Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
Having looked closely at our statement of purpose, read Google's position on the matter, and read the following discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board #Mandatory_internet_censorship ), I think that it's well within the chapter's role to put out a press release/statement expressing concern at this development. This filter, if implemented, has the potential to severely hamper our goal of (promoting) equality of opportunity to access and participate in the collaborative creation of Free Cultural Works. That said, I oppose the filter on personal and moral grounds myself, so you might take this with a grain of salt. I'd be fully supportive if we did something about this though - so long as anything we do makes it clear that we are not Wikipedia. Cheers, Craig From: wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediaau-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2009 10:44 PM To: Wikimedia-au Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families My own position is very similar to Liam's - personally opposed to the filter as a free-thinking Australian citizen who believes it should be up to parents what their kids see and the government has no place telling adults what they can or can not see. Additionally I think it could have speed effects and we're already one of the slower countries broadband-wise in the developed world. I also agree with Liam though that we need to be clear with the outside world that we are not Wikipedia, and it is a fine line (promoting something while not being responsible for it - which is not irresponsible, but rather acknowledging the responsiblity correctly lies elsewhere). cheers Andrew 2009/12/16 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com Yes, indeed this is a good question and an important issue. On a personal basis I am completely opposed to the filter and I imagine most Wikimedians in Australia are. However, I would caution that the Chapter cannot be seen in word or deed to be responsible for Wikipedia. This was a problem faced by Wikimedia UK in both the virgin killer and the National Portrait Gallery issues - the UK chapter was very careful not to place itself as the official spokesperson for Wikipedia. Of course, the mandate of the Chapter is to advocate for Free Cultural Works and in that sense being involved in political lobbying is something that it can/could/should do. We have previously made a submission to a government inquiry for example. Making a statement about the filter or similar actions is within the chapter's powers. But... in the event that Wikipedia were to become blocked or was caught up in some scandal around this issue, the Chapter can only describe what Wikipedia policies and practices are - it cannot be seen as responsible for the content and have a policy for how to make Wikipedia unblocked or what-have-you. my 2 cents, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Does the chapter have a position on this proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115 ? Should it have a position? If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? Cheers, Matt ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
On 2009-Dec-16 15:45:51 +1100, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html
When I voted, the associated poll was 90% against. The timing of
the legislation (just before the next election) suggests that if
the Gov't gets re-elected, it will claim to have a mandate for it.
Also http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content
Except that there will almost certainly be collateral fallout and,
AFAIK, the blacklist will remain secret (which differs from film and
book censorship).
I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy
Well, as I heard one commentator point out, China manages it so there's
no reason Australia can't. I don't think many people other than
Senators Conroy and Fielding believe it's practical (other than via
the Chinese approach).
- so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
It's tongue-in-cheek but here's an initial offering:
http://pymblesoftware.com/store/index.php/systems/tin-foil-hat-isp-filtering-by-pass-router.html
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
I would go further and suggest that it's virtually certain that the
Internet Censor would find something to object to linked from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_sexuality
I agree that WMA needs to ensure that it differentiates itself from
Wikipedia.
Some links that may be useful for anyone looking for further reading:
http://www.efa.org.au/
http://nocleanfeed.com/
--
Peter Jeremy
pgprHO6DKTbfQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
My own position is very similar to Liam's - personally opposed to the filter as a free-thinking Australian citizen who believes it should be up to parents what their kids see and the government has no place telling adults what they can or can not see. Additionally I think it could have speed effects and we're already one of the slower countries broadband-wise in the developed world. I also agree with Liam though that we need to be clear with the outside world that we are not Wikipedia, and it is a fine line (promoting something while not being responsible for it - which is not irresponsible, but rather acknowledging the responsiblity correctly lies elsewhere). cheers Andrew 2009/12/16 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com Yes, indeed this is a good question and an important issue. On a personal basis I am completely opposed to the filter and I imagine most Wikimedians in Australia are. However, I would caution that the Chapter cannot be seen in word or deed to be responsible for Wikipedia. This was a problem faced by Wikimedia UK in both the virgin killer and the National Portrait Gallery issues - the UK chapter was very careful not to place itself as the official spokesperson for Wikipedia. Of course, the mandate of the Chapter is to advocate for Free Cultural Works and in that sense being involved in political lobbying is something that it can/could/should do. We have previously made a submission to a government inquiry for example. Making a statement about the filter or similar actions is within the chapter's powers. But... in the event that Wikipedia were to become blocked or was caught up in some scandal around this issue, the Chapter can only describe what Wikipedia policies and practices are - it cannot be seen as responsible for the content and have a policy for how to make Wikipedia unblocked or what-have-you. my 2 cents, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Does the chapter have a position on this proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115 ? Should it have a position? If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? Cheers, Matt ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two, I
reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html)
for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdffor
full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the
promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this
proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;
In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, *consideration is
being given to exempt high traffic sites* from having their material
included on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either
take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet
protocol (IP) addresses in Australia.
