overlord360

Leaving psychology behind, that is still a huge rift in scales of Grand Canyon. DayZ isn't even close to be violent game and it gets banned while I haven't heard Australia banning any movies in years. Like I can name a lot of games that are way more violent and harmful than DayZ in seconds but with movies Saws go quite a lot to the top category with gore, there is movies with a lot more gore than in Saws but they start to go silly with their content.
I just would like to imagine IARC meeting about Dayz going like:
"Is there violence?"
"Yes, but it's mostly against zombies and it's not really that bad"
"Anything else?"
"There's mention that there might be cannabis that can be used as medicine"
"BAN THAT SHIT RIGHT NOW!!!  BAN IT!!!"
"It's not really that bad, we gave American Psycho and Saw movies just R18+ rating and they are much worse"
"IT'S A VIDEO GAME! BAN THAT SHIT FROM THIS ISLAND LIKE ISLAND BANS TRAVELING WHEN SOMEONE SNEEZES IN AFRICA!"
 
And apparently that is quite close what really happened... Saló, or the 120 Days of Sodom isn't currently banned in Australia because "extra content on the DVD/BR release gives it context", like what? You literally allow selling pedo-scat-sadistic-porn movie and then ban a game that isn't even in the same realms than that movie (in sense that if I would need to choose between letting my kid play DayZ or watch Saló, I would fucking glue my kid to the PC chair, force feed it RedBull and Doritos and make it the youngest ever to pull out weekender playing only bad games than let him watch Saló because that's how "bad" Saló is). Cannibal Holocaust is also not banned in Australia today, and not really that many movies are banned in Australia today no matter how brutal, offensive, violent or just lewd they are, but games, tsk tsk tsk, better not hit that zombie with an axe, you might get banned.

Original Source:
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2019/08/dayz-pc-ps4-xbox-one-banned-completely-australia/
 
 

 
IARC is the acronym for the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), See the bottom of the post for a link to further information on Australia's rating / classification system.
 
 
It seems bizarre that the board is ok with extreme violence in movies and video games, but if there is some weed as a reward for completing an objective results in a instant ban.
 
 
While personally I don't play DayZ, I am fearful as to what precedent this will set for future games, such as Cyberpunk 2077 which showed inhalers being used as drugs in the hour long gameplay video last year.
From what I've personally experienced, drug use (as a reward or incentive) or rape results in a instant ban. As an example Hotline Miami 2 was banned due to the rape scene (and still is banned). This wikipedia link has a list of games currently banned in Australia (and games that we're once banned that have been overturned since). The link also has a nice summary of what type of content may cause a 'refused classification' to be given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_Australia
 
Here's a handy dandy link to the Australian Classification Board's explanation of their ratings:
http://www.classification.gov.au/Guidelines/Pages/Guidelines.aspx

Oh I'm sure "life finds a way" It's just a legal gray area at the best of times and outright illegal at the worst

Oh I'm sure "life finds a way" It's just a legal gray area at the best of times and outright illegal at the worst

Original Source:
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2019/08/dayz-pc-ps4-xbox-one-banned-completely-australia/
 
 

 
IARC is the acronym for the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), See the bottom of the post for a link to further information on Australia's rating / classification system.
 
 
It seems bizarre that the board is ok with extreme violence in movies and video games, but if there is some weed as a reward for completing an objective results in a instant ban.
 
 
While personally I don't play DayZ, I am fearful as to what precedent this will set for future games, such as Cyberpunk 2077 which showed inhalers being used as drugs in the hour long gameplay video last year.
From what I've personally experienced, drug use (as a reward or incentive) or rape results in a instant ban. As an example Hotline Miami 2 was banned due to the rape scene (and still is banned). This wikipedia link has a list of games currently banned in Australia (and games that we're once banned that have been overturned since). The link also has a nice summary of what type of content may cause a 'refused classification' to be given.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_Australia
 
Here's a handy dandy link to the Australian Classification Board's explanation of their ratings:
http://www.classification.gov.au/Guidelines/Pages/Guidelines.aspx

I still stand by my statement that the only good thing Australia has made in the last 10 years was the Ford Falcon, the Holden Commodore and the Chevrolet SS.

