Posts by dan1980

Security gurus deliver coup de grace to US govt's encryption backdoor demands

@AC

Yes - people will demand to know. And yes, there will be many who will say that more should have been done.

But you are assuming a situation that has never been convincingly proven to have occurred in the past. This encryption they want to cripple is not some new super-encryption that has as yet been unavailable. You talk about 9/11 but would the ability to decrypt every American's data - every bank communication, every online purchase, every VPN connection to work?

In a country where it is still possible to buy firearms unregistered, unlicensed and without any background checks - in the majority of states - simply by visiting a gun show - is it really the assertion of these people that the problem is encryption?

Now, I am not saying that restricting the ability to buy firearms anonymously at a gun show would have prevented 9/11 or a similar attack that may occur, but then I am not suggesting the crippling encryption would either!

And that's the point - the assumption behind this push, and behind your hypothetical scenario, is that what is being proposed is going to prevent such attacks. The problem is that there is absolutely NOTHING that has been provided by way of evidence to back this up.

And that's somewhat important here because what is being proposed is HUGE. Not just for the implications for personal freedom and privacy, or for the security of commerce - either of which should be sufficient to nix this - but even just simply when thinking about the technical issues. Combine the three and it's a massive move and one that deserves some kind of justification of why it is worth SO much erosion of privacy and security and so much gimping of the technology*.

Personally, it is my firm stance that such a measure can never be justified but if people are claiming that it is a reasonable move and one that should be taken seriously then it's not outlandish to expect some kind of evidence that it will do any good - let alone out-balance the serious, far-reaching and long-lasting negatives.

* - Off the bat, encryption technologies would be limited to those approved by the government so what happens when those implementations are cracked? Imagine a high-profile vulnerability is discovered in the state-approved encryption - how do to the banks go about updating their systems when to change is to break the law?

Indeed, and it sickened me to hear the hypocrisy pour from President Obama's mouth - as it did from Hollande's* - a year ago at Omaha beach, speaking to commemorate the 70th anniversary of 'D Day'.

"We come to remember why America and our allies gave so much for the survival of liberty at its moment of maximum peril. We come to tell the story of the men and women who did it so that it remains seared into the memory of a future world."

Seared in. Right. A memory so dear and powerful to the president, and those before him (both Democrat and Republican) that they honour that sacrifice of safety and the very lives of those thousands by seeking to destroy exactly that which those brave soldiers fought so valiantly to protect.

"But America’s claim - our commitment - to liberty, our claim to equality, our claim to freedom and to the inherent dignity of every human being - that claim is written in the blood on these beaches, and it will endure for eternity.

How archaic when compared laid against their claim to deserve to know everything about all those human beings - foreign and domestic. I see that claim to the "inherent dignity" in the insistence of their 'right' to read the private correspondence and listen to the private phone calls of every man, woman and child.

"We tell the story for the daughter who clutches a faded photo of her father, forever young; for the child who runs his fingers over colorful ribbons he knows signify something of great consequence, even if he doesn’t yet fully understand why."

And what a comfort it must be for that daughter, for that son, to know that the ideals those parents and grandparents died for are being so keenly remembered that we now stride towards surveillance states; police states.

"None of that would have happened without the men who were willing to lay down their lives for people they’d never met and ideals they couldn’t live without."

How dare someone stand up and accept the applause of a crowd and feel pride and righteousness at the sacrifice of those brave men when he urges for the continuation of powers that have been ruled unconstitutional and of the expansion of programs that seek to destroy the ideals he is claiming as so fundamental to 'the American way'?

It is indicative that someone can stand up, and with impassioned words, tell stories of brave young soldiers who risked everything to fight for freedom, while at the same time claim that the sacrifice of that same freedom is a price we must be willing to pay for safety.

* - And as it has from British and Australian Prime Ministers on similar occasions.

"But my job is to try to keep people safe. In universal strong encryption, I see something that is with us already and growing every day that will inexorably affect my ability to do that job."

In a attempt at charity, I shall assume that Director Comey is an honest, trustworthy, diligent, well-meaning, moral soul with a genuine desire to protect people.

Many times, the argument runs that the people pressing for these measures are inherently untrustworthy and do not have the best interests of the people at heart. I think that approach is, though sometimes accurate, unhelpful, because such a claim will never sway those making the decisions.

The real problem is that these people do not understand that, not only is "keep[ing] people safe" not the most important consideration in a free and democratic society, even if it was, it is far from obvious that all-pervasive monitoring by the government and law enforcement agencies is the best way to do this - or even helpful, in the long term.

The problem is that, even viewing these people in the very best light, they believe that preventing a terrorist attack or arresting a drug dealer, or collaring a pedophile (our trio of witches du jour) is so important a goal and the benefits to society so great that they outweigh whatever ills are committed in pursuit of that end and justify whatever means are employed - no matter how infrequent and isolated the positives and how constant and pervasive the 'compromises' are.

