The Positions Taken by the Major Stakeholders about Internet Filtering - Essay Example

Introduction A number of controversies have come to the limelight with the proposal of the internet filtering proposal by the Australian government with various categories of persons expressing differing opinions on the issue. This essay will offer the positions taken by the major stakeholders about internet filtering. Main body The internet filter debate is a motion by the Australian Federal Government that has offered different stakeholders to air their views on the proposed banning of a certain category of internet materials. This will be affected through the mandatory restriction of access to some internet sites on all of the internet service providers found in Australia. This proposal has been viewed as an information policy issue due to the fact that it relates to matters that pertain to restriction of information that is found in the internet. As it basically intends to protect children from viewing pornographic material found in the internet, this aim coupled with the intent to block access of material considered 'illegal' from adults by the government, as well as peer messaging has been identified by opponents of this proposal as a means through which the Australian government is restricting free flow of information. The raging debate has been fired up by the opponents as well as the proponents of this proposal who form the group of major stakeholders playing a part in creation of that filter. These stakeholders include the consumers of the internet network services, the internet providers, activists advocating for the civil rights of humans, politicians within the opposition parties, and the engineers (Price and Verhulst 2005 p76). This proposal has received major resistance from a number of stakeholders. Those who are opposed to it have presented their arguments for their opposition as can be seen below. A great number of internet consumers are opposed to the filter since they are concerned that their accessibility to information needed will be curtailed. Some of the consumers e.g. a radio presenter known as Helen Razer, have expressed their interest in and love for pornography and have expressed their concern that filtering it might limit access to it. Helen acts as a representative for the larger community that enjoys pornography and that which believes its effects are hardly damaging to both adults and children. Consumers are concerned that the information labeled by the government as 'illegal' might infringe on their rights to knowledge since the Australian government has no clear demarcations as to the extent of illegality of internet materials. Engineers e.g. Mark Newton- an engineer dealing with network in Internet Service Provision, have expressed their disapproval, providing technical evidence as to why the system is not viable. They are concerned that speed will be curtailed and that room for default is still present as the internet users can still manage to get access to the filtered information to a lesser degree. The internet providers including iiNet, Telstra as well as Internode have dogged the proposal claiming its lack of viability on the grounds of ethics, technicality and legal considerations. Politicians from the opposition on the other end, for example Dale Clapperton demonstrated their dissatisfaction by stating that there exists some legal and support issues that the Labor party would need to implement before the proposal can be implemented. They claimed the necessity of a new legislation and the support of Australian senate or some kind of major assistance from the internet Industry Association. At the same time the Liberals and the Greens have declared their lack of support for the legislation of this proposal. In the real sense, sufficient votes to support the legislation of the filter are lacking and this is a great incapacity on the government's side in its enactment. Activists of the rights of the children who are responsible for the welfare of the children have taken different stands regarding this proposal. Some of them have indicated their lack of support for the filter terming it as ineffective and considering the move as a waste of government money that could be used for better undertakings than this. The NSW Young Labor for example did away with the plan to filter the internet plan in the process surmounting points that could lead to the failure of the motion. This group entertained the idea that some leniency could be adopted to offer an opt-in option for the proposal. Nevertheless, some parties did consider the proposal as a great idea and thought it fit for the children and all the Australian citizens as well. the major proponent of this proposal; the senator Stephen Conroy whose brain child the proposal was had full support for the proposal believing that it would assist to end child pornography, use and abuse of drugs, crime reduction, increased rates of violence, and the encouragement of terrorism. Some parents were drawn to the support of this filter as they felt that it would screen their children from pornography as an opinion poll conducted by the Netspace Internet Service Providers on some of their customers revealed. Though the majority favored the opposite, some of the parents clearly wanted the listed materials to be filtered for the sake of the safety of their children. Equally, some groups that deal with the welfare of children hailed the filter as a strong way of protecting the children from 'hard stuff' they were not to see or get any access to. This includes pornography, drug abuse and violence among others. The child welfare group known as Childwise felt it was a sensible thing for the Australian government to consider the filter as it would assist with protecting the children from bad influence from the internet. Some other individuals including Clive Hamilton- an ethics professor in the institute that popularized the internet filter through correspondence with the media defended this filter criticizing the critics who adopted speed as the whip with which to backlash the filter. He argued that speed could still be boosted, and that speed reduction would not form a valid reason for the flagging off of the filter. His approach means combating the foreseeable hurdles in order to set the filter rolling (Gavin 2009). Policy framework