Prime Minister Kevin Rudd this morning threw more wood on the fiery debate about the Government’s internet filtering plans, saying it wouldn’t apologise for pushing ahead with the initiative.

The politician took several strongly worded questions from a viewer of Channel 7’s Sunrise program, who asked why the Government was implementing a plan that he claimed would fail in its objective to protect the children, and whether Rudd could guarantee business would not suffer a loss in productivity from decreased internet speeds.

In response, Rudd pointed to the Refused Classification material the filter aims to block. “What does it involve? Acts of child abuse. Acts of sexual abuse against children, including material which also provides ‘how to’ kits in terms of conducting terrorist acts,” he said.

“I think this stuff is filthy, I can’t stand it. i think these are the right measures. You’re running a business, we’re pro-internet, but we don’t make apologies for this.”

The news came as efforts have stepped up within Rudd’s own party to push an amendment to the legislation to implement an “opt-out” option for Australians who don’t want their internet to be filtered. Labor Senator Kate Lundy is hoping to gain the support of other Labor MPs and Senators in the days before the legislation is tabled in Federal Parliament.

However, some have criticised even Lundy’s moderated proposal.

Australia’s Pirate Party last night said the opt-out idea was “censorship lite” and a hollow response to community concerns that the filtering project could lead to legitimate online information being blocked off from Australians.

On Sunrise, Rudd also responded to growing concerns about offensive material being posted on social networking site Facebook related to several traumatic events in Queensland, such as the death of schoolgirl Trinity Bates.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has written to Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg to express concern about the issue. News Ltd commentary site The Punch today reported the company was planning to respond, but would not consider a policy change to addess online material.

Rudd said he would investigate an idea being promoted by Sunrise and independent senator Nick Xenophon to setup an online ombudsman to deal with such complaints. He said it was obvious which material went too far, and rejected any criticism that it was draconian to address offensive online material.

“This is where we get into this really stupid debate, with what I describe as extreme civil libertarianism, which says any such move in that direction means soviet communism, a’la 1980,” he said. “Look, it’s not like that. People out there, mums and dads, they know where the balance lies.”

Source: http://delimiter.com.au/

Climbing aboard the Facebook Outrage Express, Senator Nick Xenophon has tabled the idea of an “online ombudsman” to quell the revolution. The idea of yet another inflatable policeman with no power whatsover is certainly an attractive one to our current Government - and the Opposition, too, who’ll score points once elected by simply deflating these sorts of legislative blimps in very public ceremonies. The Rudd Government’s enthusiasm for hot air politics has taken the nation on quite a ride over the last few years, to the point where hollering criticisms of these highly visible, untouchable and ultimately harmless dirigibles is an act for the constitutional killjoy. One might just as well hitch a ride on the winds of folly, and it’s in such a buoyant spirit that I pose the following questions to the online ombudsman, who’ll need to have something to do once he settles down to work. 

* On gallery porn sites, a click on a picture of a certain young woman most commonly leads not to a full set of photos of that same women nude, but simply to another gallery similar to the first, featuring more single photos of alluring young women, a click on any of which leads, once again, to another gallery of selections. It’s infuriating and time consuming, leading to hours of lost productivity. Can the ombudsman assure the community that this drain on public resources is being dealt with?

* A fan of the popular children’s website, Club Penguin, my ten-year-old boy recently found himself engaged in combat with another participant. After calling his opponent a @#$%tard, my little boy was subjected to a withering volley of abuse involving at least four more expletive than he had utilised. What can be done to ensure that such bullying is eradicated from the internet? 

* I am constantly being informed of the fact that sexy girls with big bosoms are waiting to have sex with me in the Sydney suburb of Artarmon. However, repeated journeys to that particular suburb reveal only women who are fairly plain, middle-aged and strenuous in their denial that they have been waiting for me at all. Can the ombudsman assure me that my valuable time will not be wasted upon such fruitless excursions in future?

* The internet page for Senator Nick Xenophon features a link entitled “useful info”. However, when one clicks on that tab, a message appears that reads: “This page coming soon”. Can the ombudsman reveal how long it will take before Nick Xenophon has some useful information for the public?

* While perusing the website SavagesOnBlondes.com, a friend of mine recently took a break to go into the next room and attend to some urgent business. Upon his return some six minutes later, his 10-year-old boy, having taken his place at the computer, was deeply embroiled in the various sickening scenarios being depicted on the same website. What can the ombudsman do to assure the community that this will not happen again in future?

* There is an abundance of jerks on YouTube. Will the ombudsman please explain? 

