[LINK] Re: MR97/2010: ... parental lock standard ...

[Roger Clarke]

>  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 
norm.


-- 
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