pps. because, in my view, wiki's are better for brainstorming and consensus building than mailing lists... see <a href="http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/ISP_Filtering">http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/ISP_Filtering</a> too :-)<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM, private musings <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thepmaccount@gmail.com">thepmaccount@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>ps. This section from the 'FAQ' is probably relavent too;<br></div><div>"In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, <b>consideration is being given to exempt high traffic sites</b> 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."</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">( from <a href="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" target="_blank">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</a> - bolding mine )</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">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!)</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">cheers,</div><div class="gmail_quote">Peter,</div><div class="gmail_quote">PM.</div><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">
</div><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, private musings <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thepmaccount@gmail.com" target="_blank">thepmaccount@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>...I guess this topic is bound to come up - so no harm in a thread or two, I reckon....<br></div><div>No doubt press commentary is worth a look ( see <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html</a> ) for example.</div>
<div>Dealing, as this proposal does, with solely 'RC' content (see <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A9975715C45E4DE8CA25700D002EF639/$file/Code+26+May_to+attach.pdf</a> for 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) </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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....</div>
<div>cheers,</div><div>Peter,</div><div>PM.<br><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Matt inbgn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mattinbgn@gmail.com" target="_blank">mattinbgn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Hi all,<br><br>Does the chapter have a position on <a href="http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115" target="_blank">this proposal</a>?<br>
<br>Should it have a position?<br><br>If it has a position, what should it be doing to advance that position?<br>
<br>Cheers,<br><font color="#888888">Matt<br>
</font><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Wikimediaau-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>