Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Jason Picker
26 Jun, 2009

Oz internet filter to block sites selling mature games?

PALGN News | Could the days of buying from Play-Asia, eBay and Amazon soon be over?
According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald , the Australian Government says it will use its internet filter to block websites hosting and selling video games that don't comply with Australia's ratings system. The internet filter is currently being trialled by nine internet service providers and could soon be introduced across all Australian internet services.

A spokesman for Australian Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, has confirmed the intention to block downloadable games, flash-based web games and sites which sell physical copies of games that do not meet the MA15+ standard, Australia's highest rating.

Colin Jacobs, a spokesman for the online users' lobby group, Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the Government's internet filtering plans had now gone beyond the original intention to help protect against the abuse of children.

"This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping," he said. "Far from being the ultimate weapon against child abuse, it now will officially censor content deemed too controversial for a 15-year-old. In a free country like ours, do we really need the government to step in and save us from racy web games?"

Ron Curry, the chief executive of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia - which is the group that represents the Australian entertainment industry - said the situation further highlighted the need to have an R18+ rating for games.

"It's through the introduction of an R18+ classification that adults will have access to age appropriate material and parents will have the full tool kit to understand the suitability of content for their children," he said.

The internet filtering issue is also receiving international condemnation with Senator Conroy being nominated by Britain's Internet Services Providers' Association for its annual "internet villain" award. Senator Conroy was nominated "for continuing to promote network-level blocking despite significant national and international opposition".

If you are interested in the ongoing debate for the introduction of an R18+ rating, check out http://everyoneplays.org.au/. Also be sure to make your voice heard by writing a (sensible) letter to Senator Conroy and to your local member.

Related Content

Labor to look seriously into games industry rebate
22 Oct, 2007 If Labor is elected to government, of course...
Final version of Wii Internet Channel now available
12 Apr, 2007 Free until June 30.
Wii Internet Channel available now
22 Dec, 2006 Free beta available for download now.
75 Comments
2 years ago
So basically what the filter is going to do is block people in Australia from buying illegal products. To semi quote Claudette Wimms, "the government wants to feel like it's protecting its people, if that means some geek or some nerd doesn't get a chance to order a game a few months before it's released here then the general consensus is don't ask, don't tell". (sorry, Shield marathon, it's etched into my brain at the moment)

The person to blame for this isn't Conroy at all, it's Atkinson, if he'd bother approving an R18+ rating there would be no issue. Then again, I'm not going to cry a river either the number of games which are banned here is incredibly small and it's easy enough to wait for titles to be released or, if they haven't been released (or won't be released) if there's no rating in Australia for it, the games illegal anyway so the system works, hurrah!
2 years ago
Sin Ogaris wrote
The person to blame for this isn't Conroy at all, it's Atkinson, if he'd bother approving an R18+ rating there would be no issue.
Conroy was saying over and over again that the filter would only block "child exploitation material". This just further proves that he's totally full of ****.
2 years ago
LordPaludis wrote
Sin Ogaris wrote
The person to blame for this isn't Conroy at all, it's Atkinson, if he'd bother approving an R18+ rating there would be no issue.
Conroy was saying over and over again that the filter would only block "child exploitation material". This just further proves that he's totally full of ****.
I dont think he is full of ****. I think he hasnt got any idea what is going on. I saw him on insight a few months ago when they were discussing the firewall. It was him versus everyone else on the show. It was just bizarre. They had ISPs there, parents, sex and fetish groups (sensible, educated types), businesses who had been placed on a block list (due to hackers putting bad material on their site). He never came up with a single proper answer. All he could say was the leaked block list (containing perfectly acceptable websites) was an old version and asure everyone that all they were going to block was the sort of aweful material no one wants to see.

Now with this news we can see just how little those implementing the blocklist know about what they are doing.
2 years ago
I hope the goverment understands they will have to block one hell of a lot of sites ip's etc if they want to achieve this. What I dont get is how any of this has anything to do with child abuse I have yet to see a CHILD use a credit card and order a 18+ game from over seas I feel this is just a excuse for the goverment to try to get more money by controlling the gaming etc public (sorta like communist countries) they already Screw the population of australia over by giving then chopped up games vs the full games over seas now they want to take away the adult people's rights.... I dont feel like I am living in a very free country these days.
The child exploitation is never going to stop, and blocking sites isn't going to do anything for the child - "Oh sorry Timmy. My website's been blocked. You can put your clothes back on." - this is the stupidity of it all. Nobody wants to see that material on the net, and I bet the majority of Internet users never have seen that sort of material because they don't actively go looking for it. He seems to be under some delusion that we have no control over what we choose to view on the net.

