Classification board seeks to censor iPhone apps

By Ben Grubb on Oct 21, 2009 5:32 PM
Filed under Software

Call for ratings system to apply to games distributed as mobile apps.

The Australian Classification Board has written to Government expressing concerns that mobile phone applications are being made available in Australia without being subject to a ratings process.

Whilst movies and computer games are subject to ratings (G, PG, M etc) from the Classification Board, the many thousands of games released as mobile apps on smartphone platforms such as the Apple iPhone bypass the process.

"I recently wrote to the minister regarding my concern that some so-called mobile phone applications, which can be purchased online or either downloaded to mobile phones or played online via mobile phone access, are not being submitted to the board for classification," Australia's Classification Board director Donald McDonald told a Senate Estimates committee in Canberra on Monday.

McDonald was referring to Commonwealth Censorship Minister Brendan O'Connor.

A spokesman for the Classification Board told iTnews the director of the Classification Board was "referring to mobile phone applications which are computer games".

McDonald made the comment after informing Senators that the Classification Board had recently classified online game World of Warcraft with a rating of 'M', five years after the game became available in Australia.

"While this is not the first online game to be classified by the board, World of Warcraft is arguably the most popular online game in the world, and the fact that it was not classified attracted industry and media interest," McDonald said.

Should the Classification Board be asked to rate downloadable mobile applications, the numbers of apps available to Australians on the Apple iTunes store alone would prove overwhelming.

According to Apple, there are over 80,000 applications on its iTunes store - the platform it uses to deliver games and applications to the iPhone.

At present, Apple controls what goes on its App store. Earlier this year the company approved an application named Baby Shaker in which the object is to shake a crying baby to death.

The Baby Shaker app was removed shortly after approval and was available to Australians. Apple eventually removed the application from its iTunes store after deciding it was not appropriate.

Apps such as Baby Shaker could be prevented from entering the iTunes store in Australia if refused classification by the Classification Board.

The Classification Board told iTnews it could not speculate on whether the Baby Shaker application was indeed a game "without seeing the application in its entirety" and reaffirmed "the Board will classify films, computer games and publications upon receipt of a valid application".

Apple spokesman Fiona Martin told iTnews that the company had always adhered to Australian law and would be prepared to make any changes if required.

"We do what the Australian Classification people tell us to do," she said.

Martin said there were "no laws" governing mobile applications today. "But if there is a legal requirement within Australia to do something, absolutely we would adhere to that requirement," she said.

The Classification board said it would "apply the National Classification Code, the Classification Act, and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer" when classifying mobile applications.

In 2008-09 the classification board received 7,036 applications. That figure included applications for classifying 4,792 films, 1,095 computer games and 197 publications.

CORRECTION - The original version of this article reported that the director of the Classification Board Donald McDonald was referring to Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy as "the minister" whom he wrote to. iTnews has since been informed that Minister McDonald was referring to Commonwealth Censorship Minister Brendan O'Connor.

Should mobile apps be classified? Tell us what you think!

Classification board seeks to censor iPhone apps

26 comments in this discussion

"When the Classification Board has a few moments, perhaps they would like to cast their eye over YouTube. That would build their empire for them."

By listohan

Tags

classification board, mobile, app, world of warcraft, donald mcdonald

Woolworths evaluates free wifi in stores

St. George CIO seeks new approach to BYOD

Who's really getting burned by Kogan Mobile?

