×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Few Contribute To Aussie Classification Review

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the this-way-to-the-egress dept.

Australia 114

dopeywan.kenobi writes "The Australian Law Reform Commission are conducting a review of the Australian Classification laws, the outcome of which will influence Australian internet filtering and/or the long awaited R18+ Video Game classification. Public submissions on the matter have been accepted since 20th May 2011 and will close on the 15th July 2011. From the article : '[A]s yet only 80 public submissions have been made — 80 per cent of them from people who believe in government intervention for the sake of child protection. Considering, the furious debates within Australia's technology communities, does this reflect the national balance?...'It's likely down to the media for failing to inform the public on the matter.' Having read the questionnaire, I can't help but wonder if their convoluted phrasing is contributing to reports that people are only partially completing the form without submitting." I wonder how much of it, too, is that people don't want to be tarred as favoring child pornography just because they're uncomfortable with by-domain censorship.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

114 comments

440 more and counting (3, Informative)

ginji (862205) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730014)

Thanks Slashdot for posting an article from a week ago, since then there have been at least 440 more submissions made - and my public submission from Saturday morning isn't up on the site yet, so there's a lot more probably made. You can read the public submissions at http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/classification/submissions-received-alrc [alrc.gov.au]

Re:440 more and counting (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730068)

This is pretty standard
But as far as the summary is concerned, the comment down at the bottom tells me that a fear campaign has been launched that seems to think anyone that is against censoring the internet. Sure, child pornography is wrong, and gross, but seriously? Why dont you go after those downloading it like we do in the USA?
It seems a heavy handed, open solution that can be easily abused is a worse solution than finding people who download it.
But whatever, I live in the USA.

Its just a case of knowing about it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730034)

Since the story hit kotaku there are now 547 submissions

Any Aussies should go to http://www.alrc.gov.au/content/classification-online-submission to fill it out while keeping the report side by side, and working through them together. Its the easiest way.

The report is linked at the top, and you have to register as well.

Cheers
Kactus

Re:Its just a case of knowing about it (0, Offtopic)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730062)

Oops - I mismoderated and need to post to undo it. Please mod parent up for speaking sense and being helpful! Just don't click the wrong thing like meeee!

Re:Its just a case of knowing about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730732)

you are a double dumbass.. you don't need to reply to the comment you mis-moderated, you don't need to pollute the discussion tree with your apologies.. just make a new post for the story tree, nobody will ever read it as it will be hidden down at the bottom.. I'm posting this as anon so you can see it, then I'm going to moderate you offtopic

Re:Its just a case of knowing about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36731134)

I've been here going on 2.5 years now and I still hear mixed information about how the fuck moderating works.

For example, many would say that you couldn't post anon and mod in the same topic, that your mods would be silently undone.

It's no wonder the moderating is so low-quality when no one can even agree on what the basic rules of *how it works* are.

But what do I really care, I do real modding at a real forum. :)

Re:Its just a case of knowing about it (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730322)

Thanks, just filed my comments.

Re:Its just a case of knowing about it (1)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730602)

As did I.

I was rather unimpressed with some of the submissions which seem to think that this inquiry is only about the classification of Games in the R18+ category, people unaware that when it was talking about media platforms it meant via what media (print, audio, TV, Cinema, interactive) rather than what games platform (XBox, PS3, PC, etc). I hope such people didn't clog the tubes too much that the important information was lost. A lot of the random ones I clicked on seemed to miss the point with a lot of the questions (as in they were pro R18+ for Games, but failed to come across as to why).

Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730048)

But I don't really have a problem with the concept of domain filtering or domain takedowns for child pornography.

I think it's dangerous to apply it to much else, and I'm not sure I can envisage a system that can actually stop it effectively, or maintain enough transparency to satisfy me that other "non-approved" content isn't being filtered.

And of course I totally disagree with the power being extended even to other illegal activities (file sharing, anarchist's cookbook type stuff, for instance). So for me it's hard to see what's best.

I apologise in advance to the gathered /. horde for not being absolutist enough.

I just hope that the 18+ rating for games comes through, because the current practice of banning games based on totally inconsistent criteria, whilst not applying similar criteria to other media, is ridiculous in the extreme.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (3, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730098)

But I don't really have a problem with the concept of domain filtering or domain takedowns for child pornography.

I do. And my problem is: go for the ones that break the law, that is the solution.

Anything else is palliative care - not only it won't ever be effective, but also has side effects, can be easily abused and it also makes the "proper cure" harder (driving the illness bury deeper). .

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

shermo (1284310) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730336)

It's like laws that make it illegal to not report a crime. We've recently had one pass for child abuse.

If you're sufficiently psychopathic to not report child abuse when you see it, the legality of that decision going to change your behaviour?

The only effect this law has is when the time comes to investigate the death, every family member, neighbour, and other person associated with the child says "I had no idea anything was wrong. I never saw bruises. I never saw the mother hit her child." And no one has any idea how the child died or who is responsible.

However, it is good for getting politicians positive press and appeases the "they should be doing something" crowd, so it's not totally pointless I suppose.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730386)

However, it is good for getting politicians positive press and appeases the "they should be doing something" crowd, so it's not totally pointless I suppose.

It is totally pointless from the social perspective to deceive that crowd in believing that you really do something when in fact you are sweeping the garbage under a carpet - the garbage is still inside the home.

I can understand the appeal in doing so for the politicians, but this is not to say that I like or approve it.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730482)

Every politician wants to do something about child abuse, but why on earth would that something be to stop it?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730868)

Every politician wants to do something about child abuse, but why on earth would that something be to stop it?

The physicians have little to gain in curing the illnesses. Except they took an oath to do so and can be banned for life from practicing if they step aside too much from it.
Why, oh why, isn't the same with the politicians?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36731546)

Sounds a lot like whats happening here, it was made illegal not to call an ambulance if you see someone who is in need of medical attention, this resulted in numerous wrong calls where someone was merely drunk and passed out, then they decided that calling the ambulance when someone isn't actually in need of medical attention is also illegal and beside paying a fine, you also need to pay for the ambulance (the person making the call). This had the outcome that we now have a lot more people dying from cardiacs then previously.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732596)

It's like laws that make it illegal to not report a crime. We've recently had one pass for child abuse.

If you're sufficiently psychopathic to not report child abuse when you see it, the legality of that decision going to change your behaviour?

No, it's to prevent social workers, teachers, police etc turning a blind eye to child abuse. We have similar laws/requirements in the UK. If you work in a nursery or school and see a child come in with bruises down its arm, you can't just go "oh well, I'm sure they fell down the stairsa cooouple of times just like their crack-addict whore of a mother assures me".

