Post by Date

Recent Comments

Blog Tags

videogames (219) Geek (144) Media (203) deepthought (81) Politics (54) Religion (9) Love (9) Sport (34) Misc (64) Places (164)

It's sort of weird. While the Copenhagen talks occur and just before Christmas, the Australian government seem to be pushing out all the backlog they've been sitting on. Within a day (give or take hours) the discussion paper on An R18+ Classification for Computer Games was released by the Attorney-General's Department and the ISP Filtering Live Pilot Report was released. Obviously the filter report is getting more attention because I suppose there are more internet users than gamers.

While I would love to actually give the two issues thought and create a deep, well thought out treatment of each, I don't have the time. But if you are looking to do so, here's some of the quotes that may be useful.

But I think the political landscape will get shaken up next year. With G4C pushing forward, the Democrats rebuilding, a possible election purely based on Climate Change and the Sex Party and the Pirate Party challenging the status quo... it's going to be crazy.

I'll probably deal with the R18+ a little more in depth. But first, let's look at some of the views of those involved on the ISP filter...

The Libs want the results audited...
Quote:

Our concern with Labor’s proposed mandatory filtering plan has always been that it would be both unworkable and ineffective.

..there should be an independent audit of the trial results released today. This audit should occur as soon as possible.

The Pirate Party thinks the ISP filter breaches Article 19...
Quote:

This policy ... will put the Australian Government in breach of Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This article states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
1

Whilst the Greens think it's all a bit pointless
Quote:

"The pointless nature of this proposal is set out in the report itself, which admits that the filters will be circumvented by people seeking blocked material... "esting showed that the filters used for the ACMA blacklist only were more easily circumvented than other more complex filters used to cover a wider range and volume of material."

The Australian Democrats think it's all a bit of a waste of money
Quote:

The Australian Democrats remain opposed to the mandatory clean feed as a waste of tax payers money and a violation of their freedom, as well as establishing a bad precedent for Government control of information.

Quote:

"Those who have been able to access the report have been disappointed with page after page of jargon and graphs, the missing context of any assertions is horrifying. There's not even details of how many people participated in the trial, whether they requested to do so or really under what sort of conditions."

The Sex Party thinks that there's too much to do...
Quote:

Senator Conroy’s decision to create a black list of Refused Classification (RC) websites would mean that 95% of the world’s four million adult sites would need to be listed and blocked, according to the Australian Sex Party.

Ms Patten said that the Minister was trying to sell the mandatory internet filter against child porn and sexual violence but in fact it would ban mostly depictions of legal sexual acts. ‘Senator Conroy also appears to have ignored the reality that a new classification scheme for classifying websites in Australia will be necessary to cope with the flood of adult website operators who will want to have their sites rated to ensure that they fall below the RC line”, she said. ‘The Classification Board are flat out coping with magazine and DVD submissions to worry about websites”.

Electronic Frontiers Australia points out that Labour haven't explained clearly what it's all for...
Quote:

“Successful technology isn’t necessarily successful policy. We’re yet to hear a sensible explanation of what this policy is for, who it will help, and why it is worth spending so much taxpayers’ money on.”

And Google Australia seems to have feel it's all a bit too much...
Quote:

Google, like many other Internet companies, has a global, all-product ban against child sexual abuse material and we filter out this content from our search results. But moving to a mandatory ISP filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.

In comparison, the Australian Christian Lobby think that it's not enough...
Quote:

It has also proven the technological principle that can be extended to deal with other harmful X zand R-rated material on the Iteret. This is now clearly feasible and we need a review in three years that might test this in practice, particularly usig third party providers of URLS

iiNet use some diplomatic language to insinuate that the filtering won't do what Labour think it will
Quote:

"iiNet has previously raised concerns with ISP level filtering which it believes is unlikely to have a significant effect on illegal activity. As the Government has decided to introduce legislation, iiNet wants to make sure any changes introduced are workable."

While Optus has released a statement stating that
Quote:

"Optus acknowledges that it is the government's responsibility to strike a balance between protecting Australians' desire for freedom of expression and access to information, with the need to improve online safety and limit access to illegal RC content," said Krishnapillai.

Anyway, just found that Gizmodo have put together Obligatory reading on the internet filter issue, covers most of the above, but has some extra stuff in it, so check it out.

I've probably forgotten lots of things, but I'm busy with... stuff... like work and stuff... tell you later...

Hey... what are you doing Saturday? Do you want an R18+ rating for video games in Australia? Well, then you probably should be heading down to your local Attorney General's office and moaning (is that what zombies do?) at them.

