Conroy says it’s not the ACMA blacklist
March 19, 2009 – 2:47 pmSenator Stephen Conroy has denied the blacklist published on Wikileaks is the ACMA blacklist, but admits URLs on it are also on his list. Which, he obviously doesn’t say.
ZDNet reports Conroy as saying:
“I am aware of reports that a list of URLs has been placed on a website. This is not the ACMA blacklist,” Conroy said in a statement.
“The published list purports to be current at 6 August 2008 and apparently contains approximately 2,400 URLs whereas the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1,061 URLs,” he said
He admitted the list contained some common URLS, but said that other URLs on the list had never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation.
“ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution,” Conroy said.
It is likely the leaked list includes extra URLs added by a filter vendor. With that said, it was already known that half of the sites included on the ACMA blacklist are legal.
Update: A press release issued by Senator Conroy also states:
“The Government has indicated an interest in using ISP–level filtering technology to block URLs that display content that is Refused Classification under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, including child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.”
“A final decision on the extent of the content filtering proposal will be determined after the conclusion of technical feasibility trials.”
As noted on this blog countless times, blocking RC content means blocking legal content.
Update 2: ACMA has published their response here.
30 Responses to “Conroy says it’s not the ACMA blacklist”
Well, if it isn’t the list we can’t get trouble for distributing it!
By Sam D on Mar 19, 2009
That’s what I was thinking, if it’s not the list then why do they need to care?
By Nick on Mar 19, 2009
Well yes and no, according to Conroy the list contains SOME of the URL’s within the ACMA list.
HE does not specify which ones, and seeing as how the ACMA list is secret and illegal to be published by anyone (including the minister) they could still make life interesting for that list.
What the Senator does not state is how many of the URL’s are the same. Could it be that 1061 of the URL’s in that list of approximately 2400 are the same? And how many of those extra links will now be added onto ACMA’s list?
The Senator has Not stated that the dentist, Canteen, betfair, et al on the WikiLeaks list are not within the ACMA list which leaves the govt open to vicarious liability and/or defamation actions especially from Betfair in the UK.
By G Thompson on Mar 19, 2009
If it’s NOT the ACMA list, then why would an Australian dentist whose site had been taken over by Russian scammers a couple of years ago be on it? Why would another country care about an Australian dentist?
By Ilaeria on Mar 19, 2009
Stephen Conroy: ““I am aware of reports that a list of URLs has been placed on a website. This is not the ACMA blacklist,” Conroy said in a statement.
“The published list purports to be current at 6 August 2008 and apparently contains approximately 2,400 URLs whereas the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1,061 URLs,” he said
He admitted the list contained some common URLS, but said that other URLs on the list had never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation.
“ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution,”
Well, Mr. Conroy, you have lied to us about the list containing mainly child pornography links. Why should the Australian people believe you?
And if you say that this is not the real blacklist, then why are you worrying about it?
By Glenn on Mar 19, 2009
Good one Conroy and ACMA – threaten free speech advocates with “serious risk of criminal prosecution” and $11,000 fines – way to go. We’re getting further down the “Great Firewall” track day by day.
This is also getting more surreal every day. Good stories recently about the Chinese making a laughing stock of their government’s internet filtering system, by reference to a mythical creature known as the “Grass-Mud Horse”:
http://www.watoday.com.au/world/mischievous-protest-against-chinese-censorship-becomes-icon-of-resistance-20090318-924t.html
Maybe we can learn a thing or two for the future in store for us?
By Daniel on Mar 19, 2009
Conroy’s BSing, methinks.
By Eddie on Mar 19, 2009
He hasn’t been honest about anything yet. I’m not sure why he supposes we’ll trust him now.
By james on Mar 19, 2009
It was never claimed on WikiLeaks that the list was the exact ACMA list:
“This list contains 2395 webpages or site variations derived from the those secretly banned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and used by a government approved censorship software maker in its “ACMA only” censorship mode.”
“…Regardless, the complete list is the one that is being used in by the censorship software maker, when placed into “adult – unfiltered” (ACMA) mode.”
So did the censorship software company make a mistake with their “ACMA Mode” – censoring more sites than it should? That would be a disaster (and I thought bugs in voting software was a bad thing!) Or did the WikiLeaks source not know how to extract the correct data?
I’d be willing to bet (online, of course, heh) that this list contains the full ACMA list, plus more.
BTW – what has happened to WikiLeaks.org? I cannot get to it from iPrimus, 3 or from my servers overseas. Slashdot effect?
By zappso on Mar 19, 2009
The ACMA says:
“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.”
But this was never claimed. See above. And you got the 2300 wrong, great research guys.
“ACMA does not consider that the release and promotion of URLs relating to illegal and highly offensive material is responsible.”
Then how about you don’t compile such a list and release it to “fourteen providers of filter software which have been tested and accredited by the Internet Industry Association (IIA)” and then on further to 5000 ISPs nationally?
“ACMA is discussing with the IIA what if any action it may need to take to help ensure that ACMA’s list remain secure.”
That’s easy, ACMA. Encrypt the list and deploy it over a network of tamperproof filter appliances that YOU PAY FOR AND DEPLOY AND CONTROL. Then spend millions more to replicate and balance them so they handle the load of filtering every single web request ever made by children and adults nationwide.
By zappso on Mar 19, 2009
It may actually be the ACMA blacklist. See this Whirlpool post. It explains the method of pulling the blacklist out of the Integard PC Filter.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-reply.cfm?r=18541204
By GW on Mar 19, 2009
Ah Conroy trying to downplay that the blacklist is “the ACMA blacklist”.
The ACMA downplays the blacklist also, but doesn’t flat out deny that half of the list is from them, saying:
“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.”