You fucking report it. You don't have to be a psychopath not to want to get involved, most people would rather not.

Of course, everyone then complains about this infringing on the rights of poor single parents, constantly being bothered by state oficials, so the requirements get dropped, and in a year's time you get another stoy of a toddler tortured to death while those in authority looked on helplessly.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (4, Interesting)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730116)

I think the position taken by most of the "horde" is that governments have consistently shown that they will either list sites incorrectly or just outright abuse filtering systems like this. To quote an earlier story: [slashdot.org]

Additionally, despite the claim that the main aim of the filter is to block child pornography, only 313 of the 977 total sites blocked is on the basis of child porn. At $40M AU so far in taxpayers funds, the cost so far is around $40,900 per blocked URL. Government efficiency at work...

40 thousand dollars per URL. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Even if every one of those URLs was related to child pornography, I'm sure that spending the $40 million on actually catching people who abuse children would be an infinitely better allocation of resources.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730140)

40 thousand dollars per URL. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Even if every one of those URLs was related to child pornography, I'm sure that spending the $40 million on actually catching people who abuse children would be an infinitely better allocation of resources.

Don't worry, once they have all the automated tools in place and this gets abused, that price will drop to a few cents per URL making those free-speech sites even cheaper to block!

Make it up in volume!

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (2)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730154)

Also: [slashdot.org]

Multiple legitimate businesses and Web sites have been banned including two bus companies, online poker sites, multiple Wikipedia entries, Google and Yahoo group pages, a dental surgery and a tour operator.

That was the /. article I was looking for before (with specific examples of baseless additions to the list). Turns out it was one page farther back in the results. The fact that Wikileaks had to provide the list speaks volumes for the sort of attitude the Australian government (though they're not alone) has towards the public in this matter.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

shenzhen1234 (2324524) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730486)

Hi ,this is shenzhenelectronic. Our website is http:/// [http] www.shenzhenwholesale.com we have some electronics ,for example Microsoft Xbox360 Live card 10000 US PointsMoster beats by Dr.Dre solo hdMoster beats Dr.Dre pro and so on. Welcome to visit our website Moster beats by Dr.Dre solo hd http://www.shenzhenelectronic.com/monster-beats-by-dr-dre-solo-hd-headphones-black-red-white-hot-sell_p53915.html [shenzhenelectronic.com] Moster beats Dr.Dre pro http://www.shenzhenelectronic.com/brand-new-monster-beats-by-dre-pro-headphones-in-white-black-5pcslot-hot-selling_p53932.html [shenzhenelectronic.com]

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (2)

EnempE (709151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730506)

hear hear

What people hould understand is that child pornography is already illegal. It is already classified in other legislation and there is a mechanism for detecting and arresting those involved with it.
Forget the filter, give the money to the AFP so they can do some good with it.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730886)

40 thousand dollars per URL. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Even if every one of those URLs was related to child pornography, I'm sure that spending the $40 million on actually catching people who abuse children would be an infinitely better allocation of resources.

1. It is the censorship that's obscene, not the content.

2. I'd somehow accept the idea of a "content classification" if it would limit to being "advisory only"

3. A content *in itself* or being exposed to it should never be made illegal. The laws needs to prevent the illegal *actions* undertaken in creating or distributing content of any kind, but stop right before involving any control to accessing the content.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731126)

2. I'd somehow accept the idea of a "content classification" if it would limit to being "advisory only"

FWIW, even "advisory" ratings result in censorship due to the economic impact of the ratings.

One example is how Wal-mart won't carry music with one of those "explicit lyrics" ratings. For really big acts, that means a wal-mart edition with the naughty words blanked out and an uncut edition for all the other stores. But for most acts, there is only enough money to produce one edition and since wal-mart is the largest music distributor, that one edition is usually the wal-mart friendly, censored version. (online distribution is changing the situation, but only after a couple of decades of damage)

Another example: MPAA ratings for movies consistently cause a "dumbing down" of movies in order to increase audience size by avoiding R ratings. Scenes get cut and sometimes entire movies won't get greenlit. Take the case of the current superhero binge, there have been no R-rated super-hero movies since Watchmen - which turned a decent profit but was still considered a financial failure. Even "Sucker Punch" (by the same director) which was conceived as a PG-13 movie from the start had a key scene cut in order to receive a PG-13 rating - a scene that didn't include nudity, simulated sex or really much of anything except obscenity-free dialogue.

In other words, there really is no such thing as an "advisory only" rating system, there will always be a price paid in censorship as the result of any ratings system. Some people don't have a problem with that price, but it at least needs to be acknowledged when talking about such plans.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731148)

Please a +Insightful for the parent.

In other words, there really is no such thing as an "advisory only" rating system, there will always be a price paid in censorship as the result of any ratings system. Some people don't have a problem with that price, but it at least needs to be acknowledged when talking about such plans.

Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem if I can obtain the uncensored version from somewhere - but you are right: I'd need to know that the wmart version is censored for me to try get it from somewhere else.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732820)

1. It is the censorship that's obscene, not the content.

You don't think images of children being raped are obscene?

2. I'd somehow accept the idea of a "content classification" if it would limit to being "advisory only"

No, they want to ban child sexual abuse sites, not restrict them to adult paedophiles only.

3. A content *in itself* or being exposed to it should never be made illegal. The laws needs to prevent the illegal *actions* undertaken in creating or distributing content of any kind, but stop right before involving any control to accessing the content.

Depends where you live, bu in a lot of places (e.g. here in the UK) simply having the content is illegal already.

The argument is that you can only get the content by recording actual child sexual abuse in the first place, therefore viewing it is (a) being an accessory to the crime and (b) encourages more of the same real life child sexual abuse to be filmed.

So given the two opposing facts of censorship or preventing child sexual abuse, the law acts to try to restrict the latter at the expense of the former.

No one's saying this means you don't also go after the original creators of child pornography as well.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732008)

Two of those blocked sites could pay a mid-level federal agent to exclusively track down child predators for a year.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730326)

I guess the problem would generally be to find a sensible consensus on "what should be filtered". Personally, I don't care too much for child porn, but I'd really like if hate speech (at least the really silly and insane one) went away. Others will want the same with conspiracies. Or how about anti-religious speech? I'm pretty sure a lot of fundies would like to get rid of that. Or how about finally getting rid of those scare videos on Youtube?

Laws regarding "decency" will never be based on consistent criteria. Because everyone defines "decency" differently.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36733002)

I guess the problem would generally be to find a sensible consensus on "what should be filtered". Personally, I don't care too much for child porn, but I'd really like if hate speech (at least the really silly and insane one) went away. Others will want the same with conspiracies. Or how about anti-religious speech? I'm pretty sure a lot of fundies would like to get rid of that. Or how about finally getting rid of those scare videos on Youtube?