( from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions#14.0-
bolding mine )
It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are
appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it?
(whether our content does or not, is a different matter!)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two,
I reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html)
for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdffor
full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this
proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
pps. because, in my view, wiki's are better for brainstorming and consensus
building than mailing lists... see
http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/ISP_Filtering too :-)
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;
In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, *consideration is
being given to exempt high traffic sites* from having their material
included on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either
take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet
protocol (IP) addresses in Australia.
( from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions#14.0-
bolding mine )
It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are
appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it?
(whether our content does or not, is a different matter!)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings
thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two,
I reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html)
for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdffor
full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this
proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
I don't see this exception applying, as I don't see WMF (or the
community) agreeing to take down this sort of material, as it has not
in the past. I refer to the English Wikipedia article Virgin Killer
(a mid-1970s record album from German heavy metal band the Scorpion),
which has not been taken down despite being considered child porn by
some authorities:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/
As for the WMF's or WMA's positions, I have no idea what they are or
what they should be. I just hope the doctrine of the whole is
considered (as it wasn't generally for Bill Henson's photography)
Peter.
PS. For some reason I cannot edit the Wiki.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;
In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, consideration is
being given to exempt high traffic sites from having their material included
on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either take down
identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet protocol
(IP) addresses in Australia.
( from
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/isp_filtering_-_frequently_asked_questions#14.0
- bolding mine )
It may be useful to look at whether or not WMF projects qualify / are
appropriate for such an exemption - I would think traffic may warrant it?
(whether our content does or not, is a different matter!)
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com
wrote:
...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two,
I reckon
No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html
) for example.
Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdf
for full description) - it seems to relate to child porn, and the promotion
of crime / violence (that's the b) and c) points - the a) is a rather vague
'offend.. general standards.. reasonable adult' sort of thing - I'd like to
know a bit more about how it's currently implemented to pass comment)
I suspect that generally speaking, 'RC' content is pretty horrible, and
should be limited as much as possible. I also suspect that I have less faith
in both the technical structure of the proposed filtering, and the
faesability of appropriate list maintainance than Senator Conroy - so I'm
rather of the opinion that it probably won't work very well, and probably
won't deliver on the intention which ('assuming good faith' !) is to try and
stop Australian's accessing material we'd likely all agree they shouldn't
be.
Interestingly, I think it's possible that WMF projects do host 'Category 2
restricted' material (explicitly depict sexual or sexually related activity
between consenting adults in a way that is likely to cause offence to a
reasonable adult) but I don't really have any idea of the ramifications for
that - certainly it wouldn't seem relavent to the Conroy proposal at this
time
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Does the chapter have a position on this proposal?
Should it have a position?
If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?
Cheers,
Matt
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Does the chapter have a position on this proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115 ? Should it have a position? If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? Cheers, Matt ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Conroy - Measures to improve safety of the internet for families
Yes, indeed this is a good question and an important issue. On a personal basis I am completely opposed to the filter and I imagine most Wikimedians in Australia are. However, I would caution that the Chapter cannot be seen in word or deed to be responsible for Wikipedia. This was a problem faced by Wikimedia UK in both the virgin killer and the National Portrait Gallery issues - the UK chapter was very careful not to place itself as the official spokesperson for Wikipedia. Of course, the mandate of the Chapter is to advocate for Free Cultural Works and in that sense being involved in political lobbying is something that it can/could/should do. We have previously made a submission to a government inquiry for example. Making a statement about the filter or similar actions is within the chapter's powers. But... in the event that Wikipedia were to become blocked or was caught up in some scandal around this issue, the Chapter can only describe what Wikipedia policies and practices are - it cannot be seen as responsible for the content and have a policy for how to make Wikipedia unblocked or what-have-you. my 2 cents, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Andrew orderinchao...@gmail.com wrote: Matt, thanks - good question. As yet, no it doesn't have an official position - I have forwarded this to the committee list so one can be reached promptly. Cheers Andrew On 16/12/2009, Matt inbgn mattin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Does the chapter have a position on this proposalhttp://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115 ? Should it have a position? If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position? Cheers, Matt ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
