Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by instinKt
This specific discussion raises another issue about game ratings that annoys me greatly. The fact that there's no adult rating (I believe that the MA15+ is the highest rating) for games. Does the government really believe that adults just do not play computer games? A few decades ago that might have been believable but these days most people around my age (mid 20s) have grown up in a huge boom of computer gaming and claiming that games are limited to people 15 and under is absolutely ridiculous.

The lack of an R18+ rating is entirely because of the South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson. The way the system is set up, any changes to the classification scheme require the unanimous support of all the federal and state attorneys-general. All the other attorneys-general are AFAIK either in support of changes or don't see any good reason why not to. But Michael Atkinson is strongly against the R18+ rating come hell or high water - he won't be shifted by anything. We won't get a higher rating system or even parity with games with films until SA gets a new Attorney-General.

So, why have a thousand adult gamers in your country set up a conference that centered on marching on the idiot's office and each pelting him with something?

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
This internet filter won't go ahead... Putting in laws that allows the opposition to compare you to Iran is not good political sense!

The bit that puzzles me is why they're pushing the idea in the first place. Is it just a cold Machiavellian ploy to win support from the more authoritarian independent senators? If so, it's still stupid because it's more likely to tick off the Greens whose votes they need. If not, then why is this government so determined to impose a mandatory blacklist? They're uncomfortable questions.

My strong hunch is the sole reason it's being pushed so hard is because Conroy, for whatever reason, has adapted this as his pet project. His poltical career is now entwined in this project and so I guess he feels obligated to push it through.

A friend of mine who actually works in parliament says that Conroy is really just a poor sap forced to be the front-man of this policy and that blaming him will get you nowhere.

I'm not a big follower but I used to grunt and groan about Conroy all the time until I was told it's been a party policy for a long time and that if I thought Conroy was the one behind it all I was just being ignorant.

Quote: Original post by Talroth
So, why have a thousand adult gamers in your country set up a conference that centered on marching on the idiot's office and each pelting him with something?

Because he lives all the way over in Adelaide. [grin]

Seriously, the main problem is that the issue just doesn't rate very high with nearly everyone. Even I'm not that affected practically - I'm annoyed by the principle that games aren't treated the same as films and books, but in terms of banned games there's extremely few that are refused classifcation that I have any interest in playing. In terms of issues that I vote on, it's not that high on the list compared to things that have an immediate impact. And then you have to factor in that in this case, my vote adoesn't count at all because I live in a completely different state. [wink]

Atkinson's also made it extremely clear he's not going to change his mind. Heck, when the other attorneys-general just wanted to open the debate up and canvas public opinion on the R18+ issue, Atkinson vetoed it even going public. If the Victoria Attorney-General Rob Hulls (who is strongly in support of R18+ ratings )can't convince him, I doubt a few protesters will.

Conroy's blacklist is a different matter though, as it will affect all Australians. At the least, it's going to slow down all our internet. There's also the secret nature of the blacklist, so we won't know what the government finds objectionable. This latest news only raises my fears, as originally we were told "not to worry" as it would only be blocking very specific categories of sites like those strongly linked to terrorism or child pornography. Then anorexia sites were added to the list. Then a leaked draft copy had a whole bunch of strange unobjectionable sites so they put it back in review. Now Conroy wants to extent it to cover Flash games. It's pretty clear that once Conroy and the government have this tool in place, they don't see any restrictions in extended it to block sites that aren't "good" for us. That's extremely troubling.

Quote: Original post by instinKt
A friend of mine who actually works in parliament says that Conroy is really just a poor sap forced to be the front-man of this policy and that blaming him will get you nowhere.

I'm not a big follower but I used to grunt and groan about Conroy all the time until I was told it's been a party policy for a long time and that if I thought Conroy was the one behind it all I was just being ignorant.