Correct.

Wait, what?
So the ISPs don't actually have any legal obligation to block these websites since they do not break any laws? So if 4chan was hosted in Australia it would be illegal to have the video on there, but since it's hosted in the US it's perfectly fine by Australian law?
 
 
Seems like a really bad idea to give ISPs the power to block whichever websites they like, even if those websites aren't breaking any laws.

Helps to read the source to be better informed than to just use a thread topic title, small section quoted, and opinion points within the thread. The below information was readily available to read, it's not even that long of an article.
 
People are right to raise concerns over the ISPs making this decision to block the websites, precedents such as these can (not always) lead to future issues. My original post over this stands as is so I won't repeat it, however I do not object to the ISPs temporarily blocking those sites deemed to not be taking adequate action in the eyes of the ISPs and the public. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned but weighing up the factors I agree with blocking them, along with a parliamentary review of their actions and current legislation and also clarify if the ISPs are allowed to block websites like has happened, which should come first. The ISPs blocking the sites could actually be a breach of law.
 
 
https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/19/16/47/telcos-block-access-to-4chan-liveleak

You are confusing the ISP's with the government. They are not the same.   ISP's are no authority and are only blocking what they think will land them in trouble, the fact that some are and some aren't is irrelevant. 
 
In fact I am not even sure you understand what is happening here because the law is not actually enforcing anything at the moment, it is just voluntary actions by some ISP's.

But that is not what is happening here.
What is happening here is that the people responsible for enforcing the law are turning a blindeye to some websites, and only enforcing the law on other sites they probably didn't already like to begin with.
 
If you want a speeding analogy, this is as if the police (ISPs and Australian government) only stopped black people (4chan, Voat, liveleaks, etc) for speeding, but let white people (Reddit, Facebook, etc) speed however much they liked.
Both black people (4chan) and white people (reddit) are speeding and breaking the law, but the law is only being enforced on one of them. That's what I am against. I am not saying that these sites being banned aren't breaking the Australian law. What I am saying is that there are other sites which should be banned too, but the backlash would probably be so big the law enforcement are turning a blindeye to them.

This is false. If it was true then sites like Reddit, Facebook and others where you can find the video would have been banned too. However, it seems to me like the Australian ISPs are being very selective with which sites they ban under this law.
Either the law applies to everyone equally, or it should not exist at all.
 
For crying out loud, Reddit used to have, up until very recently, an entire section called "watch people die" which consisted of nothing but videos of people dying horrible deaths. Yet that was allowed to be accessed in Australia.
 
What I am championing is that the Australian laws are actually followed, not just selectively followed. If the law is properly written it should be no problem enforcing it everywhere. If problems arise from enforcing the law then it should be rewritten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
 
Someone really needs to write a book to counter this one so we can then start to follow the timeline of that one. Seriously, it's very discomforting knowing just how similar our world is to one that is in a fictional book. At this point, it may as well be recategorized as nonfiction.

According to this action, yes. But I guarantee they have been looking for a reason to ban these sites for years, this gave them the boon they were hoping for to do just that. 
 
Because anime tiddies and shitposting aren't against the law..... Yet, we are becoming china2 after all 

It's not just searching a house, you can throw away a 5 year old newspaper clipping that you stored in a shoebox. You can't delete messages on certain platforms. And Tom Scott put ir quite well in his video where he pointed out that it's not just what laws exist now but what laws will exist in the future
 
source: 
 

The government may not directly be asking for your entire message history, however if there is a backdoor that enables you decrypt one message you can decrypt all the messages from every conversation with everyone you've ever had a conversation with. It's not about whether they say they will or not, but that they can read all the messages if they want to.

The issue with a "back door" is that it's not listening to the current conversation but listening to every conversation you've ever had on this particular platform.

