ACMA blacklist (which is much broader than RC, including R-18+ content), and it has only gradually changed. A year ago, the Minister was still referring to "almost exclusively RC" before finally settling on RC. Given the lack of a solid policy document, it's no surprise there has been confusion amongst the public and international organisations. Nevertheless, since this change we have been clear in our message - RC is broader than the Minister likes to let on, and he cannot guarantee that the scope will never increase any more than he can guarantee he will remain Minister forever.

[1] The report reads: "Among the countries “under surveillance” are several democracies: Australia, because of the upcoming implementation of a highly developed Internet filtering system, and South Korea, where draconian laws are creating too many specific restrictions on Web users by challenging their anonymity and promoting self-censorship."

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomes the comments made by the Shadow Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey MP, on the Government's proposal to effectively censor the Internet.

In a speech delivered at the Grattan Institute last night, Mr Hockey said that the Government's mandatory Internet filtering policy "is likely to be unworkable in practice."

"Mr Hockey correctly identified several of the fundamental problems in the Government's mandatory Internet filtering policy," said Peter Black, EFA's campaign manager. "Most importantly that the filter will not stop children from accessing inappropriate content and will not prevent criminals from accessing and distributing sexual abuse material."

Mr Hockey also recognised that he has personal responsibility as a parent. "If I want to stop my children from viewing other material that I feel is inappropriate then that is my responsibility to do something about it – not that of the government," said Mr Hockey.

"However, this is not just a matter of parental responsibility," said Black. "Parental supervision is actually the most effective way to protect children from accessing inappropriate content."

This is because the filter will not target X-rated pornography, which most parents wouldn’t want their children to view. In addition, the filter will do nothing to protect children from what parents are really concerned about, things like cyber-bullying, online predators, viruses, spam or the identity theft. It might also provide a false sense of security to parents, reducing effective monitoring of their children's online activities.

Mr Hockey was also rightly concerned about what the filter could be used in the future. "But more perniciously it is a scheme that will create the infrastructure for government censorship on a broader scale," said Mr Hockey. "Protecting liberty is about protecting freedoms against both known and future threats. Some may argue that we can surely trust a democratically-elected government in Australia to never try to introduce more wide-spread censorship. I am not so sure!"

EFA shares Mr Hockey's concerns. "One of our main concerns is how the list might expand in the future," said EFA Vice-Chair Colin Jacobs. "With pressure from the media and special interest groups, it's hard to imagine this government forever resisting the temptation to add to the list - let alone all future governments."

"We hope that the rest of the Coalition give this issue the same thought and consideration that Mr Hockey did," Black said. "If they do, they will also conclude that the Government would be better off focusing on increased education and law enforcement, instead of an impractical and costly policy of Government censorship."

Mr Hockey's speech coincided with a new campaign launched EFA this week, Lobby a Lib. "It is looking increasingly likely that our best chance to stop the filter from ever becoming law is to convince the Liberal Party to vote against in the Senate," said Black. "That is why we are encouraging people who disagree with the Government's impractical and costly policy of Government censorship, to visit or write to Liberal Party Members of Parliament or Senators."

The Lobby a Lib campaign is part of the broader Open Internet campaign, which is centred around a new website, OpenInternet.com.au, blog, and Facebook fan page, that together acts as campaign hub for all the different individuals and organisations that are campaigning against the Government’s mandatory Internet filtering policy.

Read more ... »

Last month, I was interviewed by 4ZzZ’s Zed Games show on the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia. The show also includes an interview with Gamers 4 Croydon. You can grab the mp3 here: 20100218-ZedGames-R18-EFA-G4C (40mb).

Thanks a lot to Ray and Chani for having me on the show. It’s great to see a gaming show on prime-time community radio, and I’m really excited to hear future episodes.

