Comments on: ACMA’s blacklist stuff up response: “so sue us” http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/26/acmas-blacklist-stuff-up-response-so-sue-us/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:37:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: stephen martin http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/26/acmas-blacklist-stuff-up-response-so-sue-us/#comment-27381 stephen martin Wed, 27 May 2009 00:22:22 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=61335#comment-27381 Surely all that is needed is for blocked sites to be advised of the blocking, with reasons. The right to appeal, again with reasons to ACMA against the blocking. Surely all that is needed is for blocked sites to be advised of the blocking, with reasons. The right to appeal, again with reasons to ACMA against the blocking.

]]> By: Gail Tuft http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/26/acmas-blacklist-stuff-up-response-so-sue-us/#comment-27366 Gail Tuft Tue, 26 May 2009 12:24:39 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=61335#comment-27366 <i>"The vast majority of entries on the blacklist are of criminal and highly objectionable content and its dissemination is therefore inappropriate."</i> Reliable sources indicate that vast majority of entries on the leaked blacklist were bog standard adult material and not vicious, offensive criminal porn. The leaked ACMA blacklist had less than 20 sites in common with the leaked Danish blacklist which really means that child abuse/pornography was not the intent of the list. The IWF list publishes around 1100-1300 as the number of child abuse/pornographic content sites. Of course they operate outside the law and are not subject to any scrutiny so who knows? Trust me, I'm from IWF! Senator Conroy was well aware that the ACMA blacklist was 10 years old (think Alston and Harridine) and specifically designed for use on children's systems. It was supplied to family friendly ISPs, PC based filter vendors and the Howard government NetAlert PC based filter vendor when that scheme was introduced. It was <b>never</b> intended for use on any system used by adults. Trying to pretend that it was a super list of criminal material was stupid in the extreme and Conroy has been cravenly dishonest in all comments on the ACMA list since it was leaked. Had he chosen to be truthful from the start, things may be different. “The vast majority of entries on the blacklist are of criminal and highly objectionable content and its dissemination is therefore inappropriate.”

Reliable sources indicate that vast majority of entries on the leaked blacklist were bog standard adult material and not vicious, offensive criminal porn. The leaked ACMA blacklist had less than 20 sites in common with the leaked Danish blacklist which really means that child abuse/pornography was not the intent of the list. The IWF list publishes around 1100-1300 as the number of child abuse/pornographic content sites. Of course they operate outside the law and are not subject to any scrutiny so who knows? Trust me, I’m from IWF!

Senator Conroy was well aware that the ACMA blacklist was 10 years old (think Alston and Harridine) and specifically designed for use on children’s systems. It was supplied to family friendly ISPs, PC based filter vendors and the Howard government NetAlert PC based filter vendor when that scheme was introduced. It was never intended for use on any system used by adults. Trying to pretend that it was a super list of criminal material was stupid in the extreme and Conroy has been cravenly dishonest in all comments on the ACMA list since it was leaked. Had he chosen to be truthful from the start, things may be different.

]]> By: Moira Smith http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/26/acmas-blacklist-stuff-up-response-so-sue-us/#comment-27351 Moira Smith Tue, 26 May 2009 09:13:28 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=61335#comment-27351 Guilty until proven innocent! Or until you can prove yourself innocent, if you find out you were supposed to be guilty in the first place! Guilty until proven innocent! Or until you can prove yourself innocent, if you find out you were supposed to be guilty in the first place!

]]> By: christophertyne http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/26/acmas-blacklist-stuff-up-response-so-sue-us/#comment-27291 christophertyne Tue, 26 May 2009 04:22:30 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/?p=61335#comment-27291 ACMA's blacklist continues to prove the Achille's heel of democracy. This modern-day version of book-burning is a danger to democracy, not because it filter's out objectionable content, but because of it's secrecy. At least in the past we knew which books were burned and why; or more recently which books were banned and why. Now we don't know which information is banned, why or by whom. The response to these questions appears to be "trust me I'm from ACMA and I'm here to protect you, whether you want to be protected or not"! Perhaps the answer is an opt in blacklist for parents and schools and let the rest of us alone. ACMA’s blacklist continues to prove the Achille’s heel of democracy. This modern-day version of book-burning is a danger to democracy, not because it filter’s out objectionable content, but because of it’s secrecy. At least in the past we knew which books were burned and why; or more recently which books were banned and why. Now we don’t know which information is banned, why or by whom. The response to these questions appears to be “trust me I’m from ACMA and I’m here to protect you, whether you want to be protected or not”! Perhaps the answer is an opt in blacklist for parents and schools and let the rest of us alone.

]]>