They also seem to believe that stopping a crime or saving a life now is more relevant than any unintended consequences or long-term effects that such compromises may bring about.

One could also argue that the technology simply doesn't work that way but to do so is to, again, somewhat argue the wrong point because, just as it is possible (if difficult!) to imagine a situation where the people administering these schemes were beyond reproach, so too is it possible to at least hypothesise about the technology being available to make this work 'well'.

The issue is that, even if the government and agencies were everything they claim they are and the technology was everything they assert that it should be, it still wouldn't be a good idea and the downsides would still outweigh the potential positives.

We tried using Windows 10 for real work and ... oh, the horror

Re: Useful review

Yes, indeed - thank you Andrew.

But can you explain why everything is blue?

I mean, it was bad enough when they changed Outlook from yellow to blue so users click on it instead of Word half the time but who knows what they'll open and frustratingly have to keep closing.

Isn't that the whole purpose of those bright - SIMPLE - tiles? To make is easy to locate what you want? I hope you can actually change the background colours now. Given the simplicity of most of the icons, there's no technical reason why that shouldn't be possible.

Something that REALLY bugs me in Windows 8.1/2012 R2 is how you can only choose between "small" and "medium" when resizing the tiles. Why? Why can't I have Word as a "wide" tile or a "large" tile? It seems a small thing to be worked up about but the annoyance comes from the fact that the 'live' tiles can be resized as you wish. The take-away - use our new-fangled 'apps', not those antiquated program things.

Or is that just me?

Home Office kept schtum on more than 30 data breaches last year

". . . no legal obligation on data controllers to report breaches of security"

Well there's your problem right there. In a world where our governments insist they know increasingly intimate details about our lives, and that they be trusted to do so, it's simply not good enough that all possible measures are taken to secure what data is collected and held, no matter the reason for its collection.

One would argue that a strict, mandatory reporting requirement would be the very basis of any such program. The word they need to become acquainted with is "accountability". Not a popular word amongst civil servants but one could argue that it goes with the the title - if one is a servant of the people then it stands to reason that one should be accountable to those people.

Uber execs charged, will stand trial in France

Re: Screw Uber!

@astrax

"Uber must have had a price controller think "Hmm, that massacre has really pushed up the client number, let's up the pricing and make another killing...". Someone had to physically push the buttons to increase the price and this is just plain disgusting."

Actually no, that's not true - it's an automated system. The prices are based on an algorithm that kicks in without human intervention.

There are, however, people monitoring this at the Uber control centre and certain managers do some discretion to lower the price below what the algorithm has set.

Unfortunately, this may mean that less drivers log on and so the purpose of the price increases (to get more drivers) is defeated and the situation worsens because supply isn't increasing with the demand.

In the instance of the 'Sydney Siege', therefore, their options were to leave the algorithm alone (which is what they did at the start), reduce the multiplier (which would have reduced supply) or to keep the multiplier for the drivers but reduce it for the customers (which would leave them out-of-pocket).

The key point is that Uber doesn't get to control how many drivers are available - that's left up to the drivers themselves. This is a major part of Uber and intrinsic to their very point of differentiation. In order to keep up with demand, Uber has to incentivise drivers to log on and take jobs and the way they do that is to offer them higher rates which, unsurprisingly, is paid for by higher fares.

It's the very heart of Uber - it's a flexible system that is dictated by the basic principles of supply and demand and this is the main way that it is different - in function - from a taxi service.

If Uber didn't have surge pricing, imagine how difficult it would have been for Uber customers to get a ride during the siege? Do you really think drivers would have flocked to the city - the place people were being told to leave - in the middle of the day if they were only going to get normal rates?

Re: Screw Uber!

@astrax

I am no fan of Uber (I don't use them) but the fare increase during the 'Sydney siege' is fully understandable - it's is called surge pricing and not only is it automated, it is a main component of the service.

It is actually something they advertise - and the logic is that it should help equalise supply and demand so that when demand goes up, prices go up and so more drivers will sign on and head to the area, increasing supply.

Taxis have different rates for different times of day and days of the week so what would you say if there was something like this happening at 11pm on a Saturday night and people taking a taxi were being charged the highest rate?

Anger at the surge pricing was simply due to an ignorance of one of Uber's core mechanisms.

Indeed, when some friends of mine who love Uber justify it by saying that it's quicker to get an Uber when it's busy than a taxi, which mechanism is responsible for that?

I don't use Uber because I feel that it is unfair to the taxi drivers who have followed the rules and paid their registration fees, but I have no problem at all with 'surge pricing'. If you want a fixed price, use a taxi.

Good.

Putting aside any comments about Uber as a service or about the drivers, I find their management to be very cynical and to be operating in bad faith.

