Persons referred to in the Senate - Board Members and Staff of Electronic
Frontiers Australia Inc.
80th Report
October 1999
- On 13 October 1999 the President of the Senate, Senator the Honourable
Margaret Reid, received a letter from Mr Kimberley Heitman, Chair,
Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc., on behalf of the Board members
and staff of Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc., seeking redress under
the resolution of the Senate of 25 February 1988 relating to the
protection of persons referred to in the Senate (Privilege Resolution
5).
- The letter referred to a statement made by Senator the Honourable
Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology
and the Arts, on 30 September 1999. The President, having
accepted the letter as a submission for the purposes of the resolution,
referred it to the Committee of Privileges on 13 October 1999.
- The committee met in private session on 14 and 21 October 1999 and,
pursuant to paragraph (3) of Privilege Resolution 5, decided to consider
the submission. In agreeing to the attached response, the committee
did not consider it necessary to consult either the representatives
of Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. or the Minister on the matter.
It has decided to recommend the submission’s incorporation in Hansard
without change.
- The committee recommends:
That a response by the Board members and staff of Electronic Frontiers
Australia Inc., in the terms specified at Appendix 1, be incorporated
in Hansard.
Sue Knowles
Acting Chairman
Appendix One
RESPONSE BY MR KIMBERLEY HEITMAN
CHAIR, ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS AUSTRALIA INC.
(ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF OF
ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS AUSTRALIA INC.)
We, the individuals listed below, wish to seek redress under the resolution
of the Senate of 25 February 1988 relating to the protection of persons
referred to in the Senate (Privilege Resolution 5). We are readily identifiable
as the persons referred to by Senator Alston, Minister for Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts, in the Senate debate on the topic
"Internet Censorship" on 30 September 1999 (Hansard pages 8953
- 8955 inclusive), that is, the Board members and staff of Electronic
Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA):
Chair Mr Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris Llb, AACS
Vice Chair Mr Greg Taylor, B.Sc, B.Econ, Dip.Inf.Proc.
Secretary Ms Irene Graham
Board Members Dr Michael Baker, BSc (1st class hons), MPhil, PhD
Mr Michael Malone, B.Sc, DipEd
Mr Felipe Rodriquez
Ms Jan Whitaker, BS, MS (Education)
Mr Danny Yee, BSc (hons)
Executive Director Mr Darce Cassidy
Senator Alston stated that we are "maniacs", "low grade,
undergraduate political activists", "have no interest at all
in sensible and responsible regulation of the Internet" and are "not
in the slightest bit interested in the welfare of the community, whether
parents have concerns or anything else". Senator Alston also stated
that we approve of offensive material being forced on children and adults
and that we are the cause of a problem the Internet Industry Association
and the Government have in negotiating a code of practice.
All these allegations are unsubstantiated and false. The Senator’s
remarks impugn our individual good characters, reputations and credentials,
and those of the thousands of members and supporters of the organisation
we represent. In addition, the Senator’s remarks are factually incorrect,
and we seek this opportunity to set the record straight.
The following facts are pertinent:
- Senator Alston’s description of EFA as "low grade, undergraduate
political activists" is factually incorrect, and falsely deprecates
the breadth of academic and professional expertise of the EFA Board.
The majority of EFA Board members completed degrees in fields including
law, education, science, engineering and economics more than ten years
ago. None are undergraduates. Three-quarters are over the age of forty.
All have been active users of the Internet for at least the last five
years, and several are professionally involved in managing Internet
services.
- Senator Alston’s statement that we are "not in the slightest
bit interested in the welfare of the community, whether parents have
concerns or anything else" is incorrect. Members of the Board and
staff of EFA include responsible parents with a total of 10 children
between them ranging in age from 1 year to 27 years. EFA’s website
has a section entitled "Advice for Parents - Information to guide
and inform parents on ways to protect their children in using the Internet".
This includes the "Australian Internet Parental Control Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) – A guide to assist concerned parents, legislators,
educators, and the public in learning what is available today to protect
children". This was compiled by EFA in 1996, long before any government
agencies developed an interest in assisting parents. This document was
drawn to the attention of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards
in our submission of March 1997 and an earlier version was included
in our response to the Department of Communications’ "Consultation
Paper on the Regulation of on-line Information Services" in August
1995. Our concern is for the future of Australia’s children and
grandchildren - that we as a society not bequeath them with a censorship
system that would be a totalitarian regime’s dream, enabling the
suppression of any dissenting voices on the Internet. The planned regime
enables the suppression of voices following one complaint and empowers
a statutory authority to suppress voices without a complaint being lodged.
EFA has consistently argued that a Government serious about protecting
children from online dangers must commit funds to parental education
and police resources.