The issue with a "back door" is that it's not listening to the current conversation but listening to every conversation you've ever had on this particular platform.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/tech-surveillance-laws-less-of-a-back-door-and-more-a-side-gate/10114534
 
The Australian government is proposing new laws that would enable the australian police force to gain access to encrypted messages, GPS data, etc, if they have a valid search warrant.
The proposed law is not meant to be a "back door" but rather a "side gate". This would mean that rather than breaking the encryption during the transit of the message the police would be able to read, delete and copy messages at the end user's phone.
 
The Law proposes three levels of request that the police can make.
The first level is voluntary, where the police ask if the company is willing to hand over the data from a user. The second stage is mandatory where the police demand that the company hand's over the data and will face a $10 million (AUD) fine for companies or $50,000 for individuals "The third stage is not only compulsory for a company or individual to abide by, but also means they may have to work to build their own systems to help monitor activity." ~ Source In other words the third stage would entail that the company or individual has to make a serious attempt to comply with the request.
 
" if you use an app to send a message to your friend, it's encrypted as it travels between the two phones or devices.
When it arrives, it's decrypted for your friend to read.
Under the proposed changes, if law enforcement agencies have a valid search warrant to monitor your phone, they could read the decrypted message at the same time as your friend does."
~ Source
 
IMO this is a terrible idea due to the inability to create a "back door" without giving access to the wrong people. If a single government demands access to data for legitimate reasons then there would be no issues, however other governments can also demand that same data for nefarious purposes by threatening the company with, increased taxes or other fines. If a backdoor exists then it can also be discovered by hackers and exploited. Both of these events have already happened (see WannaCry). 
 
 

And anyone who think that is crazy and will never happen should pick up a history book, or if you don't think crazy politicians can get into power, maybe a newspaper would be a more enlightening read... Or just remember that the nazi party was in fact democratically elected, which lead to WW2.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/tech-surveillance-laws-less-of-a-back-door-and-more-a-side-gate/10114534
 
The Australian government is proposing new laws that would enable the australian police force to gain access to encrypted messages, GPS data, etc, if they have a valid search warrant.
The proposed law is not meant to be a "back door" but rather a "side gate". This would mean that rather than breaking the encryption during the transit of the message the police would be able to read, delete and copy messages at the end user's phone.
 
The Law proposes three levels of request that the police can make.
The first level is voluntary, where the police ask if the company is willing to hand over the data from a user. The second stage is mandatory where the police demand that the company hand's over the data and will face a $10 million (AUD) fine for companies or $50,000 for individuals "The third stage is not only compulsory for a company or individual to abide by, but also means they may have to work to build their own systems to help monitor activity." ~ Source In other words the third stage would entail that the company or individual has to make a serious attempt to comply with the request.
 
" if you use an app to send a message to your friend, it's encrypted as it travels between the two phones or devices.
When it arrives, it's decrypted for your friend to read.
Under the proposed changes, if law enforcement agencies have a valid search warrant to monitor your phone, they could read the decrypted message at the same time as your friend does."
~ Source
 
IMO this is a terrible idea due to the inability to create a "back door" without giving access to the wrong people. If a single government demands access to data for legitimate reasons then there would be no issues, however other governments can also demand that same data for nefarious purposes by threatening the company with, increased taxes or other fines. If a backdoor exists then it can also be discovered by hackers and exploited. Both of these events have already happened (see WannaCry). 
 
 

The government may not directly be asking for your entire message history, however if there is a backdoor that enables you decrypt one message you can decrypt all the messages from every conversation with everyone you've ever had a conversation with. It's not about whether they say they will or not, but that they can read all the messages if they want to.

The issue with a "back door" is that it's not listening to the current conversation but listening to every conversation you've ever had on this particular platform.

Voluntary - companies decline to hand over the data. Fine for non-compliance - companies provide fully encrypted data. Backdoors - Society overthrows the government for attempting to create a Brave New World. I can't possibly see how this could go wrong. Oh well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

The issue with a "back door" is that it's not listening to the current conversation but listening to every conversation you've ever had on this particular platform.