Rise of the Machines: ROBOT KILLS MAN at Volkswagen plant

Industrial accident.

I wonder who is at fault. Why was the worker able to enter the cage in the first place? And, once there, why aren't there sensors to stop the line when someone enters the cage while the robots are still active?

That aside, I couldn't suppress a small smile when the way my screen wraps the text (with Javascript and other bits disabled) showed:

"The FT says VW has stated the robot did not suffer"

(With the rest of the sentence appearing on the next line.)

World+dog will soon watch 'at least 200 pr0n vids a year'

That's rather a lot of porn.

I wonder, however, if this 55% increase is the per-person number or the overall number and whether it takes into account population growth as well.

I would be somewhat interested what the current figure is for each regular watcher of porn. Certainly averaging out over the entire population of the world dilutes this, given many don't have sufficient internet access and plenty simply don't watch any porn.

Actually, this shouldn't be to hard, so long as we don't mind being a bit rough.

First, let's assume that the '55% increase' is in total views. Second, let's assume that the figures take into account population growth.

Looking at some predictions for, world population in 2020 is set for 7.7bn, up from 7.3bn in 2015 an Internet access is forecast to be at 55% for 2020, up from 40% in 2015.

Taking the 2020 population and multiplying by the 200 smut flicks per-person, we get 1.54 trillion views. Working back from the 55% increase, that implies that current views are at 995 billion.

But what happens when we take into account the increase in the number of connected people.

Turns out that, as there will be some 1.3 billion more Internet users in 2020, the increase, per user is just 7% - 364 views per year, per user; up from 340 views per year, per user.

But, as said, not everyone watches porn. Let's assume that people from 0-14 don't and neither do those over 60. Wild generalisation, I know, but whatever.

Using some available figures and assuming the same breakdown applies to Internet users, that leaves 61.7% of people in that age bracket in 2015 and 61.5% in 2020, equating to 1.8bn and 2.6bn Internet users of porn-watching age, respectively.

The views-per-year jumps accordingly, to 591 per user, per year in 2020, up from 551 in 2015. That's a 7.25% increase.

That's just using some readily available figures without much investigation so it's pretty much within the margin of error of when working with two rough figures that porn viewing habits will stay pretty much the same.

I wonder how long this viewing is in hours, though. After all, if one was to say that people watch, on average, 200 Youtube videos a year, that might equate to 2.5 days of TED talks (shudder) or 6 days of Register Webcasts. Or, looking at my recent history, 20 hours of guitar gear demos.

If we assume an average length of, say, 30 minutes, we get 12.3 days of porn-watching per year for those of age in 2020, up from 11.5 days in 2015.

Given that this is still diluted by considering everyone in the chosen age bracket, the actual time spent watching porn for a 'normal' user is rather higher than this.

Can anyone remind me what my point was?

With Hobbit and LoTR in the can, Trolls no longer welcome in New Zealand

Of course, the best part of a bill like this is that it provides a reason find out the real identities of people posting online.

Australian opposition senators slam TPP treaty process

I fully understand the concept of "commercial-in-confidence", but if we investigate what the use of that excuse implies here, it is unacceptable.

The Government is essentially saying that the commercial interests outweigh the public interests.

I am reminded of something I read a while back that is very relevant here - from the Australasian Council of Auditors-General in their paper titled: Commercial Confidentiality and the Public Interest.

This section seems particularly pertinent:

Commercial Information in Public-Private Sector Arrangements

This accountability relationship between the individual and the State must perforce affect accountability for commercial dealings between the State and the private sector.

The private sector must expect that, when it deals with the State, the disclosure requirements cannot merely be those that pertain to commercial transactions between two private sector entities. If the accountability arrangements are the same, insufficient weight will have been given to the need for the State to be accountable to the citizen.

The full paper is viewable here: http://www.acag.org.au/ccpi.htm

WikiLeaks docs show NSA's 10-year economic espionage campaign against France

"That the agency was specifically tasked to go after the economic interests of an ally will cause red faces all round."

It should cause resignations all around - specifically of everyone who had any part in authorising this.

French Uber bosses talk to Le Plod over 'illicit activity' allegations

Re: French Uber bosses charged with four crimes under French law

@Ledswinger

What innovative practices? Uber have created an app and marketplace to connect people with - in the case of Uberpop in France - operators providing an illegal service.

The equivalent is to look at the trades - like electricians and builders - and to see these drivers as unlicensed tradespeople. The Uber service, in this instance, allows these unlicensed operators to essentially advertise their services so that potential customers can find and engage them.

It becomes, essentially, I booking platform for illegal services.

Where it's legal, fine, but it's hardly the first service to show cars on a map or provide an alternative booking platform to the traditional radio operators so that part is not innovative.

Considering that in almost all states/cities/countries nearly anyone can be a taxi driver so long as they meet the licensing requirements and pay their registration, the real 'innovation' of Uberpop, then, is in making it easier for unlicensed drivers to operate a taxi service.

