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.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.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 >>> proposal<http://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