Have you had your Censordyne today?

[Lazlow]

Here's some entertaining light reading; scroll down to the Senate estimates hearing debating the passing of Salo with an R18+ classification (http://www.refused-classification.com/news/2010/05-30-senate-estimates-salo-and-adult-magazines.html)

It would appear that some members of the senate have no f***ing idea how the classification process works.

I also love how Senator McGauran keeps hammering away in support of a minority opinion.

[Fenrir]

Hang on, I thought we were talking about Newton's article, not the filter. If, like you say, Newton was arguing that "...obscene media content, however morally objectionable the content may be, is essentially inert and harmless, and doesn't warrant legislation to ban it" then the act of classifying images and movies is irrelevent. If those obscene and adult content is harmless then anybody should be able to watch it.
Eh, to be honest, I'd consider children to be a whole other barrel of monkeys.

I don't think the sorts of sexual and violent media content we stick an MA15+ label on are likely to be harmful to children. The sex aspects may be confusing, but I'd wager sex is still a confusing subject for a lot of politicians today, and (anecdotally, conceded) I definitely don't recall being distressed by sex scenes in any of the canonical must-see action movies of my pre-teen years.
I think children can be influenced and indoctrinated very effectively, though, whereas I expect* more fortitude to set in at some point between puberty and adulthood. I don't think it's going too far to suggest that religious organizations target youth for the sake of their survival, for example.

So I don't really agree with our current classification system, but I do think that an effort has to be made to provide children with an upbringing that is ideologically even-handed and such. That's censorship with a deadline, I guess.

*Or at least hope for. You sort-of have to draw a line somewhere, though.

[StorminNorman]

Its all bullshit anyway. Federal Government probably been doing it for years anyway like the FBI after 911.

Echelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)) has been in operation since at least the 1990s.

Here's some entertaining light reading; scroll down to the Senate estimates hearing debating the passing of Salo with an R18+ classification (http://www.refused-classification.com/news/2010/05-30-senate-estimates-salo-and-adult-magazines.html)

Reading any of the Senate estimates reports on Refused-Classification is a depressing experience. I find it rather disturbing that the senators involved appear to have never taken the time to understand the classification system.

[Lazlow]

With the Government laying down their own NBN, what's the stop them constructing several Room 641As (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) of their own?

[Lazlow]

Swan hints at changes to filter legislation (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2968192.htm)

[REQUIEM]

Swan hints at changes to filter legislation (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/29/2968192.htm)

I laugh at that the fact that the AUS Govt has any clue what the cyber hacker community has the power to do or the methods they will use to by pass ANYTHING the Govt will ever use to put up to stop internet freedom. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.


edit: what it take last time. 3 hours and a waste of several million dollars.

[Araenel]

You're wearing rollerblades right now aren't you? I knew it.

[REQUIEM]

You're wearing rollerblades right now aren't you? I knew it.

yeah and im serving milkshakes at your 57 chev drivers door? what the fk are u dribbling about Araenel. I expected better from you.

[Araenel]

Hack the planet.

[REQUIEM]

Hack the planet.

No, expected far better bud.

[AranchineD]

I'm REQUIEM

[REQUIEM]

I'm REQUIEM

You dont even rank in the same postcode bud. Please dont get ahead of youself and stick to gay avatars of b grade movie stars.

[Serenity]

You dont even rank in the same postcode bud. Please dont get ahead of youself and stick to gay avatars of b grade movie stars.

:O

Oh, no he didn't!

[AranchineD]

I'm REQUIEM

[Araenel]

I'm REQUIEM

[Azzaman]

What's the chances of conroy not being re-elected? I know he's not the main driving force behind the filter, but it would send a big message to labor.

[Lazlow]

Reading his wiki I found this bit interesting:

Conroy and his wife, Paula Benson, have a daughter born in November 2006 with the assistance of an egg donor and a surrogate mother, both friends of the Conroys. The procedures were performed in New South Wales instead of their home state Victoria, where altruistic surrogacy is banned

[texta]

What's the chances of conroy not being re-elected?Almost impossible.
It would require about 90% of people to vote below the line.

The only way Conroy won't be in Government is if the Liberals win the election.