Kevin Rudd's plans to crack down on Internet content appear to have drawn the attention of no less than the Chinese Government. The website of the State Council Information Office recently featured an article (Google translation here) on Rudd's endorsement of an "online ombudsman" to deal with inappropriate Internet content and discusses the upcoming mandatory filtering legislation. The article reads in part:

Kevin Rudd told the media that the spread of pornography online in Australia was shocking, and presents a great danger for young people. The government must take all practical measures to severely crack down on online pornography crimes.

It goes on to report on the filter, saying that Parliament is considering legislation to automatically block such sites in future.

It's not surprising that these initiatives have gained some attention in China. The Chinese Government have come under considerable pressure recently with Google's threat to withdraw from the Chinese market due to onerous censorship and aggressive state-sponsored espionage, followed up by a stinging and unequivocal condemnation of Internet censorship worldwide by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This puts Australia in the unenviable position of introducing a significant system of real-time internet censorship just as the tide is turning; the events in China and Iran have precipitated a significant backlash against such censorship in the West. Yet rather than back down, our government is amping up the rhetoric. This includes the online ombudsman idea, more restrictive hate speech laws, and the unnecessary and ill-thought-out filter itself.

This highlights the concern among many Australians that a new era of domestic Internet censorship will put us in some very bad company. Joining this club of censors will grant legitimacy to regimes that are using censorship for political as well as prurient purposes. Google, no strangers to the issues surrounding censorship in China and elsewhere around the globe, wrote this in their submission to the Department in February:

Could damage Australia's International Reputation - Mandatory filtering by Australia could be argued to confer legitimacy upon filtering by other Governments. Australia is rightly regarded as a liberal democracy that balances individual liberty with social responsibility. The Governments of many other countries may justify, by reference to Australia, their use of filtering, their lack of disclosure about what is being filtered, and their political direction of agencies administering filtering.

It appears this could already be happening with respect to China. No doubt they heartily approve of what is going on here. Indeed, the language attributed to the Prime Minister in the article above sounds suspiciously like that used by the CCP itself to justify its own censorship.

There has been a lot of talk in the media and on Twitter over the past week about protests, rallies and other events to stop the Government's mandatory Internet filter from ever becoming law.  Electronic Frontiers Australia remains sceptical of the value and impact of those sorts of events.  Rather, the most effective strategy is to apply pressure on our elected representatives, so that they know Australians are opposed to the filter and this issue will cost them votes, as well as the media, so that they give this issue the mainstream media coverage it deserves.

Accordingly, the Take Action page on the Open Internet website has been updated with ten proactive things you can do stop the filter, including lobbying a Lib, writing a letter to the editor, and calling talkback radio.  Please visit the Take Action page and do as many of the activities as possible.

Also, please add yourself to our Supporter database and mark off when you have done one or all of these ten things, so that we can keep track of how our collective lobbying efforts are going. We will also post a weekly list of Open Internet Advocates, who are supporters who have marked off five or more of these things.

We need your support to apply pressure on Canberra and the media to stop the Government's mandatory Internet filter from ever becoming law.  Do what you can do to help, and recruit as many other people as possible to our collective cause.

The recent review (EFA and AusGamers' submission is here) on the introduction of an R18+ rating has apparently received more than 55,000 submissions from Australians interested in this issue. This sort of turnout is incredible - several orders of magnitude higher than the regular response rate to Government reviews.

I want to extend our particular thanks to Grow up Austrlaia and EBGames for leading the campaign - particularly by providing a visible petition and an online submission form.

I am greatly heartened by this news - both because this should now provide unignorable evidence that Australians demand to be treated like adults when it comes to game classification, and because it signals real potential for the future of grass-roots activism and public participation in the democratic discourse.

Expect more news and a report sometime after April.

There are jerks on the internet. Given how many jerks there are off the internet, this shouldn't surprise anyone. (I'm willing to bet that the first cave painting was barely dry before a jerk came along and drew an oversized penis on one of the animals.)

Nevertheless, the offensive defacement last week of two Facebook pages, tributes to slain Queensland children Elliott Fletcher and Trinity Bates, became a minor flap in the media. Words like "sinister", "disgusting" and "sick" quickly appeared in various articles.

