Slashdot Mirror


Australian Web Filter To Censor Downloaded Games

Xiroth writes "The Australian Federal Communications Ministry has confirmed that they intend to use the planned filter to block the download of games that have been refused by Australia's classification authority, the OFLC. As an Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman noted, 'This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping.'"

41 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Refused? by roger_that · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who decides what games even get looked at for classification? What if they just haven't gotten to the game you want yet? Is there a backlog of games to classify? So many 'gotchas', so little logic/common sense/ways to appeal. My heart goes out to you Australian gamers.

    1. Re:Refused? by lgw · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's all worth it though. Since we know that if little Johnny sees one pair of tits, his head will explode, and we know that all other forms of censorship are effective, this is a critical step to protect the kids. If even one child's head is saved from exploding, brutal totalitarian dictatorship is worth it!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Refused? by dk90406 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Please correct me if I am wrong, but it was my impression that Australia is more scared of violence and drugs than tits. Titofobia seems to be patented by USA.

      But it still puzzles me that the AU people, which I've always considered as easygoing and enlightened, accept this level of government "protectionism".

    3. Re:Refused? by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who decides what games even get looked at for classification? What if they just haven't gotten to the game you want yet?

      According to the article, somebody from the public needs to make a complaint;

      Senator Conroy's spokesman said the filter would cover "computer games such as web-based flash games and downloadable games, if a complaint is received and the content is determined by ACMA to be Refused Classification".

      I'm sure there will be special interest groups of many varieties saving the children from various categories of filth and immorality. The Internet will be a much more polished facade of reality than it is now.

    4. Re:Refused? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's all worth it though. Since we know that if little Johnny sees one pair of tits, his head will explode

      Oh crap... how are they going to protect nursing babies???

    5. Re:Refused? by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's all worth it though. Since we know that if little Johnny sees one pair of tits, his head will explode

      Oh crap... how are they going to protect nursing babies???

      Are you some kind of pervert that wants little babies sucking on breasts?!? Pedophilia at its worst!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Refused? by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but it was my impression that Australia is more scared of violence and drugs than tits.

      Anyone who argues against censorship of violent video games hsould be rounded up and shot! It's the only way to avoid violence!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Refused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's all worth it though. Since we know that if little Johnny sees one pair of tits, his head will explode

      Oh crap... how are they going to protect nursing babies???

      Are you some kind of pervert that wants little babies sucking on breasts?!? Pedophilia at its worst!

      Hey hey hey, that's not funny. God gave women breasts to be ogled at, not to feed some mutated kids that should be drinking artificial, drug and hormone filled milk-byproduct like REAL REDBLOODED AMERICAN MEN.

      Our hardworking conservative Overlords are working hard to ensure that the next generation are just as properly sexually dysfunctional and neurotic as God and Church demand, and god bless them for it.

      Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with my Senator to speak about the dirty, dirty men ruining our country! For some reason he wants to meet in an Airport bathroom -- Must be afraid of COMMIE FASCIST TERRORIST LIBERALS listening in.

    8. Re:Refused? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it still puzzles me that the AU people, which I've always considered as easygoing and enlightened, accept this level of government "protectionism".

      We don't. We're not happy about it and we're making our opinions known. The minister in charge (Stephen Conroy is dismissing our objections. Come election time, he will discover this relationship is transitive.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  2. Unclassified games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My understanding is a LOT of games don't get classifications out there.
    Filtering them out so you can't get them at all is horrible as the content isn't necessarily bad (and if it is they shouldn't be the ones judging if someone of age should be able to play them).

    What's that? It's just a file so it could be *gasp* encrypted and bypass said filter?

    OFLC: Yeah, good luck with that.

    1. Re:Unclassified games by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's just a file so it could be *gasp* encrypted and bypass said filter

      If any legitimate services do this, they'll be banned. This is a lose for game companies, honest consumers and the government (who loses out on tax revenue). Once again, this dosn't effect the pirates in the slightest, although (for once) this doesn't target them. Is it any wonder that piracy is so widespread?