[Stevorooni]

hmmm Conroy in government or Abbott in power... it's like "Do I shoot myself in the balls, or alternatively shoot myself in the balls"

[texta]

I would be a lot more scared of the Christian Right being in direct power rather than directing those in power. <_<

[TrinityJayOne]

^ This. I hate Conroy, but I hate christianity even more. It is a blight on society.

[Stevorooni]

Well Abbott wants to cancel the NBN, I'd rather have an NBN with useless filter than no NBN at all.

[Beinkasaurus Rex]

its flattering but you need more balls and less fag.

edit: your perveted gay Pm sex links to me aran are getting old. I said NO and NO means NO

REQUIEM, as I am a white person I have a few friends who are homosexuals. I'd appreciate it if you didn't demean them in such a manner. Thanks man.

[StorminNorman]

What's the chances of conroy not being re-elected? I know he's not the main driving force behind the filter, but it would send a big message to labor.

I believe he's the first Senator on the Victorian Senate ticket for Labor, so the only way for him to not get re-elected is for Labor to not make quota at all, and not get enough preferences to get any senators in the Upper House. It would basically be the most epic voting collapse in the history of the entire universe if that happened.

This is kind of why the Greens preference deal with Labor doesn't actually matter that much: It will only affect the votes of those Senators that come down the list after Labor's quota is exhausted.

[Lazlow]

Unless of course people use their f***ing heads and vote below the line.

[StorminNorman]

Labor would still have to not make quota in Victoria at all, though.

[Natrak]

On voting below the line; where the hell can I find some kind of list of the different candidates that are likely to be on the ballot so I can learn more about them? I want to vote below the line this year, but at some point it's going to feel retarded when I'm numbering people I have no idea about.

[Beinkasaurus Rex]

Hack the planet.

I'm going to get the cyber police onto you.

[Azzaman]

It makes me sad that a massive douche like conroy is practically guaranteed a spot in our govt...

[texta]

Labor would still have to not make quota in Victoria at all, though.Not true at all. If people vote below the line "Labor" could get 100% of the vote and Conroy still miss out.

Eg if everyone voted 1. Labor candidate B, 2. Labor candidate C, 3. Green Candidate. 4. Liberal Candidate. 5 Sex party candidate. 6. Stephen Conroy.

Then 100% of people have voted for a Labor person, but the top five get elected and Stephen Conroy misses out.

Of course something like 95% of idiot mainlanders vote above the line*, so the reality is that Conroy will be elected.

On voting below the line; where the hell can I find some kind of list of the different candidates that are likely to be on the ballot so I can learn more about them? I want to vote below the line this year, but at some point it's going to feel retarded when I'm numbering people I have no idea about.There will be, but only when the candidates are finalised which I don't think will be until sometime next week.




*It should be said that Tasmania usually has significantly less senate candidates compared to the some mainland states. If I had to number 70 boxes to make a valid vote, I'd almost consider voting above the line.

[StorminNorman]

Ah yeah. I kind of forgot about the way below-the-line voting works for some reason.

And yes, voting below the line is particularly annoying when your Senate ballot paper is more than twice the width of the voting booth.

[Lazlow]

Just read up about the Australia First Party.... F***en lol.

[buckstwits]

Classification and Internet Censorship as an Election Issue (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/classification-and-internet-censorship-as-an-election-issue/)

Interesting article by Fiona Patten (Australian Sex Party).

[Shorty]

Classification and Internet Censorship as an Election Issue (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/classification-and-internet-censorship-as-an-election-issue/)

Scary article by Fiona Patten (Australian Sex Party).

And I thought things were bad enough.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, wow.

What sucks is that nothing will change, no matter who wins the election.

[texta]

The start of the article is certainly pretty scary.

Let's totally ignore the censorship/classification issue and look at the heart of what's being argued: The Sex Party are deliberately highlighting State/Federal inconsistency* and are advocating increasing the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the States.

While I think there are serious arguments to be had about the balance between State and Federal power, I think that discussion needs to happen expressly and picking a side because it's convenient to argue a relatively trivial single point is a very dangerous way to determine the direction of the laws that hold our country together.

(*Though not actually inconsistent under the Constitution)


Also I think that she grossly misrepresents the Greens' position. Which is of course sensible politics when the Greens are the Sex Party's real enemy when it comes to winning seats. Clive Hamilton is not the architect of the filter at all and I think the Greens have more than anyone been pretty strong in their opposition to the filter. Unsurprisingly the reason Clive Hamilton was preselected for the Greens was because of the way he has campaigned on the much much more serious issue of climate change.

