New ACMA blacklist leaked: 1170 URLs dated March 18
March 20, 2009 – 9:10 pmWikiLeaks has released a copy of what is alleged to be the current ACMA blacklist. This list is dated March 18 and includes 1170 URLs, including the now high-profile AbortionTV page and the Wikileaks page containing the Danish blacklist.
URLs belonging to Betfair, The Peaceful Pill Handbook, Redtube, AbbyWinters, IShotMyself, TheHun and xTube are present on the list.
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.
26 Responses to “New ACMA blacklist leaked: 1170 URLs dated March 18”
And a ballroom dancing site guestbook….. because it has been spammed.
Wouldn’t it be the polite net citizen thing to do to just point it out to them. Nooooo the ACMA doesn’t make contact it just blacklists.
Conroy……. it has already been shown that there was content on your blog that made it on the blacklist & you want to block people from a ballroom dancing guest book?
By Neil_mc on Mar 20, 2009
Wonder what the Minister of Internets response to this one will be.
By Ilaeria on Mar 20, 2009
I wonder if the government is leaking the list so they can round up all those linking to it, charge them and help them pay for their stimulus package
By Sean the Blogonaut on Mar 20, 2009
Sean…. did you say stimulus? No won’t go there. The joke’s been done to death.
I can’t see Conroy declaring the list a fake again. That would be like asking for weekly public updates with commentary on the stupid bits.
Would be much better to just admit that it was a broken idea in the first place.
By Neil_mc on Mar 20, 2009
Holy shit… I leave the interwebz for a few hours and this happens! What will happen next? Will Conroy pull a mask off V style to reveal he is an alien trying to steal our water? (if so, why come to Australia?)
Apologies, shared a few bottles of wine this evening. This is too weird for me. Will contribute something intelligent in the morning.
By Sam D on Mar 20, 2009
I’ve flicked through some of the porn sites and no doubt there are people of questionable age in some of them, but many of those sites (if not all) have a disclaimer at the bottom advising all models are 18+ and so legal at the time of photography.
So the question is, are these sites being blocked purely because they are unsuitable for a child, or are they being blocked because the images presented are of someone who “may” be underage even those the disclaimer advises they are over 18.
Don’t get me wrong I’ve got no intention of looking at pictures of underage girls or boys, but I’ve known plenty of people of both sexes who well into their 20’s (myself included) could pass for someone under 18, and vice versa 15 years who look in their 20’s. Just looking at an image on it’s own is useless as you can only guess at the age of the participant.
And of course that’s before the other non-pornographic sites are considered, many of those being legitimate business who are being unfairly discriminated against or completely shutdown with no notification and no reasoning.
I hope that Rudd calls an election soon, because this combined with the nonsense stimulus package he shouldn’t have a hope of getting back in.
By Terry on Mar 21, 2009
The sites are being blocked because someone submitted them to the ACMA for review and someone working there agreed they were offensive.
Children don’t even come into the equation, any random person at ACMA opens up your complaint and agrees with you, and bam the website is added to the list.
By OzSoapbox on Mar 21, 2009
This just gets better and better, It’s almost like we’re living i some weird parallel universe, where all the governments worst nightmares come true.
By Big Pete on Mar 21, 2009
Was the previous list URLs that didn’t have the old links removed? Was that the fault of the software vendor or the ACMA?
I wonder what Conroys response will be this time, wouldn’t really surprise me if they just don’t respond to it and pretend the second list didn’t get released. Either that or a flat out denial that the list is real.
Any other response from senator Conroy would be out of character…
By Kyle on Mar 21, 2009
Just be careful investigating those links guys. You can be sure some WILL be real kiddie fiddler sites, and those sites may well be under police surveilance.
Dont get raided.
By don on Mar 21, 2009
Kyle, what most likely happened was that the ACMA added certain URLs to their master blacklist, which was then provided to the software vendor. Subsequent investigation probably resulted in some of those links being removed from the ACMA list, but the vendor failed to remove them from the list used in their filtering software.
I have no doubt that all of the URLs that were present on the first leaked list were, at some time, on the ACMA blacklist.
By Stephen Conroy's Great Grandfather on Mar 21, 2009
I guess we need to keep repeating the point: The ACMA blacklist can and does contain material which is perfectly legal for adults to view. Any content rated MA15+ or greater can be added to the blacklist if it isn’t protected by an age-verification mechanism.
For details of the the existing censorship system works, see Libertus.net.
At the moment, the blacklist is something provided to the makers of content filtering software and systems. Under the mandatory filtering plan, all Internet connections would be filtered.
By Stilgherrian on Mar 21, 2009
“Just be careful investigating those links guys. You can be sure some WILL be real kiddie fiddler sites, and those sites may well be under police surveilance.
Dont get raided.”
Getting raided would be kind of amusing.