The Government should be targeting the websites in question and trying to get them shut down, not simply blocking them from every single Internet user along with other things they deem inappropriate.
2 years ago
Balguren wrote
I hope the goverment understands they will have to block one hell of a lot of sites ip's etc if they want to achieve this. What I dont get is how any of this has anything to do with child abuse I have yet to see a CHILD use a credit card and order a 18+ game from over seas I feel this is just a excuse for the goverment to try to get more money by controlling the gaming etc public (sorta like communist countries) they already Screw the population of australia over by giving then chopped up games vs the full games over seas now they want to take away the adult people's rights.... I dont feel like I am living in a very free country these days.
The Govt has admitted that only 1/3 of websites on the black list are child porn.
2 years ago
He need to cut the ego. wrote
The child exploitation is never going to stop, and blocking sites isn't going to do anything for the child - "Oh sorry Timmy. My website's been blocked. You can put your clothes back on." - this is the stupidity of it all. Nobody wants to see that material on the net, and I bet the majority of Internet users never have seen that sort of material because they don't actively go looking for it. He seems to be under some delusion that we have no control over what we choose to view on the net.

The Government should be targeting the websites in question and trying to get them shut down, not simply blocking them from every single Internet user along with other things they deem inappropriate.
Sorry just a side point, but using google aus, I googled dwarf, 3 pages in I got midget porn. Chances of people accidentally accessing illegal things (in this case child pornography) is entirely viable when all searches go by is generic terms or references, a person searching for "child" could very well get pornography within the first couple of pages of hits, so "never" is really never.

That being said, I do agree with you re exploitation, merely blocking the internet will just cause those further underground and into their own distribution methods instead of those the government can actively backtrace.
Quote
Sorry just a side point, but using google aus, I googled dwarf, 3 pages in I got midget porn. Chances of people accidentally accessing illegal things (in this case child pornography) is entirely viable when all searches go by is generic terms or references, a person searching for "child" could very well get pornography within the first couple of pages of hits, so "never" is really never.
I see your point entirely. But I think there's a big difference between 'porn', even fetish porn, and underage children engaging in sex acts. And whilst I have stumbled upon pornography images using innocuous terms with Google Image, I've never come across anything involving children.

(Oh, I should point out that I have safe search off by default, so there's a filter opinion available to everyone right there)
2 years ago
Fly wrote
Sorry just a side point, but using google aus, I googled dwarf, 3 pages in I got midget porn. Chances of people accidentally accessing illegal things (in this case child pornography) is entirely viable when all searches go by is generic terms or references, a person searching for "child" could very well get pornography within the first couple of pages of hits, so "never" is really never.
The thing is legitimate child porn is usualy pretty well hidden considering that anyone hosting it is going to be going to jail for a verry long time.
2 years ago
Seeing as most of the content that the filter is supposedly designed to block is available on anonymity networks such as Tor, I can't imagine the filter being very effective at restricting access to these networks.
2 years ago
After contacting several offices today. The ruling is.

A. Australia is the only western country without an adult game rating. Its not about filtering out websites, its about them having warnings.
"i have updated my site with R18+ warnings because i feel its the right thing to do"
RTA in meta and warning buttons above every game.
http://www.fknn.net

B. Images of REAL people are naughty, cartoons, drawings games etc are not, Not in this country or any other with half a brain. thats the 2257

C. Every Attorney general in EVERY state must pass the act. before it becomes law. Its not a law or act. It perhaps should be, But thats there call.
Until then, watch all the adult games you like.

