Next week, the NetSafe Group is meeting to discuss the potential impact of the DIA’s Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System. I’ve been doing some research in advance of that meeting and thought I would share some thoughts.

There are some concerns about the filter at a technical level. If you want to get your head around those, I recommend you look at the TechLiberty article on Security Risks fo Centralised Filteringor InternetNZ’s positioning paper.

The risk to the function of the internet is relevant to NetSafe, but not central to our interest. We need to know how the filter impacts on the overall safety equation in this country – because we have a responsibility to coordinate the cyber safety community.

ACMA have produced three reports for the Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications, and the Digital Economy around Online Risk and Safety in a Digital Economy. Critical to this discussion is the key finding of the second report – it identifies that “the effectiveness of strategies to mitigate online risk and promote online safety is enhanced when responses to risk are deployed at multiple points along the supply chain for online content and services”.

No surprises there. No single strategy makes a safe environment. Instead, you enhance safety through multiple activities, of which filtering is an option. Like any multi-part strategy, you make gains when you coordinate them properly. 

The DIA is providing a filter which some (maybe all) ISPs will adopt. That changes the safety landscape. It impacts on the other safety and enforcement organisations. We don’t know exactly how, but we should try and find out. 

That starts with identifying what difference a filter will actually make to the trading of child sexual abuse images. I’ve been surprised to find (so far) that nobody really knows. That a web filter negatively impacts on the trade is simply accepted, and little thought appears to have been given to any further analysis. 

What if the filter gives people a false sense of security and they ignore (or de-prioritise) education responsibilities? What if the filter forces deliberate traders to develop new technical skills, and makes them harder to catch? What if the filter is removing (because it doesn’t record) useful intelligence for law enforcement agencies looking for offenders against children in this country?

What if the filter doesn’t actually reduce trading? What if it just changes the way its done? 

That doesn’t necessarily negate the value of the filter – but it does mean the rest of the safety community needs to adjust their practices accordingly.  This is the reason that the NetSafe Group is meeting to discuss the new filter.