Australian internet ranked fourth most free

 

Surveillance, filtering proposals balance NBN benefits.

A global report on internet freedom has ranked Australia fourth most "free", with affordable, high-quality connections available to 75 percent of the population.

US-based research and civil liberties advocacy group Freedom House studied connectivity barriers, content restrictions and user rights in 37 countries between January 2009 and December 2010.

The 410-page Freedom on the Net 2011 report (pdf) followed an April 2009 pilot and aimed to characterise internet freedom through a set of 21 questions about infrastructure, industry regulation, censorship, surveillance and privacy.

Australia ranked below Estonia, the US and Germany as the fourth most free online environment. It had more than 9.1 million active internet subscribers and 16 million users at the end of 2009.

It also ranked fourth in terms of internet penetration, below the UK, USA and South Korea. Freedom House expected Australia’s penetration rate to rise from 75 to 100 percent on completion of the National Broadband Network (NBN).

However, Freedom House researcher Alana Maurushat expected Australia's ranking to remain constant for the next five years, as NBN benefits balanced moves by the Government to increase surveillance mechanisms.

"We risk leaning too far towards the encroachment on civil liberties without evidence that such encroachment will reduce cybercrime," said Maurushat, of the University of NSW's Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre.

"There is still the propensity of Australian governments to equate increased surveillance mechanisms with the ability to curtail cybercrime.

"As a cybercrime expert, I am worried that we are rushing into many such proposals without doing a thorough assessment of whether they are achieving their goals."

Pros and cons of Australian cyberspace

Freedom House researchers described a regulated but fairly free competitive market for internet access, with the Australian Government having "adopted a strong policy of technical neutrality".

The report also found that Australian law did not currently provide for mandatory blocking or filtering of content, so citizens could openly criticise politicians and policies without Government interference.

However, Freedom House found that “threats to internet freedom are growing and have become more diverse” globally, and Australia was no exception.

Researchers highlighted a now-repealed South Australian law that made it illegal for individuals to anonymously comment on political issues in the lead up to the March 2010 state election.

They also highlighted a mandatory, ISP-level internet filter that was proposed by the Labor Government in December 2009, but put on hold until mid-2013, pending a review of Australia’s content classification system.

“The proposed filtering system has been controversial in Australia as there are concerns of over-blocking, censorship of adult materials, scope creep, and impairment of telecommunication access speeds,” Freedom House noted.

“While [Prime Minister] Gillard has voiced support for the filter in the media, the likelihood of any such proposal becoming law is slim due to the strong opposition to any such legislation by opposition parties.”

Freedom House also expressed concern over a controversial Federal proposal to mandate the retention of telecommunications data.

The data retention proposal was expected to support Australia’s accession to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime; however, Freedom House reported that Australia would “go beyond the treaty’s terms”.

“This compulsory data-retention policy, if enacted, could become a great threat to online freedom in Australia,” researchers wrote in a section titled ‘Violation of User Rights’.

Global results

While Australia did "not yet have the balance right" to ensure a free internet while combating cybercrime, neither did Freedom on the Net 2011 leaders Estonia and the US, Maurushat said.

"Estonia and the US are ranked the 'free-est' nations, mostly due to a lack of regulation," she told iTnews.

"These two countries, however, are also the bed of cybercrime with many criminals choosing to register domain names in these countries.

"While free speech is incredibly important, it has also been used to shield some of the worst activity on the internet."

Freedom House stated that it did “not rate governments or government performance per se”, and that index ratings reflected the interplay of government and non-governmental organisations – including private corporations.

Despite a “pushback” by citizens and human rights activists, the report found a strengthening of censorship and internet surveillance powers in response to the rise of social networks and other Web 2.0 applications.

In 12 of the 37 countries examined, authorities permanently or temporarily blocked access to services like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Internet users were arrested for online content in 23 countries, the report noted. Among those were a Chinese woman who faced labour camp over a Twitter message, and an Indonesian woman Prita Mulysari, who was charged with libel for an email she sent to friends about service at the Omni International Hospital.

Australia was among eight countries deemed to have a “free” internet. Others were Estonia, the US, Germany, the UK, Italy, South Africa and Brazil.

