Slashdot Mirror

Here's some information on it (warning: PDF link). It's apparently a bigger deal in Australia than here in the US, as most of the links I found were to Australian websites.

Well, I don't know about contrast, but many stations do have ads set at a significantly higher volume than the actual program.

[this part censored by ABA] so it is very interesting to see what is the reaction of [this part censored by ABA] to this including [this part censored by ABA] and [this part censored by ABA].

[this part censored by ABA] so it is very interesting to see what is the reaction of [this part censored by ABA] to this including [this part censored by ABA] and [this part censored by ABA].

[this part censored by ABA] so it is very interesting to see what is the reaction of [this part censored by ABA] to this including [this part censored by ABA] and [this part censored by ABA].

[this part censored by ABA] so it is very interesting to see what is the reaction of [this part censored by ABA] to this including [this part censored by ABA] and [this part censored by ABA].

The Regulations explained

And here it discusses the type of information blocked...

What is prohibited Internet content? The co-regulatory scheme covers content on World Wide Web sites, Usenet newsgroups and other types of stored information that can be accessed over the Internet. Ordinary email, chat and other content that is accessed in real time (for example, some types of streamed audiovisual content) are not covered by the scheme. Under the Act, the following categories of Internet content are prohibited: * Any Internet content that is classified RC or X by the OFL Classification Board (PDF file - 65k). This includes real depictions of actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality and material containing excessive violence or sexual violence. * Content hosted in Australia which is classified R (PDF file - 65k) and not subject to a restricted access system. This includes depictions of simulated sexual activity, material containing strong, realistic violence and other material dealing with intense adult themes. Further information about the types of content covered by the scheme is in our complaints section. Internet content that has not been classified but which, if classified, would be prohibited content is regarded as potential prohibited content and is dealt with in a similar to prohibited content. Unless the content is in one of the above categories, the ABA cannot take action over Internet content that you simply don't like or do not agree with. In such cases, you should raise your concerns directly with the operators of the site in question.

And of course this forms part of the NON MANDATORY code of practice Found Here which states

While these Codes are not mandatory, the Broadcasting Services Act provides that once the ABA directs an ISP or content host to comply with a registered code, they must then do so. This is similar to other codes currently operating in the telecommunications industry and forms the practical operation of what is known as 'co-regulation'.

So basically the code is only enforced when you have done something worthy of enforcement - perhaps like hosting kiddie porn sites ?

So what we have is an orginisation who is trying to make a name for itself (having no actual cases to fight in australia aside from this) by filing a freedom of information request that they no doubt knew would fail and then when it does and the press release hits the news getting one of their members to post a story here....

Maybe im cynical but there is no story here that i can see ?

Unfortunately, as I understand it, "a password protected section of your site" is almost certainly not "an approved restricted access system", even if you do indeed give the password only to your adult friends.

Now, any sane judge who understood the issue would of course not convict you in the above situation, but according to the letter of the law an "approved restricted access system" is as defined by the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as amended, and you can read the definition here.

In brief, such a system must verify age via a declaration from each person granted access, which must be accompanied either by paper proof of ID and age, or, for electronic applications, by a digitally signed message including credit card details.

So, technically, if your friends did not provide you with these things, I think you'd still be in violation of the proposed legislation, even if the site was only ever accessed by you and your friends at the old folks' home.

Broadband in Australia is actually pretty darn good. For a fee about twice that of a good dial-up service, you can get fast cable internet which is not heavily restricted (considering we don't have uberpipes to America fully running yet).

Both major cable services let you download a few hundred megs per day without worry -- a pretty sweet deal imho. Optus@Home is not download capped, but is upload capped at 8k/sec. Big Pond Broadband's 'Freedom' plan is capped at 64k/sec(16k/sec up), which is still pretty good.

There are also various ADSL and sattelite services running.

As an Australian, I'm pretty darn satisfied with our broadband availability. You can check out my site here: http://whirlpool.net.au

On a not-so-related note, here is an article of mine that got rejected recently:
-----------

In late 1999, the Federal Parliament of Australia passed a piece of legislature, widely touted as the 'internet censorship bill'. One year later, it has been interesting to see what this bill has achieved: aside from a couple of locally hosted porn sites moving overseas, not much at all. Recently, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (the body responsible for implementing this bill) has acted on a number of complaints from users about various newsgroups, particularly those involving child pornography. Satisfied that the content is locally hosted, it has used this bill to issue a final take-down notice against Australia's largest ISP and phone co, Telstra. This has garnered a mixed reaction from Australian net users.

----------

--

I live in QLD Australia. In June '99 the Federal Government made an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act. This amendment introduced a "complaint based" internet censorship system. It came came into effect one the 1st of January 2000.

I haven't noticed the slightest bit of difference. There was a lot of puffing and blowing in Parliament about Protecting the Children and applying the same standards we have for movies and TV to the internet. There was talk of filtering all packets that came into Australia after the (startlingly obvious) point was made that most content viewed in Australia is hosted overseas.

Informed opinion (i.e., that of people who actually used computers/the internet) was that the proposed scheme was ludicrous and unworkable (ISPs are legally require to "make available" client side filtering software, although no-one seems to know if use of them is supposed to be mandatory), and time has shown that opinion to be correct. The scheme isn't the slightest hinderance to accessing "undesirable" content, it has cost millions of taxpayer dollars, and it has made Australia look like an IT backwater (which it isn't). Check out this link for an overview of the law.

At the time I said to people "this is the thin edge of a nasty wedge", and I'm still concerned that I may be right. While the law in its current form is more stupid than problematic, I'm deeply uncomfortable that it sits there packing some nasty penalties for non-complying ISPs. When there's a precedent for blocking one form of "undesirable content" it means that the infrastructure is right there when the government wants to block another form of "undesirable content".

Hope this helps for your article!

grib.

So far, the Australian Broadcasting Authority has issue a couple of "Takedown Notices" to certain websites hosting prohibited content. Each of those sites was back up again running from an offshore host server within hours.

Electronic Frontiers Australia has more details..
--