Deloitte links mobile spectrum to productivity

Breaking Stories

Microsoft to pay cash for vulnerability reports

Vodafone has no plans for 4G modems

'Data massacre' as Megaupload files deleted

NSA seeks to justify vast surveillance

Telstra opposes 700 MHz for emergency 4G network

Comments: 26

Maxxi Oct 21, 2009 9:05 PM	Oh boy, thr libertarians are going to have a field day crucifying the Classification Board on this one... lol... Every Australian should be free to decide if they want to shake bables to death on a screen, that is freedom of speech... Apple had the choice of industry regulation but approved the baby-shaking-killing-game all by themselves, and now they have shot themselves in the foot, then immediately stuck that foot in their own mouths... oops. And people wonder why governments think they need to step in and apply some regulations.
gikku Oct 21, 2009 10:45 PM	app classification? what would they give EyeTV? IceTV? Remote? Office? Photoshop? will they classify the os? ...
GeordieGuy Oct 22, 2009 4:05 PM	G'day, the aformentioned libertarian reporting for duty. Before the classification board seeks to expand its remit, it needs to deal with the utter crisis of relevance and confidence that it has with its existing scope. The armchair psychology of Michael Atkinson needs to be washed off the existing board with regards to the interactivity of computer applications and their "impact" on people, and the classification guidelines need to be applied in such a manner that the board's actions are easily distinguishable from dice rolling. THEN the classification board can sound out the public they serve, to see if their remit is covering what Australian society expects it to.
DanielBrown Oct 22, 2009 4:26 PM	@Maxxi I would think that most of Australians don’t think it’s a freedom of speech to play a game which mimic’s shaking a baby. By that logic its right for child porn on a screen too. Freedom of speech does not mean that you should be able to do anything you like. Freedom of speech has been misused in this country by people claiming it’s their right to do sinister and derogatory things. Your part of a society and community. Start acting like it. A reality check is needed. But then again, trolling is another “aspect” of the problem with people like’s Maxxi’s views on freedom of speech.
NumbNuts2009 Oct 22, 2009 10:40 PM	I'm not Australian, but I must commend Australia on the amazing honesty of having a "Censorship Minister". Many countries have government censorship departments but euphemist titles for it, as any decent democratic citizen would be absolutely MORTIFIED at having a Ministry of Censorship. It's nothing more than a marginally more civilized marginally more polite version of the old Taliban Ministry of Virtue and Vice. DanielBrown: "don’t think it’s a freedom of speech to play a game which mimic’s shaking a baby. By that logic its right for child porn on a screen too." Daniel, I don't care how many people shake PICTURES of babies, so long as they are not actually harming any actual babies. I have a shocking proposal for you, how about you and I and the government quit wasting any time or effort pursuing the issue of "shaking pictures of babies that doesn't actually harm any babies", and redirect all of that time and effort and money going after people who actually shake babies, and direct that time and effort and money to protecting actual babies who might be or have been shaken. And I have a second shocking proposal for you. I don't care how many people sit merely looking at pictures on a screen, even if it is a picture of child porn. How about you and I and the government quit wasting any time or effort pursuing mere "pictures on a screen", and redirect all of that time and effort and money going after people who actually molest children, and direct that time and effort and money to protecting actual children who might be or have been abused. We do not have a Ministry of Censorship going after pictures of arson. We have actual police going after actual criminals who have actually committed arson. What a shockingly radical notion! I have another shocking thought for you. I wish more arsonists and rapists and murders and kidnappers and other criminals were dopey enough to photograph their crimes and make the photos public. I can't imagine better evidence for the police to hunt down and catch those criminals, and to rescue victims of ongoing crimes, and to save people from becoming victims of those criminals in the future. But heay, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we SHOULD have a Ministry of Censorship dedicated to stamping out PHOTOS of arsons. A reality check is needed, indeed. P.S. Nevermind the lousy username this was posted under. It was the only login listed on bugmenot.com. Any other posts here under this username are likely not from me.