Laws regarding "decency" will never be based on consistent criteria. Because everyone defines "decency" differently.

I think if you did a poll you'd find that almost everyone would class child pornography (i.e. the recording of real life child sexual abuse/rape) as a bit more than a question of "decency".

Whether internet filtering will make that much differnce is another matter.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730424)

I actually agree. People can only be so free. I think that much of human misery stems from too much happiness and comfort, ironically. People think they can jist run around and abuse children with impunity. It's sickening. Freedom isn't freedom when you abuse it. I applaud Australia for standing up and showing support for internet filtering. You can't publish child porn on tv or in a newspaper. Why should you be allowed to do it on the 'net. I just think too much freedom is dangerous and we, as a species, are not ready for it. Go, Australia and may other western countries follow your guiding loght!

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731846)

It's already illegal to publish child pornography... on the internet and on paper. So what is, what Australia is exactly doing?
Basicly Australia plans to filter out child pornography that got posted illegally anyway to people not aware of the child pornography.
The message to the people is: "We can't do anything about child pornography, so we will hide it from people who don't want to see it."
If you actually know where the child pornography was posted (otherwise you couldn't filter it), why not find out who owns the domain name, who owns the IP of the server the child pornography appears on and forcing them to a) erase it immediately and b) reveal how it got there in the first place? Why making the effort of hiding something you can actually get rid of?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (4, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730450)

At what stage do you think media hysteria bombarded you sufficiently - as it has done with so many people - to think an image of child abuse is a special case, so much worse than any other sequence of bits which acts as evidence that some abuse has taken place? What about a picture/film of adult sexual abuse? If the adult is developmentally retarded? Animal abuse? A snuff film? An image of a dead baby? A woman executed for being raped? A war crime? Evidence of genocide?

Ask yourself whether your concern is with the image or with the discomfort you feel that someone enjoys the image. Then realise that people may enjoy any or all of the above. Then realise that almost all sexual abuse occurs within families or by other people in trusted caring roles - if you want to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, you would stop far more child sexual abuse by outlawing the family unit.

The noncommercial distribution of CP seems reasonably to be a privacy issue for the child, as any photo/video taken without consent. Beyond that, all the resources should go toward identifying and stopping the abusers and helping the victims. To inform the abused that money which you are claiming to be using in their interest is going to be invested in pushing images of his/her abuse underground (and as the thin end of the wedge for general censorship [ispreview.co.uk] ) is not only illogical, but cruel.

Also, let's be clear here: the IWF, one of the oldest Internet censorship frameworks in the Western world, doesn't even claim that its aim in blocking is to stop CP (it does help stop CP by acting as a clearinghouse for CP reports and sending evidence to authorities at home and abroad - but that's where its helpfulness ends). It claims that its blocking list is provided to stop people "accidentally" viewing CP. This shows how absurd the situation is: surely the correct response to accidentally doing something which isn't dangerous is to learn from your mistakes so you know how to minimise your chances of doing it again? But no, we're at the "punished for being raped" stage of hysteria, where I must worry about the legal implications of accidentally stumbling into CP. It's not that a single such incident is likely to lead to conviction, but that - in the UK at least - a single such incident may lead to arrest, and my arrest record can be studied by pretty much any potential employer.

Any good government knows how to make anyone a criminal or quasi-criminal at its whim. This is just another method. It has nothing whatever to do with stopping child abuse, and I say that as someone who has fundraised for kids' charities and supported certain groups for abuse survivors for as long as I can recall.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730806)

"At what stage do you think media hysteria bombarded you sufficiently - as it has done with so many people - to think an image of child abuse is a special case, so much worse than any other sequence of bits which acts as evidence that some abuse has taken place? What about a picture/film of adult sexual abuse? If the adult is developmentally retarded? Animal abuse? A snuff film? An image of a dead baby? A woman executed for being raped? A war crime? Evidence of genocide?"

Because obviously, I could never come to these conclusions myself, no, it *has* to be media hysteria that has warped my fragile little mind. Has to be.

And I would apply this to all of your list up to and including the snuff film.

Blocking it puts off the 'casual' viewer and constricts the market. And we all believe in market based solutions, right?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730920)

no, it *has* to be media hysteria that has warped my fragile little mind

You haven't explained why there's something special about sex which means that publications with a sexual element are worse than, say, publications with a non-sexual violent element. Of all the many methods of tackling the problem, you're precisely stating the popularly promoted solutions with the usual "there'll be no feature creep" reassurance, while also not justifying the approach.

Blocking it puts off the 'casual' viewer and constricts the market.

Are you a casual viewer? If not, what information are you using to make statements based on the actions of the casual viewer? IOW, what dangers does this casual viewer pose and how many casual viewers are there? By your argument, I assume you have evidence that there are many people who use easily found images of child abuse on the web as a gateway drug to paying for or producing child porn.

And we all believe in market based solutions, right?

The solution which uses moral means and which works best is the best solution. (The proposed solution has neither property.) To suggest that every solution must be based upon some particular belief system is religion.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731002)

The solution which uses moral means and which works best is the best solution. (The proposed solution has neither property.) To suggest that every solution must be based upon some particular belief system is religion.

What is the solution that uses "moral means" that "works best" resulting in the "best solution" and that does not rely on a belief system?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731150)

"Here's we'll apply market principles because the market is shown to work in this case," would be relying on evidence.

"Here we'll apply market principles because all problems must be solved using market principles because the free market always works," would be relying on a belief system.

You might want to argue that my statement is vacuous because, well, confidence in science and evidence and stuff is itself a belief system. But that would be deliberately obtuse, and it's not proper form on the Internet to behave like that ;-).

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731464)

You haven't explained why there's something special about sex which means that publications with a sexual element are worse than, say, publications with a non-sexual violent element.

No, I haven't, because that's not my assertion. You made that bit up all by yourself.

By your argument, I assume you have evidence that there are many people who use easily found images of child abuse on the web as a gateway drug to paying for or producing child porn.

By your argument I assume you have concrete evidence to the contrary? That there is no market effect? No escalation from viewing to buying?

The solution which uses moral means and which works best is the best solution. (The proposed solution has neither property.

And that's another baseless assertion from you.

To suggest that every solution must be based upon some particular belief system is religion.

From which orifice are you pulling this particular accusation?
Where did I suggest that?

I should probably leave now, you seem to be doing pretty well making stuff up and arguing against it yourself.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731508)

No, I haven't, because that's not my assertion. You made that bit up all by yourself.

"And I would apply this to all of your list up to and including the snuff film." You've rejected the examples where there's an obvious social benefit to publication such as videos/photographs of genocide. But you've happily included all the examples which the popular media commonly suggest are shared for kicks.