Personally, I am concerned about China's Porn Filtering. Because it limits it Peoples Right to View and make there Own Choice.
And, It sounds Exactly the same as Australia wants to do to us right now, Not wanting to judge any Governments. Just comparing apples.
2 years ago
philski wrote
B. Images of REAL people are naughty, cartoons, drawings games etc are not, Not in this country or any other with half a brain. thats the 2257
Uh, might want to tell that to the dude found guilty of owning child porn due to having porn of the simpsons in Sydney.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/bart-simpson-child-pornography-and-free-speech/
2 years ago
Benza wrote
The thing is legitimate child porn is usualy pretty well hidden considering that anyone hosting it is going to be going to jail for a verry long time.
Oxymoron?
2 years ago
Miggz wrote
Benza wrote
The thing is legitimate child porn is usualy pretty well hidden considering that anyone hosting it is going to be going to jail for a verry long time.
Oxymoron?
no
2 years ago
I believe that people have already written to Ratkinson about the lack of an R18+ rating for games, but all he does when people are talking to him about the issue is cover his ears and shout "lalalalalalalala". I have written to him years ago when he still opposed the R18+ rating but got a letter back from his secretary saying thaty "my letter has been acknowledged". Someone really needs to make suggestions to Ratkinson, such as "citizens must provide a valid ID to obtain R18+-rated games".
2 years ago
Surely they can't block an entire website just because it sells a couple of products they don't like! What are the legal implications of a company trading overseas selling entirely legal products and someone purchases from a place the products are not illegal to sell? Isn't it only illegal to sell unclassified games IN Australia not TO Australians.

Also the OFLC guidelines say online only games don't need classification so you can legally sell the games in Australia. Given that, what justification do the government claim for blocking something that's legal for everyone - even children? That seems both legally and morally fishy to me since they're using something other than law to censor material. What even ARE the guidelines for inclusion on the list? There must surely be some written rules for what qualifies or is it just what Conroy doesn't like?

Sorry about the long post - I hate complex legal issues and Google wasn't my friend :'-(
2 years ago
By the sounds of it, it's actually a block for any sites selling BANNED games in Australia which there is no ifs or buts, they're illegal in the country.

Technically if a game has yet to be rated it's also illegal to play that game in this country, but I'm not sure if the block will extend that far. MMORPG's have been given leeway as it's damn near impossible to say what could be put on an online game, it'd need every ratings warning under the Sun if that were the case.
2 years ago
Apparantly, they're banning Second Life now. This might be considered a good thing, though.
2 years ago
Quinsisdos wrote
Apparantly, they're banning Second Life now. This might be considered a good thing, though.
No, they're not.
2 years ago
Benza wrote
You need to stop advertising the plans of the lizard people so loudly before they find were you live
no such thing. ranting on about anomalies sure does go far to discredit anything said against Rothschilds and co *rollseyes* :P

Benza wrote
The thing is legitimate child porn is usualy pretty well hidden considering that anyone hosting it is going to be going to jail for a verry long time.
child porn is usually encrypted and shared peer to peer. one reason censoring the net is just a bunch of bull.
2 years ago
btw, more funding to the feds and less money being spend on rubbish like this filtering will go a long way to stamp out these child predators.
2 years ago
Pretty sure child porn viewers is a little below the federal police's paygrade.
2 years ago
Sin Ogaris wrote
Pretty sure child porn viewers is a little below the federal police's paygrade.


Cyber crimes, serious stuff with robo dogs and grappling hooks. Then again, they are specialists...
2 years ago
He actually has a point. The last high-profile child porn arrests have been the result of diligent police work rather than any kind of filtering technology.
2 years ago
Fly wrote
Sin Ogaris wrote
Pretty sure child porn viewers is a little below the federal police's paygrade.


Cyber crimes, serious stuff with robo dogs and grappling hooks. Then again, they are specialists...
This seems like the opposite of what I said, I said it was BELOW their paygrade, as in the federal police deal with larger scale crimes, a bunch of dudes sharing pictures of naked children on the Web is not really anything they're going to bother with, they'd probably instead go after whoever is creating the images in the first place.
Add Comment
Like this news?
Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/3xF

N4G : News for Gamers         Twitter This!

Digg!     Stumble This!

| More
Currently Popular on PALGN
My most memorable PALGN reviews
Gamers love nostaligia and lists.
Nintendo Store Update - 10/02/12
And that's the end of that chapter!
Final Fantasy XIII-2 Review
Oh good, it's not an excuse to play dress ups.
Soul Calibur V Review
The burning soul will never extinguish!
Australian Gaming Bargains - 08/12/11
'Tis the season to be bargaining.