Maxxi Oct 23, 2009 8:57 AM	Morning folks. Geordie, the censorship board currently reports to a minister, and we have a society based broadly on Christian values so far. We would need to get the majority of Australians to be ready to vote that premise away before the CB can take a different direction. The issue with "listening to the people" is the habit of smaller groups making a cacophony of noise, jigging online polls, posting on every related article to a subject repeatedly etc. Yet few turn up to public rally's, which reflects their real broader support, or lack there-of. The national Australian expectations are today measured in election results, as far as national community standards and their application is concerned, as imperfect as that is. I believe that you are now working in politics? Good luck, you have a interesting future in front of you. Hi DanielBrown, I believe that we have crossed wires.... Your sttaements reflect the point I was getting across. I agree with you fully, Freedom of Speech is being misused as a cloak for all manner of questionable or illegal activities today... Hi NumbNuts2009, Malcolm Turnbull be disappointed that you have his Nom de Plume... (joking... lol) I have an even MORE shocking scenario for you, now hold on because this is a revolutionary idea! How about we do both. And now for a real shocker for you: We have both here as well!! Well knock you down with a feather, right? You are actually allowed to have both... Brainwave, huh? We actually do have police going after folks shaking babies as well. And we thought that was a world first here in Australia. Dang. The trivialisation of such acts is a precursor to a rise in the actual instances of such acts in any society. The natural barriers of humanity to the committing of heinous acts is broken down and removed gradually or quicker by the trivialisation, and then humorising of such acts. So mate, if you think it is OK to have games of people shaking babies to death on people's iPhone's, so that they can pass the time of day with that activity... Perhaps games of young girls being gang-raped is a great next idea? How about games where you have to herd all the townfolk into a church and burn it down, whilst dancing and singing to their screams? The scope of the ideas is just breath-taking mate... You are right NumbNuts2009, a reality check is needed.
NumbNuts2009 Oct 23, 2009 12:04 PM	Different NN2009 here, but I agree with my predecessor. I just wanted to raise the point that there's this thing called the internet which has a thing called the world wide web on it which is made up of around 200 million web pages many of which host what are called applications. I wish the Office of Public Morality well in their efforts to save us from teh filth. Won't somebody think of the childrens?
mattaugamer Oct 23, 2009 2:49 PM	I'd like to correct IT News on this. Donald McDonald (best name ever) is not the "Commonwealth Censorship Minister". No such position exists, and this article's capitalisation suggests it's an actual title. He's the Director of the Classification Board. An independent board that reports to the Minister for Home Affairs. As for this concept... the idea is laughable. There are simply too many titles to investigate, and the Classification Board is already doing an apallingly inconsistent job of what it's already taking on. The job of the Classification Board is to act in the interests of the people of Australia and help them make informed decisions. Not to extend their influence into new areas where they are neither needed nor wanted.
NumbNuts2009 Oct 23, 2009 4:18 PM	I'm also from bugmenot, so not the same NumbNuts2009 as the above posters. -- "Geordie, the censorship board currently reports to a minister, and we have a society based broadly on Christian values so far" Why should censorship and classification be based on Christian values? Who put you in charge of what everyone else can do and see? -- "The issue with "listening to the people" is the habit of smaller groups making a cacophony of noise" Small groups... like religious factions with nothing better to do with their time? -- "How about we do both." How about NO. -- "The trivialisation of such acts is a precursor to a rise in the actual instances of such acts in any society" Don't condemn people for actions they haven't taken yet. Innocent until proven guilty. A guy down at the pub talking about how he plans to drink drive and speed all the way home IS NOT THE SAME as him actually drinking and speeding home. No one here is defending child pornography, rape or any other heinous crime. -- "So mate, if you think it is OK to have games of people shaking babies to death on people's iPhone's, so that they can pass the time of day with that activity..." No one said that, and Apple removed the app immediately WITHOUT HELP FROM THE CLASSIFICATION BOARD. -- "Perhaps games of young girls being gang-raped is a great next idea" Apple wouldn't approve it, so that's not a concern here. Here's a thought: There's currently about 35 games released a day for the iPhone/iPod touch. If classification costs $1000 each tittle (and based on what CADS change for TV ads, that seems a reasonable assumption), The Classification Board would net over $12.7mil a year. I think this has nothing to do with "thinking of the children" and everything to do with money. Dirty, stinking money.
NumbNuts2009 Oct 23, 2009 4:20 PM	Also worth noting: we don't have the legal right to "freedom of speech" like the US does. I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just the current state of play.