By your argument I assume you have concrete evidence to the contrary? That there is no market effect? No escalation from viewing to buying?

You can't just assert a connection between two things (one which I see you're now trying to be deliberately vague about) and then demand that other people prove that there is no connection. It's doubly bad when you start suggesting restrictive laws should be enacted on the basis of your assertion.

And that's another baseless assertion from you.

Which bit is baseless? Do you disagree that the best moral solution should be sought? Or do you think it's "baseless" to suggest that government Internet censorship of CP is neither part of an optimal solution (to the problem of child abuse) nor even a moral option?

From which orifice are you pulling this particular accusation?

Oh, Nursie, you are awful. It came from yours and I didn't even need to pull:

And we all believe in market based solutions, right?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731584)

"You've rejected the examples where there's an obvious social benefit to publication such as videos/photographs of genocide. But you've happily included all the examples which the popular media commonly suggest are shared for kicks."

No, I rejected the ones in which someone is deliberately harmed in order to obtain the footage, which is then distributed for kicks. there is a difference.

You can't just assert a connection between two things (one which I see you're now trying to be deliberately vague about) and then demand that other people prove that there is no connection. It's doubly bad when you start suggesting restrictive laws should be enacted on the basis of your assertion.

I'm not suggesting laws. In fact you'll see if you read my comments that I disagree with them based on the possibility of abuse of said law.

Personally I think that if you want to say that there is no connection between ease of access to child porn, people paying for child porn, and therefore more being made... well given that everything we know about supply and demand would have to be thrown out for that not to be the case I think the onus is on you here.

Which bit is baseless? Do you disagree that the best moral solution should be sought? Or do you think it's "baseless" to suggest that government Internet censorship of CP is neither part of an optimal solution (to the problem of child abuse) nor even a moral option?

It's simple. Your assertion that a filter solution is neither moral nor effective is unsupported.

Is it likely to be *absolutely* effective? Hell no. is it likely to dissuade less technical users? Well sure we'd need some supporting evidence for that.

Oh, Nursie, you are awful. It came from yours and I didn't even need to pull:

And we all believe in market based solutions, right?

Your interpretation of that comment as a suggestion "that every solution must be based upon some particular belief system" is at fault there.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731744)

No, I rejected the ones in which someone is deliberately harmed in order to obtain the footage,

You seem to know a lot about child abuse. Are you sure that child sexual abuse doesn't happen because the abusers enjoy it? The filming may be secondary.

Meanwhile, an oppressive government will often make executions and its own war crimes very public, possibly recording and rebroadcasting, for the chilling terror effect on others who may dare to resist it. Someone is deliberately harmed in order to obtain the footage.

which is then distributed for kicks. there is a difference.

They're all distributed for kicks.

I'm not suggesting laws. In fact you'll see if you read my comments that I disagree with them based on the possibility of abuse of said law.

No, you've indicated that you have reservations based on the possibility of abuse but that in principle you support centralised filtering.

Personally I think that if you want to say that there is no connection between ease of access to child porn, people paying for child porn, and therefore more being made... well given that everything we know about supply and demand would have to be thrown out for that not to be the case I think the onus is on you here.

Why did you slip in "people paying for child porn" there? The question is whether slightly easier access to child porn on the web is going to lead to more abuse. "Everything we know" about supply and demand doesn't lead to this conclusion at all. A slight increase in available supply of CP does not increase demand for CP. Why would it? Even before everything else about the absurdity of that implication is addressed, you're making the classical mistake of confusing tangible property and bits: data is not used up, and copying CP doesn't mean more abuse is caused (aside from privacy issues) or will have to be caused to satisfy further people.

Anyway, a market-based "solution" is to flood the Internet with all the CP ever created, providing such an abundance of CP that demand is more likely to be satisfied and there's little incentive to create more.

It's simple. Your assertion that a filter solution is neither moral nor effective is unsupported.

It has been argued at length in almost every thread discussing CP filters that a centralised government filter is immoral; the certainty of abuse is one obvious reason you have addressed. As for whether it's effective, again, the onus is on you to prove that it is. The default assumption in any scientific approach is the lack of correlation/association/causation, and it is for the theoretician or experimenter to show otherwise.

Is it likely to be *absolutely* effective? Hell no. is it likely to dissuade less technical users? Well sure we'd need some supporting evidence for that.

Dissuade them from what? Looking for CP out of curiosity? Satisfying sexual desire? Doing something which causes more children to be abused? If it's anything but the last, tell me why it must be stopped. If it's the last, tell me why it would cause more children to be abused. The IWF produces one of the longest established filter lists in the Western world and even they've been clear that the only reasonable purpose is to stop people accidentally stumbling across CP. What is your evidence that it does something more?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36733430)

You haven't explained why there's something special about sex which means that publications with a sexual element are worse than, say, publications with a non-sexual violent element.

The fact that the phrase "child sexual abuse" contains the word "sex" just like "consenting adults having sex" does not mean that they are the same thing or have any sort of moral equivalency.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731048)

Because obviously, I could never come to these conclusions myself, no, it *has* to be media hysteria that has warped my fragile little mind. Has to be.

I don't think you realize just how personally unflattering your alternative explanation is. It's one thing to blithely go along with whatever authority proposes without thinking about it too much since it doesn't really personally impact you. It's a far worse proposition to have thought long and hard about a subject and come to such an abjectly poor conclusion

Blocking it puts off the 'casual' viewer and constricts the market. And we all believe in market based solutions, right?

When has "constricting the market" like that ever worked?
War on Drugs? Nope.
Copyright Piracy? Nope.
Prohibition? Nope.

Seriously, name ONE case where "constricting" has conclusively worked. You can't.

None of which are "market based" either. If anything, trying to affect a market by government action is pretty much the polar opposite of "market based."

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731512)

I don't think you realize just how personally unflattering your alternative explanation is. It's one thing to blithely go along with whatever authority proposes without thinking about it too much since it doesn't really personally impact you. It's a far worse proposition to have thought long and hard about a subject and come to such an abjectly poor conclusion

I came to this position having briefly played with freenet some years ago and seen what it was largely used for.

I quickly decided that I could not run a node and that I did not believe in free speech to the extent that, even without knowing exactly due to the nature of freenet, I would give my disk space and bandwidth over to that project.

I am not going to loudly advocate any sort of filter due to the possibilities for authoritarian misuse of such a thing, but you won't find me arguing against the concept. The exchange of pictures depicting the brutal abuse of minors is not an activity I will support, regardless of how other people feel about the freedom of speech implications.