    2. Re:Unclassified games by MrMista_B · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it is encrypted, it will not bypass the filter. It will be blocked, because it is encrypted. The innocent have nothing to hide, the innocent have nothing to fear. Are you innocent? Only criminals use encryption. Trust the government.

    3. Re:Unclassified games by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the same problem with Cable and Satellite TV filters. Most of the movies and TV shows are unrated and setting the V-Chip or whatever filters for PG-13 and under will also filter out unrated shows and movies.

      When you block something to keep the children away from it in this way, it also blocks adults from getting the games as well. Just like blocking TV shows and Movies will prevent an adult from seeing them. But you have to enter the four digit code on TV devices to bypass the filter, and kids are smart enough to watch the adults enter the four digits and then use it to bypass the filters.

      Sure you could bypass the filters on the Internet by using a DNS server or servers from another country like the UK or USA so that they cannot block it by DNS access. You could also use Tor or some other proxy to bypass the filters. I am sure that the Australian Teenage kids are smart enough to do stuff like that to bypass the filters. It is just like the Youtube system to see adult rated videos, enter your birthdate and for the year instead of entering your own year use the birth year that Mommy or Daddy has and you'll get adult access. That sort of filter system is stupid and can easily be gotten around even by teenagers and young kids.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  3. For the last time... by DnemoniX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I will say this slowly for you politicians. The Internet sees censorship as damage, it will route around you.

    1. Re:For the last time... by paazin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt they read Slashdot. But what about emailing, snailmail, or call them?

      Pretty much what I was thinking.

      Really, it's probably best to write a letter to your local paper (assuming you live in Australia) - that's a rather good forum for such topics that really hasn't found a truly similar foothold on the Internet yet contrary to those spelling out the doom of newspapers like many here.

    2. Re:For the last time... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does this mean my updates for Duke Nukem Forever may be delayed?

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:For the last time... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Internet sees censorship as damage, it will route around you.

      The internet for some users yes. But not for everyone and not for every game. Is this scheme going to be applied to Xbox live for example? Because I can tell you from personal experience that XBLA sees any censorship and damage (and, well, normal functions if I'm being honest) as a signal to give up completely. And commit console suicide probably as well.

      Some slashdotters will scoff at those people sure, but I trust a lot of you recognize that not being very computer literate and using consoles shouldn't mean the government should get to tell you what videogames you can and can't play in your freetime.

    4. Re:For the last time... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I will say this slowly for you politicians. The Internet sees censorship as damage, it will route around you.

      There's nothing very unique about the Internet in this regard.

      Anything that the population might want: internet packets, illegal drugs, tax-free cigarettes, Bibles, Prohibition-era gin, unlicensed DVDs, etc. will get routed around the government's attempts to block it.

      Maybe all that really changes is how many people get hurt in the process.

    5. Re:For the last time... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because I can tell you from personal experience that XBLA sees any censorship and damage (and, well, normal functions if I'm being honest) as a signal to give up completely. And commit console suicide probably as well.

      To be fair, the Xbox 360 sees Tuesday as a reason to commit console suicide.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Ban games? by Wowsers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess that means no more updates for BZflag and Tux Racer.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
  5. Precedent by parlancex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's genuinely disappointing to see happening in other free countries because I guarantee one of the first arguments that will be made for implementing a similar scheme in Canada will start with "This system is already in place in many other countries such as Australia, etc.", then again I suppose it's equally disappointing that our country is so easily influenced by some of the precedents set by US et al.

    1. Re:Precedent by CorporateSuit · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least in the US, if a politician tries to censor our internet from violent media, we still can buy guns to shoot them with.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    2. Re:Precedent by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's when you go back to the old Mom question of "If all the other countries were jumping off a bridge, would you jump too?"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Precedent by steelfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a perfectly legitimate excuse if your ultimate goal is to commit suicide.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  6. It just makes so much sense by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will they be blocking violent movies too? What about violent books and song lyrics?