And, of course, unlicensed taxi services are also not new and indeed the very reason that regulated, licensed taxi services were instituted in nearly every modern country and city.

Australian government demands signoff on telco network designs

That's assuming that the 'consequences' are really unintended . . . (As opposed to what they wanted all along.)

Apple pulls Civil War games in Confederate flag takedown

Re: Fast track to offense

@PJL500

Apart from historical reference this Confederate flag belongs with that swastika - in the trash.

And this game is, explicitly, a historical reference.

"To use the swastika for entertainment purposes and leave out the extermination camps and all the other abhorrent ideology, experiments etc is no different from using the Confederate flag and ignore 1/ the historical fact that preserving lynching, kidnapping, enslaving and debasing human beings based on their skin color was a major factor in the goal of flying that flag . . ."

So a mobile game specifically about the Gettysburg campaign/battle is justified in using the historical accurate flag used by General Lee if, and only if, it also spends time focusing on the ideology of the South and if it doesn't then it must censor (and that is exactly what this is) out a historical fact?

Re: Fast track to offense

@GBE

"It stands for racism, hatred, and slavery and always has."

Well, one might argue that, with the exception of the 'stainless' banner, the flags stood for the confederacy which did indeed want to secede to preserve slavery.

But does that mean that the flag itself stand for that?

Perhaps, and, when flown and displayed in a modern context, this becomes far more likely.

But that's the point - the context. When displayed as part of a historical context, it is the battle flag for several armies of the south and most notably General Lee, who used it at Gettysburg.

Thus a HISTORICAL portrayal of the Battle of Gettysburg would be willfully inaccurate if it removed or replaced this flag.

Displayed by the KKK it stands for racism and hatred. Displayed in a video game about Gettysburg, it stands for General Lee's North Virginian Army, without whom the campaign would not be a very important event in history as it's hardly worth remembering the summer that George Meade spent with his friends in Pennsylvania.

This is a knee-jerk over-reaction by Apple and, if this is really their position then I urge them to remove all content with similarly offensive livery from their store.

I don't know how many people would missThe Dukes of Hazard but we can't stop at just this flag because certainly the Nazi Swastika qualifies every bit as much - if not more.

Microsoft's new mission statement: It's all about doing MAGICAL THINGS

"It's important to note that our worldview for mobile-first is not just about the mobility of devices; it's centered on the mobility of experiences that, in turn, are orchestrated by the cloud."

Should have stopped there - that's a good statement. What follows . . .

Shadow of the Beast: Amiga classic returns from the darkness

Sorry - I have no idea how the 'FAIL' icon got on my post.

I played this on the Mega Drive and let me just say: fuck this game.

This was one of the hardest games I ever played. The whole thing seemed to be geared towards making you swear and throw your controller.

BUT, the music was great and it kept me coming back - just to get halfway through the second level and throw away the controller in frustration again.

Actually, this game probably resulted in me taking much-needed breaks from video-gaming in my youth - playing with the dog, reading a book, speaking to my family. All the stuff one normally uses games to avoid having to do.

It was a very surreal game and, even after employing the much-lauded invincibility code, I have no idea what it was on about, what half the enemies or any of the bosses were, what the point was or how the weapons and items fit in.

The best thing about that cheat was that it allowed me to be done with it once and for all. Mostly.

There are games from that era that I remember fondly as being difficult but worth sticking at because with persistence and care you could win through and they were great fun, rarely feeling unfair. Most specifically, the Probotector (Contra: Hard Corps) and Streets of Rage 3, both of which were best two-player.

With those (and several others) after we died, we would often fire it right back up for anther go. Shadow of the Beast was the opposite as you would turn off the whole system and storm off.

That's the difference between a good hard game and something like this - do you feel that it is fair?

Courtney Love in the crossfire! Paris turns ugly over Uber

Re: Why not in Britain?

Would you still do it even if it was ruled as illegal?

The government is to blame for this.

If something is illegal and yet it continues to happen - expand even - then someone is not doing their job. It seems that declaring it illegal is all anyone is willing to do and that is not good enough.

If you specify a weight limit of 40t for national highways and have a company that specifically (and only) runs 48t lorries around and, further, is talking up how it is expanding its fleet of over-weight vehicles and trumping their benefits to customers, then something will get done - there will be a concerted effort from the authorities to make sure the practice stops.

And yet this is pretty much what is happening with Uberpop in France and yet there seems to be no real push to actually get the drivers off the road.

As I have said before, the fines should be of the same order as those for carrying out unlicensed electrical work, which, in Australia can run into 6 figures.

No warnings. It is CLEAR that operating an Uberpop service is illegal and that you are operating as an unlicensed contractor, for money, for the public, and actively pursuing work. You aren't just someone caught helping a mate out - you are deliberately and actively making your unlicensed services available for hire to the general public.

