[LINK] Re: MR97/2010: ... parental lock standard ...
Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Wed Aug 4 20:10:19 AEST 2010
> From: "Australian Communications & Media Authority" <media at acma.gov.au>
> The technical standard requires the parental lock feature be
>available in domestic reception equipment ...
> 'The standard ensures that certain equipment supplied to the market ...
The term 'domestic' has (at least) two mainstream uses.
Is ACMA, and is the (government-imposed) 'standard', referring to:
(a) domestic as in 'the home', in particular of the nuclear family; or
(b) the domestic economy?
My personal position is that:
(1) a 'parental lock' for genuine 'parents' is a *good* thing; but
(2) a 'parental lock' for the nanny state is anything but.
So what happens in the case of public display equipment, at cinemas,
concerts, airport lounges, pubs, conference venues, university
lecture theatres, etc.?
To the extent that the same equipment, or even the same componentry,
is used in all devices, they get the same parental lock feature; and
then we start to have arguments about the default setting.
The term 'the architecture of surveillance' is all-too-often just a
waffle-word used by humanities types sipping their chardonnay.
But requirements like this - and China (and India) wanting backdoor
entry to RIM's encrypted transmissions between Blackberries - all too
easily result in censorship and surveillance facilities becoming the
Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au http://www.xamax.com.au/
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University
More information about the Link