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