Kenya, Mexico, South Korea, Geoergia, Nigeria, India, Malaysia, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Rwanda, Russia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, and Pakistan were deemed “partially free” and ranked from best to worst, in that order.

Eleven countries were deemed “not free”: Thailand; Bahrain; Belarus; Ethiopia; Saudi Arabia; Vietnam; Tunisia; China; Cuba; Burma; and Iran.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Australian internet ranked fourth most free
"@umbria you said "but blacklisting RC resources at ISP level is a low-cost and generally effective protection which should not attract the ire of any right-thinking person." A cost undoubtably ..."
By thor
 
 
 
Comments: 10
Ace
Apr 27, 2011 10:12 AM
I assume Mr Conroy will be suitably outraged by this report of Australians excessive internet freedom.
umbria
Apr 27, 2011 5:29 PM
Although only looking at 37 out of more than 200 countries this appears to be a thoughtful and balanced report, rather than the outraged response typical of such arbiters of public opinion as the Eros Foundation and Man-Boy Love Association whenever Internet freedom is mentioned.

Victims of cybercrime including fraud, bullying and child abuse (sexual or otherwise) never seem to get the same level of airtime as those who want unfettered marketing access for their distasteful material, including that part which is illegal to sell offline.

So flame away if you wish, but my view is shared by many, which is that since the technical trials revealed ISP-based blacklist filtering to be 100% effective against targeted URLs, and also not to measurably slow network performance, it is now up to ALP politicians to have the guts to deliver the filtering policy for which they received a mandate, notwithstanding the lack of Greens support.

Freedom that is exercised without responsibility is licence, not freedom. Australia will remain a free and just country, even with ISP-level filtering of Refused-Classification material.
AkiraDoe
Apr 28, 2011 10:17 AM
Similar to the DBCDE report on the results of the ISP Filtering Trial, the Freedom House report considers Australia's Internet as the fourth most free only if you IGNORE all the attempts at reducing Australians freedoms online such as data retention policies, warrantless surveillance as well as the secret Government controlled blacklist that will be used as the basis for ISP level censorship.

The two reports are similar because the DBCDE report, on the Enex report of the ISP Filtering Trial came to the conclusion that filtering was 100% effective and caused negligible speed impacts so long as RC rated content hosted on high traffic sites and other sites that slow down the filters is IGNORED and not added to the blacklist. It may be 100% effective at blocking a static list of less than 10,000 URLs (not including high traffic site or other URLs that slow down the filters), but effective in stopping people accessing RC Rated material which is in most cases legal to own and view anyway, hardly... And we've not even touched on the subject of bypassing the filters altogether (which could be as easy as adding a ? at the end of the URL).

First, it hasn't been proven that blocking RC will achieve any cyber safety goals such as helping protect children online and second, it hasn't been proven that the current ISP Filtering plan can do it without any real world implications.

Don't forget that the "1/70th of the blink of an eye" comment only applies to a single laptop in a simulated 1.5mbit ADSL environment during Telstra's internal lab tests. Just because it was commented on by the DBCDE in their report doesn't mean it applies to ISP Level filtering, let alone filtering at speeds available via the NBN.

If that lab test can be taken as a real world result, then why did the DBCDE fund the Enex Trial to begin with?! Or is it that Senator Conroy didn't like the results?

In the end, the DBCDE report can be summarised in a single line:

ISP Level Filtering is 100% effective and causes no speed impacts if we ignore everything that breaks or bypasses it and we assume that lab results with single computer testing scenarios apply to the real world.

Both these conclusions (DBCDE Filtering effectiveness and performance claims and the Freedom House assessment of Australia's Internet) are about as valid as saying eating McDonalds will prevent you from ever getting the flu, as long as you don't come in contact with the flu virus.

If you take into account all of the policies being pushed by the current Government rather than IGNORING them, Australia is far from having the 4th most free Internet. Australia didn't make it on the RWB Internet Enemies watch list for nothing.