You may think of my position as "personally unflattering" if you wish.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731528)

I also wouldn't run a Freenet node for the same reasons as you.

Do you see the difference between not supporting something and outlawing it?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36731984)

And most ironically, this law still wouldn't make it any safer to run a Freenet node (if anything it will drive more people engaging in such actions to use anonymous services). We've seen time and time again that badly thought out laws tend to just push the behaviour we seek to ban further underground, making it harder to trace those behind it.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732248)

Of course I see the difference.

The fact I can see the difference between two things doesn't mean I can't agree with them both (in principle, if not in execution).

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36733812)

I also wouldn't run a Freenet node for the same reasons as you.

Do you see the difference between not supporting something and outlawing it?

Some things go beyond "not supporting". I do "not support" the random murder of people who wear red trousers, but more to the point I would go so far as to say that such murders should, be outlawed.

If you didn't personally go around murdering people wearing red trousers, but were indifferent as to whether others did, your "not supporting" the murders would be pretty close to actually supporting them.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#36734088)

You may think of my position as "personally unflattering" if you wish.

Thanks for your permission. But that wasn't the question I asked. You ignored the issue of effectiveness which says to me that you know just how counter-productive your position is but aren't willing to face up to it.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36731036)

I have been randomly clicking links now for over a decade on both the above ground and the shadier side of the internet and I have not once accidently come across child pornography. Sure, I have seen a few ads which girls who may or may not be underage but how hard is it to not click on a ad (assuming you don't have them blocked)? I have never once seen a "this webpage has been blocked" page either.
My guess is that anyone who has "accidently" come across child porn was either looking for it or has really, really bad judgement when clicking on links...

On a side note, I have come across some really disgusting porn (in my opinion anyhow) which would probably get blocked if Australia ever gets a filter but it is harder to wipe your mind of the the images then it is to just close the tab/window...

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36733856)

On a side note, I have come across some really disgusting porn (in my opinion anyhow) which would probably get blocked if Australia ever gets a filter but it is harder to wipe your mind of the the images then it is to just close the tab/window...

There are much worse things than a bit of disgusting porn.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

smerdyakova (2368004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731280)

I know the sentence was intended to be facetious but: "Then realise that almost all sexual abuse occurs within families or by other people in trusted caring roles - if you want to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, you would stop far more child sexual abuse by outlawing the family unit." And mandate what in its place? Surely the family unit is responsible for many degrees of socialisation and sociopathy but I wouldn't begin to know the right search terms for alternatives to the family unit. And the implication is that it is family in its permutations that sets up the position of abuse of power, not our native hardwiring (I'm not trying to be an apologist). I'm writing because I'm genuinely curious about your response to this; you seem to have a number of cogent arguments.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36733168)

At what stage do you think media hysteria bombarded you sufficiently - as it has done with so many people - to think an image of child abuse is a special case, so much worse than any other sequence of bits which acts as evidence that some abuse has taken place? What about a picture/film of adult sexual abuse? If the adult is developmentally retarded? Animal abuse? A snuff film? An image of a dead baby? A woman executed for being raped? A war crime? Evidence of genocide?

Oddly, the idea of viewing images of child sexual abuse has for most people the same arousal factor as looking at a picture of an execution or evidence of genocide, i.e. none at all. However, for the freaks who do find them exciting, it's a fuck of a lot harder to go out and become a government executioner or genocidal maniac than it is to abuse real children.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730532)

The problem is what to do in edge cases. Obviously a site dedicated exclusively to child porn should be shut down. But what about a website that happens to have child porn? Surely such videos have been uploaded to youtube, should youtube be shut down? What about dropbox, surely criminals use that to share illegal files. How about encrypted services, where it's impossible to know whether or not the data being transferred is legal, should those be shut down?

How about a small website, run by a company without the resources of youtube/dropbox, if they get shut down are they going to be in a position to get their website back online after removing the illegal material?

And worst of all, how do we, the people, know that a website shut down for child porn actually had child porn on it? Maybe it was shut down for some other reason, we have no way to find out.

They should be working with site owners to get individual images/videos removed, not shutting down entire sites, and they should be going after the guys creating the content not the websites who allow anything to be uploaded.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730850)

"Surely such videos have been uploaded to youtube, should youtube be shut down?"

This is why things can be filtered at the URL level. Of course there have been problems with the implementation of this and the heavy-handedness of application in countries like the UK, but it's certainly possible - pending contact with the site's owner within a reasonable timeframe.

And worst of all, how do we, the people, know that a website shut down for child porn actually had child porn on it? Maybe it was shut down for some other reason, we have no way to find out.

This is the only compelling reason I can see to object to such filters.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731868)

This is why things can be filtered at the URL level

How? To do that, you need every HTTP connection going through a proxy. If someone uses HTTPS, then it doesn't work at all. All that the proxy knows is that you initiated an encrypted connection with some server (which may be hosting thousands of unrelated sites). The URL is part of the encrypted request.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732292)

Ask the UK voluntary collection of ISPs that implement such a scheme.

They haven't got it perfect yet but I believe that what happens in their current setup is that when a URL is identified, all traffic on the ISP's network to that server is routed through a proxy that then filters on specific URLs.

I'm afraid I don't know how (or if) this can map to https.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732476)

Yes, it's implemented that badly by the vast majority of ISPs in the UK - everything through a proxy and not even a transparent one. This means that any site which makes significant use of the client IP is likely to break, most obviously filesharing sites where one dolt uploading CP means every single request ends up coming from a single proxy IP and per-IP bandwidth limits are hit within minutes.

Some ISPs are contemplating moving to deep packet inspection but that still won't do anything about HTTPS or non-HTTP.

The real purpose, as everyone's always known, was to reach a stage where it becomes possible to use the system's technology to censor any information the lobbyists please [ispreview.co.uk] .

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730648)

but you can't check if there was child pornography there or not. the way aussies are going to do it, is to use it to cancel access to random sites and send a bill to the government - just like the voluntary list in finland(which is funny because it had _no_ child pornography sites on it at all!). and then they keep access open to news servers which have everything and everything. anyways, aussies have had a habit of labeling A-cups as child porno... but the point is, it can and will be used for quite random bans. and commercial cp peddlers will not be touched by the ban at all. there can be no transparency about it.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730824)

Yes, as mentioned in my original post, this is the only reason I have a problem with it.

As a general concept I'm fine with a CP filter. The problem is exactly transparency and the possibilities for it to be used by governments for their own ends.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731162)

As a general concept I'm fine with a CP filter.

That's great. You install it on all the systems you have administrative control over.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731472)

That's great. You install it on all the systems you have administrative control over.