The rally, planned to be held on 21st of November (the Saturday after the release of the Australian friendly version Left for Dead 2) kicking of at between 11am and noon, ending at 5pm or so.

There are specific demands being made of the Attorney Generals:
1. Removing Michael Atkinson from the R18+ decision
2. Releasing the R18+ discussion paper
3. Let the public vote for whether or not the R18+ should be brought in
4. Make Attorney General decisions a majority rather then unanimous decisions

You can find out more information at the Left 4 Dead 2 Rally website.

Michael Atkinson recently responded to a Gamer query, you can see the original scanned letter here.

I don't think we'll be attending (busy day), but if you can do so. Especially if you are in Adelaide...

Kotaku and IGN have reported that Left 4 Dead 2 has been Refused Clasification. entry on the Clasification Board's website provides only proof that the game has been given a RC rating, however not why.

It's strange given that the original Left 4 Dead was rated MA 15+ (Strong violence). Why can't Left 4 Dead 2 be rated the same? What content puts it above Left 4 Dead? Or perhaps something else. Here's the report from the Classification Board (via news.com.au).

The reason according to the report is 'frentic and unrelenting violence which is inflicted upon "the Infected" who are living humans infected with a rabies-like virus that causes them to act violently'. Violence against the Infected? Australia says no.

Well most of the Clasification board says no. A minority thought it should be MA15+ with violence warning (like Left 4 Dead). Look out for an appeal.

But given that the Xbox 360 version of Left 4 Dead had no region protection, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that Left 4 Dead 2 should be the same.

I haven't played Left 4 Dead yet, wasn't sure it was worth the price tag. But I might pick it up from Play-Asia...

Boredom strikes. Listen to The Presidents by JoCo. Realise that we keep forgetting the Prime Ministers while at Trivia. Not claiming all the below is correct... or that well researched.

So I figure I might as well blog about them. Some of them I know little about, but there's some interesting stuff. Unless otherwise noted, assume it's ripped from Wikipedia or the National Archives...

So we'll start with Barton. Barton came to be known as Tospot Toby, due to his fondness for the bottle and a good feed.

Barton was a supporter of Federation and at the 1891 National Australasian Convention he made clear his support for the principle that "trade and intercourse … shall be absolutely free" in a federal Australia. This is now my favourite quote.

He also was involved in producing a draft constitution, which "was substantially similar" to the Constitution enacted in 1900.

Because no federal Parliament had yet been established, the largest party couldn't appoint a leader. The newly arrived Governor General, Lord Hopetoun suggested NSW Premier William Lyne, given Lyne had seniority. But as Deakin (who we will get to later) pointed out Lyne had opposed federation.In the end, Barton was appointed Prime Minister and he and his ministry were sworn in on 1 January 1901.

His first act was the Immigration Restriction Act (otherwise known as The White Australian Policy). Barton had stated "The doctrine of the equality of man was never intended to apply to the equality of the Englishman and the Chinaman".

The following year the Barton government gave women the vote, not because he was a supporter of women, more so because of their support for federation.

In 1902 he also went to England for the coronation of King Edward VII (he spent 2/3rds of his first term in England), leaving Deakin as the Acting PM.

During his second term, on 25 August 1903 the Judiciary Act was established. Before the end of his first term on the 24 September 1903 he informed the Cabinet that he was resigning to accept a high court appointment, a position created by the Judiciary Act.

Pretty sweet lining yourself up for a job that you helped to create... twice! So that's Barton I suppose. His government contained many future PMs (though that's probably to be expected) and he certainly did have an impact on Australia.

But what was his big thing? Generally it seems that Edmund Barton is only ever the answer to the question "Who was Australia's first Prime Minister". But the White Australia policy (wonder if that's in the Citizenship test)and women's suffurage are important (as far as Australia's history goes).

Did you learn anything?

Screenplay reports that F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin has been cleared for release in Australia. The game was refused classification in November due to the high impact of the game's violence.

The game's distributors Warner Brothers Interactive have appealed the decision and the Classification Review Board has given the game an MA15+ rating. No changes were made to the game. Can the guidelines be so fuzzy that a game could potentially fit into both RC and MA15+ ratings? Can a big enough publisher apply enough pressure for the guidelines to be reinterpreted? Can't we have an R18+ rating now? Won't someone think of the children?

From the Cleveland Metro comes a truly strange story.

