Filtering in oz

Australia's foray into Internet censorship

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: it can become the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively and to retrofit it to a decentralized network. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though minority politicians have considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content-and only that content-will vary based on what method ISPs use. Though Australia's decision-makers are formally accountable, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. This Article argues that Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)493-530
Number of pages38
JournalUniversity of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law
Volume31
Issue number2
StatePublished - Dec 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

censorship
Internet
democracy
Labour Party
technician
outsourcing
transparency
politician
decision maker
campaign
minority
responsibility
Censorship
World Wide Web
experiment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Filtering in oz : Australia's foray into Internet censorship. / Bambauer, Derek E.

In: University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 31, No. 2, 12.2009, p. 493-530.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{76affc7770bc4d6986f415b43378a5d9,
title = "Filtering in oz: Australia's foray into Internet censorship",
abstract = "Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: it can become the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively and to retrofit it to a decentralized network. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though minority politicians have considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content-and only that content-will vary based on what method ISPs use. Though Australia's decision-makers are formally accountable, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. This Article argues that Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.",
author = "Bambauer, {Derek E}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "493--530",
journal = "University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law",
issn = "1086-7872",
publisher = "University of Pennsylvania Law School",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Filtering in oz

T2 - Australia's foray into Internet censorship

AU - Bambauer, Derek E

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: it can become the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively and to retrofit it to a decentralized network. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though minority politicians have considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content-and only that content-will vary based on what method ISPs use. Though Australia's decision-makers are formally accountable, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. This Article argues that Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.

AB - Australia's decision to implement Internet censorship using technological means creates a natural experiment: it can become the first Western democracy to mandate filtering legislatively and to retrofit it to a decentralized network. But are the proposed restrictions legitimate? The new restraints derive from the Labor Party's pro-filtering electoral campaign, though minority politicians have considerable influence over policy. The country has a well-defined statutory censorship system that may, however, be undercut by relying on foreign and third-party lists of sites to be blocked. While Australia is open about its filtering goals, the government's transparency about what content is to be blocked is poor. Initial tests show that how effective censorship is at filtering prohibited content-and only that content-will vary based on what method ISPs use. Though Australia's decision-makers are formally accountable, efforts to silence dissenters, outsourcing of blocking decisions, and filtering's inevitable transfer of power to technicians undercut accountability. This Article argues that Australia represents a shift by Western democracies towards legitimating Internet filtering and away from robust consideration of the alternatives available to combat undesirable information.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=76949106857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=76949106857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 493

EP - 530

JO - University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law

JF - University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law

SN - 1086-7872

IS - 2

ER -