This is the full text of a speech to be given by
In June of 1998, the CSIRO released a report entitled "Blocking contenton the Internet: a technical perspective" which unequivocally stated that filtering was not technically feasible.
Senator Alston claims that great advances have been made in filteringtechnology since June last year when that report was released.
What I want to know is, what are these advances?
I've been working in the Internet industry since 1995, and have been aninternet user for longer than that. I currently run an Internetconsulting company, and have previously worked for Internet ServiceProviders.
Like most people in the industry, I know that the scheme outlined inAlston's bill simply cannot work.
What does Alston know that we don't?
We know that filtering on keywords can't work. It causes collateraldamage that blocks innocuous personal homepages and company web sites.It costs money to the organisations which are blocked. It makes findinginformation on the Net needlessly difficult.
To reasonably filter web sites for offensive content, you would need akind of Artificial Intelligence never before seen outside of Star Trek.
You would need a computer program that could speak English -- and indeedall languages -- as well as a human does.
Alston says that advances have been made in filtering technology. Idon't believe him.
What amazing advances have been made in the field of ArtificialIntelligence and Natural Language processing that can allow a filteringprogram to tell the difference between chicken breasts and PamelaAnderson's breasts, differentiate between a Rubens masterpiece and aPlayboy centrefold, or correctly identify satire and commentary.
Why is it that these advances in AI haven't been reported in therelevant journals? Why aren't Nobel prizes being handed out? Why isn'tit being shown on Quantum, or indeed on the evening news?
Why, if such a technology exists, would it be used to filter porn ratherthan to improve existing search engines -- and god knows they need it.
Why would this technology be in the hands of Clairview, a smallQueensland business whose web site simply says "Under Construction".
And if their technology is this good, why did the EFA find thatClairview's iFilter software blocked sites like
Could it be -- just maybe -- that the proposed filtering technology, thetechnology that's supposed to be such an advance on previous systems, issimply a combination of word-based filters and humans attempting -- andI do mean ATTEMPTING -- to rate every one of the hundreds of millions ofpages on the Internet.
Let me diverge for a moment to discuss exactly how it works. Or failsto work.
Firstly, web pages are filtered through a program which looks forcertain keywords. If the keywords are found, the page is blocked.
What sort of keywords does Clairview's iFilter software use?
These words -- among other, admittedly more sexually-related ones --would be filtered for EVERYONE.
Not just children.
You and me.
Adults.
Voters.
I want to see recipe archives banned for containing phrases like "pickle","cherry" and "whipped cream", and "put the mushrooms and the pork intothe pot".
I want to see what happens when every reference to the Virgin Mary isbanned. Now THERE'S family values for you.
I want to know what Carlton United Breweries will have to say when theyfind that nobody can have a web site.
Once the filters have been through and decimated every page on the web,then -- and only then -- will humans come along and attempt to clean upthe mess.
How many humans would it take to read every web page on the net? I'vebeen trying for five years, and I'm nowhere close.
All of us here today have not seen even a tenth of a percent of thewhole web.
There is NO WAY that filters or humans can effectively cut out offensivematerial on the web. And there is no magical, mystical new technologythat will make it any better.
Just like the awesome power of the Wizard of Oz, Alston's solution -- theFilter of Oz, if you will -- is nothing but a low-tech sham.
Pay no attention the man behind the curtain.
That's what Alston's message has been these past months.
It's been truly amazing to watch as Senate committees take the word of acouple of companies who have a huge financial interest in the matter,over the HUNDREDS of submissions from ISPs, the CSIRO, and otherconcerned people.
This entire Bill is based on a sham. It will not work. It's anembarrassment to Australia, and will do immeasurable damage to theInternet industry and to Australia's position in the online world.
On the up side, this Bill will not work. It's laughable, it'spointless, and it's going to be very, very funny to watch it fall downin a screaming heap.
So if this is the case, why are we here today? I'm here today for tworeasons.
Firstly, I believe there's a principle at stake here. There is nojustication whatsoever for restricting otherwise legal information inthis draconian fashion. I believe that access to a broad range ofinformation -- even information which some people like Senator Harradinemay find unsavoury -- should be a right, and that the Internet has thepotential to be the greatest advance in human freedom ever.
Secondly, and more pragmatically, I don't want to stand by and watch ashundreds of small businesses are ground into the dirt under the weightof heavy fines and unworkable technical requirements. I don't wantTelstra to become the only ISP in the country.
The Internet industry are my friends. I've known heaps of you, both onlineand in the real world. I've worked with you for years, and you are mycommunity in a very real sense.
I'm not looking forward to this next year. I'm not looking forward toseeing friends go bankrupt and businesses falter. I'm not lookingforward to having to move overseas to do my job.
That's why I'm here today.