And there you go selectively quoting me. Your argument skills really are very poor aren't they?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731544)

No, you're quite clear that you support centralised enforcement:

But I don't really have a problem with the concept of domain filtering or domain takedowns for child pornography.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (0)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731624)

No, you're quite clear that you support centralised enforcement:

You suck at reading huh?

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (2)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731766)

Nursie, you're either an extremely dedicated (browsing quickly through your posting history) troll playing a typical Conservative, or your convictions are so mind-numbingly genuine that you think it's possible to simply deny the content of a post you made only a few minutes ago.

You have no problem with "domain filtering or domain takedowns" for CP.

That means, unless you're about to argue for vigilante justice, that you support government involvement in censorship at the domain level for CP.

At least have the cojones to either stand up for what you've actually said or to admit that your position needs review.

Re:Call me "Anti Free Speech" if you like (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732318)

"That means, unless you're about to argue for vigilante justice, that you support government involvement in censorship at the domain level for CP."

No, I don't support any filtering that has humans administering it, because humans are both fallible and corruptible. And as we have no perfect alternative I don't support any filtering at all. Sorry if you didn't get this from my previous posts, I have mentioned it a few times now.

The summary is highly inaccurate. (0)

ThatCopyrightMadow (2357420) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730094)

"The Australian Law Reform Commission are conducting a review of the Australian Classification laws, the outcome of which will influence Australian internet filtering and/or the long awaited R18+ Video Game classification. Public submissions on the matter have been accepted since 20th May 2011 and will close on the 15th July 2011. From the article : '[A]s yet only 80 public submissions have been made — 80 per cent of them from people who believe in government intervention for the sake of child protection. Considering, the furious debates within Australia's technology communities, does this reflect the national balance?...'It's likely down to the media for failing to inform the public on the matter.' Having read the questionnaire, I can't help but wonder if their convoluted phrasing is contributing to reports that people are only partially completing the form without submitting."

This is completely incorrect for a number of reasons.

1) Appeal to incorrectness.
2) It might not be stargazer; it might be pew pew along the lines of magazine.
3) I came to the garbage of this place and realized it. We only have good old fakepassword3.

Informed comments are needed ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730100)

They're probably right about the convoluted questions deterring submissions. Yet I also think that's a good thing, since the people who submit their opinion should have an understanding of the issues.

I fear that articles such as this one will pull in a particular demographic who will share a narrow world view, say 20 something gamers who are not raising children and have no concern in community issues.

My apologies for that stereotype, but I've noticed that the perspective of young adults shifts radically once family and/or community plays a stronger role in their lives.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730206)

I don't see any problems with that. The parents would have to actually parent. It's not like the internet is a safe place to park young children anyways.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730292)

Wrong. The gov't is responsible for making sure my child doesn't ever see or interact with anything I don't want them to.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730558)

Wrong. The gov't is responsible for making sure my child doesn't ever see or interact with anything I don't want them to.

i lol'd...but you'd be surprised how many people actually do have that view

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730334)

Whoa, wait a minute, nobody said I have to be a parent when I want to have kids! You can't change the rules of the game in the middle of it! I just wanted that child support payment and park my rugrat in front of a babysitting box, it worked for TV, why not the internet?

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730998)

Yes, parents should parent. And some parents do a very good job at it while others are negligent.

The thing is, even good parents don't have control over what a child hears and sees. Sometimes that is because they have to hand control over to other people. Sometimes it's because they need to give their child some independence, in order for their child to become independent.

How can a parent offer their child some independence without having the unscrupulous business owner pumping up violence and porn just to grab their allowance money? You can't unless you have ratings (or "classification" as the Aussies appear to call it) and accompanying penalties. I'm not going to claim that will stop everyone, but it will stop a few. And some of the others will be driven under by law enforcement.

This notion that a parent is the ultimate authority though is preposterous. Even a good parent can't and shouldn't provide a 24/7 escort, and a cell (erm, bedroom) with bars on the windows and a lock on the outside.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36733986)

I don't see any problems with that. The parents would have to actually parent. It's not like the internet is a safe place to park young children anyways.

The point is that no child, adult or paedophile should have access to images and videos of actual child sexual abuse. There is no need, it can only have harmful effects, and you have no right to get your jollies of the actual physical abuse of children (or unconsenting adults) filmed for some sicko's amusement.

Yes, it's censorship. And I'm also allowed to rape your chickens and murder your garden shed.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730286)

Your anecdotal evidence is absolute. And them shifting their opinions once they've become in the same situation as those they previously criticized doesn't make them biased at all!

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730364)

My apologies for that stereotype, but I've noticed that the perspective of young adults shifts radically once family and/or community plays a stronger role in their lives.

This is very much true. However, in this case my fear is that the very valid, or at least valid sounding pretext (blocking cp) is going to result in other sites being blocked. Which will result in domains being blocked that are whatever the censors will block. Whoever has the most money or the most desire to censor is going to ultimately determine what will be censored, which will be things completely unrelated to cp.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731064)

CP is a unique case because it is illegal and seems to be illegal in most jurisdictions. So if a domain is blocked because of that content (and from what I've heard, the Aussies are blocking domains and not IP addresses), it is because the domain's owner decided not to keep their operations clean. So, in many respects, they are to blame.

As for the consultation and (presumably follow-up legislation), that will ensure that the classification and censoring (keep in mind, they are distinct) are applied more uniformly and less arbitrarily.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | more than 2 years ago | (#36733588)

So why not shut down the site and prosecute the site owner instead? It's not like CP has some safe haven anywhere (and if it does it will probably be in a country without good network access anyway). Since the government however never chooses that route one has to question if it really is CP that they are after.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36731330)

who are not raising children and have no concern in community issues

That's a good thing. Parents lose most of their objectivity. They switch from sensible citizen to "for teh children" maniacs. They suddenly think the whole world should only revolve around their children and that there's a predator behind every tree.

That's also the beauty of it for politicians. Parents are so easily played and influenced. "for the children" is second to none as an argument to get a foot in the door. Pay no attention to the lobbies already demanding addition of further blocking rules (e.g. AFAIR the UK is already pretty far down the road to extend blocks and in Germany media-lobbies are demanding similar blocks on a regular basis).

The one thing you can be sure of, is that "child protection" is just smoke and mirrors and you parents will be to blame for every single censored site beyond that.

Re:Informed comments are needed ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36731664)

What a crappy form. .rtf format? Jesus.

List of Questions
Approach to the Inquiry
Question 1. In this Inquiry, should the ALRC focus on developing a new framework for classification, or improving key elements of the existing framework?
Why classify and regulate content?

Q1 Use of the word "framework" , means the power has already beyond control of the public, decisions are already made and the ball is rolling . It's essentually a talismanic word.
I don't know what the ALRC is. It's irellivent to the descriptive word being used "Framework" which illudes to invisible activities.

