Aust Govt Adds Video Games To Proposed Web Filter
The Australian Federal Government has revealed plans to extend its internet filter plan to include computer and video games.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the proposed legislation will “block websites hosting and selling video games that are not suitable for 15 year olds.”
This potentially includes:
* a local or overseas website selling a game that has been refused classification locally, meaning for example that a website selling the previously banned Silent Hill: Homecoming may have found itself blocked
* browser-based or downloadable games and any website hosting such games that contain content that would be refused classification
* massively multiplayer games also containing content that would be refused classification
A spokesperson from the office of Stephen Conroy, Minister for Communications, told the SMH that 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.”
Quite how this system will work when it’s based on “complaints”, we’re not sure.
In determining whether any online content might be refused classification, the ACMA would refer to the Classification Act, which states that MA15+ is the highest category before content is refused classification.
But where does this leave MMOs and other online games that, at present, are not required to be classified by the Classification Board?
Speaking to Kotaku, Ron Curry, head of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, said of the proposal:
“No filter is or can be 100% successful in stopping access to online digital content as the methods for disseminating digital content are constantly evolving. If parents hold a solid belief that ISP level filtering removes the possibility of accessing inappropriate content, there is a real and significant risk they will not undertake appropriate supervision and education of the online conduct of minors.
“This proposal simply provides another example of the gap in the current legislation. Hopefully this will provide concerned adults with another reason to take the time and effort to reply to the Government’s upcoming discussion paper on the R18+ Classification issue.”
The government’s internet filter is currently under trial with a number of ISPs. The policy has not yet been introduced.
Comments
I’d just love to see Stephen Conroy’s browsing history…
Seems like Stephen just found out about the whole UK Rapelay controversy and to make up for being extremely late to the party he made sure he brought a slab.
Doesn’t being ‘refused classification’ mean that it’s illegal to sell in Australia, but not to own? Trying to get international retailers to comply with Australia’s backwards censorship regulations is asinine at best.
Let’s hope the current balance of power in the senate is maintained. As long as the current senators hold their positions, any legislation to bring in mandatory censorship will not pass.
So, anyone want to own up to voting these clowns into office? I know I didn’t.
This, the internet censoring thing in general, still no R18+ for games, these stupid cash bonuses that have left us in huge debt after being in comfortable surplus – oh yeah this government’s doing a cracking job.
SLAP! Check your sources, Kotaku.
If you refer to the SMH article you’ll see it doesn’t cite a policy, statement, or press release but instead refers to a staffer “confirming”. Combine that with the repeated references to the “internet villain” tidbit and it’s pretty clear what’s happened is SMH’s Mr Moses has rung Conroy’s office looking for comment on the nomination, run a bunch of of questions past a random staffer, and got a bite. This isn’t (yet) policy, it’s one staffer giving an “I imagine so” answer without understanding the ramifications.
Contacted the IEAA? You shouldn’t be running this stuff until you’ve gone to Conroy yourself.
Greg, we’re reporting on the SMH story, which quotes multiple sources – including the minister’s office. We’ve not been able to elicit a comment ourselves from the minister’s office, but we have received comment on the issue from our relevant industry body, the IEAA. I fail to see the problem here.
Ashley Moses would have possibly used the answers that Senator Conroy gave to parliament a week or two ago that were in reply to the Questions on Notice that he was asked specifically a few months earlier. It took him that long to give the answer/s.
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds220609.pdf
Start reading from page 90 onwards for the gory details. Hansard is a word for word written recording of all proceedings of each and every session of parliament.
So no, Ashley Moses wasn’t making this up – most of it came from the mouth of Conroy himself.
Where are the Chasers when stuff like this happens
No Conroy No. No Conroy No.
epic fail try to block google, youtube and ebay lol
In fact, it’s almost certainly in response to this article: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/internet-filter-445m-and-no-goal-in-sight-20090615-c8t1.html
In which the key term “Refused Classification (RC) materials” is used. There appears to be a confusion between materials classified under the Classification Board, which are film and computer games for the domestic market, and materials classified by the Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA) which is classifying sites for the filter.
It’s not the same process but clearly Conroy’s staffer (possibly Tim Marshall) is confused on this. When he’s been asked, “Including video games that have been refused classification?” he’s responded, “Yes”.
It could be that Conroy’s brutally confused on this but more likely we should be looking for a retraction/clarification in the next week.