* The official Government website for Senator Stephen Conroy features a page entitled: About The Minister. However, this page mentions nothing about the Senator’s slight speech impediment which, when the Senator speaks, makes him appear rather like a chipmunk with peanut butter stuck to the insides of his cheeks. What can the ombudsman do to rectify this in the name of full ministerial transparency? 

* In 2002, Wayne Carey resigned from the captaincy of the North Melbourne football club after having been caught having an affair with the wife of fellow team mate, Anthony Stevens. While Google searches for images of Wayne Carey and Anthony Stevens yield healthy results, few useful photographs of Kelli Stevens appear to have been uploaded at all. What can be done to rectify this tragic and irritating oversight?

* While happy enough to have gotten his wife pregnant on several occasions in the past, a colleague of mine couldn’t be arsed to follow his kids around policing their movements 24/7. While he applauds the Government’s efforts to make the internet safe for his kids while he behaves like a man who never got off a shot, he would like to know if the internet can also be utilised to feed them and get them off to school in the mornings. What about it, man of ombuds? 

* A common cause for alarm is the proliferation of adults on the internet masquerading as children. What can the ombudsman do to assure the community that the children featured on child pornography sites are not merely adults pretending to be kids?

* The official website for the Prime Minister of Australia features a photo of Kevin Rudd a several of his ministers. What the @#$% can the ombudsman do about this?

Source: http://blogs.news.com.au/

Public outrage over the shocking vandalism of internet tribute sites for two young Queenslanders who died in terrible circumstances has again raised questions over freedom online.

The Facebook page which claimed it would give back missing Queensland boy Daniel Morcombe
The worldwide web next month celebrates its 21st anniversary. It has grown from a single web page to more than a trillion unique pages and is expanding rapidly every day.

Social network sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube transformed the web from largely static pages under a website owner’s control into something more fluid, with people interacting on the websites to create content.

User contributions through posting images, video, comments and discussions take place at an almost frenetic pace. Facebook alone says more than 700 million posts, photos, comments and links are shared on its network every day.

Typical of such content were the tribute pages set up for 12-year-old Elliott Fletcher, killed in a knife attack at his Shorncliffe school, and eight-year-old Trinity Bates, found dead in a drain just metres from her Bundaberg home.

Emotional messages and sympathies were posted on tribute pages, with any Facebook user able to add content. But both pages were hijacked when some users added offensive and obscene material, prompting Queensland Police to have the material taken down.

Facebook spokeswoman Debbie Frost told The Courier-Mail the company was “co-operating” with Queensland and federal police on the issue and was willing to hand over what information it could to help any investigations.

“We’re not putting up barriers,” she said.

Frost says abuse on Facebook pages is rare and this latest incident has prompted the company to consider improving its security at the same time as keeping the network open for users to freely express their views.

“I don’t think that anybody really wants anybody to have to change their behaviour because of what these few ridiculous people are doing,” she says.

“We definitely want to learn and see if there are other ways, both automated or technical systems, we can employ to try to make sure we either get rid of content very very quickly or can identify inappropriate material.”

However, she says the company still favours the current self-regulation set-up where users can report to Facebook any material they believe is inappropriate.

But Facebook boasts more than 400 million active users. As a nation, only China and India would beat it in population. Imagine a nation of 400 million trying to operate with no pro-active policing, preferring self-regulation.

The University of Queensland crime and corrections expert and Australian Association of Social Workers national president Bob Lonne says it is time for such organisations to take responsibility to protect the public.

“Public networking sites have a moral and other responsibility in this regard,’’ he says. “It’s up to them to try to protect the general public.”

Public outrage at any abuse on the tribute sites, he says, is natural at a time when families and communities are trying to deal with the grief at the tragic deaths.

“It’s simply not acceptable to run a business model that allows these events to occur.”

The problem, though, is what to do. Any talk of censoring the web raises the hackles of those who campaign for freedom on the internet.

Yet even the campaign group Electronic Frontiers Australia says action is needed to wipe out any criminal act on sites such as Facebook.

“That doesn’t raise any free speech issues,” vice-chairman Colin Jacobs says. “If something crosses the line then that’s a good time for the moderators to step in.”

It may be time to rethink and rebuild the web from scratch, argues Dr Mark Gregory, an expert in computer engineering at RMIT in Victoria. He says the web was originally built with few security concerns.

“Everything we have been doing since is trying to retrofit security on a thing that doesn’t have security to start with,” he says.

There are some rules and international standards but they can still be bypassed, with those who use the web for illegal and offensive activity such as organised criminals and peddlers of child pornography simply ignoring them.

Gregory believes the time will come when public outrage, like that expressed this week, will tip the balance, forcing governments to act. The Queensland Government has already written to Facebook about the abuse issue.