Where an outraged media go, politicians quickly follow. Barely one news cycle after the story about tasteless Facebook pranks, Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed an "online ombudsman" to "deal with such incidents", an idea tentatively endorsed by the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, Queensland premier Anna Bligh wrote to Facebook angrily demanding an explanation.

Read more ... »

The Review on the introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games closes on Sunday. To all of you who have not yet made a submission, I encourage you to do so.

To make a submission, use the template provided on the Attorney-General's website. Fill out the questionnaire and add your own comments. It is critically important that we explain to the Australian Government that Australians are capable of making responsible decisions for themselves and for their children. You should explain, in your own words, why you believe we should not censor games designed for adults. Two particular points I think it's important to get across are:

• If you are a parent, explain how you monitor and oversee what media your children are able to watch and play;
• Explain why you would like the opportunity to play games that deal with complex adult themes

We have almost completed our submission, drafted in conjunction with AusGamers. You may want to read through it for some ideas.

We believe that it is time that Australia accepts that games are not just for children - that games are a highly expressive media capable of conveying complex adult themes that are not suitable for children but which should not be banned. We believe that Australians are capable of making responsible choices about what games we play and what games we allow our children to play. We believe, crucially, that introducing an R18+ rating will help parents and all Australians make more informed choices by providing a clear indicator of video game content and aligning games classification more closely with film classification.

Please take the time to make your voice heard on this crucially important issue.

If you're a politician, and something nasty is brought to your attention, what do you do? The best and sometimes only tool in your toolbox is the one you reach for. The tool is this: to pass a law banning it. Therefore, although it's always discouraging, a story like this one, is far from unusual or surprising. "Laws to tackle racism on the Internet are set to be beefed up," it announces.

"Authorities warn they are often powerless to act against online content, which is responsible for almost one in five racial vilification complaints," it continues, then:

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has ordered the Australian Human Rights Commission to conduct a sweeping review of ''arrangements for dealing with racist material on the internet''.

''While freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights, this is not at the expense of the rights of people, while using the Internet, to be treated with equality, dignity and respect,'' Mr McClelland told The Sunday Age.

Certainly, nobody likes hate speech. But these words, by our Attorney-General, are concerning. Firstly, they show a terrible lack of  consideration of the complexities of the issue, and secondly, they demote freedom of speech in a significant way.

Banning racist content on the Internet might seem like a good idea on the surface, but you don't have to dig very deep before the idea becomes problematic. The existing laws throughout the states grapple with some thorny issues. How do you define hate speech? "Kill all Jews" certainly counts, but what about "Liberate Palestine"? Is Holocaust revisionism hate speech? What about an honestly held  opinion on the undesirability of immigration from a certain part of the world? Does this inspire "hatred, contempt or severe ridicule" against a group of persons? These ambiguities will become more problematic if a new national law is introduced that applies to every blog on the Internet.

The proposal also shows a considerable lack of understanding about the realities of censoring the Internet. The Internet, it should go without saying, is global. Billions of web pages are out there, far beyond the reach of Australian lawmakers, and reflecting a multitude of different cultural values. Content hosted in Australia can be removed, but it can just as easily be moved or copied overseas by its authors. It is therefore questionable whether any law could have a meaningful impact.

The comments by the AG and others pay lip service to freedom of speech, but their words lack conviction. Freedom of speech is fine, but "not at the expense of the rights of people... to be treated with equality, dignity and respect." That sounds like a noble sentiment, but are we certain that freedom of speech shouldn't include the right to be mocking, disrespectful and offensive? There are definitely limits to freedom of speech that we can all agree on. But the above comments seem more like a dismissal of free-speech concerns than a debate of their merits.

We need to ask ourselves, is this the best way to tackle racism in Australian society? Is racist web content a cause of racist attitudes, or merely a symptom of it? In our view, other, more substantive and community-based policies are needed if we want to see a real improvement in this area.