Question 2. What should be the primary objectives of a national classification scheme?
Use Common Sense.

What content should be classified and regulated?
None, and if you really have secrets then it's better you don't talk about them so they can then remain secret.
Anything against the law locally would be already regulated by your local sheriff already right, so there's no framework needed to use Common Sense, which again is why that word is so offensive.

Question 3. Should the technology or platform used to access content affect whether content should be classified, and, if so, why?
No. For many reasons too many to get into. Plus your local sheriff already has that covered, so why is a stinking framework needed?

Question 4. Should some content only be required to be classified if the content has been the subject of a complaint?
Having a compaint against content should have no effect on if it get's aired or not. Following this flawwed logic everything could be classified as banned after it received a complaint. It even opens the possiblity of exploiting political agenda, dirty tricks, even foreign agenda at the expense of public awareness masked by this framework propaganda. Again you forget the local sheriff already covers local laws, and so there again is no need for a framework. I have to say if the questions are going to go along the same line here, it's quite offensive.

Question 5. Should the potential impact of content affect whether it should be classified? Should content designed for children be classified across all media?
No, the content is fine, because the local sheriff already enforces the laws on if something is legal or not. Should be anything goes as long as it isn't illegal. Forget Classifying things. Forget this stupid framework.

Question 6. Should the size or market position of particular content producers and distributors, or the potential mass market reach of the material, affect whether content should be classified?
No, the market position is fine as long as it follows the local laws, because the local sheriff already enforces the laws on if something is legal or not. Should be anything goes as long as it isn't illegal. Forget Classifying things. Forget this stupid framework.

Question 7. Should some artworks be required to be classified before exhibition for the purpose of restricting access or providing consumer advice?
No are ?

Question 8. Should music and other sound recordings (such as audio books) be classified or regulated in the same way as other content?
No. I would not do it, I am both musician and producer. Why would I classifiy my own stuff? That's retarded, If I was that worried things being legal (and I really don't see myself giving a crap), But if I did, I would check with the local sheriff and if it was within the local laws, if it is within the law, then anything goes.

Question 9. Should the potential size and composition of the audience affect whether content should be classified?
No

Question 10. Should the fact that content is accessed in public or at home affect whether it should be classified?

Question 11. In addition to the factors considered above, what other factors should influence whether content should be classified?
How should access to content be controlled?

Why do I even bother? It's pointless at this point by the insolant language.

Question 12. What are the most effective methods of controlling access to online content, access to which would be restricted under the National Classification Scheme?
Perhaps just killing the people out right would be the most effective method. Jesus the insolance.

Question 13. How can children’s access to potentially inappropriate content be better controlled online?
How about you control your retarded child instead.

Question 14. How can access to restricted offline content, such as sexually explicit magazines, be better controlled?
Check with your local sheriff if you are unsure.

Question 15. When should content be required to display classification markings, warnings or consumer advice?
Who should classify and regulate content?
The local laws and local sheriff will decide.

Question 16. What should be the respective roles of government agencies, industry bodies and users in the regulation of content?
Fuck your question is retarded I hate this framework of bullshit, go fuck yourself.

Question 17. Would co-regulatory models under which industry itself is responsible for classifying content, and government works with industry on a suitable code, be more effective and practical than current arrangements?
Sound's like you aleady decided, or your just fucking with peoples minds now, or trying to rationalize some new framework, agency, money for it all to operate, when there's already laws, already a sheriff.

Question 18. What content, if any, should industry classify because the likely classification is obvious and straightforward?
Classification fees
Check the local fucking laws. Ask the local sheriff.

Question 19. In what circumstances should the Government subsidise the classification of content? For example, should the classification of small independent films be subsidised?
Classification categories and criteria
Sounds like government propaganda, government corruption.

Question 20. Are the existing classification categories understood in the community? Which classification categories, if any, cause confusion?

Question 21. Is there a need for new classification categories and, if so, what are they? Should any existing classification categories be removed or merged?

Question 22. How can classification markings, criteria and guidelines be made more consistent across different types of content in order to recognise greater convergence between media formats?

Question 23. Should the classification criteria in the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth), National Classification Code, Guidelines for the Classification of Publications and Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games be consolidated?
Refused Classification (RC) category
No. Toss the whole thing out. It's all garbage, follow the local laws, follow the sheriff.

Question 24. Access to what content, if any, should be entirely prohibited online?
If it's online, you are screwed. Want to restate the question?

Question 25. Does the current scope of the Refused Classification (RC) category reflect the content that should be prohibited online?
Reform of the cooperative scheme
Revoke the whole thing, it's all garbage.

Question 26. Is consistency of state and territory classification laws important, and, if so, how should it be promoted?
No, the local fucking law... Oh nevermind. You are corrupt. Domestic Legal Terrorist.

Question 27. If the current Commonwealth, state and territory cooperative scheme for classification should be replaced, what legislative scheme should be introduced?
The local sheriff should uphold the local laws, fuck the UN and agenda 21.

Question 28. Should the states refer powers to the Commonwealth to enable the introduction of legislation establishing a new framework for the classification of media content in Australia?
Other issues
No, the states should refer any power to the local sheriff.

Question 29. In what other ways might the framework for the classification of media content in Australia be improved?

Destroy the framework before it destroys Australia's future.
Use Common Sense
Follow the Local Sheriff First.

I seriosly can't keep answering these mind control / talismanic worded / questions. All this is a bunch of bullshit framework, who's behind it? The UN? Agenda 21? On the one hand the questions come off like a child, without any wisdom or guidance or common sense, when the next question rams some quasi secret already built framework down the throat. I will do anything I can to fight you. I will toss you out of office, I will vote against you, I will nullifiy you bad laws, I will roll back your fasicist crap, I will run for office against you, and I will jail you if I find out you are breaking existing law, I will support my local sheriff and the oath he took, and use him to protect against you. People that make laws like this are not in the public interest. It's a good thing I am not Australian Citizen. but one thing I can do is RAISE HELL from the point of view from another country and there isn't a fucking thing you can do about that.

welcome to http://www.ilove-shopping.org (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730158)

Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,the new season approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar! ===== http://www.ilove-shopping.org/ [ilove-shopping.org] ==== Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 UGG BOOT $50 Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12 New era cap $9 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18 FREE SHIPPING http://www.ilove-shopping.org/ [ilove-shopping.org]

Well, fuck that (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730180)

I didn't realise it was like this. I just filled out the questionnaire.

Referring to a post by MacTO above (and some others, not to single you out -- sorry no offence intended at all), no I don't fit that demographic. I don't agree with child porn or exploitation. I also don't agree with the crap that the current (and previous!) government are trying to shove down citizens throats.

