ISP filtering - frequently asked questions

1. What measures has the government announced to enhance its cybersafety program?

The Australian Government’s approach to cybersafety involves a comprehensive suite of measures to address the range of issues and challenges faced by families when they are online. In December 2009, the government announced a range of new measures to enhance its cybersafety program, including:

The introduction of mandatory internet service provider (ISP) level filtering of content that is rated Refused Classification (RC) in order to reduce the risk of inadvertent exposure.
Increased funding for a range of education, awareness and counselling services as recommended by the government's Youth Advisory Group and advised by its Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety.

In addition to the above measures, in July 2010 the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced that three of Australia's largest ISPs—Telstra, Optus and Primus—have agreed to voluntarily filter a list of child abuse material. Between them, these ISPs account for over 70 per cent of internet users in Australia.

Recently, Webshield and ItXtreme have also volunteered to block child abuse material at the ISP level.

The government will continue encouraging other Australian ISPs to follow the example of these ISPs.

2. What are the enhanced education, awareness and counselling measures?

Increased funding of $17 million over five years for the government's cybersafety education, awareness and counselling programs including measures to:

Reduce waiting times for schools to participate in the ACMA cybersafety outreach programs.
Expand the operating hours and capacity of the cybersafety online help line that is available via the ACMA's website.
Increase awareness of the ACMA's new cybersafety website.
Develop enhanced cybersafety educational products.
Develop and promote the cybersafety help button, in conjunction with the Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety. The help button is a free desktop application that provides internet users, particularly children and young people, with easy online access to cybersafety assistance and resources. The help button is available for download from www.dbcde.gov.au/helpbutton.

3. What will mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification material involve?

The government will introduce legislative amendments to require all ISPs in Australia to use ISP-level filtering to block overseas hosted material on a list of RC-rated material (the RC Content list) maintained by the ACMA. ISPs will be required to begin filtering within 12 months of the passage of the legislation.

RC-rated material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

In July 2010, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced that the Minister for Home Affairs would recommend to state and territory ministers that a review of the scope of RC content, and whether it adequately reflects community standards, be conducted.

In March 2011, Attorney-General Robert McClelland referred the National Classification Scheme to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and asked it to conduct widespread public consultations across the community and industry.

A review of the RC category will now form part of the broader review of classification conducted by the ALRC. The ALRC was asked to provide its final report by 30 January 2012.

As the government’s mandatory ISP filtering policy is underpinned by the strength of our classification system, any legal obligation to commence mandatory ISP filtering will not be imposed until the review is completed.

4. How is Refused Classification content defined?

Refused Classification (RC) content is defined under the National Classification Scheme. Such material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

To further ensure public confidence in Refused Classification content, the Minister has announced a review of the Refused Classification category. The review will examine the current scope of the existing RC classification, and whether it adequately reflects community standards.

The review of the RC category will now form part of the broader review of the National Classification Scheme the ALRC is conducting. The ALRC will hold widespread public consultations across the community and industry and will provide its report in early 2012.

The Classification Board is comprised of members broadly representative of the Australian community who are trained to classify content against the National Classification Scheme. Members of the Board are identified through a national recruitment process and appointed by the Governor-General for an initial period of up to five years. Classification Board members may serve on the Board for a maximum period of seven years. The Classification Board makes decisions about individual content against the criteria of the National Classification Scheme independently of government.

Further information on the National Classification Scheme is available at www.classification.gov.au

5. Why is the government not proceeding with the ISP additional filtering grants program?

The government has consulted with industry about the development of a grants program to encourage ISPs to provide customers with additional levels of filtering at the ISP level (that is, in addition to RC content). The consultations identified limited interest from ISPs to participate in the proposed additional filtering grants program.

As an outcome of these consultations, the government has decided not to proceed with the additional filtering grants program. As an alternative, the government is implementing measures to raise awareness about the range of cybersafety tools currently available to families, particularly those with young children accessing the internet.