bengrubb Oct 23, 2009 4:38 PM	@mattaugamer Australia does have a Commonwealth Censorship Minister. That Minister is Brendan O'Connor. You can confirm that from this PDF on the Attorney General's website: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~t_June+2009Censorship+Minsiters+Contact+list.pdf/$file/t_June+2009Censorship+Minsiters+Contact+list.pdf Edited by bengrubb: 23/10/2009 05:07:33 PM Edited by bengrubb: 23/10/2009 08:34:48 PM
mattaugamer Oct 23, 2009 6:36 PM	Dammit. That breaks my 33 year streak of being right about everything and smarter than everyone else. Oh well, was good while it lasted. @NumbNuts2009 (which I think means Anon) we do have some legal rights in that we are a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human rights. But it's not part of a bill of rights, as the US has it. Arguable whether it should be.
bengrubb Oct 23, 2009 7:59 PM	@mattaugamer Haha.
Maxxi Oct 23, 2009 11:39 PM	Hi NN2009, how are the numb ones hangin'...? I'm also from bugmenot, so not the same NumbNuts2009 as the above posters. [Maxxi] It has become a veritable plague of numbed ones...... -- "Geordie, the censorship board currently reports to a minister, and we have a society based broadly on Christian values so far" Why should censorship and classification be based on Christian values? Who put you in charge of what everyone else can do and see? [Maxxi] Because that is the way it all started NN, check our Anglo-European history aspect... You are free to get into politics like Geordie and change that. Simply demanding it magically change is not going to work... -- "The issue with "listening to the people" is the habit of smaller groups making a cacophony of noise" Small groups... like religious factions with nothing better to do with their time? [Maxxi] They are another aspect of the noise levels. I cannot say if they have anything else to do with their time, do you and I? -- "How about we do both." How about NO. [Maxxi] How about yes... That is what we are already doing actually, just to set the record straight NN... -- "The trivialisation of such acts is a precursor to a rise in the actual instances of such acts in any society" Don't condemn people for actions they haven't taken yet. Innocent until proven guilty. [Maxxi] Trivialisation is an action that is already happening. causation is causation NN. That is also a strange assertion, that we should not be conscious of acts that premeditate or cause other actions or consequences. You might want to have a think about that... A guy down at the pub talking about how he plans to drink drive and speed all the way home IS NOT THE SAME as him actually drinking and speeding home. [Maxxi] The guy who gets drunk and trvialises getting drunk and driving may well influence others to do this. I have personally seen that example so often, so often in Australian life. One morning we received the news that one of our cricket club members was sraped off a lamp-post by the polcie, drunk and racing his also drunkl mate through the suburbs at 1AM. You really want to have a think about trivialisation and causation. "She'll be right mate, you don't have far to drive... hic" No one here is defending child pornography, rape or any other heinous crime. [Maxxi] I did not think for a second that you were NN. -- "So mate, if you think it is OK to have games of people shaking babies to death on people's iPhone's, so that they can pass the time of day with that activity..." No one said that, and Apple removed the app immediately WITHOUT HELP FROM THE CLASSIFICATION BOARD. [Maxxi] No input from the CB at all? I read differently NN... -- "Perhaps games of young girls being gang-raped is a great next idea" Apple wouldn't approve it, so that's not a concern here. [Maxxi] Others do NN, Apple is not the only media broadcaster / provider on the internet... Here's a thought: There's currently about 35 games released a day for the iPhone/iPod touch. If classification costs $1000 each tittle (and based on what CADS change for TV ads, that seems a reasonable assumption), The Classification Board would net over $12.7mil a year. [Maxxi] Market regulation has it's costs. I think this has nothing to do with "thinking of the children" and everything to do with money. [Maxxi] Having a cynical streak now are we? When nothing else works , suggest "it is only for the money".. Soz mate but give it a break... Dirty, stinking money. [Maxxi] I just took a note from my wallet, had a look and a sniff. Is not dirty, does not stink. I suggest you swap your bills NN. I doubt people work at the CB due to the big bucks they can earn, and I doubt many Australians will be swayed by accusations that the CB is a money grubber...