Greg, you do raise an interesting point here regarding the authority of the ACMA and the Classification Board. Ultimately, the Broadcasting Services Act – under which the ACMA operates – defers to the Classification Act. If something is a game (even if it is online) and it needs to be assessed, the BSA says to use the Classification Act requirements to determine if something is prohibited or potentially prohibited content. The BSA also says that if an online game is exactly the same as one that has been classified (as a boxed copy) by the Board, it automatically carries that classification. So in assessing an online game under the BSA, it’s either G, PG, M, MA15+ or RC. R18+ doesn’t exist.
WTF! Which party did I vote for? I thought we got rid of the conservative right wing nutjobs. Total deal breaker for me election-wise.
Damed if you do, damned if you don’t. Do I vote for the right-wing conservative nutjobs with union ties, or those without? Democracy could still use some work.
This is the most stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
*gives http://www.play-asia.com its lates rites*
*last
Who cares just go use 1 of the million proxy services available and bam you have yourself a copy of the game.
Nicholas is right, I hear it’s working just GREAT for China!
Next anything we do in our lives that can be classified as R18 will be censored.
Yay, I’m happy for this news. First time the AU comments section has gotten decent use on kotaku for ages!
Otherwise, boo, dang asshats running the country but I don’t take responsibilty, I’ve never voted for any party during the past 15 years. Natty bunch of dopey shonks would all make great used car salesmen/women.
Its really becomming uncomfortable living in Oz these last few years, feels like a sinking ship.
I grew up in Australia, and have always loved it.
This however, disgusts me. And no, this isn’t because I’m some freaking nerd who spends every waking hour looking up 18+ shit, but because this is blatant and disgusting censorship.
All that needs more censoring are file-sharing websites, and that’s basically impossible.
Freedom of speech is allowed, and is guaranteed by our Commonwealth. Or at least, it should be.
My opinion? If they’re gonna waste taxpayers money on this, they should make it optional, sort of. Make it so that parents can organise it for their home computers.
But really, it shouldn’t be happening. For instance, even if they are stupid enough to put the field up, proxy sites would still get through. The only people punished are sites like Kotaku which might get blocked for mentioning the term ‘18+’ without the correct paperwork.
c’mon guys how many GOOD games have been refused classification for very long, c’mon this doesnt matter
If it does work it won’t work for long. They will just find anyway. This is the parents’ job to WATCH their kids, if they screw up they’re bad parents. Let the government worry about REAL problems. Give an R rating already.
Oh won’t somebody think of the market!
Don’t forget that linking to a blacklisted site is a $10k a day fine, so if you link to an importers website…….
Time to start lobbying the coalition and independents. If they vote no, the legislation won’t get through.
Does the government seriously want to push the IT and gaming community into resorting into a coup d’état??
And on a side note what about file hosting webs like MU,RS, MF and ZOMGU?? I still want my anime >.>
Do we hear the “liberal” party raising any objections? No. They’re in bed with the Jesus Fascists (which, may I add, does NOT refer to all Christians).
Unfortunately, almost every political party in Australia that WOULD oppose this evil scheme are raving socialist lunatics with no grasp of economics; who think that “deregulation” caused this recession (which is patently false; it was caused by central bank credit expansion combined with political encouragement of home ownership and taking out mortgages.
The only party that will defend individual rights, BOTH economic and personal ones, is the Liberal Democratic Party or LDP (www.ldp.org.au). I recommend all gamers check them out.
This is surely a joke.
I have had enough of this Conroy bullshit.
You contact Conroy here:
minister@dbcde.gov.au
Parliamentary office
Suite MG70
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: 02 6277 7480
Fax: 02 6273 4154
Ministerial office
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
Tel: 03 9650 1188
Fax: 03 9650 3251
Electorate office
Suite 1B
494 High St
Epping Vic 3076
Tel: 03 9408 0190
Fax: 03 9408 0194
Someone still thinks of the internet as a series of tubes.
I can understand the complaint system, as it will ACMA to develop a filter for finding content which should be blocked using human agents rather than a set computer filter.
But… does this mean that ACMA will be doing the job of the Classification Board in terms of games? How many more government departments will it act as when it comes to net material?
No, the ACMA will take the advice of the Classification Board.
I just recently talked to a Director at the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. He said that importing games (that is, to buy and attempt to bring into the country) that have been refused classification is illegal anyway. In fact, they regularly check imported video games against the OFLC’s classifications (or refusal thereof) to check their legality.
Hence, this proposal doesn’t extend the law much further than it already stands. The only extensions, it seems, would be blanket-banning of websites that export games to Australia regardless of their content and the banning of games downloaded from the internet that have been refused classification.
When the rubber hits the road, the people affected by such a law would be those who import games from import-anything websites and people who download their refused-classification games. I suspect that this is not a large proportion of the video-game-playing population (though I myself fit into the former category).
That said, I’d love to see how they treat eBay.