    I don't doubt this will have an effect. Instead of 15-20 year olds playing violent games occasionally, they will now find them incredibly cool, and go to great lengths to play them. They won't have much trouble unless Australia figures out how to block torrents and eBay too. Even that wouldn't stop anyone.

    1. Re:It just makes so much sense by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, this is like when the filter at work started blocking legitimate (if not time wasting) sites (Facebook, YouTube, etc) so what did people do? They got proxies, however unlike Facebook and YouTube one of these proxies that someone used wasn't exactly virus-free so their system got a virus because of the blocking.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  7. The door is open by Anarchduke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The sad truth in all this is that once you say that it is all right to censor anything, you have already lost the war. Now each item that the Australian government (not the public, but those in control) finds objectionable will come under review and may be censored. This is the slippery slope we all scream about until we are hoarse.

    Each step down this path will have the same excuse, "It's for the children".

    I wonder how long it will be until the Australian government censors news articles for the "fear effect" such uncensored information might have on the children.

    I will say it again, once you accept that censorship is acceptable, then it is only a matter of how much will be censored.

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
  8. Can You Hear Me Now? by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm just a bit curious here, can someone in-the-know highlight the internet policy differences between Iran, China and Australia? I'd think a side-by-side comparison of policy features would be really neat.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Can You Hear Me Now? by Cimexus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure:

      China: Comprehensive, active and ongoing censorship of many non-Chinese websites. Filter able to be changed rapidly in response to current events.

      Iran: As above, but not as comprehensive or as sophisticated as China.

      Australia: No internet censorship at the moment.

      What Slashdot always fails to mention in these fear-mongering articles is that this filter is simply something that is being PROPOSED by a minority of politicians, mostly to appease promises they made during the last election to various conservative and Christian groups. It does not actually exist (yet).

      Then of course you have the Americans coming in with comments like "OMG Australia is falling apart, what a shithole of a country", without realising that this is all just a proposal in one or two senators' deranged heads and doesn't exist. And knowing how things to in Australian politics, it is very unlikely to ever get approved by the wider Parliament and become law. There are a few reasons for this:

      1. Massive public unpopularity. Most Australians don't want this. They aren't anti-censorship per se, but they sure are anti "anything-that-is-gonna-make-my-internets-slow-down". Trials have shown that this filter will substantially slow down access.

      2. Most people, even politicians, understand that trying to censor the internet is virtually impossible (VPNs, encryption, plus the simple fact that websites can be changed, started up, shut down and moved around far quicker than any static list of sites could keep up with). So this would simply be a waste of money, and wasteful spending is not something the government wants to be seen to be doing in the current economic climate.

      3. Comparisons with China, Iran et al. Just mentioning this is a pretty good way of turning someone against the filter pretty quickly.

      Anyway so executive summary: there is no internet filtering in Australia currently. There is a (rather unpopular) proposal to implement some which I would give a good chance of never coming to fruition.

      Slashdot needs to keep reporting on these stories ... I find the idea of this filter as abhorrent as any of you ... but it needs to acknowledge or make clearer that this filter doesn't actually exist. It's just an idea at this stage.

  9. A way to produce more & better AU hackers by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is an attempt by the government to increase the numbers and improve the skills of hackers in Australia. "You want to play those cool games, you have to hack your way past our Internet filters." People here on Slashdot are so paranoid. This is an attempt by the Australian government to provide a training environment for those computer skills that are needed in the 21st Century.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  10. Oh noes!!!1!!! by stokessd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gnometris isn't rated, I'll never be able to update it...

    Sheldon

  11. Australia is a Failed State by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nope. The Australians are afraid of breasts (Ref: Conservatives MPs... want topless... bathing banned on NSW beaches). The world is has gone mad.

    1. Re:Australia is a Failed State by EvanED · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Ref: Conservatives MPs... want topless... bathing banned on NSW beaches)

      Jeez, you think the "NSW" label would be good enough to warn people.