A cybersafety tools information pamphlet to provide information on how internet users can access filtering technologies to protect their families from unwanted content is available on the Stay Smart Online website and the department’s cybersafety help button page.

6. Who will meet the costs of implementing mandatory ISP-level filtering?

Introduction of filtering by ISPs in other liberal democracies was achieved without funding assistance from governments. There is no reason why Australia's ISPs cannot do the same.

The ACMA will receive additional funding to enhance the security of the RC Content list and automate its distribution so that ISPs do not have to use manual methods for updating the list.

7. How can people have confidence that the material included on the RC Content list is properly classified?

The RC Content list will be compiled as the result of public complaints to the ACMA, which will assess them using existing criteria set out in the National Classification Scheme. Where the material is found to be RC, it will be added to the list.

The ACMA will add the specific internet addresses (URLs) of known child abuse material obtained from lists maintained by highly reputable international agencies after an assessment of the rigour of the processes used by these agencies to compile their lists.

The Minister also announced a comprehensive suite of transparency and accountability measures that will accompany the introduction of ISP filtering.

These measures and the review of the scope of the existing RC classification will help the public to have confidence that the correct content is being filtered.

8. What arrangements will apply to website owners who consider that their content was inappropriately placed on the list of Refused Classification URLs?

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced on 9 July 2010 a comprehensive suite of transparency and accountability measures that will accompany the introduction of ISP filtering.

This suite of measures is based upon the outcomes from recent public consultations on options for transparency and accountability measures relating to the placement of material on an ISP filtering list.

Further details are available in the public consultation report.

9. Can't these filters be readily circumvented? Will they filter non-web material such as peer to peer?

A technically competent user could circumvent filtering. The government has always said that filtering is not a silver bullet solution. It is part of a suite of measures that will help to reduce the risk of inadvertent exposure to RC-rated material, particularly by children.

ISP-level filtering will reduce the current inconsistency where RC-rated material that is hosted in Australia is subject to take-down, while the same material that is hosted overseas remains readily accessible. The government's ISP filtering policy is consistent with the International Telecommunications Union guidelines on child online protection, which recommend 'the strategic objective for the Internet Industry for child internet safety should be to reduce the availability of and restrict access to harmful or illegal content and conduct.'

10. How does Australia's approach compare with other liberal democracies?

In the UK, British Telecom (BT)—one of the UK's largest ISPs—provides a filtered service at a wholesale level as well as on a retail basis. Filtering is undertaken using the Internet Watch Foundation list of URLs. While the size of this list fluctuates, it usually contains around 1000 URLs of child sexual abuse material. Filtering is undertaken voluntarily by other ISPs in the UK, with over 95 per cent of connections in the UK filtered at the ISP-level.

In Canada, Cybertip.ca maintains and distributes to ISPs a list of URLs hosted outside of the country containing child sexual abuse material. Eight major ISPs in Canada voluntarily block the Cybertip.ca list, providing coverage to almost 90 per cent of Canadian internet subscribers.

In Denmark, all major ISPs voluntarily participate in a scheme covering around 98 per cent of that country's internet subscribers. The list used by Danish ISPs is a compilation of hotline reports of child sexual abuse material.

The Finnish government enacted a law in 2007 that gives telecommunications companies the right to block access to child sexual abuse material. It is reported that the majority of ISPs in Finland now take part in the scheme, covering at least 80 per cent of the total ISP market.

In Norway, the National Criminal Investigation Service maintains a list of around 1000 active domain names that contain child sexual abuse material. All major ISPs filter this list. In turn, they provide a wholesale filtered service to their smaller ISP customers. Since February 2008, as part of the Mobile Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Content, all major mobile operators in Norway also block this list. It is estimated that the participating ISPs cover around 95 per cent of Norwegian internet subscribers.

In Sweden, it is reported that approximately 15 ISPs voluntarily filter a Swedish list of child abuse material. Around 85 per cent of Swedish internet subscribers are covered by these ISPs.