Summary of issues on internet filtering With various stakeholders taking either side of the internet filtering debate, a number of issues have arisen for or against the motion. A majority of Parents and guardians as consumers of the internet products are up against the motion since they believe it would curtail their access to needed material. Internet providers feel that effective screening is not only impossible with the presence of the black market and social networks as pathways through which illegal internet information could be exchanged. Further, this could slow the internet to up to 86% if affected. Some groups of children welfare support feel that the enactment of this filter would only be resource wasting while the opposition political parties have refused to support the filter since they feel that it is not viable due to the many loopholes it presents. Nevertheless some support for the filter has been shown by a small number of consumers who feel the move is safe enough for the children for protecting them against child pornography, acts of violence, and drug abuse among others. This group of consumers includes parents and guardians who would wish to have their children protected against the above mentioned cases. Other individuals supporting the motion on filtration of the internet includes its major proponent the minister for communication senator Stephen Conroy. He believes that this particular filter will go a long way into assisting children to grow up responsibility by protecting them from internet corruption. He believes that the proposal will shield the adults from illegal information as well in order to make responsible people out of them. Clive Hamilton has provided a way of getting past the hurdles that may get into the way of the people to prevent them from attaining the benefits of the filter. He invites people to capitalize on getting ways of improving the speed of the internet as opposed to avoiding passing of the filter due to speed problems. Some of the groups that defend the welfare of the children have also defended this move identifying sensibility in it as a way of protecting the children from corrupting information. Alternatives to the filter It is quite apparent that a very large group of people are opposed to the idea of filtering the materials from the internet. This therefore means that alternatives to this idea might provide greater ways through which the Australian government can use to foster an idea that can regulate access to some information that it feels it would be worth protecting its citizen against (Deibert 2008). The technology that is currently intended to block the 'illegal' information as well as the information that amounts to child pornography from the internet has been put to test and has largely failed in achieving the required standard. It has been found out that this system has a failure rate that ranges from 2-10% in terms of the infiltration of information not intended to reach the recipient as well as blockage of information not classified as 'illegal'. This then calls for a technological system that can yield better results for the cause so that the critics can have no fault in it. At the same time, the filtration reduces the internet speed to a very large degree with the systems that are very accurate in filtration having a reduced speed of up to 86%. This is undoubtedly very inconveniencing and therefore a more time saving system would need to be incorporated. As Clive Hamilton suggests, the problem with speed should not be used as an excuse for not screening the mind corrupting information but the system should be boosted to the point that it functions at the normal speed. Precise information to block could be specifically coded with the help of the internet service providers to ensure that only the required material is filtered while other material required is availed. On the other hand, to ensure that the information past between peers is not harmful, then laws regarding privacy of information within the system might be required to loosen so that it is accessed by the ministry of information, screened for any irregularity and then sent to the owner if the screening finds no irregularities with the information shared. This might not go on well with the people as it is a direct infringement into their privacy and they wouldn't feel comfortable sharing information of any nature though it may prove worthwhile sharing. This also has the potential of stirring discomfort among the people who may react by engaging into violent acts to demand for the abolition of the system. The adoption of the civil libertarianism in the matter would ensure that the rights of the citizens are respected and the government establish very minimal or lack of any kind of interference with the freedoms of the people. In this case then, the government of Australia could choose to let the Australians have the right of choice as to the amount of internet freedom they would wish to have. To this end, a great likelihood of children engaging in the much forbidden child pornography would increase to a greater degree than in the case where the internet is restricted. Yet as it has been noted, those individuals who advocate for civil libertarianism of freedoms for various issues e.g. gay marriages, and in this case internet pornography do not always believe in acting them out, then presenting this information as thus would mean that the children, their parents and guardians will determine the amount of time, and the stuff the children can access from the internet. The responsibility towards the acquisition of the desired behavior only shifts from the shoulders of the government to those of the citizens themselves who devise ways of ensuring that access to the liberty sought for is limited as they deem suitable. This would ensure that the personal liberties are not interfered with for the sake of or the excuse of the need to protect the society. This would also put to check the possibility of personal life encroachment in terms of tapping the phone conversations, reading electronic messages, and limitation of collection of personal information among others. The filter could also be replaced by engagement of political views that appear friendly to the needs of the people or at least the political views that reflect the needs of the majority citizens. This