three cheers for wikileaks.

>> The greatest concern of the blacklist being leaked is that it will provide a road map for those seeking to find these illegal sites.

this is nonsense. the whole point of the list is that the links are then disabled in australia. it doesn't matter much whether you're given a road map if the bridge is out.

>>The blacklist will also provide vital clues to these people in their quest for finding like sites.

the idea that anybody looking for such nasty stuff is short of "vital clues" is just silly.

the arguments against secrecy are obvious and overwhelming. but i truly don't see any argument for it. does anybody? is there any plausible argument whatsoever for the secrecy of this list?

I'm no fan of the proposed filter either, but a lot of disinformation is being disseminated about the current prohibited content list and its impacts.

The criteria for material being prohibited content are clearly specified in the schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch7.html

It should be noted that the expression "prohibited content" is just a way of cross-referencing within the legislation. It could just as easily been "XYZ". The appearance of the word "prohibited" has no legal significance.

The main problem is that even content that would be, or is, classified MA15+, is prohibited (subject to certain other criteria) if there's no mechanism in place to prevent access by everyone. This means that even quite innocuous content is deemed prohibited by the legislation. Indeed, even Channel Nine's downloadable Underbelly 2 episodes (which have been broadcast on FTA TV at 8:30pm) escape being prohibited content only by virtue of the fact that they are free (don't ask me why - that's just the way the legislation reads).

It remains unclear, because Conroy won't give a straight answer, whether any mandatory filter would be applying the same rules.

As for getting fined for posting links to prohibited content - there are no such fines. What you can get fined for is failing to act on a link-deletion notice. But before you can fail to act on one, you first have to receive one. Indeed, it's the service providers (those with the hardware) who have to act, rather than those posting the links.

Sylvia.

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction - or at least, convenient hypocrisy - in parts of the blacklist proponent's argument?

First, they argue that illegal material is rampant, and easily stumbled upon, on the Internet, so we must protect our kiddies via an internet blacklist.

Then we are told that publishing the blacklist will make it easier for users to find illegal material.

Which is true? Is illegal material easily found, or is what amounts to a directory of sites needed?

Also, it transpires that the blacklist may have as few as 2395 sites on it. Given that, as of February 2007, the Netcraft web survey found 108,810,358 distinct websites, and estimates of web *pages* range around 30,000,000,000, it would appear that either illegal sites are not as rampant as proponents claim (0.002% or less), or the blacklist is going to be extraordinarily ineffective.

If you count pages as opposed to sites, the numbers are even more miniscule.

So, even if Steven Conroy was able to plump his list out to 10,000 sites, the alleged prohibited material still represents a drop in the ocean.

It would seem that the United States Attorneys General were right when they found that, contrary to perceptions, the internet was actually an extremely safe place for children.

It's a scary area the internet. I read of someone in Australia being charged with pedophilia crimes because they had mock cartoons of Simpsons characters having sex in their posession. I know for a fact that many many people have seen and sent these. Also bestiality porn can you you into serious trouble, and again, many many people have seen such things. On the internet it is very easy to access otherwise perverted (to the extent of being illegal) material, and so many people do. Those accused people won't receive wide public support for their defence because we're all to scared to be branded too.

It's difficult reconciling the internet domain with the otherwise heavily regulated and heavily censored version of the public media which we are used to. The internet reflects a more raw uncensored version of our existence in which quite perverse subjects are given air time. That's not to say we've all changed for it, but we just didn't have the wired outlet for those subjects previously. The government needs to realise this and cut the internet some slack, they don't come into my house and tell me which subjects are ripe for discussion, they also shouldn't invade my private corner of the internet and do the same.

I agree with all posters .

I wish something could be done however to get rid of some of the porn .

I believe everyone will with maturity agree that everything has to be regulated , no exceptions .

I have 5 kids all very "up" on the internet , they know how to get around all the Net Nannies etc , they even know how to get around passwords , unlock mobile phones etc .
I don't think they are looking to find out anything specific it's just another challenge .

I can't believe that the juvenile porn is harmless , something needs to be done .
I notice no one has made any suggestions that might help Conroy in his quest .
Please remember that Conroy is a member of a "Govt of Grand Gestures" and is bound to be impulsive .

The really scary thing about the internet filtering proposal is that in spite of all its obvious flaws, it hasn't been put out of its misery.

The only logical explanation is that the filtering is a censorship tool that the gov wishes to use to censor all undesirable comment.

I would guess that the next sites to be added to the black list would be that of the liberal party and anyone that thinks Conroy is a pr*ck. Oops there goes OLO.