11. What penalties would apply to ISPs that do not comply with the mandatory filtering requirement?

Failure to filter the RC Content list will be subject to the same law enforcement and sanction regime as applies to current online provider rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

An ISP that fails to filter content on the list of RC-rated URLs will commit an offence that carries a penalty of up to $27 500 per day for non-compliance.

12. Will filtering also apply to services delivered over mobile phones and online gaming devices?

All ISPs in Australia will be required to provide an ISP-level filtered service to block the RC Content list. This includes ISPs that provide internet services to devices such as mobile phones and online console or handheld gaming devices.

ISPs in a number of overseas countries have introduced filtered services to handheld devices. Enex TestLab, an independent testing laboratory, has advised that filtering solutions exist that can apply to mobile networks. Consultations with the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association have not identified any particular concerns.

13. Will online games be filtered?

In December 2010, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to the Commonwealth Attorney‑General providing a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to conduct a broad review of the National Classification Scheme (NCS). This review was launched in March 2011 and it is anticipated that the ALRC will also give particular consideration to long-term solutions to the issue of regulating mobile phone and online games.

Consideration is being given to a number of options for short-term solutions—including legislative change that would treat mobile phone and online games similar to other online content rather than stand-alone computer games. Pending the completion of the ALRC review of the NCS, online games will remain subject to existing online content regulation, including in relation to take-down action for online games that are prohibited content and hosted in Australia.

14. What are the main findings of the pilot report?

Filtering the ACMA blacklist

All participants in the pilot accurately blocked 100 per cent of the ACMA blacklist with no over-blocking. The ISPs filtering only the ACMA blacklist had no noticeable performance degradation directly attributable to the filter.

While not a formal participant in the pilot, Telstra undertook its own testing and found that its filter was 100 per cent accurate at blocking a blacklist of 10 000 URLs, with no noticeable performance degradation.

Filtering additional categories of content (that is, for optional filtering)

All six ISPs participating in this part of the pilot achieved between 78 and 84 per cent accuracy at blocking a list of inappropriate content prepared by Enex TestLab. Some over-blocking of URLs (that is, the filters blocked access to content that they should allow) was experienced when filtering additional content.

The Enex TestLab testing showed that accuracy of filtering additional categories of content has improved.

The cost to implement filtering of the ACMA blacklist and additional lists of content is influenced by a number of factors—including the nature of the filtering solution adopted, costs of the filtering hardware/software and the extent to which updates of the blacklist are automated.

Other findings

It is possible for a technically-competent user to circumvent filtering technologies.

15. How do we know ISP-level filtering will work on the National Broadband Network when it was only tested on an 8 megabits per second network in the pilot?

A 100 megabits per second system was not available for testing under the live pilot.

Enex TestLab conducted testing of ISP-level filtering on networks running at speeds of up to 8 megabits per second. This was the highest speed offered by any of the pilot participants.

However, Enex TestLab reports that filtering technologies work in a variety of ways. Consultations with ISPs and expert technical advice confirms that there is no reason to believe that ISPs would not be able to choose a technology that filters a defined list of specific internet addresses (URLs) with no, or only negligible, impact on network speeds when utilising the National Broadband Network.

A number of overseas countries have successfully implemented filtering of a defined list of URLs with no noticeable impact on internet speeds. For example, it is understood that British Telecom's filtered network operates well in excess of 8 megabits per second.

ISP-level filtering devices available in the market can handle 10 gigabits per second of traffic or more per device and most solutions have the capability to cluster the devices in groups to support an aggregate of 80 gigabits or more.

The technology allows considerable scope to scale for supporting large quantities of traffic. Devices in the development pipeline are expected to have considerably higher capacities.