Operating an Uberpop service in France is not an honest mistake or a well-meaning bending of the rules - it is willfully illegal and so should qualify for the maximum allowable penalties.

It is not just speeding - for which there can be any number of excuses - but advertising that you speed as a service. Imagine advertising a courier service where the selling point was that the drivers drive 20kph over the speed limit so that you get your deliveries faster.

I have no particular beef with Uber and where the services are legal, all is good. But to deliberately and repeatedly break the law for profit is just reprehensible.

Oz politicians SUCK at drafting trade agreements

@Denarius

Unfortunately, those who are trying to represent the people and who urge consultation and transparency and caution and safeguards generally don't have a great deal of power.

One reason being that the major parties are structured such that corporate interests rule so if you have any say in things then you are almost, by definition not representing the people.

This headline could have been streamlined:

"Oz politicians SUCK."

Actually, even that looks to have one too many words:

"Politicians SUCK."

There - that's a nice, lean statement.

To the story - we are getting this. It will pass nearly unopposed and almost completely un-amended. Consultation will be minimal and those demanding - begging - to see the draft so they can have an input will be left to say: "told you so".

Some days I feel that my heart is just broken. Melodramatic perhaps, but that's how it feels to watch the country I love throw away it's identity and the freedom of its people in order to to watch it tag along with the US, trying so very hard to emulate and impress it and so readily agreeing with it. You were great in the game last night; can we carry your books?

Will a data centre be driving your car in 12 years' time?

Will my car be driven by a data centre?

Fuck no.

And I don't believe this could ever happen. All cars need to be utterly independent for safety reasons. They can be directed remotely but the actual driving part must occur without the car relying on any external input.

It must always be assumed that, even if the car you are in will work 100% perfectly and the systems and connectivity are infallible, there may be other cars on the road that are not connected and are not working properly - or are being driven manually. Cars must be able to respond in real-time, without reliance on external updates and car-to-car communications.

This is one reason why this kind of technology is further away that some think - it must be able to work accurately and safely in all conditions, including where connectivity to 'home base' is disrupted or disabled and where other cars are being driven manually or erratically or are faulty. The technology cannot rely on a best-case scenario where all the cars are inter-connected and constantly being updated from a data centre and each other.

What is this river nonsense? Give .amazon to Bezos, says US Congress

Re: Pedantic Grammar Nazi Compromise?

@Terry 6

". . . not as good as amazon.amazon.amazon then."

Surely that is the very definition of "double-plus good', no?

Absolutely, but my question is: what is their public reason?

I.e. why are they suggesting that anyone should take their input and exhortations as relevant to the case at hand rather than just writing it off as the lobbyist-backed, money-driven dog and pony show that everyone has come to know and love from politicians?

Why the hell should the US Government care about who gets a domain name that it has no specific interest in?

I mean, there is the obvious reason of lobbying and money, but what is their public reason? Yes, Amazon (the corporation) have a strong case but why should that result in the US Government arguing on their behalf?

Police robot duo storm Colorado house, end four-day siege

Well, he was shot in the leg so even a 'real' bullet wouldn't have killed him. So, it seems more like it was used for compliance - the way stun guns are so frequently used. Which brings me back to my point about the SWAT team evidently being useless - what good is all your advanced training and sit-ups and body armour if you can't subdue an unarmed man without using your weapons?

@AC

Right, but, as the poster above points out - they did shoot him! 30 police, two robotic cameras and a SWAT team and they still couldn't apprehend an unarmed man (in a house by himself, with no hostages) without firing their weapons.

Great, it was 'less lethal' shot, so presumably a hacky-sack type affair but that doesn't make it any better because it shows that they (the police/SWAT team) clearly weren't in serious danger as they would have really shot the guy otherwise so it was unnecessary.

If it is KNOWN that a person is unarmed and KNOWN that he has no hostages then if a SWAT team cannot apprehend him without firing their weapons (regardless of the munition used) then what the hell are they for? They are supposed to be highly-trained personnel.

Either way it's bad - if SWAT are supposed to be able to resolve situations like this then they failed; if they aren't trained to apprehend UNARMED subjects without shooting them then they shouldn't be there.

Remember that the tech angle of the story (and thus why it is of relevance here) is that robotic things were used to unambiguously ascertain what the situation was so there is no excuse.

Thirty police? Four days? SWAT?

What the hell?

Now, I'll readily concede that I am not in law enforcement and can't speak for those who are but unless I am mistaken, this wasn't even a hostage situation - he was alone and not actively threatening anyone. They wanted to arrest him, yes, but apart from that?

This kind of thing is indicative of policing gone too far. There is an ever increasing trend to assign more powers (and more deadly equipment) to police and politicians seem to nearly unanimously and unceasingly support the police or at least are very reluctant to denounce any actions or demand any penalties for any officer who has acted questionably.