can be done through opinion polling in order to get the opinion of the majority of the people and reflect it in the creation of laws so that it can get a wider support from the grass roots. Having radio and television shows with call in sessions for the people to reflect their opinions and to vote for the opinions that best reflect their standing would be an appropriate way through which the government can get the real need of the citizens and reflect it through the creation of laws favoring the people. Equally other mobilization strategies could be used e.g. council meetings or village meetings with the authorities of a particular place and motivating the people to talk about their needs would be very encouraging for the people to talk about their needs. An assessment on the needs of the people by the political scientists would then offer a chance for the politicians to find ways and means of wielding their power to achieve political mileage via meeting of the needs of people. Offering the citizens an initiative could assist with the reflection of the needs of the people through popular signing by a given number of registered voters to enforce a public vote on the proposed internet filtering. This reflection could lead to the enactment of the required change after a careful consideration. It could also necessitate the senior management or legislative body to consider the subject by having it submitted to the concerned individuals for rechecking or for consideration to suit the needs of the public. Thus this would mean that the decision arrived at is reflective of what the requirements of the public are as reflected by a major part of the public. Enactment would therefore offer the maximum satisfaction to the people thus create a good political atmosphere with the political body (Chattahbox.com 2009). Use of a business portal would also prove to be another alternative to internet filtering. This way, business people at all levels would come up together to share the common views that disturb them on daily basis or those which threaten to push their businesses down the drain as a result of adoption of the political ideology. In this case then, the Australian business men who specialize in internet service provision, should they feel like the government is threatening their business through the proposition of the internet filtering should lobby for the reconsideration of the proposal as a group to ensure their businesses are protected. Even then, they must mobilize a sizable group with them and identify a challenging issue through which they can lobby for the complete removal of the proposal, or a change to allow the business a chance to survive, or a complete overhaul of the demands of the unfriendly proposal. With enough backing, this way would prove an effective way of getting the attention of the government to listen to the pleas of the business men while at the same time reconsider a new way of looking at the needs of the people within the wider community. I personally disagree with the filter concept because of the academic effect it would have on the academic aspect of the society. The internet has been a great source of information for the people who desire to attain enlightenment from it due to the prevalence of academic related material found there in. We find that the internet is adored with great volumes of academic material that encompasses all subjects of any academic interest. This can be evidenced by the large numbers of scholarly materials found within the internet which include academic journals on all subjects of an academician's desire, online books for example the Google e-books, scholarly pages- these are also derived from a myriad of subjects, courses or topics; academic search engines for example Google books search; and educative interactive websites e.g. chatter box, educationalist.com etc. if the filter were to be effected and it happens that some of the needed material cannot be availed due to the blockages put in place to control access to the restricted material and which are known to cause such eras, then the academic world would really be restricted due to the availing of minimal information or information that is insufficient. This is a very important consideration because a great number of people are accessing educative material through the internet while a lot of other scholars share their scholarly experiences which form great informative databases that scholars can greatly benefit from. Failure to access this information I believe would be detrimental to the academics within Australia who would find themselves lugging behind most of the major academic events taking place within the global or even national scale (Cath News 2009). Conclusion The proposal of the Australian government to filter some of the information that can be accessed through the internet has been a controversial topic that has evoked much debate. The potential of the filter to prevent negative information from reaching the children and some of it from reaching the adults cannot quite be matched with the detrimental effect it may pose on the information curtailment. There is also a great concern that should the government pursue this line of information censuring, it could be tempted to increase the scope of the information barred with time thus cause much suffering of lack of information for the people. The matter can be viewed as a matter of ethics or political among many other angles possible. However I believe that whatever the angle the matter can be viewed, filtering the information may not be get the results needed but may end up having detrimental results. References Cath News (2009) Internet filter; child pornography. As retrieved from http://www.cathnews.com.au/article.aspxaeid=10327 on May 18, 2009 as at 6.25 am. Chattahbox.com, (2009) Great Aussie Firewall. As retrieved from, http://chattahbox.com/technology/2008/12/27/australians-debate-national-internet-filter-dubbed-the-great-aussie-firewall/ on May 18, 2009 at 6.30 am Deibert, R. (2008) Access denied; the performance and policy of universal Internet filtering. McMillan publishers P 46 Gavin, F. (2009) Internet filter debate. As retried from http://twitter.com/Gavsta/statuses/1423463264 an May 18, 2009 as at 6.34 am Price, M. & Verhulst, S. (2005) Self-regulation and the Internet. Sage publishers P 76 Read More