- Senator Alston’s statement that "there are these maniacs
– these electronic frontiers outfits - running around stirring
up trouble, using quaint expressions" is incorrect.
The Oxford Dictionary defines "maniac" as "person affected
with mania" and "mania" as "mental derangement marked
by excitement and violence". Senator Alston’s allegation as
to our mental stability has no basis in fact. Moreover, we have not
advocated or engaged in violence. Last year Senator Alston’s office
invited EFA’s current and then Chairperson to participate in the
E-Commerce Enabling Australia Summit in Canberra. Senator Alston’s
office was aware of EFA’s position on Internet regulation having
received our detailed written response to the framework issued for public
comment in August 1997. EFA’s position on the matter has remained
stable. The Government’s has not.
Senator Alston’s disparaging reference to EFA as an "outfit"
is misleading. EFA is a non-profit national organisation formed in January
1994 and incorporated under South Australian law in May 1994 to protect
and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based
communications systems. EFA members come from all parts of Australia
and from diverse backgrounds.
Senator Alston opines that our expressions are "quaint". These
are no more quaint than those contained in the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR was signed by the Australian
Government in 1972, came into force in 1980 and reservations to Article
19, and to other articles, were retracted in 1984. The ICCPR forms Schedule
2 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. Article
19 of the ICCPR "quaintly" states:
"2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing
or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."
Our comments on this matter are contained in our submission to the Senate
Select Committee on Information Technologies’ inquiry of April/May
1999.
- Senator Alston’s statement that "they got themselves over
to the recent Berterlsmann Conference and made a big noise there along
the same lines" implies that there is something untoward about
EFA’s attendance at the Conference. This is not so.
Mr Jens Waltermann, Deputy Head, Policy, Media Division of the Bertelsmann
Foundation invited EFA’s Chairperson to attend. In his letter he
said, inter alia: "It is with great pleasure that we invite you
to be our guest in Munich, Germany. Your participation would be an honour
for the Bertelsmann Foundation."
Furthermore, EFA Board members have previously been invited speakers
and/or panel participants at national and international conferences
such as:
- OECD Seminar: International Co-operation Concerning Content and Conduct
on the Internet, March 1998, Paris
- NET 98 Conference: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in Developing
Internet Policy, July 1998, Geneva
- E-Commerce Enabling Australia Summit, April 1998, Canberra, on invitation
from Senator Alston’s office
- Seventh International World Wide Web Conference, April 1998, Brisbane
- IT&T Security Forum Seminar, October 1998, Canberra
- EDUCAUSE in Australasia, 1998, Sydney
- CFP 99 Conference, April 1999, Washington D.C.
- IIR IT Security Conference, April 1999, Canberra
- Internet World Australia ‘99 Conference, August 1999, Sydney
- IIR Data Protection and Privacy Conference, August 1999, Sydney
- AUUG Conference, September 1999, Melbourne
- iSEC Australia 99 Conference, September 1999, Sydney
Furthermore, if "made a big noise" refers to speaking out
on issues of concern, we prefer to call that civic duty. It is the purpose
of our organisation, and the expectation of our members, that we do
so.
- We reject Senator Alston’s allegation that we have no interest
in sensible and responsible regulation of the Internet. We believe the
Government’s approach to content regulation has neither of those
qualities. Over the past six years EFA Board members have freely contributed
a considerable amount of personal time and expert advice to inquiries
concerning Internet regulation conducted by Senate Committees, the Australian
Broadcasting Authority, the Department of Communications and the Attorney-General’s
Department. Current Board members were invited to give testimony to
Senate Committees at public hearings concerning regulation of the Internet
in 1997, 1998 and 1999. EFA has consistently warned that Australian
Internet censorship legislation will not protect children but will unfortunately
give parents unfamiliar with the Internet a false sense of security
as to their children’s safety. We note that Senator Harradine acknowledges
this is a matter of concern, although Senator Alston will not.
- Senator Alston’s allegations as to our views on "mousetrapping"
are based on either incorrect information given to him by his staff,
or a misinformed guess, not on our statements. Senator Alston stated:
"...mousetrapping is an issue...it is entirely appropriate to put
pressure on host countries to clean up their own backyards. That is
precisely what we are doing. We are not just saying that we hope that
end users, parents, will block these sites. We think it is offensive,
the community thinks it is offensive and the industry thinks it is offensive.
Electronic frontiers do not".
We have never condoned, nor would we condone, pagejacking or mousetrapping
or any other means of forcing content on persons who do not wish to
view it. Senator Alston’s allegation that we do not object to such
practices is utterly without foundation. Furthermore, the Senator’s
implication that the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services)
Act is necessary to deal with such problems is demonstrably incorrect.