If it takes four days and 30 officers to resolve this situation then it's clear that the police are not up to the task they have been entrusted with.

Even Apple doesn’t mess with Taylor Swift

"It appears that Apple values the music makers – who generate the real demand for the “content services” that technology companies provide – as human beings. Not a unit item to be pared to as close to zero as possible.

It’s a refreshing change for a Silicon Valley company not to act cynically, but ethically."

Ah.... not quite. Apple was and is being cynical and it is most certainly trying to minimise what it pays to artists. It cynically tried to pare those costs back to zero, revealing that it thought it only fair that the 'valued' artists cover the costs of Apple's launch promotion.

The u-turn they made was for publicity and to get artists on side. They tried to pay the minimum possible (zero) but found that that was not feasible so had to pay more. That is not ethical behaviour.

Ethical behaviour is doing the 'right' thing even when you don't have to - not doing the right thing only once you are made to.

Uber app will soon maybe track you 24/7, cry privacy warriors

Sorry, I just don't understand the justification for tracking user locations at all. Yes, when you order a car, your location needs to be sent and for the duration of the ride, it can be monitored.

But, as soon as the transaction has been completed, the need for tracking ends.

Oz goes mad with the ban-hammer

Re: WTF?!

@Swarthy

Well, the only way to win is not to play, so there's that.

But, seriously, perhaps the application simply wasn't submitted correctly - with relevant information missing - or the publishers weren't contactable or the code sent for review was buggy and thus unusable.

Re: How the fsck...

Sorry - yes, a typo!

That said, the distributors or even the developers themselves may lock their games on online platforms - like Steam.

As an instance of the first, Hatred was region-locked on Steam by the developers and, as an instance of the second, Hotline Miami 2 and South Park were both region-locked by Steam, as was/is Manhunt.

Re: What's the point?

@Thorne

With the disclaimer that I am very anti censorship, I do believe that banning a game does indeed accomplish something because it will often result in a game being altered for release in Australia and most people will buy that copy.

Not for everyone and I know some people who bought Saints Row IV and activated and played it through VPNs to make sure they got the version complete with anal probe weapon but I would argue that most people in Australia who bought the game bought the Australian version.

Likewise with Left 4 Dead 2 - I know someone who got an uncensored copy from OS before it was re-released, uncensored after the introduction of the R18+ rating. But I would almost guarantee that most people, again, did buy the Australian version.

Not that I have hard numbers of course, but people are fundamentally lazy and crave convenience and so will go for the easier option.

Refusing classification to a mainstream game (rather than throw-away mobile games like the ones listed in the link) will often simply be the first step - the game is submitted for classification and then refused so the studio make their case and will likely end up changing the game and re-submitting it.

If the studio is not willing to do that then it is quite likely that people will buy it from overseas or pirate it, depending on the availability and technical protections that may need to be circumvented to do buy an overseas copy. On Steam, for example, there are pretty wide-reaching region locks, including preventing you from gifting a game from some regions to other regions. Much of that is to maintain regional pricing but also to enforce bans.

And, given Steam requires online re-activation to play games, it's easy for them to make sure specific games aren't purchased or activated or played in whichever regions where they are banned. Sure, you can use a VPN but that can get you in trouble with Steam, who will block your account and thus prevent you accessing ALL you games so it's a bit of a risk.

If you've got a console then it's generally easier as you can just order a copy of the game from another country that is uncensored and is compatible but the simple truth is that most people won't unless they really want to play a game that has been refused classification or are adamant that they play an uncensored copy.

So I get your point, which seems to be that you can't completely prevent people from playing a game but I would argue that that doesn't make refusing classification pointless because it often results in an amended game and, even when it doesn't, not all that many people will go to the effort required to obtain a copy from elsewhere - especially if it's distributed on something like Steam.

Again - I'm against censorship using too heavy a hand and think the censorship in Australia is definitely over-done, but that is different from claiming that it doesn't achieve anything.

Re: How the fsck...

From being legally sold, yes.

That's what a 'ban' is - a legal decree that some thing is not allowed. It won't 100% prevent people from playing it but it will mean that anyone selling it to Australia will be breaking the law.

Remember that these aren't high-profile games being refused classification so unless you were really looking forward to "Yatzy Paradise!Hot Guys" and its sibling, YatzyGolden!IntimateHotties" then it's unlikely you would even know of their existence, much less be willing to jailbreak your phone to install them.

Big name games tend to be altered - as Fallout 3 was* - or get a locality-specific version with the problematic content removed, such as happened with the Witcher 2, where a certain quest was altered slightly, and so still get released and most people just get the local copy because the changes are rarely of great import.

