Comments on: Only 32% of current ACMA blacklist is child abuse material

By: Conroy spreads more misinformation as PM and ACMA websites attacked - Somebody Think Of The Children

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:40:14 +0000

[...] fact, in May of this year the Government revealed that the blacklist (at the time) contained only 32% child abuse material. Another 19% was refused classification material and the remaining [...]

By: Actualize

Actualize — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:27:38 +0000

“Only 32% of current ACMA blacklist is child abuse material”

Actually this is completely incorrect – 32% may be _’alleged’_ child abuse content – but it is not confirmed (the ACMA list is all alleged, almost none of it has actually been classified by the Classifications Board). Many people have seen the URLs on the list – and it seems like the ‘actual’ illegal content is closer to 5% than to 32%.

By: Say it with me now. « Imho

Say it with me now. « Imho — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:52:27 +0000

[...] is trying to polish a turd. Fucking pointless. Also, the ACMA secretive blacklist will only block a third of child abuse images. Oh yeah, also, what’s the point in having a list of things that [...]

By: Toejam

Toejam — Tue, 26 May 2009 03:48:42 +0000

He never actually said that the blacklist contains “only RC material”. What he said (on Insight and Triple J) was that the ALP *policy* was to block “almost exclusively RC material” and that it had never been otherwise (a lie in and of itself).

But six months ago — back before the leaks, back when the policy was still “ACMA prohibited content” — he *did* say that the blacklist was “mostly child pornography.” An assertion is even more of a lie now than it was then.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Tue, 26 May 2009 01:10:50 +0000

“During a Senate Standing Legislation Committee for Environment, Communications & the Arts, they revealed that the list contains 51% refused classification material (which includes child abuse material), meaning the other 49% is rated X18+ or less.

Given these numbers, 68% of the current list is almost definitely legal content.”

Well, this contradicts Conroy’s claim that the blacklist ONLY contains RC material.

By: Max T

Max T — Mon, 25 May 2009 22:33:20 +0000

This pack of incompetents needs to be disbanded.

NO black-list.

NO censorship.

NO ACMA.

Damn good thing!

By: Toejam

Toejam — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:25:15 +0000

“How many of those 90% of new cases are people testing the waters…?”

And how many of them are part of Jim Wallace’s Zombie Horde trying to “support the government’s initiative?”

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:55:50 +0000

How much of the lists that were leaked contained any child abuse material? I don’t recall hearing anyone finding anything of that nature on the lists, and the few random sites I went to were mostly all commercial porn. There wasn’t any child porn on the leaked ACMA blacklists, was there? What a load of crock.

By: Colin Jacobs

Colin Jacobs — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:35:33 +0000

The 90% increase struck me, too – ACMA said it was due to “increased awareness” amongst the public, which is certainly a result of the ISP-level filtering proposal. How many of those 90% of new cases are people testing the waters and seeing just where the boundaries of ACMA’s mandate are?