“I have been calling for a number of changes to be made to the digital network for a number of years,’’ he says. “I think it has to be rebuilt.”

At 21, the web is still young and many of the major players are in their early years of development. Facebook has been around only six years, YouTube five and Twitter is just a four-year-old with the first tweet released in March 2006.

Criminologist Paul Wilson, from Bond University, says police should have the same powers to act with abuse on digital networks as they do on any other communication network.

However, he says such powers should be limited only to people who commit a crime.

“If they are notes or something which are unpleasant but not criminal in any way I don’t think you can use the law,’’ he says.

Facebook’s Debbie Frost says some people are just vandals.

“We are doing everything we can today in light of the fact that you are dealing with people who are vandals, she says.

“They’re behaving badly online on Facebook just as they do in real life.”

Source: http://www.thepunch.com.au/

Did you know men who have ring fingers the same length as their index fingers are more likely to have fertility problems compared with men whose ring fingers are longer? Researchers have found that boys conceived using an assisted reproduction technique where a single sperm is injected directly into the egg, instead of many sperm being mixed together with an egg, may have the same problem.

The technique called intracytoplasmic sperm injection and known as ICSI is increasingly being used for men with low sperm counts or where there are motility problems or abnormalities in the shape. The method has only been in widespread use since the early 1990s so the children conceived this way are not yet old enough to have their own offspring.

Researchers have suggested that because the boys conceived using ICSI are more likely to have short ring fingers in relation to their index fingers when compared with naturally conceived children, this probably indicates they have inherited fertility problems from their fathers.
Lead author Alastair Sutclife, a paediatrician at the Institute of Child Health, said ICSI should only be used where absolutely necessary. Dr Sutcliffe’s findings appeared recently in the journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online, “We don’t yet know the implication of the findings because the children are very young, but we need to inform people [about the possible risks of the ICSI procedure].”

Finger length is thought to be determined by exposure to testosterone in the womb and has also been linked with depression and aggression in offspring.

Source: http://carnalnation.com/

I'm not an intelligent fellow and by golly I don't even hide the fact with my incessant behaviour of late. Although sitting down and have a civil conversation with a Senior Member of the Classification Board of Australia gives me a +10 intelligence boost. Honestly there is so much your average gamer does not know about the Classifications Board and I think it's time we try and clarify things. I had the pleasure of interviewing a Senior Member of the Classification Board (who shall remain nameless because we don't want to be the cause or effect of anything against the board). The questions were fair, as you will see, and the answers were really good. Like I said this really opened my eyes and I now have a new found respect for the job of a Classifier on this board.

J: Can you state for me what your position title is and what your job entails?

C: I'm a Senior Classifier as one of the roles defined in the Classification Act, that is part of the Classification Board. My job is to control production in terms of applications that come through to the Board and decisions lead by the Board. Also to ensure we have consideration to standards and our decisions are well written, justified and consistent. Apart from leading that I also part take in classifying films, games and publications.

J: Can you explain the purpose or role of the Classification Board plays with regards to video games.

C: The Classification Board are an independent statutory body, so we don't effectively answer to anybody. Our job, in relation to games, is to classify games upon application.

J: So how does a game get rated, can you describe the process in detail.

C: What happens is the Board receives a valid application through the Act, in a nutshell the application consists of at least a copy of the game, a fee and the necessary paperwork. Some games are submitted with gameplay footage or reports that detail content. We're actually separate from the Classifications Operations branch that do all the general admin and receipting of applications. The application comes to the board who then consider the application by either playing the game or reviewing the application using comprehensive footage. We play games from start to finish fairly often. Under certain conditions we have games demonstrated to us by the applicants. The forms distributors fill in are very detailed. The Board then considers the application in relation to legislation which are the Classification Act, the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines.

J: So this application comes straight from the publisher or distributor?

C: Yes. We have to receive a copy of the game or it cannot be classifed, we can also receive video footage or written detail on any contentious material or standard gameplay.

J: You say that the Board plays all games from start to finish. Would you agree that the workload involved there is above and beyond the Board's means?

C: It's fair to say that there is a lot of content to review considering especially when you take into consideration all the films that are released including DVDs. I will clarify that we don't play through all games, I don't think we have the resources to do that. However the Act is set up in a way that allows the industry to provide an assessment under strict circumstances which is then provided to us. That involves a detailed report on the content of the game, in majority of cases we also receive gameplay footage and we always receive a copy of the game itself.

C: It may surprise some of your readers to know that quite a lot of the board are quite interested in games.

J: That was actually one of the questions I was going to ask!