Also the statements saying that ACMA may get the AFP involved must mean that the “ACMA list” must have really been leaked on wikileaks.
The list on wikileaks had an odd format by date, is it possible that all the URLs on the list were actually ACMA blacklisted sites that were added to the ACMA list without ACMA blacklist URL subtractions? Just a thought though
Regardless on whether the extra URLs are from non-removed URLs or the filter vendor involved, flat out saying that this list is not the ACMA blacklist or similar to it is a complete lie.
By Kyle on Mar 19, 2009
Hmmm – that post has been pulled by Whirlpool’s moderators. Lucky I copied and pasted the method
Another Whirlpudlian has confirmed the method used and repeated the test.
I’m contactable by email if anyone wants the details. It’s a little geeky, but not too difficult.
By GW on Mar 19, 2009
GW, I can’t seem to find that post. The nearest I can find to that POST ID is the 9th post on http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1165174&p=2
“User #277777 Tom Joad This post was hidden by a moderator (inappropriate). Today at 9:39 pm”
But then bits of the original are quoted in a few replies (e.g. on page 4):
“Tom Joad writes…
It’s not the wikileaks list (it’s a month earlier I think) but it sure is similar…and that’s as far as I’m willing to look.”
And the reply:
“anyone told a major news outlet that finding the acma blacklist is as easy as you’ve outlined?”
INAPPROPRIATE my arse! Here was someone explaining how to retrieve the ACMA list from filtering software so it can be compared to the leaked list – so Conroy and the ACMA can be shown to be liars… and what happens? POST DISAPPEARS!
By zappso on Mar 19, 2009
Surely the responsible thing for ACMA (or Conroy) to do now would be to say which sites from the leaked list are (1) NOT, (2) HAVE NEVER BEEN and (3) WOULD NEVER BE on ACMA’s black list.
We should also be told which sites (if any) have been moved onto and off the list, and for what reason.
But then, I suppose it’s too much to ask for a fleck of transparency with a matter so trivial as how free we can be in what we publish.
By voracity on Mar 19, 2009
@GW: I don’t believe describing the method would be illegal, but Whirlpool moderation is very heavy-handed (which is mostly fine, given that’s the way they choose to run an independent site). Please post it somewhere — perhaps here, or if that’s problematic for Mike, I can put it up on my site (you can find my email address there).
Or maybe Wikileaks would be best.
By voracity on Mar 19, 2009
As others have said, Conroy hasn’t explicitly stated how much of the blacklist is in the leak – just that both lists contain some common websites, and that the leaked list contains more URLs.
It greatly concerns me that elements of the wider public might take Conroy’s statements to mean that the list has been fabricated (and therefore believe there is no cause to distrust the government in terms of the type of content that will be filtered).
If only the proposal included judicial oversight of the filter to ensure it was not being abused, along with a requirement that detailed statistics on blocked content be made publicly available.
This would provide a check against abuse by current and future governments, and would neutralize the more emotional censorship/child abuse side of the debate. Doing so would confine the debate to technicalities of the filter and make it easier for those who oppose the filter to express their views without unwarranted accusations.
By Stormcentre on Mar 20, 2009
@GW: WikiLeaks is back up. Care/dare to post up the instructions?
By zappso on Mar 20, 2009
I think we should use the official ACMA statement, not remarks by Conroy. The ACMA statement is the carefully crafted one, checked for accuracy etc. What Conroy says is…well… what conroy says. Specifically, ACMA never says “other URLs on the list had never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation.”
As such, I go into this a bit more on my blogpost on it (http://tinyurl.com/dxjvfc), but essentially they never deny in their statement that the sites leaked were blacklisted.
Rather it says that the ACMA blacklist “has at no stage been 2300 URLs in length and at August 2008 consisted of 1061 URLs.” As the next sentence talks of broken links, I think you can conclude that those sites were blacklisted, but removed from the blacklist when the sites went down. Hence at no time was the blacklist 2300 URL’s, but those 2300 sites were at the blacklist at some stage
By Tim Andrews on Mar 20, 2009
Just confirmed, Integard v1.5 has similar list in similar format dated “June 3 2008″, so the leaked one is just a few revisions newer. The list seems real, and the lolcats are indeed in that list…
By Matti Nikki on Mar 20, 2009
The instructions are on the Wikileaks talk page of the list. And yes, Wikileaks is back up again.
By James on Mar 20, 2009
The word on WP from multiple users is that the sites blocked by filtering software closely match the supposedly false list on wikileaks.
By Sam D on Mar 20, 2009
Yes the mods at Whirlpool pulled the post. I guessed that might happen and kept a copy. Sorry I missed the later comments but the problem has now been solved by posting the methodology on Wikileaks. Did anyone notice Anthony Pillion’s comments? He sits on the Cyber Safety Working Group and runs a Christadelphian non profit “family safe” ISP – Webshield, potentially also resellers of censorware systems. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/99138,breaking-news-acma-blacklist-leaked.aspx
By GW on Mar 20, 2009
Great to see instructions up on WikiLeaks now.
I have verified the ACMA blacklist extracted from InteGard Pro is exactly the same as the leaked list on WikiLeaks. I notice the software doesn’t block every URL though, so there must be more data describing “active” URLs… we’ve already been told the number of URLs should be 1061 for August 2008, that will surely help in the reverse engineering, hehe.
By zappso on Mar 20, 2009
Have any of you read this yet.
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_to_Conroy:_Go_after_our_source_and_we_will_go_after_you
Well done Wikileaks for standing up for peoples rights.
By Kevin on Mar 20, 2009
From the wikileaks twitter page.
“Wikileaks to release full March 18 Australian “ACMA” secret censorship list in 4-8 hours”
By STWA on Mar 20, 2009