Tag Archive for "Code of Practice"
Don’t just take my word for it, let’s see what the Department of Internal Affairs has to say about how well their system works (the following quoted text is all from the draft Code of Practice):
ISPs Might Not Participate
Participation in the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System by ISPs is therefore voluntary and this provides an effective means of ensuring that the system keeps to its stated purpose. If ISPs become uncomfortable with the direction of the system, they can withdraw.
Doesn’t Prevent the Creation of Illegal Material and the Exploitation of Children
The Department of Internal Affairs appreciates that website filtering is only partially effective in combating the trade in child sexual abuse images. In particular website filtering is effective only after the fact and does not prevent the creation of illegal material nor, in the case of images of child sexual abuse, the exploitation of children.
Doesn’t Catch the People Doing It
The system also will not remove illegal content from its location on the Internet, nor prosecute the creators or intentional consumers of this material.
Can Easily be Circumvented
The Department also acknowledges that website filtering systems are not 100% effective in preventing access to illegal material. A person with a reasonable level of technical skill can use tools that are freely available on the Internet to get around the filters.
Doesn’t Stop File Sharing or Chatrooms
As illegal material, such as child sexual abuse images, is most often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chatrooms, which will not be filtered, the Censorship Compliance Unit carries out active investigations in those spaces.
Might Give Parents a False Sense of Security
The Department is aware that a website filter could give parents a false sense of security regarding their children’s online experience. Filters are unable to address all online risks, such as cyber-bullying, online sexual predators, viruses, or the theft of personal information.
Maybe the DIA should persuade themselves that Internet filtering is a good idea before trying to implement it.
The Department of Internal Affairs has released a draft Code of Practice for the operation of their Internet filtering scheme.
The Code of Practice provides a good overview of how the system works and explains the policies that the DIA will use to manage the list. None of it should be a surprise to anyone who has read the FAQs and other articles on this website.
Rather than rehash the arguments for or against the filtering (although it is amusing to note that the Code admits a number of the shortcomings with the system), I’d rather write about their proposal for an Independent Reference Group that they have included in the draft Code.
The Department will institute an Independent Reference Group (IRG) to maintain oversight of the operation of the Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System to ensure it is operated with integrity and adheres to the principles set down in this Code of Practice.
That reads well enough but finding out what the IRG will actually do is a bit tricker. The first reference to them is in relation to people appealing decisions to block particular sites: “The appeals submitted and the actions taken will be reported to the IRG. The reports will be published on the Department’s website.”
The second is merely about reviewing the Code of Practice: “The Department, in conjunction with the IRG, will review the Code after 12 months operation. ”
The first major omission in the Code is the method by which the members of the IRG are going to be selected. We need to know that to get some idea of just how Independent the RG will be.
Secondly, there is no real guidance to the workings of the IRG. How often will they meet? What powers will they have? What happens if there is a disagreement between the DIA and the IRG about the inclusion of a particular site?
Thirdly, note that the IRG still has to rely on the DIA as they’re the ones that judge any appeals. The IRG only sees the report of the DIA’s inspector. Is the IRG going to be able to anything more than say “The DIA told us that they’re doing everything correctly”?
Overall, I’m not sure if the IRG really adds much to the need for openness and transparency. Once again the DIA’s desire to keep the filter list secret ends in the inevitable “you have to trust us”, except that this time we have to trust the IRG who has to trust the DIA.
Naturally I’ll be making a submission.