[Hide & Reason]

Anyone for a local porn industry? (That isn't kept anaemic via existing hosting laws, I mean.)

It would be the best regulated porn industry, in terms of preventing recruitment of minors. It would generate medium-to-long term employment and would contribute to increasing the domestic skills base for our mainstream film 'industry' (more like tuckshop). Australia would actually have a Digital Economy™ export to export, and by extension, something to fully utilise its brand new NBN. It could even become a huge cash-cow for government; possibly even wean the states off gambling revenue.

We could be the world's hole in more ways than ore and bauxite, with more cash in the economy to show for it.

[Shorty]

I agree that serious arguments need to be had about the balance between State and Federal power, because it appears that we have a situation where people are being jailed for the misfortune of only having obeyed one set of two rather contradictory sets of laws. And I would also argue that the classification system still needs an overhaul for the sake of consistency, even if you disagree with the methods she suggests for doing so.

As for the Greens, perhaps Hamilton was nominated for his views on climate change, and perhaps apparent contradictions like this are unavoidable when dealing with a multi-faceted party policy. The old adage of strange bedfellows comes to mind. But while I wouldn't cite Hamilton's nomination as incontrovertible proof that this party has also fallen under the insidious new Christian political influence, it doesn't exactly look kosher (if you'll pardon the pun) for a party that has publicly stated their opposition to a filter to then turn around and nominate someone who is, if not its "architect", then one of its most enthusiastic and prominent supporters. It raises doubts, but these can be readily alleviated by the Greens reaffirming their position against the filter as at least one of their election issues (it might lack the sense of global scale that climate change has but it shouldn't fall by the wayside). Hamilton might not like it, but he'll most likely be in the minority on that one.

[texta]

This is the thing though, the filter just isn't an issue. None of the political parties are giving it much time, not because of some secret Christian conspiracy, but because the majority of Australians just don't care enough about it to make it a vote issue.

Picking Clive Hamilton to be a Green candidate was like picking Garry Ablett to be in your football team. The Greens are a party that pushes the importance of climate change and Clive Hamilton is one of Australia's foremost climate campaigners. It made perfect sense.

(And for the record Clive Hamilton was a candidate in the by-election in Higgins when Peter Costello resigned, he's not a candidate in this election).


And as far as your comment about people being jailed because of contradictory laws. I agree that it might appear confusing, but the laws aren't actually contradictory* and the Constitution makes this a clear State issue and the people were clearly in breach of the respective State laws. If the laws were changed to make them less confusing, the State laws (that put the people in jail) would take precedence as the Commonwealth has no power to make laws with respect to that issue (which is why they haven't).


(*There are two key ways the Commonwealth laws should be distinguished. Firstly, the Sex Party's claim that the material was legal under Commonwealth law is somewhat misleading, the law doesn't expressly make it legal, it merely doesn't make it illegal. The lack of existence of a Commonwealth law banning something that is banned at a State level is not a sign of inconsistency.

There is no Commonwealth law regarding age of consent, while under State law the age of consent is 16 (or 17 in Tasmania). This is not inconsistent. It's different jurisdictions dealing with different matters. It doesn't mean that the Commonwealth says that it is legal to have sex with a 15 year old.

Which leads on to the second point; the Commonwealth laws in question deal with different issues to the State laws. The Commonwealth has the power to regulate with respect to customs - ie international imports, the State governments with respect to internal sales. Perhaps you could thing of them as two different sized sieves. Something is illegal if it's stopped by either sieve, but there's no law or logical reason why the two sieves have to be identical. In fact if you're going to have two, it makes sense that they're different or one would be redundant).

[StorminNorman]

This is the thing though, the filter just isn't an issue. None of the political parties are giving it much time, not because of some secret Christian conspiracy, but because the majority of Australians just don't care enough about it to make it a vote issue.

And that's the entire problem, really. Australians should care about this, at least as much as they care about other stuff like the economy or the environment or whatever.

This is what bugs me about the whole thing: ask any Australian at your local pub, and they'll happily tell you that "it's a free country".

But really, we haven't been a free country since at least the sixties, and nobody seems to care.