C: I find that even when we have a clear amount of information in front of us, to allow us to make an informed decision without actually playing the games ourselves, I have board members that come up to me and volunteer to review a game. They genuinely love games.

J: That's really surprising and interesting!

J: If a game needed to come out by a certain date how far in advance would they have to submit an application?

C: We're bound by statutory deadlines of either 5 days or 20 days. Obviously 5 days will cost your application more.

J: One of the hottest topics, when it comes to classifying games, is the violent content. Do you have a thin line or measurement in terms of high violence?

C: It's a hard question to answer as it is a moving target. We operate in a method by which we call an impact test. This test is somewhat prescribed but on some level it comes back to the individual impact on the person playing that game. Putting that aside, I can give you the standard answer which is any violence that exceeds "Strong". Overall in terms of the guidelines violence that exceeds a "Strong" rating is a scene that contains the use of greater detail that can include slow motion, close-ups, extenuation techniques (such as lighting, perspective and resolution), uses special effects in colour, tone, images and sound. A key factor in some of the controversial decisions you see is the use of prolonged violence.

J: So can you give me an example of what is deemed prolonged violence that is in excess of the maximum allowable rating in games?

C: I can't give an exact reference in detail but take for example the Punisher game that was to come out a few years ago. That game had scenes of torture in it that were quite prolonged. There were a numerous amount of them too.

J: Can you tell me what differs in the process when a distributor or publisher appeals the decision that has been made by the Classification Board.

C: This is getting to the heart of what we aim to communicate to the wider audience. Once the Classifications Board makes a decision, that decision stands. The Board don't deal with that game or application from then on. An appeal is actually an application of review to a different statutory body and they independently classify that game. The difference between us and them is that they effectively sit above us if you consider it a hierarchy. The appeal is to them and the things that they consider are the Classification Board's initial report as well as inviting submissions from interested parties. To my understanding it has usually been a representative of the applicants that comes in to argue the point of why the Classification Board's decision was wrong. We are effectively different statutory bodies, we do not meet in any way and to be honest I have worked here 6 and half years and have never met a single member of the other statutory body. In other words an appeal is reviewed by a separate statutory body from us here at the Classification Board.

J: That is a very interesting fact. I'm sure most people never actually knew an appeal goes to a statutory body that is separate from the Classification Board.

C: Which is one of the most frustrating things about working in the Classifications Board. You will commonly see media that publishes headlines like "Board does backflip". This is untrue, the Board's decisions stands. It has simply been reviewed by the Classifications Review Board (a seperate body within the Board) and has been awarded a new classification. Sometimes the decision is the same.

J: If a game is refused classification can you describe the common areas or content that have resulted in that decision.

C: There are some very precise parts of the guidelines as to why a game may fall out of the MA15+ rating and move into the RC classification. Two of the key things are, as a general rule, accepting material that is restricted to adults, nudity and sexual activity which must not be related to incentives and rewards. What this means is if a game contains nudity or sexual activity, that is connected with incentives or rewards, that game falls out of the MA15+ category. Also material that contains drug use and sexual violence that is connected to incentives or rewards falls out of the MA15+ classification. Those are the clear cut rules however there are some generalised rules that we classify under. The six classifiable elements are themes (social issues), violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.

J: So its basically the categories you see when you see a rating explained.

C: Yes. It’s also to do with the repetition, frequency, level of detail, whether it is stylised or realistic, whether it encourages interactivity, or whether the scenes are prolonged.

J: It has been reported recently that the Classification Board of Australia is considering rating downloadable content such as games for mobile phones. Do you know where this currently stands?

C: The games on mobiles phones definitely meet the definition of a computer game under the Classification Act. That is where things currently stand. I’d make it clear that the media seem to be interpreting this as mobile phone applications. We need to make it clear that we’re not talking about applications, only games. The formal decision on this is still pending.

J: So in regards to downloadable content. Video game developers have been able to circumvent unfavourable ratings by patching a game or adding features at a later date after release. Is that unlawful?

C: To the best of our knowledge that doesn’t happen. A modification to a game under the Act means that it becomes unclassified. Only a game that remains in it’s original form retains it’s classification.

J: So in a lot of cases like this, you only see this update if you take the game online. Whereas if you play the game offline in its entirety your experience remains unchanged. How would you classify that?

C: I think that question would have to be for the industry or publishers to determine whether those patches or add-ons have actually modified the game. Our Act is clear in saying that if a game is modified then it is no longer classified and an add-on to a game must be classified in itself in conjunction with its original game. We have add-ons to games submitted all the time.

J: So when a movie comes out in the cinema is gets classified. When it comes out on DVD with a director’s cut, added scenes and additional content does that need to be reclassified?