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the results of a recent survey that found Australian Internet users do not support the idea of mandatory Internet filtering.

The preliminary results of the Australian Broadband Survey 2009, conducted by Whirlpool (whirlpool.net.au), found that 91.8% respondents did not support the idea of mandatory Internet filtering.

The survey also found 83.4% of respondents said that the introduction of mandatory Internet filtering might affect their vote at the next Federal election.

“The results highlight widespread community disagreement with the Government’s plan,” said Peter Black, EFA’s campaign manager. “These results also show that Australians believe the Government would be better off focusing on increased education and law enforcement, instead of an impractical and costly policy of Government censorship.”

When asked what the Government should focus on in terms of internet safety, 81.8% supported educating parents, 63.9% said educating children, 43.7% said law enforcement, 42.1% said subsidising desktop filter software, and 33.5% said subsidising ISP-level opt-in filters, with only 3.2% supporting mandatory Internet filtering.

These preliminary results from the Australian Broadband Survey 2009 only include respondents aged 18 years of age or older. The survey was successfully completed and verified 21,775 times by respondents aged 18 years of age or older. The full results of the Survey are expected to be published soon.

“These results confirm that people who understand the issue overwhelming oppose the Government’s policy,” Black said. “The big challenge now is to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians, who perhaps aren’t particularly computer or Internet savvy.”

That is why last week EFA launched the Open Internet campaign, centred around a new website, OpenInternet.com.au, blog and Facebook fan page, to, to, that together will act as campaign hub for all the different individuals and organisations that are campaigning against the Governmentb s mandatory Internet filtering policy.

The Open Internet campaign marks an escalation of opposition to the Government’s policy, which will continue throughout the year. “Our goal is to ensure the Australian public know what they’re in for,” said Black. “It’s important that such a major and expensive policy gets the public scrutiny it deserves. And we believe that Open Internet portrays a positive and understandable message that will resonate with Australians who are yet to form a strong opinion on the Government’s policy.”

- Ends -

Below is:

- Background information
- Contact details for media

Background:
* EFA’s Open Internet campaign
- http://openinternet.com.au/

* Electronic Frontiers Australia
- http://www.efa.org.au/

* Australian Broadband Survey 2009 Pre-Release Report
- The pre-release report has been redacted.  The full report will be available at Whirlpool (whirlpool.net.au) in the next few days.

About EFA:

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA) is a non-profit national organisation representing Internet users concerned with on-line rights and freedoms. EFA was established in 1994, is independent of government and commerce, and is funded by membership subscriptions and donations from individuals and organisations with an altruistic interest in promoting online civil liberties.

Media Contacts:

Mr Peter Black
Campaign Manager
Phone: 0421 636 496
Email: pete.black at efa.org.au

Mr Colin Jacobs
EFA Vice-Chair
Phone: 0402 631 955
Email: cjacobs at efa.org.au

Michael Geist is reporting that the text of the secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) chapter on internet enforcement has been leaked. As suspected, the text is unlikely to require major changes to Australian law, but it does do two very concerning things:

• Increased pressure on intermediaries (ISPs) to monitor and police their networks: in the recent iiNet litigation, the Federal Court found that ISPs were under no obligation to terminate the accounts of subscribers that the film industry alleged (without proof) were infringing copyright. This is a contentious point, and we expect to see the copyright industry lobby for legislative change. The ACTA provides them with more ammunition to argue for a three-strikes policy, which is unfortunate.
• Increased entrenchment of the harshest level of copyright sanctions: my biggest concern with ACTA is what it means for the way that international copyright law is developed. Copyright is such an important part of the framework that governs the way that we interact online - it underpins nearly every aspect of modern communication. Because the balance between providing authors with an incentive to create and users with the ability to access is so critically important, the way in which copyright policy is made is also critically important for a society. The ACTA, a secret plurilateral agreement, ensures that the role of the public is minimised, allowing corporate rightsholders to set the agenda for copyright policy.

Read more ... »