[LINK] Blacklist not the ACMA list says Conroy

[Leah Manta]

At 05:32 19/03/2009, Michael Meloni wrote:

>"ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of
>possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian
>Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly
>available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution."
>
>"The ACMA blacklist of prohibited URLs has been in place since 2000.
>URLs placed on the list have been deemed to contain prohibited content
>as determined by the Broadcasting Services Act 1992."
>
>"The ACMA blacklist is currently provided to vendors of filtering
>software under a Code between ACMA and the Internet Industry
>Association. It is used for the provision of PC­based filter programs
>which are endorsed by the Internet Industry Association."

This is all nonsense isn't it?

AMCA produces a list of URLs.

AMCA sends URLs to IIA

AMCA sends URLs to software vendors

Software Vendors send URLs to users ...

Anyone can buy software, so anyone in the world 
could purchase the software, containing the URLs 
and hence extract the URLs.  Even if they were 
encoded, it would be effortless to decrypt simply 
because there are KNOWN keywords (thousands) that 
can be used as seeds to decrypt.

So why is there an assumption that an Australian person leaked the URLs.

IN fact why is there ANY assumption whatsoever 
that ANYONE leaked the URLs when the reality is, 
given that AMCA says they only have 1061 and the 
list has over 2000, that the list is in fact 
extracted from filtering software in the first place.

So now, AMCA has Knee Jerk reacted making a total 
fool of it's policies, and most of the population 
are up in arms because the Invisible URL Leaking Fairy has entered the picture.

It's amazing how people can be made to be afraid of common sense.

How our Society has gone from Survival of the 
fittest to, well, Survival of the supidiest.

Does anyone else kinda remotely even consider that this might be right?