[buckstwits]

Coalition vows to block 'flawed' internet filter

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974827.htm?section=justin)

[borgster101]

It would be nice to see the issue get a bit more press during the election.

[texta]

I'd be very surprised if that was a core promise. But I guess it fits with their technophobic vibe they're running at this election.

But there's an interesting juxtaposition between this policy and their "Stop the boats" mantra.

[Azzaman]

The only thing stopping me voting labor this election is the filter. I think the liberals are lying wankers as well. Why cant there be a viable third party dammit?

[Lazlow]

There's (http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au/cms/) quite a (http://www.secular.org.au/) few (http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/default.html) man. (http://www.sexparty.org.au/)

[StorminNorman]

The opposition will block the filter (http://twitter.com/renailemay/status/20379413157) in the Senate.

Scott Ludlam is, as you can imagine, crowing. (http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/mandatory-net-censorship-win)

[aubergine]

This thread violates Hyper Forums thread naming guidelines and will be blocked after an independent review costing millions of dollars.

[TrinityJayOne]

will block the filter (http://twitter.com/renailemay/status/20379413157)
Now there's a sentence with "block" and "filter" that I'm ok with.

OR

Looks like the filter was blocked by another filter that actually works - common sense.

[Azzaman]

There's (http://www.australiafirstparty.com.au/cms/) quite a (http://www.secular.org.au/) few (http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/default.html) man. (http://www.sexparty.org.au/)

So which of these parties have the best chance of winning the election and forming government?

[Vindik8or]

Third parties don't form government, they hold the balance of power. Vote for whichever of the two dickhead parties for the House of Representatives, but always, always give your Senate votes to the minor parties and independents.

[Azzaman]

That's another thing that I find annoying, minor parties that don't draw as much votes hold such large power. Ie family first

[Fenrir]

I'd be very surprised if that was a core promise. But I guess it fits with their technophobic vibe they're running at this election.
What?

[texta]

What?Ripping out the NBN. Ending funding for research to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Getting rid of connections between hospitals.

[TrinityJayOne]

Theory- Tony Abbott is actually a robot controlled by labor, designed to make Liberals look (more) retarded (than Labor) so that Labor look better.

[texta]

I think you're giving the Labor focus groups too much credit if you think they could come up with some of the stuff Abbott says on their own.

[StorminNorman]

Is it all over? Coalition will block the filter (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/is-it-all-over-liberal-party-will-not-support-the-filter/)

'Please explain', Conroy tells Hockey on filter (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/08/05/please-explain-conroy-tells-hockey-on-filter/)

There's a hilarious line in that article that implies that Conroy genuinely believes that it's possible to run every website in the world past the Classification Board.

Christian Lobby slams 'incomprehensible' filter block (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/08/06/christian-lobby-slams-incomprehensive-filter-block/)

[Fenrir]

Ripping out the NBN. Ending funding for research to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Getting rid of connections between hospitals.
I get that, but you think that an anti-filter stance is technophobic?

[Stevorooni]

Is it all over? Coalition will block the filter (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/is-it-all-over-liberal-party-will-not-support-the-filter/)

'Please explain', Conroy tells Hockey on filter (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/08/05/please-explain-conroy-tells-hockey-on-filter/)

There's a hilarious line in that article that implies that Conroy genuinely believes that it's possible to run every website in the world past the Classification Board.

Christian Lobby slams 'incomprehensible' filter block (http://delimiter.com.au/2010/08/06/christian-lobby-slams-incomprehensive-filter-block/)


So basically we have to vote for the Liberals enough that they have the numbers to block the filter, but not so much that they can form government.

[texta]

So basically we have to vote for the Liberals enough that they have the numbers to block the filter, but not so much that they can form government.
Or the Greens.

Vote Labor in the house of Reps, but Green then Liberal in the Senate I guess.

Though a Liberal majority in the Senate would mean that there wouldn't be action on climate change too.

[Lazlow]

Optus, Telstra to start clean feed (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/telstra-and-optus-to-start-clean-feed-to-block-child-pornography-web-pages/story-e6frgakx-1225903166489)

ABOUT 5 million internet users in Australia will start receiving a "clean feed" mid next year that will automatically block some web pages.

The feed comes courtesy of ISPs Telstra and Optus after they agreed last month to voluntarily block such content.

The exercise will be based on a blacklist compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

...