NumbNuts2009 Oct 24, 2009 12:21 AM	--"Because that is the way it all started NN, check our Anglo-European history aspect" This isn't a history lesson. Australia should celebrate its multicultural present and future. Even if a majority faith carries certain beliefs in a country, state and church should remain separate. There's certainly NO place for religion in governing ratings, classifications and censorship. That's a very dangerous combination. -- "No input from the CB at all? I read differently NN..." The app was removed worldwide and very swiftly (within two days). Are you so arrogant that you think CB played an important role in its removal? -- "Market regulation has it's costs." ...which just happen to line your pockets. Excuse me if I remain a little cynical. You don't see the conflict of interest? -- "we should not be conscious of acts that premeditate or cause other actions or consequences. You might want to have a think about that." Here's my thought: Thoughts are thoughts and actions are actions. We should not punish people for their thoughts, only their actions. There's no law in Australia that I'm aware of that is based on thoughts, only laws based actions. You seem to be trying to muddy the water here. It's very, very black and white. Either someone has done something or they have not. -- "Others do NN, Apple is not the only media broadcaster / provider on the internet..." So you're going to try to classify, rate and censor other channels? Let me know how you go with that. There's well over 120 million websites on the WWW, so it might take a while. But hey, someone has to protect the innocents.
Slatts Oct 24, 2009 3:13 PM	NumbNuts2009 wrote: Dirty, stinking money. You'll burn in hell for that! do you see me belittling your god?
Maxxi Oct 24, 2009 5:20 PM	Hi NumbNuts2009, they still so numb? The law in Australia also recognises intent and incitement, as well as negligence as a basis for guilt and contravention of the law. Thoughts are actions NumbNuts, even if not physical actions. Depiciting a baby being shalken to death on a game was and is a physical action, which places initial resposponsibility and accountability with the publishers. In this case Apple. Our laws are bit more sophisticated than just recognising physical actions as the basis for accountability... The world is not just black and white, there are manifold shades of grey in between. The law may be black and white in Iran or Nth Korea, but not here... Even our laws recognises shades and degrees of accountability, and apply law according to the individual's degree of accountability. The same here. No mud, just the degree of accountability applied to the degree of intent, negligence and actioning. Many a wise person has advised that "we ignore history at our peril..." Australia is still a predominantly Christian values society. And no NumbNuts, I do not belong to any church or church organisation... lol... (Before that line begins..) It is simply so, even if you wish it wasn't. Well, there are a couple of web security companies that have classified between 2 billion and 3.2 billion webpages. Those are ones that their customers are visiting. The good ones classify webpages as they are encountered, with sites flagged as potentially illegal" going to human review, as well as all sites manually submitted due to complaints... You wiull have to live with the fact NumbedNuts, that it is not acceptable for any society, even the highly free societies of Scandanavia, to have unregulated media channels. It simply does not work.
Maxxi Oct 24, 2009 5:20 PM	Hi NumbNuts2009, they still so numb? The law in Australia also recognises intent and incitement, as well as negligence as a basis for guilt and contravention of the law. Thoughts are actions NumbNuts, even if not physical actions. Depiciting a baby being shalken to death on a game was and is a physical action, which places initial resposponsibility and accountability with the publishers. In this case Apple. Our laws are bit more sophisticated than just recognising physical actions as the basis for accountability... The world is not just black and white, there are manifold shades of grey in between. The law may be black and white in Iran or Nth Korea, but not here... Even our laws recognises shades and degrees of accountability, and apply law according to the individual's degree of accountability. The same here. No mud, just the degree of accountability applied to the degree of intent, negligence and actioning. Many a wise person has advised that "we ignore history at our peril..." Australia is still a predominantly Christian values society. And no NumbNuts, I do not belong to any church or church organisation... lol... (Before that line begins..) It is simply so, even if you wish it wasn't. Well, there are a couple of web security companies that have classified between 2 billion and 3.2 billion webpages. Those are ones that their customers are visiting. The good ones classify webpages as they are encountered, with sites flagged as potentially illegal" going to human review, as well as all sites manually submitted due to complaints... You will have to live with the fact NumbedNuts, that it is not acceptable for any society, even the highly free societies of Scandanavia, to have unregulated media channels. It simply does not work.
anonymous Oct 24, 2009 5:49 PM	Hey, one Maxxi advocate for secret-government-censorship is enough, so watch that bouncin' finger. Saying that not many people opposed to Net censorship show up at public meetings is pretty irrelevant since most of us have work commitments. That does not mean that few people care about the avenue for corruption that is opened up by secret government censorship. People and companies who would like to get work related to applying the censorship regime are fully entitled to try and sway the rest of us, and we are fully entitled to say that we think the whole concept is silly at best and anti-democratic bastardry at worst.