16. How will you address filtering of high usage sites (such as YouTube) to avoid overloading an ISP's network?

The government is aware of advice that adding a URL from high traffic sites to the RC Content list may have an impact on internet performance. Owners of most popular overseas-hosted websites that provide user-generated content already have arrangements in place to take down offensive material (including that which would reach the RC-rated threshold) and are keen to remove content such as child sexual abuse material.

In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, consideration is being given to exempt high traffic sites from the inclusion of their material on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet protocol (IP) addresses in Australia.

17. Will the government expand ISP filtering beyond RC material?

The government will not expand mandatory ISP-level filtering beyond RC-rated material. This would require changes to the legislation that would have to be supported by both houses of Parliament.

18. Will ISPs that provide a wholesale service to another ISP be required to filter this service?

Subject to further consultations with industry, the government is considering a range of options to assist smaller ISPs to implement mandatory filtering. These include the option of ISPs that provide a wholesale or re-sold service to 'virtual' ISPs (that is, ISPs that do not have their own infrastructure) making available a filtered wholesale service.

Many overseas ISPs providing a wholesale service do so on a filtered basis without any issues. This was also the finding of a trial of ISP filtering undertaken by the New Zealand government.

The ACMA and the department will undertake more detailed consultations with retail and wholesale ISPs on the details for the implementation of ISP-level filtering, including at the wholesale level.

19. How will the government ensure the security of the RC Content list?

The government will allocate funds to the ACMA to provide for the machine-to-machine transfer of the encrypted list of RC-rated content used for filtering. This will both enhance security of its contents and streamline transmission.

In addition, where ISPs receive a filtered wholesale or re-sold service, this will reduce the number of ISPs to whom the RC Content list is distributed.

20. By using a block page, won't this make it easier for people to obtain the list by reverse engineering, and then to distribute it?

It is theoretically feasible to 'reverse engineer' the list. However, it is technically difficult and requires specialist knowledge. If a person did do this, the public release of child abuse material may leave that person liable to criminal prosecution. Provisions of the Criminal Code make it an offence to use a carriage service to 'make available' child pornography or child abuse material.

The government considers it appropriate that people attempting to access RC-rated content are notified via a block page that the requested content is blocked at the ISP level. This would enable users to seek a review of the decision to include the material on the RC Content list.

21. Will the arrangements for the current ACMA blacklist remain in place?

The RC Content list will be used for the purpose of mandatory filtering and is separate to the ACMA blacklist, which is established under the existing online content regulatory scheme. The ACMA blacklist is not filtered on a mandatory basis and is provided to accredited PC filter vendors for voluntary use by their customers.

The existing online content regulatory scheme will remain in place, other than removing the current requirement for ISPs to provide PC filters at cost or below to end users. The current arrangements in relation to the compilation of the ACMA blacklist and the take-down of prohibited content hosted in Australia will remain unchanged.

22. What resources are provided for law enforcement in this area?

As part of the government's cybersafety plan, $49 million over four years was allocated in the 2008–09 Budget to the Australian Federal Police for the detection and investigation of online child sexual abuse. In addition, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions received $11.3 million over four years to help deal with the increased activity resulting from the work of the AFP.

As a result of the extra funding, the AFP has delivered significant operational outcomes including:

Operation Furious, which commenced in December 2008 and has resulted in more than 30 search warrants resulting in 16 arrests and seizure of hundreds of thousands of images of child abuse.
Operation Centurion, which commenced in mid 2008 and has resulted in 341 warrants with 141 people arrested—one of the largest investigations ever conducted into online child sexual abuse.

23. Why did the government cease providing free PC filters?

The PC filter program experienced low take-up and very low ongoing use. It was therefore closed to new users six months earlier than originally planned.

Only around 12.5 per cent of the approximately two million households with dependent children and an internet connection are estimated to have tried one of these filters, and less than one per cent of these households continue to use their filters.

Australian families continue to have access to a range of filter products currently available on the market. Some PC filters are available free-of-charge so it does not make sense for the government to continue to fund PC filters.

The PC filter program ceased to operate on 30 June 2010, as originally planned.