Telstra, the country's largest ISP, has confirmed it will start filtering in the middle of next year.

"Our solution will apply automatically, it is not opt-in nor opt-out," a Telstra spokesman said.

...

Primus chief executive Ravi Bhatia declined to say when Primus, the third ISP to sign up to the voluntary code, would start filtering content.

There's also this subtext throughout the article

The development comes as industry observers question Labor's commitment to mandatory internet filtering, a key 2007 election promise it has failed to deliver.

And cyber safety doesn't rate a mention on Labor's website as the 2010 election looms.

...

While the ISPs up the ante on web filtering, Labor has succumbed to internal pressure to downplay its support of mandatory filtering. According to Labor sources, because the plan was not popular among voters, it was no surprise the filter pledge was missing from its website.

When asked why ISP filtering and cyber safety did not feature as prominently on the ALP's site as it had in 2007, a spokeswoman for Senator Conroy referred to the communications department's website.

[RunningMild]

Or the Greens.

Vote Labor in the house of Reps, but Green then Liberal in the Senate I guess.

Weren't Labor and Greens thinking of forming a coalition?

[texta]

Weren't Labor and Greens thinking of forming a coalition?
No. While it's true that in cases where the Greens have held the balance of power in state lower houses, there have been accords that have lead to the Greens and Labor holding power (in a few isolated cases). Labor and the Greens will never form a partnership outside of Parliament in the foreseeable future.

[Lazlow]

ALP intends to shut down mobile phone application loophole (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/apps-and-games-to-face-censor-says-alp/story-e6frg996-1225905609780)

THE Labor Party has flagged it will shut down a major loophole in the mobile phone industry.

The loophole has allowed games and applications to go online without any kind of classification.

Amid debate on internet and video game censorship, it has emerged that thousands of smartphone games and applications are being sold or distributed without going through a classification check, in contravention of the National Classification Scheme.

The largest distributor of smartphone applications, Apple, is bypassing millions of dollars in fees, as classification fees range from $470 to $2040 for computer games, costing the government revenue.

More than 220,000 applications are available in Australia for download.

At a conservative estimate, one-third of them are games, suggesting compliance costs would be in the millions.


I found if odd that the article was less about the evils of new media, and more about the government losing revenue.

[Stevorooni]

hahaha good luck classifying 100,000 games all at once.

"Your game is 90,000th in the queue"

[AranchineD]

hahaha good luck classifying 100,000 games all at once.

"Your game is 90,000th in the queue"

And as stupid as this sounds I'll bet that's exactly what the Australian government will do.

[Lazlow]

You can also say goodbye to low prices and free games.

[texta]

I think if this were to go ahead as implied by the article it would result in Australia not having an app market.

[Shorty]

So we can expect this proposal to be quietly shelved, too?

[borgster101]

The Classification board generally review footage and a description of the games content, really simple app based games should perhaps be exempt from classification or the fees should be different to reflect the different types of games, i.e. seems a bit silly that a full big budget retail games costs the same to classify as a basic flash game.

[texta]

So we can expect this proposal to be quietly shelved, too?I am not confident that the Australian accurately reports policies, but common sense to me would say that what's described in that article is ridiculous and I would hope that it doesn't go ahead in that manner.

But as mobile apps become more sophisticated, there certainly is an argument that they should be treated in the same manner as other programs. It doesn't make sense that the PC version of Plants vs Zombies (as a random example) might have to be classified but the virtually identical iPhone app does not.

However I would argue that perhaps the development of new media platforms highlights the need for root and branch reform of our classification system rather than a simple transposition of policy between mediums.

[buckstwits]

Apple has a classification system. It even seems to be more conservative than the National Classification Scheme, ie GTA: Chinatown Wars getting a 17+ rating compared to the board's MA15+. Sure, it's not a restricted rating but it's a rating nonetheless.

[Lazlow]

Don't they just follow ESRB?

[texta]

I think they have the ESRB system combined with Australia's video game attitude. Ie censoring stuff at a much lower level.

But I don't think self regulation on this or any other issue is acceptable. It is somewhat admirable that Apple take that on, but it should never substitute real government action.

[borgster101]

It does put a case towards the benefits of self regulation in that it can respond to rapid changes in technology much quicker than governments can, which require changes to legislation, a lengthy process.