Daniel Petric 16 (at the time), was told that he was not allowed to buy Halo 3 (because it was too violent) by his 42 year old father Mark Petric (a minister at New Life Assembly of God). So he sneaked out and bought it anyway. His father and mother (Susan, 43) caught him with the game and locked it in a lockbox in thier closet where they kept a 9 mm handgun.

On Oct. 20, 2007, Daniel retrieved the gun went to his parents room and asked his parents "Would you guys close your eyes, I have a surprise for you."

Quote:

Mark Petric said he expected a pleasant surprise. The next thing he knew, his head went numb. He had been shot in the head.

Susan Petric, 43, died of gunshot wound to the head.

He said the next thing he remembers is his son shoving the gun in his hand and saying, "Hey Dad, here's your gun. Take it."

His daughter and her husband arrived, but Daniel told them
Quote:

"You can't come in, you guys shouldn't come in. Mom and Dad had a big argument."

Mark yelled from help at which point they rescued him.

So what defense would you expect from all this?
Quote:

Daniel Petric's lawyers also gave a short opening statement to the judge. They said their client had been under great stress because of a snowboarding accident that resulted in a severe staph infection.

He was homebound for a year with nothing to do but watch television and play video games.

Now a skeleton...

Random Christmas fact #4... saw Tripod's For The Love of God launch last night. They did this thing about the 3 Magi.

But here's the interesting bit. Matthew never mentions how many there were, just that there was three gifts. From this comes the assumption that there were three magi, but I mean really... who's to say they didn't "go in" with each other. There might have been 10 of them, gold isn't that cheap right. And if they were just astrologers, it's not like they'd be earning that much. I mean cool presents and all, but bit out of their price range. And y'know they could have gone with their wives who also might have been astrologers, once you're a couple you tend to buy one present for a person even though there's two of you.

Just saying...

Screenplay reports that CEO of the IEAA, Ron Curry's comments on Christmas piracy. Curry says that while it is illegal to import, distribute and sell pirated games, there's something you may not be aware of...
Quote:

"Christmas serves as a timely reminder that the seizure of pirated games, DVDs and equipment is a serious offence and police around the country are taking a strong stance against individuals and organisations involved in importing, distributing and selling illegal pirated games."

I just wonder if it's a seizure of non-pirated materials is a serious offence. If not, this puts consumers in a poor situation. Buy legit copies of games and risk having them seized, buy pirated copies of games and risk a fine of $60,500 and/or five years imprisonment per offence.

Yes he probably mispoke. But it's an odd statement.

Dr Jeffrey Brand, author of the IEAA report, stated that
Quote:

"Australia is the only developed country that doesn't have an R18+ rating, so games which are refused into the country are often downloaded from the internet and illegal copies are made," Dr Brand says.

"Pirated games don't carry classification markings and many parents are unaware of the content being played, including content that is unsuitable for children."

The second day of the advent calendar opening

Oh, he gets an arch to protect! Cool.

Random bizzare Christmas trivia time... according to Wikipedia advent comes from the Latin adventus is the translation of the Greek word parousia, commonly used in reference to the Second Coming. So an advent calender counts down to the Second Coming.

Wikipedia refers to the Second Coming as
Quote:

In Christianity, the Second Coming is the anticipated return of Jesus from Heaven to earth, an event to fulfill aspects of Messianic prophecy, such as the general resurrection of the dead, the last judgment of the dead and the living and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth (also called the "Reign of God"), including the Messianic Age.

The Age reports that even Save the Children don't agree with the governments Internet filter.
Quote:

Holly Doel-Mackaway, adviser with Save the Children, the largest independent children's rights agency in the world, said educating kids and parents was the way to empower young people to be safe internet users.

"Children are exposed to the abusive behaviours of adults often and we need to be preventing the causes of violence against children in the community, rather than blocking it from people's view," she said.

"The constant change of cyberspace means that a filter is going to be able to be circumvented and it's going to throw up false positives - many innocent websites, maybe even our own, will be blacklisted because we reference a lot of our work that we do with children in fighting commercial sexual exploitation."

Strange that Save the Children and EFA agree on something, but I suppose the more oppisition to the filter the better.

One wonders who actually supports the filter, given that ACMA's testing shows that the filter blocks content it shouldn't, allows content that it should and slows the net by 87 percent. On this basis, who would want it?

Events...

Contact Urbaer

Blogroll

• Miriam Parkinson
• Cameron Reilly
• Michael Specht
• Jay
• Bianca Chen
• Jam
• Richard Giles
• ComicBookDB collection
• Goodreads
• Flickr
• Picassa
• scientaestubique
• urbabe
• Last.fm
• Twitter
• Lauren

Disclaimer