Ah, that would explain a fair bit, such as why no other politican wants to touch the issue. I didn't know it was a long running party policy - I thought it was relatively new. It still doesn't really explain why they're so gung-ho about it. If it's an old policy it can't just be currying favour in the senate.

I've found most people that I talk to about it don't even know about the filter. I've also noticed at conferrences or question time that Conroy's main argument is always about child porn. Now to see that they want to apply it to games as well is just ridiculous.

One of my friends ISPs is running a test filter to help prove its disasterous effects on speeds and he's already notice ADSL2+ running at ADSL speeds.

Censor means that you have to say, 'Yes I am over 15, or have permission from my parents', before using the site?
That sounds fine with me :)

Quote: Original post by Phenoca
Censor means that you have to say, 'Yes I am over 15, or have permission from my parents', before using the site?
That sounds fine with me :)

"Censor" in this case means the site is blocked, secretly, for all Australians. It will be as if the site doesn't even exist.

In the case of retail games, MA15+ rated games are sold on the equivalent of "I am over 15 or have permission from my parents". If you want an R18+ rated game, then you're out of luck. They're refused classification and thus can't be legally sold here, not even if they're stored in a locked cabinet and requiring proof of age. They're banned from sale.

When you hear that the blacklist itself contains only around 1000 web addresses, the real reason for implementing this filter suddenly becomes apparent.

The government thought that it could put this filter in place under the noses of the Australian public, without arousing any suspicion. When they received backlash from the tech-savvy internet users, Conroy called them all pedophiles, and even went so far as to bring in a child protection advocate to scream out the infamous Simpsons quote: "Won't someone please think of the children?!".

Alot of laws here are passed without the public's knowledge, and I would bet that Conroy expected this one to go through without a hitch as well. Even though our government initially promised to only target child pornography websites, that scope has gradually widened to include ALL material not suitable for children under the age of 15. They have also promised that this filter will not be used to block political content - but this promise does not extend to future governments.

Fact of the matter is, this policy is simply being used as a shoe in the door. Once it has been passed, the government can add things to it without any opposition.

Everyone knows that the filter cannot work (proxies, VPNs, internet consisting of more than 1000 websites), even the government knows. So tell me why they're so intent on implementing it?

Quote: Original post by Phenoca
Censor means that you have to say, 'Yes I am over 15, or have permission from my parents', before using the site?
That sounds fine with me :)

Here are the rules.

If the content is "MA15+", then the site must use an age-verification system of the "enter your date of birth" variety.

If the content is "R18+", then the site must use a sophisticated age-verification system. I imagine that in practice "has a credit card" would suffice (too bad for non-pay sites), although the rules read more like you have to scan and send in ID or something.

(In both cases, but particularly in the latter case, the additional requirements on the site owner for maintaining the system, writing "risk policies", etc, are non-trivial.)

If the content is "RC" (Refused Classification) - then it's simply not allowed.

Fun fact: there is no R18+ rating for games - anything not suitable for MA15+ is effectively banned. (In practice many games - eg: GTA - are toned down to barely fit within the letter of the MA15+ rating.)


What if a site breaks the rules?

If the site is hosted in Australia - the AMCA tell you to stop. The fine for not complying is $11000 per day (about US $8800).

If the site is hosted overseas - then it is added to the AMCA blacklist (compiled, but yet to be implemented). This is the blacklist that they want to make mandatory. (There is also supposed to be an opt-out "graylist" that blocks these sites irrespective of age-verification systems.)

(Or something like that - it's worth noting that the aforementioned minister and the AMCA are very vague about exactly how these blacklists will work.)

And if you link to a site on the blacklist, and you're hosted in Australia, the AMCA tells you to pull the link. If you don't - $11000 fine per day. This has already happened.

And if you link to a site on the blacklist and you're hosted overseas, you also get added to the blacklist. This has also already happened (although to little effect, given the blacklist hasn't been rolled-out yet).



Maybe this will make us look good in the eyes of (major importer) the Chinese. Sigh.