One does need to question, what benefit does Australia get from government regulation in terms of classification versus industry regulation? The lack of R18+ rating for games and the effects it has on a number of Australian releases seems to indicate the negatives outweigh any positives. The main benefit that a government system has against an industry one is that the government can deem a particular item that is deemed "harmful" illegal to sell in Australia through the classification system, though as we know what the board has considered "harmful" in the past has been very debatable.

Ultimately classification systems should be about informing consumers and not censorship, in which case an industry based regulation system is a better solution. Information would likely be more informative, and an industry board can more easily adapt to the new technologies as they are introduced in the market.

[Shorty]

By the time games arrive here, they've already been rated by maybe half a dozen major ratings boards from all over the Western world. I can imagine some sly developer slipping one past one board, but six? It feels like it's unnecessarily duplicating effort.

Also, WRT the classifying mobile games issue, there are a couple of things to consider. First of all, the sheer volume of material to classify (10,000 apps) means that even the quickest and most efficient process can quite easily find itself snowed under. Secondly, there's the question of where the line is drawn regarding "mobile games". Forget the Apple's app system for a second - how will the Board distinguish between a "mobile game" you can buy from, say, the Android store and a mobile game that you can play in the browser of an Android phone? Get it wrong and the Board will have inadvertently taken on the ludicrous task of classifying every browser-based game out there.

[Lazlow]

QWOP will probably get banned for being racist :(

[texta]

It does put a case towards the benefits of self regulation in that it can respond to rapid changes in technology much quicker than governments can, which require changes to legislation, a lengthy process.I think the delays that people have complained about with Apple's system (see eg the Google app) make it pretty obvious that that isn't the case.

One does need to question, what benefit does Australia get from government regulation in terms of classification versus industry regulation? The lack of R18+ rating for games and the effects it has on a number of Australian releases seems to indicate the negatives outweigh any positives. The main benefit that a government system has against an industry one is that the government can deem a particular item that is deemed "harmful" illegal to sell in Australia through the classification system, though as we know what the board has considered "harmful" in the past has been very debatable.I think you're combining two separate issues.

The R18+ issue is not related to the government vs industry regulation and I think to really see the problems in that area you have to look beyond classification.

But if you do want to bring that up, Apple's self regulation is an example where what they consider inappropriate is much much tougher than what Australia's Classification board would allow.

The real problem with self regulation though comes in when all members of an industry band together to put in the same standard that we as consumers have no control over (while at least with Government regulation we have elections). This might not be the case here because Google and Apple have very different approaches.

Ultimately classification systems should be about informing consumers and not censorship, in which case an industry based regulation system is a better solution. Information would likely be more informative, and an industry board can more easily adapt to the new technologies as they are introduced in the market.Except again, you only have to look at what Apple do to see that self regulation has been all about censorship.

By the time games arrive here, they've already been rated by maybe half a dozen major ratings boards from all over the Western world. I can imagine some sly developer slipping one past one board, but six? It feels like it's unnecessarily duplicating effort.Which board should we stick with? Should we also get rid of our currency, since it would probably be more convenient just to use the Yuan.

Also, WRT the classifying mobile games issue, there are a couple of things to consider. First of all, the sheer volume of material to classify (10,000 apps) means that even the quickest and most efficient process can quite easily find itself snowed under. Secondly, there's the question of where the line is drawn regarding "mobile games". Forget the Apple's app system for a second - how will the Board distinguish between a "mobile game" you can buy from, say, the Android store and a mobile game that you can play in the browser of an Android phone? Get it wrong and the Board will have inadvertently taken on the ludicrous task of classifying every browser-based game out there.
I don't think details like that are really relevant at this stage. I don't think we should avoid making laws because they might be inconvenient or complicated.

I think the starting position needs to be whether we think the philosophy behind having a classification system for video games, books, films and tv shows should also apply to mobile material and if the answer is yes, we'll start worrying about the logistics of it.


But as I have already said I don't think the right answer is just to enforce the system we have now onto mobile gaming. I think we need a consistent system, but a different one to what we have.

[borgster101]

I think the delays that people have complained about with Apple's system (see eg the Google app) make it pretty obvious that that isn't the case.
I'm more talking about where it would require a change to legislation, not going to happen over night. The Australian article implies that the legislation doesn't "exclude" mobile games, which I assume means it wouldn't have to be changed ... so perhaps in this case it wouldn't take signficantly longer than an industry based model.