It will not have the slightest effect in protecting children or adults
from being caught in such traps. The USA FTC and the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission have dealt with the recent instance using existing
laws. Evidently, no new laws are necessary to deal with such problems.
- Senator Alston’s allegation that we were or are "feeding
lines to that woman from the Civil Liberties Union" has no basis
in fact. Presumably Professor Strossen reads Australian news reports
and media releases, probably both Senator Alston’s and EFA’s,
which are equally accessible around the world on the Internet.
- Senator Alston states that he does "not find industry opposing
[the government’s] approach" and that "[t]he industry
itself accepts that there should be these codes of practice and this
form of regulation. We have been trying to negotiate it for the last
three years with the Internet Industry Association. Their problem is
that there are these maniacs – these electronic frontiers outfits
- running around stirring up trouble".
We reject the allegation that we are the cause of any problem the Internet
Industry Association (IIA) may have. If IIA has a problem, it apparently
arises from IIA’s attempts to develop a "self-regulatory"
code that "the industry" supports as well as meets with the
approval of the Government. Only 60 of Australia’s 700 Internet
Service Providers are currently members of the IIA according to the
Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman as reported by Fairfax I.T. News
on 5 October 1999.
We also reject Senator Alston’s allegation that we are not "responsible
players". The persons Senator Alston quotes as not opposing the
government’s approach are generally persons outside Australia who
will not be affected by the legislation. Silicon Valley stands to gain
as Australians and their businesses move offshore. In addition, persons
such as the USA CEO of Lotus are computer software developers, not obvious
members of the "Internet industry". Moreover, APC Newswire
reported on 7 October 1999 that Bryan Simmons, Lotus vice-president
of worldwide corporate communications, said that comments by the CEO
of Lotus "were meant only to communicate deference to the government’s
sphere of sovereignty, not support of any government’s particular
policies". Yahoo have previously denied supporting the legislation.
With regard to Senator Alston’s reference to a second press release
by The National Australia Bank, Arnold Bloch Leibler and Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu indicating that they are "happy with the current legislative
framework", APC Newswire also reported that "A spokesperson
for the group said the second press release had not expressed support
for the legislation, but for the Internet Industry Association’s
(IIA) latest draft code of the Internet Industry Code of Practice".
In fact no industry group supports the legislation except the IIA, and
its endorsement is conditional upon its Code being accepted.
- Senator Alston states that "[s]eventy-four per cent of Australian
respondents [to the Bertelsmann survey] said that the courts and legal
authorities, politicians and other agencies all have a part to play
in the appropriate supervision and selection of Internet content"
and "That is why I find it fascinating that somehow there is this
notion that the community is opposed to what we are doing. They certainly
are not."
Senator Alston’s reference to seventy-four percent of Australian
respondents is incorrect. As multiple responses were allowed to the
question, the only accurate figures that can be taken from Table 13
of the report are each of the individual percentages. Nevertheless,
Senator Alston or his staff have added some individual figures: 9 per
cent believe that politicians have a role to play, 26 per cent - courts
and legal authorities, 39 per cent - other agencies, to find a total
of 74 per cent. However, 52 percent believe Internet users themselves
are best able to control unwanted content. Adding the figures from different
responses makes them meaningless; it wrongly implies that 220% per cent
of Australian respondents have an opinion.
- Senator Alston goes on to say "where is this concern, apart from
those maniacs I mentioned earlier?"
As stated above, the Senator’s allegations as to our mental stability
are groundless. Senator Alston does not appear willing to listen to
the widely expressed concerns. It is a well-known fact that the Senator’s
advertised email address has returned messages unopened to citizens
attempting to make their concerns known. Senators and/or their staff
from various political parties have advised constituents that they received
an inordinate amount of email expressing concern, a considerable majority
of the 100 submissions to the Senate Select Committee inquiry opposed
the government’s approach, a petition signed by 12,140 persons
was tabled in the Senate on 30 June 1999, some 50 pages of comments
expressing concern were received in response to a survey conducted by
The Age, the list could go on. It is not that Senator Alston is unaware
of the wide concern expressed. It is that Senator Alston chooses to
disregard such concerns and exercise his Parliamentary privilege of
freedom of speech in an irresponsible manner to mislabel persons expressing
concern as "maniacs".
In summary, Senator Alston’s allegations as to our characters, views
and intent are incorrect, unjustified and utterly without foundation.
Despite his attempts to malign us, we intend to continue to make the "big
noise" that Senator Alston obviously finds discomforting until such
time as the government’s approach becomes, in our opinion, reasonably
and appropriately adapted to serve a legitimate end.
We tender the above in good faith and request that our response be incorporated
in the parliamentary record.
Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris Llb, AACS
Chair, Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc.
on behalf of the Board members and staff of Electronic Frontiers Australia
Inc.