Maxxi Oct 24, 2009 7:13 PM	anonymous, that comment was no reflection on the people that actively campaign against the filter. It was an observation on the degree of broader public interest in the subject. In that context it is relevant. Take a walk down history lane and look at th numbers of people and the efforts against the Franklin River descecration or the Vietnam War... Significant difference. I will watch that finger, noted... Avenues for corruption lie in every walk of life and every set of laws anon, just assuming or predicting/forecasting that this policy invites or predetermines corruption in our Australian society is pretty heavy speculation at best, disingenious is closer. There is zero proof that the classification board will indulge in corruption. If you believe that it is only people and companies trying to get work from the filter proposals that see benefits from the initiative, or that this is the only reason they would comment, then you understand very little or choose to admit very little knowledge of human nature... Are you saying that the only reason someone would see benefits in this policy is that they would get work from it? You are entitled to say what you believe, no issue. But that does not mean it is correct. The same applies to my views... BTW, I was not aware that this highly publicized "censorship" was secret? I have seen thousands of comments and various media coverage on it. Not much of secrecy there anon...
NumbNuts2009 Oct 25, 2009 9:56 PM	@Maxxi What kind of effect do you think enforced classifications would have on the local development community? Do you care? The logical outcome is that most developers simply would not bother releasing in Australia. Is that wise, especially when no other country has what you're suggesting.
NumbNuts2009 Oct 25, 2009 10:00 PM	The most important question: How would additional classifications benefit consumers (the same consumers that are paying for the classifications), given that the current mobile stores already have classifications in place?
NumbNuts2009 Oct 25, 2009 11:16 PM	Unlike movies app get updated. Would every version of every app require reclassification? It's completely unworkable. Seriously Maxxi, give up now before you get in over your head.
Maxxi Oct 26, 2009 8:18 AM	Good morning Numbnuts....You seem to labor under the misguided and irresponsible impression that media applications are or should somehow be exempt from classification in Australia. That will not happen. There must be some form of classification or controls. Either the industry self-regulates to an acceptable degree or the classification board will step in. As the industry has not been self-regulating to an acceptable degree, the CB has been forced to intervene. Why this basic principle of media regulation in Australia so hardfor some people to comprehend. Cries of "it is too hard" or "leave the apps alone" or whatever are of little relevance to a regulation body whose job it is to find a regulation model for all forms of media in the country... Classifications will have an effect on all groups involved NumbNuts, but it would only be introduced if publishers and media channels have crossed the line and published content that has contravened their agreements with the CB on self-regulation. Why is that so hard for some folks to understand. Saying you do not like it, or against it, does not change those facts. I seriously doubt your doomsday assertion that developers will not release in Australia, what a load of poppycock... lol. As a couple of recent examples has shown, the industry self-regulation has not functioned correctly. What were the apps in question doing in the store and on the phones? But the next question is whether the industry can control all apps and media channels? I would not think so, they have little or restricted control scope as it is... The industry will need to find control and review models that differentiate between operational and content related updates in the apps NumbNuts, as the CB will not be interested in a better firmware release on how to shale the bay to death... It is not unworkable NumbNuts, and if anyone seems to have little understanding of how this industry works, and is prone to making pretty naive assertions based on something hwe simply does not like, it is yourself. You are already way in over your head. I have been a developer and a publisher of online content. Many of your questions show a distinct lack of actual knowledge of the intereaction of the development, publishing and content regulation industries...
Sams Oct 26, 2009 11:05 AM	NN wrote: "Unlike movies app get updated. Would every version of every app require reclassification?" maxxi wrote: "You are already way in over your head. I have been a developer and a publisher of online content. Many of your questions show a distinct lack of actual knowledge of the intereaction of the development, publishing and content regulation industries..." How come you couldn't answer his (good) questions then?
listohan Oct 29, 2009 12:03 PM	When the Classification Board has a few moments, perhaps they would like to cast their eye over YouTube. That would build their empire for them.