But if you do want to bring that up, Apple's self regulation is an example where what they consider inappropriate is much much tougher than what Australia's Classification board would allow.
I'm not entirely familar with Apple's model, which assumingly refers to their App store products. But this is their choice as part of running their business, having a government classification system for mobile games won't change Apple's own system especially if they are tougher. It just means that Apple don't want to sell apps with certain content to protect their brand. However since they're a business, if there is a demand for certain content then it can be provided through market forces, either through Apple or alternative companies. Which again can adapt a lot faster than government regulation.

When I'm talking about an industry based classification system, I'm referring to something like the ESRB, i.e. an indepedent body that acts as an industry self regulator, not a single company's own polices of what they decide they want to sell to their customers, this is a different thing.

The real problem with self regulation though comes in when all members of an industry band together to put in the same standard that we as consumers have no control over (while at least with Government regulation we have elections). This might not be the case here because Google and Apple have very different approaches.
Consumers do have control though through their purchasing decisions. However an independent board like an ESRB Australian equivalent is unlikely to be more harsh than the government, but again we are talking about different things here. You're talking about a single companies own internal policies, which is also self regulation, but even without an ESRB equivalent, competition will ensure needs of consumers are met and there isn't "censorship".

[Shorty]

Which board should we stick with? Should we also get rid of our currency, since it would probably be more convenient just to use the Yuan.

Only if you consider drastic changes of national economic policy equivalent to government boards classifying media. The point I'm making is that I think it's difficult to get much value from our tax dollars if they're being put towards something that is already being quite competently done by many others. All the Classification Board seems to do is take another few thousand from a developer or publisher and maybe reject their game on usually shaky grounds. Why not put some of that time and money towards having them thoroughly assess other systems and, if so, allow retailers to use their ratings instead?

I don't think details like that are really relevant at this stage. I don't think we should avoid making laws because they might be inconvenient or complicated.

I think the starting position needs to be whether we think the philosophy behind having a classification system for video games, books, films and tv shows should also apply to mobile material and if the answer is yes, we'll start worrying about the logistics of it.

But as I have already said I don't think the right answer is just to enforce the system we have now onto mobile gaming. I think we need a consistent system, but a different one to what we have.

That's fine and I can appreciate that position, as what we have now is definitely inadequate. But the seemingly "irrelevent" details I'm bringing up are the sort of things that, when ignored, gets us the hamfisted classification policy we have now. Otherwise we're reacting tomorrow to yesterday's technology.

[texta]

The filter is well and truly dead thanks to the election, but I thought this was interesting:

Facebook cp ring (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2994926.htm)

Even though this wouldn't have been covered by the filter, it goes to show what should be an obvious point that technical ability or intelligence are not a criteria towards being interested in child pornography. In other words, the fact that there are ways that people could create undetectable ways to share child porn (or other RCed type material) is no basis to think that they actually will.

[Shorty]

True, but likewise you're probably not going to be that effective if you're only going after the stupid ones.

[Shorty]

"No conscience vote on filter" (http://www.zdnet.com.au/no-conscience-vote-on-filter-conroy-339306069.htm), says Conroy, who also says that "parliament will decide if filter is dead" (http://www.zdnet.com.au/no-conscience-vote-on-filter-conroy-339306069.htm) (and hopefully they will, when Conroy finally decides to man up and give them the opportunity).

The fight against the filter continues.

[Zeph101]

The filter is well and truly dead thanks to the election, but I thought this was interesting:

Facebook cp ring (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2994926.htm)

Even though this wouldn't have been covered by the filter, it goes to show what should be an obvious point that technical ability or intelligence are not a criteria towards being interested in child pornography. In other words, the fact that there are ways that people could create undetectable ways to share child porn (or other RCed type material) is no basis to think that they actually will.

The main problem with this and the reasons why we have to continue to fight Conroy on this issue is that his desire for the filter goes well beyond tackling child pornography.