Re:Well, fuck that (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36731424)

No offense taken.

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that the singled out demographic agree with child porn or exploitation. Yet they do seem to be more willing to accept it as the cost of (their absolutist views of) freedom. Well, things just don't seem to be quite as absolute once you are responsible for someone else's life.

Re:Well, fuck that (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36734124)

I don't agree with child porn or exploitation.

Call it what it is, the recording of actual child sexual abuse, or child rape if you prefer. It's not a fucking adult lifestyle choice, like not enjoying red wine.

lets ban wikipedia... oh wait we already did that. (2)

johnjones (14274) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730204)

so this has already happened

wikipedia sliped onto the list of baned sites

this page caused the problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer [wikipedia.org]

so what happens when its a smaller site ?

regards

John Jones

Re:lets ban wikipedia... oh wait we already did th (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730342)

I don't know what happens in AU, but here in the UK (As I can personally verify from trying to look at the above link when it was blocked), ISPs tend not to actually give a block notice. Instead they spoof a 404 message, making it appear the file is gone. Unless the site admin is someone who checks the webserver logs and notices something is up, the owner might not even realise they have been blocked - only that they are mysteriously very unpopular in some countries. The users certainly wouldn't realise - unless you're poking around with traceroute, it just looks like a 404.

The most effective type of censorship is that in which the people don't even realise the censorship is taking place.

Re:lets ban wikipedia... oh wait we already did th (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730464)

The only thing I remember being actually blocked in Australia (until now of course) was some overseas male porn star who shared the same name as an Australian Idol winner or finalist, and somebody accidentally posted the URL of the former instead of the latter in the media release (.com instead of .com.au I think). And even then it wasn't really censorship... I think the user just got a message like "sorry... we think you probably meant to go to .com.au instead of .com", with an option to go to the original link if that's what you wanted. They fully disclosed what they were doing and I don't think anyone got particularly upset about it (except perhaps the .com website owner who might have liked to have profited from the ad revenue generated by the mistake :).

But now it seems like we're finally catching up to the UK :)

Re:lets ban wikipedia... oh wait we already did th (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#36732310)

actually blocked in Australia (until now of course) was some overseas male porn star who shared the same name as an Australian Idol winner or finalist, and somebody accidentally posted the URL of the former instead of the latter in the media release

because some marketing guy published the wrong URL all/some ISPs redirected the traffic to another page?

the rationale for this operation is imo even worse than the arguments for blocking child pornography...

Needs more info (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730270)

In favor of intervention to protect children from what?

The classification review isn't just the internet filter and R18+ for games, it's also about applying a rating system to art and a number of other things. There's also a number of people who are proposing the R18+ rating specifically to protect children, so that 80% means just about nothing.

A bit jaded (1)

Wolfling1 (1808594) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730314)

Having been one of the first people to instigate an ePetition before the Qld Parliament, and having been summarily told that the Attorney General "doesn't really give a rats", I have become more than a little jaded about our government's commitment to reform.

90's style Change Management is about making the punters believe that they contributed to, and actively selected, the course that you had already plotted for them.

Nothing much has changed in the last 15 years.

Still, I put in my public submission, and quoted the 6000 votes I gathered on my ePetition. Here's hoping the folks from EB Games (who gathered around 100,000 votes in their petition across the whole of Oz) throw their hat into the ring and contribute to a sane outcome also.

Re:A bit jaded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730382)

From what I've seen of Qld cabinet meeting minutes (HANSAARD), ePetitions receive the same amount of attention as do paper petitions (a one line mention). What happens after that I have no idea unfortunately. I'd like to see that equal attention is paid to both types, but my gut instinct is that an epetition could be widespread much more easily and cheaply, and therefore may have less impact.
Nevertheless, I will now look at contributing to this submission, so thanks to Slashdot for getting the news to me :)

Re:A bit jaded (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730542)

Sometime on or before November 30, 2013 there will be a paper poll that the government will really take notice of...

You aren't a Commie, are you? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730358)

Welcome to this centuries' witch hunt! And as usual, it's not even about witches.

When you look down the history of witch burning (from medieval actual burning to the commie craze to the CP hype of today) it's not about protecting us from some evil bad man (or woman). It's just a nice tool to silence those who do and say things that certain people do not like but they didn't really break any other law, so we need another angle of attack.

It's not like there's no CP on the web. But please tell me, who is better off by not seeing it? The children? Are you kidding me? They still get abused, it's not like the abuse stops just because you cannot see it anymore. Oh, maybe it makes you feel better, I cannot see it, therefore it must not exist.

Re:You aren't a Commie, are you? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 2 years ago | (#36734264)

It's not like there's no CP on the web. But please tell me, who is better off by not seeing it?

Well, everyone apart from fucking paedophiles, I'd have thought.

I'm not volunteering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730394)

So the Aussies want me to google: "hot child porn XXX," go through the resulting sights and find the worst of the worst to submit.

Seriously, you have to register to use the sight and no one is going to ask were you learned about "Imapedaphile.com.au?"

Whatever. And uh,

Re:I'm not volunteering (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730596)

I'm always reminded of the "First they came" (eg "First they came for the communists...") poem when I hear about stuff like this, but it doesn't quite sit right....

"First they came for the paedaphiles
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a paedaphile
Then they came for the violent rapists
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a violent rapist
..."

I guess you could rewrite it like:

"First they filtered the paedaphiles
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a paedaphile... and also the filter was an ineffective political stunt that wasn't fooling anyone, least of all the paedophiles
Then they came for the violent rapists
...
Then they filtered me
and I just changed my DNS settings and laughed in their faces"

but it doesn't quite have the same poetic measure so... umm... i guess I didn't really have a point.

Furious? (1)

mnot (71203) | more than 2 years ago | (#36730544)

Considering the furious debates within Australia's technology communities...

I think you mean among the teen-boys-with-too-much-time-and-Internet-access community. Australia's technology communities have bigger collective fish to fry.

Re:Furious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36732854)

Australia's tech community has bigger fish to fry than the censorship issue? Tell me when that fish decides what you can do and see online.

Why bother making a submission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36730646)

Interesting to see more anti-censorship submissions accumulating. It's kind-of charming to see such faith in bureaucratic process!

Fact is, no-one really cares what you say and it won't change anything. It is extremely unlikely that any of these turkeys on the "Law Reform Commission", with their ponderous 19th Century processes, even understand the issues.

Most sane anti-censorship people simply could not be bothered. To the extent it interferes with what you want to do, find a way of working around it. We are all going to have slower internet access thanks to the great moral panic of the modern era, but there is no escaping that downside.

TFK

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...