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/

Vernon Patullo of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency said there had been no increase in the number of people in communities being prosecuted for possessing pornography since signs announcing a pornography ban were erected as part of the 2007 federal intervention.

Speaking at a Senate inquiry into welfare reforms, Mr Patullo, an East Arnhem Land elder, said the pornography ban was a "beat-up and had no substance at all".

"I have never seen a blue movie in a remote community," Mr Patullo said in Darwin yesterday.

"These signs label people as pedophiles. It has portrayed our men as molesters."

He said the signs were discriminatory because people in remote communities lacked the means to watch pornography, while non-indigenous people in nearby mining towns had access.

Mr Patullo's views form part of NAAJA's submission to the Senate inquiry, which was set up by the Greens to canvas public opinion on proposed welfare reforms and other special measures introduced as part of the federal intervention.

Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin wants to roll back blanket income management, reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act and focus instead on individuals at risk, in a model that could be expanded nationally.

Indigenous groups have told the inquiry that income management should be voluntary, warning that vulnerable groups such as pensioners and victims of domestic violence would be worse off under the changes.

NAAJA fears that by including victims of domestic violence in the category of "vulnerable welfare recipients", people will have less access to money for travel and alternative accommodation.

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

An Australian politician who opposes the lifting of a censorship ban on adults-only computer games has said he feels more threatened by gamers than outlawed motorcycle gangs.

South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, who has the right to veto the lifting of a national ban on computer games rated too violent and extreme for consumption, said he had received a threatening note from a gamer.

"I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who also hate me," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation late Monday.

"The outlaw motorcycle gangs haven't been hanging around my doorstep at 2:00 am, a gamer has."

Australia currently has a ban on adults-only, or R18+, computer games although films with the same rating in terms of violence, strong language, nudity, drug use and adult themes are allowed.

The government has called for public submissions on whether to introduce the R18+ category for computer games but any change would require the unanimous agreement of national, state and territory ministers, including Atkinson.

Gamers4croydon, a newly-formed political party running a candidate against Atkinson in next month's South Australian state election, is arguing for the introduction of the R18+ rating for games to bring them in line with films.

"Australia is the only western democracy that doesn't have an adults-only rating for games," president Chris Prior told AFP.

Prior said that relaxing the ban on R-rated games would not see the market flooded with ultra-violent games but would provide a more precise method for categorising games.

Current laws did not prevent adult material from finding its way into the country because games given R ratings overseas were often marketed here under the lower rating of MA, he said.

"Some games are modified and some games are not modified at all and are just given a MA classification even if they should be rated R," he told AFP.

Atkinson, who could not be reached for comment, has introduced anti-motorcycle gang laws in South Australia, under which police can apply to declare a gang as a criminal organisation or effectively ban members from associating.

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

Protest planned in major Australian cities.

Operation Titstorm will hit the streets of Australian cities in a "peaceful protest" against mandatory internet censorship this Saturday.

Dubbed 'Project Freeweb', the protest is organised by members of hacker group Anonymous, which took credit for last week's prolonged DDoS attack on Australian Government websites.

Events are planned in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Newcastle and Canberra at various times on 20 February. More than ten members of Anonymous are expected to attend each event.

However, organisers expect that a majority of the protest will take place overseas. Anonymous members have been urged to lead protests at Australian embassies around the world.

"We wish to oppose this filter because we're not only representing Australia, but the world," a Project Freeweb organiser who goes by the alias 'Infinite' told iTnews.

"If passed, this legislation will set a disturbing precedent at an international level.

"The public, not the Government, should have the right to decide what is deemed appropriate for you or your family to be exposed to."

'Infinite' hoped that Project Freeweb would have more of a 'long term' effect on public perception of the filter than Operation Titstorm, which was criticised for harming more moderate efforts to campaign against internet censorship.

"Many of our number are productive, intelligent members of society," said Infinite, who is a Web designer.

"Some of the members of Anonymous, while feeling that the motivations behind Operation Titstorm were understandable and to a certain extent warranted, also felt that it cast a bad light upon the group as a whole."

Protesters have been instructed to study background information on Senator Conroy's filter plans and ACMA, and have been told not to wear masks.

While Anonymous members may be risking their post-Titstorm anonymity by appearing at the protests, 'Infinite' said that being involved in one event did not necessarily mean the individual was involved in the other.

Those involved in the DDoS attacks had taken precautions to ensure their anonymity, and many were not residents of Australia, he said.

To critics of Operation Titstorm, he said: "Anonymous understands their frustration, yet they fail to comprehend that one of the most important creations in the history of mankind is about to fall into the control of the government. And that must not happen.

"The internet must be protected at all costs. This is more than an opposition to the censorship of porn, this is the protection of our rights as human beings ... to have control over what we should be allowed to view and not have to fear a draconian censor."

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

Australia's ban on same-sex marriage costs the Australian economy over $700 million according to figures released today by Australian Marriage Equality (AME).
Using a simple formula developed by economists in the United States, AME has multiplied the average cost of weddings in Australia with the percentage of Australia's same-sex couples who would marry if they had the choice.

The last Census indicated that there are at least 50,000 same-sex couples, however the Bureau of Statistics admits that the actual figure would higher than that due to the way information is recorded. "Not so Private Lives", a recent national study conducted at the University of Queensland, showed that at least 53% of these couples would marry if they could. The ABS in 2007 calculated the average cost of a wedding at $28,000 (although recent studies have the figure as high as $49,000). When you pull these figures together you get an amount of $742,000,000.

AME's figures are in line with recent US studies that have shown allowing same-sex marriage would generate US$200 million for the New Jersey economy over 3 years and US$21 million for the city of San Francisco in 1 year alone. 

Australian Marriage Equality spokesperson, Alex Greenwich, said:

"A quick calculation using very conservative figures tells us the cost of marriage discrimination to the Australian economy is at least $742 million"

"On top of this there would be spending on honeymoons and spending by overseas visitors who would come to Australia to marry."

"The Rudd Government's continued discrimination of gay and lesbian Australians is not only hurtful, it is also a very expensive prejudice to maintain."

"If the Rudd Government were the good financial managers they claim to be, they would see that with just one small amendment to the Marriage Act, a very effective economic stimulus package would be unleashed." 

Instead, Australian couples like Glenn and Ashley Anderson-Buick have had to move their wedding spend overseas: "We would have loved to have had our wedding in Sydney, but the Australian Government bans same-sex marriage, so we held a beautiful wedding ceremony in Toronto"

In addition to the wedding spend, travel industry experts are lamenting the further impact this is having on honeymoon spend and in-bound tourism, Victor Hoeld from Hautes Vacances Gay Travel: "When couples come to us to help them with their honeymoon, they are combining this with places where they can also get married like Capetown, Vancouver, Barcelona, Lisbon or Boston... this is unfortunate for our local tourism industry which could really be benefitting".

Mr Greenwich added that a portion of the $742 million lost to the Australian economy is made up of fees and charges gathered by state and territory governments for registering marriages, conducting marriage ceremonies and issuing marriage certificates.

"Taxpayers, as well as businesses, are being hit by marriage discrimination", he said.

For further information contact:
Alex Greenwich
National Convener
0421316335

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