There are still, of course, some games that had been refused classification and not altered that people have certainly sourced from elsewhere (or pirated), such as Syndicate, and the Postal series or Manhunt and there are others that have been censored for Australia but where people have deliberately sought out uncensored copies, as happened with Left 4 Dead 2 (before the introduction of the R18+ classification).

I get what you are saying, but, generally speaking, the content that is deemed most offensive by the censors is relatively effectively blocked for the vast majority, with only rather determined people circumventing the restrictions.

Remember too, that issue is SALE of this content - not possession. Take pornography for example, where 'X' rated content is not allowed to be sold in most states but is legal to own. Thus, one can buy X rated pornography from Canberra and store and watch it in Victoria quite legally.

* - Changing 'Morphine' to 'Med X'.

Re: What's the point?

No, that's not the point or R18+.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but there has never been the idea that if you are over 18 then all content should be accessible.

It has always been the position of the government and classification board that some content is too objectionable to to sold, regardless of age. Exactly what content falls under this definition is another matter altogether and there is a point to be made that too much is lumped into that, but the concept is not new.

Drug use, for example, has always been a no-no, hence the refusal for "Time for Cocaine". Likewise, content that depicts sexualisation of minors is not going to be approved, which may explain "Charming Cheerleading Girl".

What content should or should not be allowed is bound to be a debate but there is not and has never been any suggestion that an R18+ rating suddenly makes all content okay.

Looking through the list, they seem like mobile games and very few of them of any merit.

I think I will be just fine without:

• Measure Bra Size Prank
• HoboSimulator
• AK-47 Simulator
• 9mm Simulator
• Naked Scanner Pro - Free
• 2015 Athletic Fruits Girls
• Test Application w23
• Virtual marijuana smoking
• w24mdf paid app
• Fun Swimming Pool Love Kiss
• Torture the Murderer 2
• Spin The Bottle
• Spin The Bottle Premium
• Dress Up: Mom and Daughter

One thing I notice is that there are many games which appear to be variations on a theme, such as the following offerings from developer/publisher "Weed Time": "Smoke A Bong", "Smoke A Joint", "Smoke A Bong FREE", "Smoke A Joint FREE", "Nose Dose" and then, on the entrepenaurial side: "Weed Garen The Game", "Weed Bakery The Game" and, the culmination orf your efforts: "Weed Shop The Game". The first of these - "Weed Garden" - is billed by the developers as "the most stunning 3D weed game ever made!" Fair enough.

If Weed Shop is refused then it's really no surprise that The Bytes Brothers' "Shroom tycoon 2" will be banned.

There also seems to be a quite a few test applications here as well.

I suspect the large number is entirely due to the mobile app space, where games are comparatively cheap and easy to make and sell and thus there is a huge amount of crap and, with the new classification regime, more games are able to be reviewed than before. Presumably, classifying "Chicken2.0 The Adult Sex Game" would otherwise be fairly low down their list and thus wouldn't even have reached the RC stage.

How Music Got Free and Creatocracy

@Stuart

Actually, I believe that this forms an interesting examination of the mindset of these corporations. Quite simply, consumers already thought of music the way that we are being told we should now. Which is to say that people always thought that music is about the ability to listen to it, not the physical medium it is presented on.

Thus, why should a mix-tape of songs you already own the license to listen to constitute a breach of copyright?

Unfortunately, music corporations wanted it both ways - they want to restrict the way people listen to music rather than enhance it. If I buy the license to listen to a song then I expect to be able to do that however, whenever, and on whatever device I want. Now, I appreciate that buying a lossy-compressed MP3 shouldn't give me the right to listen to that music in high-definintion, SACD quality but these corporations object to me listening to a lossless CD as a lossy MP3. Which is ridiculous.

Brass tacks is that the music industry was too arrogant - at least at the 'big end of town'. They had lived so large for so long* that they were dismissive of any other models that looked like they might result in less profits.

They thought that their model could persist forever.

Spoiler alert: they were wrong.

Now, as some who have read my posts touching on copyright may know, I am no supporter of illegal downloading. I did it to a small extent when I was much younger but can categorically say that there is NO music that I listened to more than a handful of times that I did not purchase. Often times this resulting in entire back-catalogues, as it did with Morcheeba and I purchased their newer stuff, unheard, as well.

But that is the point - it's a medium that lends itself to discovering music in a way that going to the local music store used to but that modern life has made more difficult because people just don't have the time to go browse like they used to.

Unfortunately, music has now lost a lot of value for many, with things like Youtube streaming providing so much music for so little compensation for artists and the several dominant players exploiting artists every bit as much, though in a different way, as the old moguls.

As Gillian Welch sang: "Everything is free now".

* - Only after typing that did I make the Batman connection.

Cupertino GIVES IN to Taylor Swift, will pay Apple Music royalties

Re: Artist or Artists ?

@Alan

I think that the extra money for Taylor Swift, while far more than others would get, is really negligible for her, considering how much her tours make.

