[LINK] 'Net filters "required" for all Australians, no opt-out

[Jon Seymour]

> But I can see no where that the results links are provided. I don't
> see how any information can be used to narrow anything, at least in
> that letter. However, if you search the chillingeffects database, say
> with the t-word, you can see letters with the offending link
> provided. It may just be a fluke that your results set linked to one
> with the urls listed.
>

As my subsequent post shows, I was able to use the blocking
information provided by Google
to determine (with high probability), that the blocked article
contains the text of a joke about Kevin Rudd.

Using other search variants, I was able to determine that the blocked
post also contains these phrases and words:

"announcement by Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy states
that the censorship regime will be mandatory"
"topic"
"new"
"reply"
"e-mail"
"children"
"girls"
"post"
"get"
"fascist"
f**k             # edited here
c**t             # edited here
"http://"
"http://www.*.com.au/"       # as typed into google here -
"password"
"secret"

but doesn't contain these words:

"boy"
"sex"
"c*m"

True, I have not revealed the actual article, but assuming there was a
search engine somewhere that hadn't implemented the take down notice,
I could use trial and error and the negative results from the Google
filter to build a search query that selects, with high probability,
the blocked article and nothing else.

As it is, it appears that if I was patient enough I could reconstruct
the contents of the blocked article, perhaps even links it contains,
by constructing enough queries that tell me which words and phrases
are and are not in the blocked article.

jon seymour.