Council of Europe concerned with the limits of Internet filtering

Since Internet filtering has become such a huge issue, particularly in Europe, it was to be expected that the Council of Europe will step in sooner or later with the desire to ensure, as ArsTechnica quotes, the "best practices" in filtering.
A week ago the Council of Europe (which,as a reminder – is independent from the EU), took on a list of filtering standards whose aim is to get a sense of stability in the much debated problems of pornography, violence, and racism online preserving at the same time freedom of expression and an open Internet.

The Council acknowledged two kinds of online problems, one concerning the content and the other concerning the behavior. Under the content side of the ledger, the Counsel put in violence, self-harm, pornography, discrimination, and racism as topics that would legitimately require filtering. In what concerns behaviors, the group pointed towards grooming, bullying, harassment, and stalking.

In spite of backing in the main "voluntary and responsible use of Internet filters," the Council consented that filters are in order to be set up in public places (such as schools or libraries), but that the filtering should be under well defined regulations to avoid making it overbroad.

Such regulations and limits are delicate matters. Filtering porn and racism from machines at the local school or library is a different thing from voluntary filtering at home. Further on, state-mandated filtering is a third and quite more controversial at a time when the Council wants to establish real limits on it. Unfortunately they’re too loose.

The fact is that the state should keep away from any kind of national filtering but for it being concerned with "specific and clearly identifiable content" that has been reported as illegal by a "competent national authority" and that also meets the terms established by the European Convention regarding Human Rights. As the convention states with respect to limitations on freedom of expression – they support legitimacy only when they are "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

Yet, if we think of the number of abuses in the history of mankind, abuses which often have had as cover the exact same terms "national security or "territorial integrity" or "prevention of crime" we may consider upon the ambiguity of such stipulations and their not so strong guarantee.

The Council pleads for a rapid implementation of suitable filtering standards in order that the outcome of filters can be accurately evaluated. Governments should endorse the exchange of best practices between filtering vendors trying to propose smart filters that can correctly identify context and not be limited to simple keyword blocks.

To sum up, the factors that are at issue here remain unchanged, and these would be full disclosure, a strong dispute process, and a broad preoccupation to maintain the filtering level as low as possible. It’s more and more obvious that France and the UK, for instance, take government mandates to be the solution which can establish filtering as a fact; we are left to hope that our legal representatives will not neglect or overlook the legal proceedings in such a delicate matter and ultimately the mandate will be kept within decent limits.