[LINK] Censorship of wikileaks?

[Stilgherrian]

On 18/03/2009, at 3:52 AM, Kim Holburn wrote:
> Does this mean that the link archive and possibly other academic
> websites could be in danger of falling fowl of this law?

No, but they might fall foul of it.

Cluck. Cluck. Cluck. [scratches ground, pecks for grain]

Seriously, yes, there is no exception in the current Internet  
censorship law for purposes like academic work, archiving, libraries,  
political comment etc.

I should point out that the blacklisting of a site (if hosted  
overseas) or the issue of a takedown or link removal notice (if hosted  
in Australia) is apparently done at the fine-grained level of  
individual URLs -- so in the case I wrote about in January, it was  
only the specific pages of that anti-abortion website which had the  
problematic photos which was blacklisted.

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090123-So-Conroys-internet-filter-wont-block-political-speech-eh-.html
or
http://is.gd/gUfQ

This does raise all sorts of questions... Such as how "indirect" does?  
a URl has to be. What if I use is.gd to shorten the URl to a "bad"  
stuff, then use bit.ly to shorten that, then tinyurl.com to shorten  
that...? What if I just describe the URL, saying that you go to http://mostlygoodsitewithonebadpage 
,com and then "OK, so scroll down and click on the third link after  
'About Us'"? What if I print the URL on a piece of paper or a t-shirt,  
where the ACMA has no authority to intervene?

This is going to blow up in someone's face...

Stil


-- 
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian
ABN 25 231 641 421