AFP: Why were you looking at kiddie porn?!
Random guy: I clicked the link from a list the Australian government is distributing.
AFP: …
By OzSoapbox on Mar 21, 2009
don, don’t worry, I was using Tor at the time to disguise my identity
By Terry on Mar 21, 2009
Nooooooooo! Not TheHun! I cannot live without TheHun!!!
By fitzroyalty on Mar 22, 2009
I was looking through the list and noticed some worrying things.
1. anonym.to – It’s a link anonymizing and redicrection service to hide referrers from accesslogs. Censoring that doesn’t censor any of the link destinations, and the real links are always plain readable in the URLs. Is this deliberate or are people at ACMA just clueless?
2. angelsofpornvideo – the URL has ip=202.14.232.21 in it, and that IP belongs to ACMA network. The site seems to assign user IP into the URL. So, ultimately, only the people who follow the link from the leaked list will be blocked, because nobody else is gonna get that exact URL unless ACMA is sharing the link some other way.
3. b0g. The internet shithole which contains the most nasty shit the earth has seen, and they only blocked one single article. Apparently they aren’t investigating the reported pages, but instead just process the specific URLs given to them. Another example is e621 where several cartoon “cub” images are censored, but on the left side there’s a link to thousand more – none censored.
4. The zntube URL. The address has referrer and search terms listed, which make it look like the user came from au.search.yahoo.com and was looking for “rachael taylor nude” when something unpleasant came up instead.
These cases highlight the incompetence of ACMA in making the list, but also raise several other questions. For instance, do people report these URLs only to ACMA and assume they’ll take care of everything? If only ACMA receives the report and illegal content (child porn) is involved, are proper law enforcement authorities informed?
Here in Finland the NBI is maintaining their secret blacklist, and apparently foreign law enforcement agencies are NOT informed about illegal sites in their jurisdiction. Further, no action is taken to actually get rid of the illegal content.
If ACMA’s processes are anywhere similar to what we have in Finland, it means the system is worse than nothing at all. Illegal content gets reported but ignored and the user is left believing something will be done.
By Matti Nikki on Mar 22, 2009
I would like to point out that the people doing the review of the CP are accessing said ‘illegal material’ and are therefore in violation of the law. Lets arrest the kiddy fiddlers!!
By Steve on Mar 22, 2009
I have three children, aged 6, 17 & 22.
I CARE what they do, I DO NOT need some whitewash bullshit and lame excuse for someone other than MYSELF to ensure my children are not seeing what I feel is not appropriate.
Let me tell you the ANYONE who sits there and arrogantly justifies the Internet Filter, in my opinion, either simply is too lazy or does not care enough to actually partake in caring for their children.
They are also _probably_ the very same people who will let their children watch hours of TV, ” Because it’s safer” crap excuse.
Get a life, if you REALLY,(no not hot air) care for your children, you WOULD be more actively involved in the upbringing instead of leaving it to someone else,
Definately not someone, whom cannot be trusted with OUR OWN lives, let alone my children’s lives.
Heck you can’t even trust a priest/clergy these days without fear your child might be molested by one.
Bad news sticks WELL.
Overall _almost_ everyone in power in some way has lied to us and our children.
I want and demand the right of free choice, as a individual person.
By TheBear on Mar 23, 2009
What what you say guys, Conroy might be watching..http://tinyurl.com/dalz62
By Sam D on Mar 23, 2009
Oh, mere censorship wasn’t enough for him, now he wants surveillance too. Let’s start taking bets on when he’ll introduce plans for a ministry of truth. His comments about the leaked list being a fake would be a good first case
By Matti Nikki on Mar 23, 2009
This is fucking bullshit. I know people who have worked for Abby Winters and Ishotmyself and they are both have excellent business ethics and KNOW that the involvement of children in an ADULT industry would be infinitely detrimental. Fuck those fucking cunts.
If these fucking scumbags knew or actually gave a shit about children, they’d know the HIDEOUS majority of child abusers are FRIENDS to the FAMILY and WELL KNOWN to the survivor. The internet is not half as full of predators as they make it seem.
Fucking god damn assholes.
When they’re gone, they’ll be no-one who’ll be fucking up my fun.
[ / rage ]
By AileenWuornos on Mar 23, 2009
Conroy can suck my d&*%. No-one should be able to take away the freedoms so many men and women died for over the years. The guy is a disgrace.
I want him to either resign or be sacked. Either way, he has to go. Period.
I will not be told what is ok for me to look at or read Conroy, I do NOT acknowledge you as anyone of importance. No matter what you say, I will continue to view and read what I want. You can go to hell.
By Kevin on Mar 23, 2009
I love this: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks_to_Conroy:_Go_after_our_source_and_we_will_go_after_you
By Vanessa on Mar 24, 2009