The Department of Internal Affairs’ (DIA) internet filter has gone live. The system is aimed at blocking illegal images of children. While this is a voluntary scheme (unlike Australia‘s scheme), the experience in the UK has been that there will be pressure on ISP’s (including direct Ministerial threats) to join the “voluntary” scheme, lest they become a known haven for those seeking illegal content. Now, all UK ISP’s subscribe to the Cleanfeed filter.
In New Zealand, any move to make the filter mandatory would require legislation. While many opponents of the filter would likely oppose legislation, it would at least have the effect of defining the parameters of the filter and its regulation. The legislation would need to comply with the Bill of Rights Act (unsatisfactory though that law may be), or be passed with a statement expressly acknowledging where it breaches that Act. This would clear up concerns (or at least bring them into the open) that the filter may one day start to gradually be used for other purposes, such as blocking breaches of name suppression. It would make the filtering accountable to Parliament and the Courts. Also, the enabling legislation does not need to create make filtering mandatory – it could ensure that ISP’s remain free to choose whether or not to sign-up.
As long as the scheme remains voluntary and unregulated, though, no legislation is needed. While the objective is admirable (putting aside major questions over effectiveness), concerns include:
- What information is being stored in the system, who has access to that information, and is it in compliance with the Privacy Act 1993?
- What oversight is there on the content being filtered?
- Is there a risk that the system could be extended to include material covered by name suppression orders?
- Is pressure being brought to bear on ISPs to join the system?
For now, some ISP’s have expressed strong concerns about the filter which, as long as it remains voluntary, makes it unlikely that full sign-up will be achieved in the short term.