NSW DPP Cowdery harpoons net filter plan

James Riley
Tuesday, 04 August 2009 17:13

Opinion and Analysis

New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery thinks the Federal Government’s ISP-level internet filtering plan is impractical and is sceptical of any mandatory filtering plan designed to protect net users. We know this because he very publicly told the 2009 eCrime Symposium in Sydney exactly that.

Cowdery is perhaps the nation’s highest-profile prosecutor. But his views will fall on deaf ears. Because on this issue, the Federal Government is not for turning.

“Crime prevention methods need to be practical,” Cowdery told the symposium matter-of-factly. “The talk of filters and blocking mechanisms, ultimately in a society like ours, would have only limited if any success.”

He joins a long and distinguished queue of politicians and commentators of all stripes in questioning either the appropriateness or the effectiveness of internet filtering.

Consider how unpopular the internet filtering proposal is among internet users: Stephen Conroy, the man who successfully shepherded the largest broadband infrastructure project in the world through the federal budget process in the middle of the worst economic downturn in 75 years – STILL GETS NAMED INTERNET VILLAIN OF THE YEAR!

That's how much the internet community thinks this policy stinks.

It is difficult to work out Conroy’s personal view of the policy, though you get the impression he thinks there are more important things to focus on. To me he looks like he has dragged his feet on filtering, but then, its not like he hasn’t had other things occupying his time.

It makes no difference, of course, because Labor took the policy to the election – and that marks the end of the discussion.

The filtering policy also has the support of the man at the head of the table. Kevin Rudd is understood to be its chief backer, extending the optional clean feed policy put forward by Kim Beazley and turning it into a mandatory filtering policy.

And that marks the end of another discussion.

These are the two difficult facts about mandatory filtering. First, Labor took it to the 2007 election. Secondly, the Prime Minister - on what some insiders say is a moral/religious stand - is its principal backer.

It is easy to forget that this policy actually has considerable support inside the Parliament, and within the community.

Former Communications Minister Helen Coonan fought the notion of internet filtering, arguing it degraded network performance and simply did not work. But on-going and intense pressure from the backbench (and not just the Coalition backbench either), forced her to at least start investigating at filtering options.

In 2006, Coonan loudly decried the Beazley filter plan as unworkable, before being forced into an uncomfortable U-turn after Tasmanian Liberal Senator Guy Barnett gathered the signatures of 62 Senate and House colleagues demanding that then-Prime Minister John Howard get into the net censorship business – and start looking at filtering as a way to block access to porn and other content that would be illegal in real-world media.

So here we are, in 2009 with a Federal Labor Government that is well advanced in implementing two significant policies. One is aimed at building the most advanced broadband network on the planet. The other is aimed at building potentially the most draconian network censorship measures found anywhere – East or West.

Nicholas Cowdery was being polite: “Crime prevention methods need to be practical,” is one man’s way of saying “you’re kidding, right?”