The recent leaking of Australia’s ISP filtering blacklist on WikiLeaks has raised more questions than it has provided answers. The government has long maintained that the blacklist was created with the purpose of preventing access to child pornography, and while the blacklist did contain a large number of sites of a truly vile nature, it comes as little surprise that there were a few extras thrown in for good measure. Among the 2,395 sites that are on the list there are also online poker sites, certain Wikipedia pages, YouTube links, gay and straight porn sites, euthanasia pages, sites belonging to fringe religions and some Christian websites. It also comes as no surprise that there were some seemingly erroneous inclusions of private businesses and medical practitioners.
In response to the leak, the ACMA has stated:
ACMA has previously investigated and taken action on material—including child pornography and child sexual abuse images—at some of the sites on this list of 2300 URLs. However, the list provided to ACMA differs markedly in length and format to the ACMA blacklist. The ACMA blacklist has at no stage been 2300 URLs in length and at August 2008 consisted of 1061 URLs. It is therefore completely inaccurate to say that the list of 2300 URLs constitutes an ACMA blacklist.
None of the 14 IIA approved filter vendors that have access to the list have jumped to their defense. Which, leads me to believe that the list is most likely authentic.
According to Electronic Frontiers Australkia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs:
This was bound to happen, especially as mandatory filtering would require the list to be distributed to ISPs all around the country. The Government is now in the unenviable business of compiling and distributing a list which includes salacious and illegal material and publicising those very sites to the world.
Privacy advocates would argue that a blacklist leaves the door open for other types of censorship and that people who wish to access illegal material will find their way to it one way or another; a claim which gains strength considering the various types of sites that are on the list. In creating a filter, the government is also creating a defacto monitoring system, that places all Internet use under constant surveillance.
Then there are the technical aspects of censorship. It constricts rapidly increasing traffic and slows the flow of information. It is not simply a matter of blocking access to the sites on the list; all Internet use must be monitored in order to prevent access to the blacklisted sites. Thus, as the number of sites on the list grows, the speed of user traffic will decrease. Australia’s Internet is already embarrassingly slow for a developed country a nation-wide filtration system would constitute a further step back. At the present speed, medical practitioners are forced to send high definition imagery by courier, rather than electronically; so one could hardly argue that the speed is fast enough.
If an illegal site finds its way onto the list then one might argue that at best it is a poorly kept secret. Surely there is more to be gained by by keeping the knowledge of such sites a secret, and then infiltrating them to monitor the user-base and follow up by making arrests. In recent years there have been some extremely significant successes to this end, these are the results of sound investigative work and the cooperation of law enforcement on an international scale; and not as a result of censorship. Hiding the content does not prevent the abuse that occurs in its creation; whether it is blocked or not, the website still exists. Censorship is a head-in-the-sand approach to the real problem.
The blacklist is a secret, which leaves people with no recourse should their website find its way onto the list erroneously, they may not even know that their website has been placed on the list. The WikiLeaks document proved that not only could it happen, but that it has happened. Were the nation-wide filter in place, these businesses could suffer irreparable damage. Maintaining the list would be a task of awesome responsibility, yet there has been no disclosure of who or what organization would carry out the task.
Further, there is there any clarification as to what would be grounds for blacklisting. Why, for example, are there poker sites on the list when offshore gambling and poker had not previously been mentioned by the government? The list included such well known poker sites as Party Poker and Full Tilt, a poker site owned by a number of World Series of Poker players; Bet Fair and Mansions also made the list of gambling sites. Presumably, anyone in Australia linking to any of these sites would run the risk of being issued an $11,000 fine, which is the same fine that would be issued for posting a link to WikiLeaks, the latest edition to the list. The only mention of gambling is with regards to the family-friendly filter system, not to the nation-wide blacklist, which falls under Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act.
According to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA):
If ACMA receives a complaint about prohibited internet gambling content that is hosted in Australia, ACMA will refer the matter to the Australian Federal Police.
If prohibited internet gambling content is hosted outside Australia, ACMA will notify the content to makers of the approved Family Friendly Filters listed in Schedule 1 to the Interactive Gambling Act Industry code.
I will grant that the Internet censorship scheme was conceived with good intentions, but history has shown that governments should not be allowed to dictate the flow of information into a country. Certainly, there are some vile sites on the Internet, and people should be prosecuted for maintaining or visiting them, but slowing the speed of a nation’s broadband in the hope of preventing a few people from finding their way into such places is not the solution. The list has proven to be fallible and the government has chosen to be less than forthcoming as to the sites that are on it and the criteria for selection; reason enough for the Australian public to do their utmost to ensure that the concept never becomes reality. [ACMA]
UPDATE To date the only support that the ACMA appears to be getting is from WebShield (a link will be provided in due course).
Response on Somebodythinkofthechildren:
I can also reveal that a URL I believed to be prohibited content and submitted to ACMA this year for further investigation is included on this list.
– Thanks Michael
Related Posts :
15 responses
Mar 22, 2009 at 10:59 am
How much do you want to be 4chan’s on that list?
Mar 22, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Thanks for that correction Michael, yes it should have read filter providers not ISPs.
Also, I will throw that webshield link up sometime this afternoon or evening; whenever I get 15 minutes of uninterrupted Internet access.
Mar 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm
4chan is not on the list as far as I am aware. So taking your bet would be a little unfair of me.
EDIT: It appears that I was wrong!
Mar 22, 2009 at 7:33 pm
4chan is at least on one of the lists.
I think it was removed on the March 18th list. I’d have to double-check it.
Mar 22, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Thought i’d help you out C. S. Magor. I know I didn’t provide the link about WebShield also doubting authenticity in my initial correction e-mail (well, form submission) to you.