She is young and, despite being very savvy, it is not beyond the realms of the possible to believe that she is still idealistic and really does want to help young, aspiring artists.

The issue is not just the money, however, it's the attitude. There is the idea that music somehow is free - that it should be able to be listened to without having to pay anyone. After all, I can open up Youtube and play a whole album if I like.

As Andrew Orlowski has said in his recent article - the new boss is as bad as the old boss.

And it's not difficult to see why - you make money from paying people less than they are worth so the bigger the gap, the higher the profit. Hard to have a bigger gap than just paying nothing and the ridiculous contracts that musicians are nearly forced to sign by these new masters are nothing short of exploitation.

Welcome to the new world; do you like the curtains?

Re: re "completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.”

@Alan

While I am not suggesting that Ms Swift doesn't actually love Apple, a simple explanation is that butter makes things go a little smoother.

They sure as fuck ain't generous - given their authoritarian control of sales they could EASILY enable far higher wages to be paid for those making the devices.

Re: Who the fuck is this "swift" person?

@jake

She is a singer. You know that. Even camped out in the desert with your chillis and your chickens* you know who she is.

If you don't then I really don't know why you are commenting because you obviously didn't read the article, which clearly states that she is a "singer", on her "fifth album" (which is called "1989") and, if the picture accompanying the article is of the person in question (and I concede this is not assured) then she is an attractive blonde female in her early twenties.

As for "who cares what her opinion is", my answer is that, first, her fans do. Taken the provided information that she is on her "fifth album" and can "support [her]self", it is apparent that she is successful and, given the age depicted (early twenties) and the format of the responses, she is clearly of the 'twitter generation'. A sound grasp of modern popular music is not required to conclude that her youth and success suggests she likely has some measure of influence amongst consumers of that generation. Hence the response and hence its delivery - via Twitter, using her name.

Which brings me to the second part of the answer to your question ("who cares?") - apparently Apple does.

* - I was going to say "turkeys" but it didn't have the same ring.

Re: I agree with Apple

But then she'd go and write a song about it.

Perhaps that's why she's always hopping in and out of relationships - more material.

Re: Royalties? What royalties?

@Big John

Because it's their MO, as it is with most large corporations these days. Their default position is to squeeze and gouge and dictate and control as much as they can, however they can.

And, seeing as they are a HUGE company with a lot of influence politically and through their market position, they can squeeze and control rather a lot and in any way they want. So that is what they do.

While in NO sense unique to Apple, this is what they are. They aren't about innovation or about user experience or about being in partnership with users or producers or artists or communities - they are about as much profit as possible.

And that's valid - they are a corporation after all - people should just understand that.

Again - this is their way, so it's wrong to suggest it was easy to 'correct' because in their minds, this wasn't an error, it was normal business. Had someone not spoken up like this and forced them to reconsider, it would have stayed as is. It's a change to appease people, not a 'correction' of a bad policy. (From their perspective.)

@Credas

Oh - exactly! We have that kind of practice in Australia too as some 90% of supermarket shopping is with the two giants: Woolworths and Coles.

Farmers tend to get rather screwed.

It's really simple - offer a free trial if you want, just pay for the product.

If I am a butcher and want to give out free samples then that's my business, but I still have to pay my suppliers.

It's completely reasonable to establish a partnership where you and one of your suppliers work together, such as if (sticking with the butcher analogy) you partnered with a specific local sausage producer who agree to give you a quantity of their produce free so you can offer them as samples for your customers.

What Apple was doing was to tell artists that if they wanted to distribute their music on iTunes then they would have to provide their product for free for a period. If they were a small company and one of many platforms then artists would just go elsewhere. But, with a dominant position in the market, they are able to make sure bold demands and exploit the artists - much the way the big supermarket chains in Australia exploit farmers.

This move from Apple was especially deplorable considering how they set prices and prevent retailers offering specials on i-things.

Foreign firms must obey EU laws no matter where they're based, says EU. Hear that, Google?

Re: Tit for Tat, EU. We can do that too!

@fishbone

Whatever your point may be, it's clearly not grounded in any knowledge of international business.

The fact that the US decided to kick-start their depressed economy through the huge spending and manufacturing requirements involved in joining a war two years late and then using it as a springboard to scare everyone by testing its atomic weaponry is great but hardly relevant to the laws that a country (any country) imposes on the corporations operating inside their own borders.

What you may be missing is that Google is not some free service. It is an advertising business operating in these countries and so it is completely reasonable that they abide by the laws of those countries.

So what you say is right, but applies to Google - if you don't want to follow the laws of a country, then don't do business there.

Post-pub nosh neckfiller: Nasi goreng pattaya

Drinking must be a far more sedate and earlier-ending affair in Lester's world than elsewhere.

Dealing with raw chicken and omelettes is not something I would attempt in my post-session state!