[LINK] 'Net filters "required" for all Australians, no opt-out

Danny Yee danny at anatomy.usyd.edu.au
Fri Oct 17 09:42:01 EST 2008


Stilgherrian wrote:
> The "illegal content" is not a particularly broad definition: it's  
> child pornography, extremely violent sexual material and anything else  
> that is a crime to possess or transmit or is otherwise specifically  
> prohibited and would be "refused classification" by OFLC/ACMA. That no- 
> one will be able to opt-out of this filtering, i.e. no-one will be  
> able to say "send me the kiddie porn please" is not the issue. Indeed,  
> this stuff is already blocked at the border.

Even if this is a manually maintained black list (and not automated
in as one assumes the "inappropriate" filters will be), it's still
a significant problem that it is going to be kept secret, with no
provision for updating it.  What happens when domains or IP addresses
change hands?

Also, note that Refused Classification under film guidelines is a lot
broader than you think.  It includes anything with "unacceptable"
fetishes, for example, and euthanasia advice.  It is possible that
the "block for everyone" list won't extend to all RC material.
OTOH, it's also possible that the "block for everyone list" will
be set at the same level as the current "take down" criteria in
the ACMA complaints regime, which would include X-rated material.
(It's effectively illegal to host X-rated content in Australia, so if
"illegal" is understood broadly...)

Danny.
  ----------------------------------------------------
  http://dannyreviews.com/ - one thousand book reviews
  http://wanderingdanny.com/ - travelogues + photos
  http://danny.oz.au/ - information activism, blog
  ----------------------------------------------------



More information about the Link mailing list