Slashdot Mirror
Australia Plans to Censor the Internet
SenatorLuddite writes "From January 20, 2008 new content laws introduced by the Federal Government will force sites to verify the age of users before accessing content intended for mature audiences (MA15+ and R18+). The laws bring internet classification into line with Film and Book classification laws and completely prohibits X18+ and RC content from the internet. ACMA (The Australian Communications and Media Authority) claims that adults will not be affected by the new laws, yet user-generated and even chatrooms are required to be assessed for classification and powers are granted to ACMA to send 'take down' notices to offending sites."
Oh, I can see that this will work out well.
My guess is that a lot of small operators won't be able to comply, and that a lot of traffic will move offshore if this is really implemented. This law could take us back to the good old days, when almost Aussie web traffic went across the Pacific.
An internet service (web site, chat room, etc) cannot possibly be expected to accurately determine anything about an internet user. Even credit card verification doesn't work, since any kid can borrow their parents' credit card and any identity thief can supply someone else's stolen credit card information.
I hate seeing any kind of law that burdens internet services with having to "verify" anything. Instead, what I want to see are laws that throw irresponsible parents and conservative holier-than-thou types in prison for dragging the rest of society down.
Your 13-year-old daughter was raped when she met up in real life with a 40 year old man from MySpace? Then you should be thrown in prison for not making yourself aware of what your daughter was doing online and for failing to teach your daughter to be smarter than that.
Your 14 year old son was looking at porn? So what? Neither YOU nor anyone you knew ever looked at porn when YOU were 14? And every man who snuck looks at boobies and crotches when he was a teen has grown up to be some kind of dysfunctional degenerate psychopath? Hardly. Get off your conservative high horse.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
If you have age verification for children, you have to verify EVERYONE. If you have to classify "mature" content, you have to classify EVERYTHING.
It sounds just like the calls for special tamper-proof ID for resident aliens here in the USA which will require that EVERYONE will have to show their papers please.
My reaction, being an aussie, to all this is "meh". They have enough problems classifying movies in time for release, they sure as fuck aren't going to manage to rate the internet.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Because, you know, in a world of war, terrorism, economic depression and a climate change that just might wipe us out as a species, protecting the children from something their hormones will drive them to in five or ten years (if that) with a force that nukes pale against is certainly the most important thing to do.
I say fuck the children - not literally, except if they want to fuck each other, they've got my blessings as long as they know some basic health principles (for both physical and mental health). So how about we stop worrying about the children and start worrying about the real issues?
Because, when you think about it, things are very simple. Either, growing up the way past generations did wasn't totally fucked up, and the kids will be just fine, or if growing up the way past generations did was totally fucked up, and is something we must protect the kids from at all costs, then those who grew up in that fucked up way are the last ones you should entrust those decisions to.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The problem being, of course, that the "kindernet" will be of zero interest to exactly the kids this legislation wants to "protect".
Very small kids aren't interested in sex. It means nothing to them. At the age where kids start to get interested in sex, there's maybe one thing that rivals that desire: Doing whatever the adults are doing. Those 12 and 14 year olds won't stay in their "kindernet". They will get on the (adult) Internet, if only because that's what the adults are doing.
I mean, really, can you imagine a better invitation to come in and look around than a "you must be 18 years old to view this page. click below to indicate that you are that old, kids must go elsewhere" boilerplate? No matter if it takes the form of the current porn website front pages or some legislation. Kids will find a way past.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is an update to the existing law regarding access to phone chat services. Realising that the wording of the law only covered traditional telephony, the ACMA seems to have simply stuck "and teh internets" into the wording wherever they deemed it appropriate, rendering a total hash of the regulations. Defining "content" when you're talking about fixed-line phones is easy. When it comes to the internet, it's effectively impossible.
In the US, this would get stomped by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally broad in five minutes flat. Here in Australia that may take longer, but I expect it to be largely ignored in the meantime.
For the last time, DNS is not a content classification system. But I've got this idea that'll work, it's called parental responsibility. I know, what a concept...
I would probably actually prefer my kids running rampant on an unprotected internet than living in Disney/Fisher-Price world. Kids are stupid enough as it is today. They need real experience, and while the Internet barely qualifies as "real," it's more real than a fake Disney Internet. As fucked up as I am from all the porn I've seen, I think I'm pretty OK. Especially when I compare myself to kids who grew up sheltered. And I'm probably more fucked up from all the things real live humans did to me. So let's just leave the Internet alone, no?
That being said, as long as filtering along a top-level domain were voluntary to the parents, then I'm fine with it.
OT:
I finally watched Wizard People, Dear Readers, and it is the best thing in the world. If you die before you watch it, you lose.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Yeah, but if I don't register or vote, others will choose for me. And if I register and vote, I would like to be able to select those who will represent me. In my country it's possible. In USA there are only two parties, so it's not possible.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
The system has broken down.
We really are down to Kang and Kodos with our current system.
Unless we all step up and have the balls to vote for someone different, this kind of thing will be coming your way soon.
The whole "save the babies" bit gets votes.
Me? I'm voting for Ron Paul.
A
However,
Do not confuse
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
But that's not the best part; just wait until you hear about our drug policy!
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That's okay. In Australia, we'll fine you if you don't vote. (Hint: in Australia, it's illegal to not vote, everyone has to, whether they want to or not. It changes the political system significantly, and judging by the way you people complain all the time, for the better.)
You know, it's not actually compulsory to vote. It's compulsory to be enrolled to vote, it's compulsory to show up to the polling booths on election day and pick up ballot papers and put them in the ballot box. But it is not compulsory to have a valid vote on them when you do so, so if you are sufficiently unimpressed with any of the candidates that you do not want to indicate a preference in any direction, you can still get your way.