For him, and this is merely a personal opinion I've decided based on reading between the lines of his many speeches and comments on the issue, the filter is about saving Australia from the indecency of the Internet. The Internet filter would be a method of finally refusing entry to sites that contain material that is unclassified by the OLFC, which I'm sure many guys here have seen plenty of.
You can tell from the language used, before they assured the public that Youtube would not be included in the blacklist, that Youtube was clearly in Conroy's sight. I don't think the argument of there being more appropriate and effective ways to combat child pornography will ever likely persuade him, and we can only hope that Conroy is fighting a one man campaign within Labor for this filter.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

"No conscience vote on filter" (http://www.zdnet.com.au/no-conscience-vote-on-filter-conroy-339306069.htm), says Conroy, who also says that "parliament will decide if filter is dead" (http://www.zdnet.com.au/no-conscience-vote-on-filter-conroy-339306069.htm) (and hopefully they will, when Conroy finally decides to man up and give them the opportunity).

The fight against the filter continues.

I love how he says "What if your kids find those child porn sites?!"

Umm, report those illegal sites to the authorities? In fact he should probably be doing that, but then he couldn't reference them when trying to make a random point about RCM.

[Stevorooni]

I love how he says "What if your kids find those child porn sites?!"


You'd have to wonder why innocent little Billy was googling child porn in the first place.

[Shorty]

Well, he's unlikely to find it by accident, which seems to be the only scenario this entire scheme may prevent. Not that Conroy seems to pay much attention to how kids actually use the Internet these days, anyway.

[Lazlow]

UK to block all porn (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/all-internet-porn-will-be-blocked-to-protect-children-under-uk-government-plan/story-e6frfkui-1225973481287)


THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today.

The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

The biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography - so-called "opting out" - the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to "opt in."

The new initiative is in advance of the imminent convergence of the internet and television on one large screen in the living room.

[Shorty]

I was under the impression that parents would have to ask for this (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government) and that the "opt in" would only be for adults on those connections, rather than forcing it on everyone. Still a poor substitute for proper parental supervision, but considerably less objectionable.

[Fenrir]

The new initiative is in advance of the imminent convergence of the internet and television on one large screen in the living room.
Wow, can't possibly dream up a more imaginative future?


Oh, and lolpornfilter

[Shorty]

Governments are always preparing for yesterday's problems tomorrow. Look at airport security.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

Am I the only one thinking just as many adults with kids will immediately opt into the pornz as will anyone else?

[texta]

I was under the impression that parents would have to ask for this (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government) and that the "opt in" would only be for adults on those connections, rather than forcing it on everyone. Still a poor substitute for proper parental supervision, but considerably less objectionable.

The Guardian reports it being 'opt out'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/19/broadband-sex-safeguard-children-vaizey

It's too early to know for sure. It's all just talk.

[Stevorooni]

Am I the only one thinking just as many adults with kids will immediately opt into the pornz as will anyone else?

Imagine ringing up your ISP and screaming "PORN ME!"


or perhaps just ticking something in your account settings.

[Shorty]

UK ISPs respond to the proposal. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063)

[Stevorooni]

I am so sick of seeing the words "Protect Children" being used as an excuse for everything.

[Shorty]

Looking to "backtrace" a bad connection so you can report it to the "cyberpolice"? There's an app for that (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/249970,conroys-big-red-help-button-comes-to-ios-android.aspx). It's basically that goofy "big red button" for the "cybersafety" committee that they were proposing for Facebook etc, in an app.

Or to put it another way:

http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/zerosignal/john_stewart_facepalm.jpg

[aubergine]

I don't understand what it... does.

[TrinityJayOne]

It doesn't call the feds to your door or anything, sadly. It's basically just a link to a website on online bullying as far as I can tell.

[Shorty]

Federal Goverment has axed the voluntary ISP filtering scheme (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/05/the-government-has-axed-support-for-voluntary-filter-schemes/) mostly due to the availability of filtering tech for end users and the ISPs voluntarily using the ACMA-compiled "child abuse" site list. The Government expects to save $9.8 million over three years. No word on whether this will affect the mandatory filtering scheme which, AFAICT, is still stuck in limbo.

[REQUIEM]

Federal Goverment has axed the voluntary ISP filtering scheme (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/05/the-government-has-axed-support-for-voluntary-filter-schemes/) mostly due to the availability of filtering tech for end users and the ISPs voluntarily using the ACMA-compiled "child abuse" site list. The Government expects to save $9.8 million over three years. No word on whether this will affect the mandatory filtering scheme which, AFAICT, is still stuck in limbo.

So we sit in LIMBO... Great game Limbo by the way.