C: Yes. I think the interesting part of it though is that movies are contained in the box and don’t usually have online updates. If we were in a situation where a movie was downloaded it still fits the Act as a film and will need to be classified. Just like in games if films were modified then the movie would no longer fall under it’s original classification.

J: There has been recent controversy over a title that was meant to be released in late 2009. Are you able to comment on this title and the merits behind it’s refused classification?

C: The Board felt that the prolonged intensity of the violence in the game exceed “strong” and “impact”. I actually played the game and saw some of the footage of the game and agree with the decision on the violence.

J: In that case is it hard to define violence against human enemies versus violence against human-like enemies? This was one of the reasons behind the refused classification quoted in the resulting statement from the Board.

C: I’ve read some of the blogs online and what the community thinks about the Board’s decisions. I think that it has been taken out of context. The prolonged and intensive violence, coupled with the level of detail, caused it to receive it’s rating. It definitely is a consideration of the Board how realistic, stylised, fantasy-based and toned violence is in a video game. I would say that all of those things feed into the prolonged intensity of violence that already existed within that game.

So there you have it folks, Part 1 of an interview with a member of the Classification Board. Check with us soon for Part 2 that concludes with some controversial topics and debate around some games released under the MA15+ banner.

Source: http://www.australiangamer.com/

Last week’s Operation Titstorm attacks by Anonymous brought down the Parliament House website for three days, yet they seem to have been organised by teenagers using basic tools.

As Crikey reported in September a Denial of Service attack (DoS) took the PM’s website offline for about 10 minutes. The inconvenience was minimal.

This time, the attacks were more effective, with aph.gov.au being hit by up to 7.5 million incoming inquiries every second, completely overloading it. While that sounds a lot, today’s fast computers and broadband links mean it can be accomplished with a few hundred computers.

The attack also included a flood of pornographic emails and faxes to parliamentary staffers.

In an interview for today’s Patch Monday podcast at ZDNet.com.au, a young-sounding organiser using the handle “c0ld blood” told me that about 400-500 people had taken part.

“Lots of them are kids and teenagers, and the main reason that they take part in these attacks is because kids and teenagers don’t really get the chance to voice their opinions,” he told me.

c0ld blood acknowledges that DoS attacks are illegal, but was dismissive of conventional political processes.

“It would just be falling on deaf ears. By DoSing the sites it’s giving … it’s forcing the hand of the Australian government because they’re going to have to take notice,” he says. “We need to send a message across that governments can not just mess with the internet and not expect any backlash.”

c0ld blood wasn’t sure how the Parliament House website ended up being a target.

“There was a long list of ones which were going to be targeted and I think that one just fell down the easiest so people carried on doing it,” he says.

While c0ld blood considers the attack “quite successful”, other groups opposed to internet filtering are distancing themselves — even other sections of “Anonymous”.

“AnonSA does not endorse or support the recent attempts by Anonymous hackers to attack government websites,” the South Australian chapter said in a statement.

“Whilst we agree that the government’s proposed internet censorship legislation is an ill-conceived idea, we do not condone the methods taken by the individuals responsible for the DDoS attacks as an appropriate way to engage with the government.”

According to Electronic Frontiers Australia: “Not only are [the attacks] illegal, but they damage the cause by playing to stereotypes of filter opponents as juveniles motivated by a desire to keep the internet safe for p-rn. They serve no purpose but to give the government the moral high ground.’

Alan Thompson, secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, would agree. He personally received more than 8000 p-rnographic emails, and his inbound fax machine “just jammed up”.

“It gives little credit to the people who organised it,” he told Crikey. “It diminishes their cause enormously.”

The Parliament House website isn’t particularly modern, something Thompson is happy to admit. It currently appears to be run from a commodity-grade hosting service.

“We acknowledge that the service to the external world has been badly affected, we acknowledge and apologise for that,” he says.

Nevertheless, the website isn’t a mission-critical system (shoosh, Bernard Keane). It’s separate from the core Parliament House network. One can safely assume the PM and other key players have their own secure, high-reliability network provisioned in … other ways.

A new aph.gov.au website is expected to be built in the next 12 months. While it could be built to withstand attacks such as  that from Anonymous — an attack from 500 computers is small beer compared with the vast botnets run by organised criminals — it would also be expensive.

“There’s no need to spend the million dollars which would be required to build the right infrastructure protection on a system which isn’t mission critical,” security consultant Crispin Harris told Crikey.

“Financially, is there any reason for them to spend any more money than they’ve done? My opinion is no.”

Source: http://www.crikey.com.au/