Comments on: Conroy says it’s not the ACMA blacklist

By: Internet Filtering: Why Stephen Conroy cannot be trusted | OzSoapbox

Internet Filtering: Why Stephen Conroy cannot be trusted | OzSoapbox — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:33:37 +0000

[...] blacklist, Conroy came out guns blazing and declared that the original August 2008 leaked list was fake. Despite claiming this however, he also stated that; ACMA is investigating this matter and is [...]

By: STWA

STWA — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:53:26 +0000

From the wikileaks twitter page.

“Wikileaks to release full March 18 Australian “ACMA” secret censorship list in 4-8 hours”

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:48:44 +0000

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: Be careful about which sites you link to… « Stormcentre

Be careful about which sites you link to… « Stormcentre — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:06:21 +0000

[...] list (including the website of a Queenland dentist, and a host of other seemingly innocent websites constituting half of the leaked list) were on the official ACMA blacklist at one time or another. Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]

By: zappso

zappso — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:13:25 +0000

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: GW

GW — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:35:59 +0000

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: Sam D

Sam D — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:35:02 +0000

The word on WP from multiple users is that the sites blocked by filtering software closely match the supposedly false list on wikileaks.

By: James

James — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:32:28 +0000

The instructions are on the Wikileaks talk page of the list. And yes, Wikileaks is back up again.

By: Matti Nikki

Matti Nikki — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:28:56 +0000

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: Tim Andrews

Tim Andrews — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:02:28 +0000

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