But since it seems to be the trend these days, "ignoring" all the policies on the way, the fact that right now locally hosted content is subject to take down notices and thousands of dollars in fines for hosting "prohibited material" that again is mainly legal material to own and view (but may offend a hypothetical reasonable adult), sometimes including content as low as MA15+, it's difficult to believe that we still have the 4th most free Internet in the world.
umbria
Apr 29, 2011 11:32 AM
@AkiraDoe, you seem to have missed the part where this civil liberties advocacy group states that it expects Australia's Number 4 ranking to remain constant even INCLUDING its increased net surveillance plans, which are offset by the increased availability of broadband to more of the population due to the NBN rollout. We are both entitled to our views, as are civil rights groups. Polls can say various things at different times, but all large sample polls have consistently shown that the electorate overwhelmingly wants the same restrictions on RC material online as offline. Typically, the press gallery and online polls will be skewed to a more libertine view, but the broader electorate is more conservative, and that means votes.

Also, where do you get your surprising assertion that fines and take-down notices "mainly" apply to locally-hosted material that was not RC? If this has happened it would seem to be unenforceable, except where the police request removal of a bomb-making site or bullying Facebook page, for instance. Copyright is an important but different discussion, of course. Has any local, non-RC material been "prohibited", in fact, and if so for what reasons?
thor
Apr 29, 2011 1:37 PM
@umbria
I understand where you are coming from with regards to RC materials, but this is because the majority of people who I had dealing with (non-technical people) dont understand the consequences and when they do they suddenly change there opinion.

I have previously worked in the Education system and experimented on speed dif between hard and soft filtering compared to no filtering, you would be surprised by the results. Enex was employed by the government to do the test and as any good corporation will make sure there work fit in. I am not alone with this opinion, people working for microsoft, google and other technicial and non technicials agree.

And with regards to Australia expected to be Number 4 if you read the article correctly "While [Prime Minister] Gillard has voiced support for the filter in the media, the likelihood of any such proposal becoming law is slim due to the strong opposition to any such legislation by opposition parties.”

This to me says they expect it to fail and therefore it is not apart of there calculations, I may be wrong as it is open to people's opinion.
Ace
Apr 29, 2011 1:38 PM
This might be an example @umbria:
http://www.27bslash6.com/5pm.html
adavion
May 4, 2011 6:49 PM
@umbria:

ISP-level blacklisting is not 100% effective. It is in fact 100% trivial to circumvent.

By people looking to access black-listed content:
1. Annonymous proxies
2. VPNs
3. Content forwarders

By site owners:
4. Mirroring
5. P2P networking
6. Changing IP addresses
7. Changing domain names

....and it's also quite broken. cf all the false positives. ISP level filtering makes as much sense as Tony Smith did when he was shadow telecoms minister.
umbria
May 5, 2011 11:49 AM
Thanks, Ace, for this example of the crap our police have to deal with to stop drug dealers.

ISP-level blocking is 100% effective in preventing delivery of any single URL or domain that is explicitly blocked, including when additional entries need to be added due to the actions you list as 4-7.

User circumventions 1-3 set a high enough technical hurdle to limit their use by most children.

As a father of four, I accept my responsibility to supervise their computer use and to teach them respect for other people and themselves. There is no substitute for the parent's role, but blacklisting RC resources at ISP level is a low-cost and generally effective protection which should not attract the ire of any right-thinking person.
umbria
May 5, 2011 11:52 AM
Of course adavion, not Ace, raised the ISP-blocking objections to which I referred. Sorry, Ace!
thor
May 5, 2011 5:38 PM
@umbria you said "but blacklisting RC resources at ISP level is a low-cost and generally effective protection which should not attract the ire of any right-thinking person."

A cost undoubtably going to be passed onto the users.

Effective protection is a term I wouldnt use as 60 years olds have been told how to circumvent the filter. Any technical school kids would have no troubles getting around the filter.

"Attract the ire of any right-thinking person" so the doctors or dentist surgery which was wrongly blocked for a couple of months, I didnt know it was a crime to look up health clinics.

The one thing I absolutely agree with is "I accept my responsibility to supervise their computer use and to teach them respect for other people and themselves. There is no substitute for the parent's role"

For adults we now the risk of what we do, if some one choose to do the wrong thing its there choice, same as speeding, same as assault but they must accept responsibility for their actions.

My 2 cents for the day
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
Photos: Google I/O 2013
Evolution not revolution.
 
Photos: NextDC builds S1 data centre
Prepares for September launch.
 
QLD Govt contributed to payroll project 'death spiral'
Inquiry hears from independent expert.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1606

Vote