    2. Re:Australia is a Failed State by kalirion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do all these closet homosexuals get into politics?

      Huh?

      Closet homosexuals are all for tits. They'd live in houses made of tits if they could, to advertise to the world how manly they are, in between gaybashing those homosexuals who are actually secure in their sexuality.

    3. Re:Australia is a Failed State by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The joke is, that it is only interesting, as long as not everybody is doing it.

      Seriously, after an hour on a topless beach, you start to look them in the faces first. :P

      And before you know it, they are not that interesting anymore.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  12. Steam ? by moon3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this somehow extend to Steam games? Steam uses some different TCP/IP port to funnel its content, I believe, so the old trusty Aussie web filter censoring software might not be able to catch those. (haha)

  13. Re:Their censor software was written by a Lunix us by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lunix is the crappiest OS since the days of Dos 6.2

    Little Johnny: Mommy! Mommy! Can I feed the troll? Pleassssse???

    Mom: No dear, he'd just keep on coming back for more. Come on, sweetheart, get into the car.

  14. Flood them. by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We need to submit to them *every single* game on the internet whether it be OSS, Flash, MMOG, Steam / Impulse, Forum based (MySpace & Facebook games) or play by email. Everything. Let them choke on their own stupidity.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  15. No Route Possible by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Repeating this mantra is not going to make the growing censorship of the internet go away. back in the days when the internet was solely the province of the technically minded, this may have been true. But in the days of a global, universal internet, this mantra is slowly but surely becoming hollow.

    Governments of the world are not, NOT, going to put up with a medium in which anyone whatsoever can read or publish anything they wish, at any time, on a global scale, without any government control. More importantly, the public is not going to put up with it. This simply isn't the way human societies work. People want censorship.

    If you doubt this, poll your friends and neighbors. Ask the plain question; "Do you think their should be government supervision of the internet?". The overwhelming majority of people will answer, "Yes". And they will not mean supervision over "extreme" material like child pornography and snuff sites. They will mean supervision over anorexia boards, neo-nazi sites, "obscene materials", fringe persons and political groups, atheists/creationists, and in general censorship of anyone that they do not like.

    This increasing government interest in internet censorship is not coming out of nowhere. It's a natural progression of the general will of human society; to repress views they disagree with. If you can find enough people who dislike a thing, you can get it banned. That's what's happening to the internet, and that's why its getting so much support.

    In the future, the current internet era (or more appropriately the one ten years ago), will be looked back on as we now look back on the late nineteenth century drug era, in which cocaine, cannabis and even heroin could be bought, sold and taken quite legally. People had rights to drugs in those days, but, slowly but surely, disapproval of those liberties lead to their restriction. The same thing is going to happen to the internet.

    Eventually, you will need a license to publish material on the web, or at least to host a site, and all sites will be fully regulated by vast, probably international, government offices created for the purpose. This is coming and there is going to be no way to route around such a mortal wound to the free web.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  16. Re:Their censor software was written by a Lunix us by Zey · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Lunix is the crappiest OS since the days of Dos 6.2"

    Honestly, what did you expect from a small Unix for the Commodore 64 microcomputer? Frankly, I think its features list is pretty damned impressive considering the hardware they're targeting.

  17. Amazon pages will have to be blocked by danny · · Score: 3, Informative
    Australia's game classification system has no "adult" category, so many games sold without any controls at all elsewhere in the world are flat out banned ("Refused Classification") here.

    So if what Conroy has announced here goes ahead, a whole pile of product pages at Amazon (among others) are going to have to go on the blacklist. (Leisure Suit Larry is among the games banned in Australia.

    The problem is that many of the proposed filtering solutions work by routing traffic to IP addresses that host prohibited pages to a proxy server. As we saw with the Internet Watch/BT/Wikipedia debacle, this approach is likely to cause problems with high traffic sites (and may well overload the proxy server).

    Danny.

    --
    I have written over 900 book reviews