It’s here: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/99138,anthony-pillion-casts-doubt-on-acma-blacklist-leak.aspx
Again, he’s not totally denying that the list isn’t the ACMA blacklist. My guess is the 6th August 2008 list, from the Integard Pro software (Websites_ACMA.txt) contained at the very least, the entire ACMA blacklist, and then variations of URLs, for more effective blocking.
No-one, not ACMA, not DBCDE, have denied that the list contains the ACMA blacklist. They’ve said that URLs are on it that aren’t on the blacklist (perhaps variations of URLs that are?), but not the other way round, that they have URLs on their blacklist that aren’t on the leaked one. No-one has said the latter.
.. but seeing as people have submitted sites, had them put on the blacklist, didn’t tell anyone publically, but have found that the latest leaked blacklist has their submission on it, then i’m going to have to say the list is real.
Veckans Tankebrott: Censur & Religiös krigföring « Tankebrott
Mar 22, 2009 at 8:20 pm
[...] antal sajter som ska hindra australiensare att besöka dessa. I veckan dök ett dokument upp på Wikileaks som sägs vara denna svartlistningslista, en lista som visade sig innehålla så mycket mer än [...]
Mar 22, 2009 at 8:35 pm
“Certainly, there are some vile sites on the Internet, and people should be prosecuted for maintaining or visiting them”
What you just said is exactly in line with that Conjob is trying to implement. Its not up to YOU, Michael, just like its not up to the Government to decide what I or anybody else can view on the internet. If you don’t like my fire, then don’t come around. If you don’t like what’s on the internet, don’t go to it. Apart from making stupid statements like that, this whole article just seems to be a summary of everything written on the news websites over the weekend – news.com.au, smh.com.au etc etc.
Gtfo.
Mar 22, 2009 at 9:51 pm
NickK, I didn’t write the article. He was thanking me for corrections.
C. S. Magor wrote it.
Mar 22, 2009 at 10:07 pm
On the first leaked list, 4chan’s /b/ was blocked (just the homepage though, none of the threads were blocked). I haven’t seen the newer lists, because wikileaks is still broken… however, there are, as has been mentioned elsewhere, perfectly legal porn sites, gambling sites, etc. on the newest blacklist as well as possible RC content, shock sites (lemon party, 2girls1cup, etc.) and maybe even child porn, I don’t know for sure, I haven’t clicked on any of the links.
Mar 22, 2009 at 10:42 pm
4chan could well have been there – it was a long list and I only skimmed it. There were some pretty awful sounding URLs on there.
Mar 22, 2009 at 10:46 pm
NickK, it wasn’t a summary – it was an opinion piece.
Why is the statement that people operating and maintaining sites that promote the abuse of children stupid?
For the record, I am completely against censorship, having lived in a country where it was actively practiced for more than ten years. I am completely against the nation-wide filter, but I do think that people who visit sites that promote abuse and the people that run them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law wherever they might be.
Mar 22, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Thanks for posting that link Michael – I actually read the response last night I just didn’t have time to track it down before work.
Australia: How about extra censorship?-Uber Review « FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand
Mar 24, 2009 at 1:39 pm
[...] What the Leaked Australian Internet Blacklist Says About Censorship Uber Review: March 22, [...]
Mar 29, 2009 at 7:56 am
Lets just say I’ve seen the list and it’s not just filtering out pedo-incest-bestiality junk.
Actually, only under half the list is related to that, the rest are gambling sites, soft, mild & hardcore porn sites, gore sites. Even the famous Abby Winters and Tube Kings are on it. I Shoot Myself is on it too. If anyone has ever seen I Shoot Myself content is is not even remotely porn related. It’s barely erotica. The fact that this is being censored is of great concern to me.
Stephen Conroy the lying inbred mongrel clearly stated in an ABC interview “only content that can’t be rated” will be on that list. Well, this just proves even material that can be rated makes that list.
The list is illegal to distribute & the http://www.wikileaks.org page linking to the list is already blacklisted and you can’t even load it. So if you want to take a look at it you need to google search “proxy site” (like http://www.freeproxyserver.net) and use a gateway to access the list.
It’s times like this the movie 1984 & the Hitler quote grimly & eerily portend our fate:
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” – Adolf Hitler.
So now that the Australian government are proven lairs and are not only banning pedophilia but anything gambling, gore and porn related, do you guys think their list will keep growing to eventually include political content sites and anything anti-establishment?
Hang Conroy you criminal and take those Mormons from Family First with you!
Mar 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Hi Anon,
I don’t think that the page is already blacklisted. Wikileaks has been up and down due to hardware issues and the amount of traffic since the list was published. I agree that scope creep is the biggest danger of a blacklist. The religious right holds a lot of sway in Australian politics, to my knowledge Family First are comprised mostly of Assemblies of God members, but I could be mistaken. If the blacklist were restricted to preventing access to stuff that is and should be illegal, and would not extend to stuff that some people are offended by then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. The trouble is that is never going to happen. That is why a blacklist that is overseen by the government and kept secret from the people is always going to be flawed.
Today, porn sites and poker sites, tomorrow fringe political groups. As offensive as I found Pauline Hanson back in her prime, her jailing by the former government gave a real sense of the gutter politics that Australia’s government is prepared to play at.
Fortunately, I think the embarrassment that has been caused by the accidental inclusions on the list will help the plan to die a slow and painful death, and hopefully take Conroy’s political career with it (as invariably happens when politicians become to emotionally attached to an unpopular policy).
EDIT: By the way, sorry for taking so long to reply to your comment, but it was well thought out and I felt that it deserved a considered response.
Leave a Comment