[LINK] ACMA Internet Filter List Leaked

[rene]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:20:47 +1100, Stilgherrian wrote:

> On 21/03/2009, at 12:06 PM, Eric Scheid wrote:
>> Serious question: is there a procedure/regime at ACMA for reviewing
>> the list
>> entries ... or are they relying on an ad-hoc complaint based
>> system? Not a wise public relations strategy, surely ;-)
>>
>
> From listening to ACMA staffers answer questions in Senate Estimates,
> I was left with the distinct impression that the flushing of bad
> entries happened relatively infrequently.

Yes, it's unclear. In Feb 2008 Estimates ACMA said they update their 
blacklist "weekly" but not clear whether that included deleting URLs.

A year later, in Feb 2009 Estimates, Sen Ludlam asked them why the list had 
grown from about 800 URLs as they said in Feb 2008 estimates, to 1370 at 30 
Nov 2008 according to Conroy answers to QoNs (odd why there was such a huge 
increase in less than year given the list has been being compiled since 1 
Jan 2000). ACMA's answer was "I think it is probably a combination of 
things. It is probably an increase in the complaints coming to us and it 
probably was not washed as rigorously as we have been doing over the last 
eight or nine months."

Further info in this regard may turn up mid April by which time responses 
to Feb 2009 Estimates Questions on Notice are due. One question ACMA took 
on notice was:
	"Senator LUDLAM—In 2008, how many URLs were added to the blacklist as a 
result of investigations under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992? 
	Ms O’Loughlin—We might have to take that on notice because there are some 
pluses and minuses in terms of what goes on and what gets washed out. Are 
you referring to the calendar year or the financial year? 
	Senator LUDLAM—The calendar year, I suppose, or just whatever records you 
have perhaps going back over the last year or two. My second question was 
about the degree of churn and the number that were taken 
off. If you could provide a breakdown of both sides of the ledger, that 
would be appreciated.
	Ms O’Loughlin—Yes."  

There are, however, two aspects to this issue. One is how often ACMA checks 
its list and deletes URLs that no longer contain so-called 'potential 
prohibited content' and the second is whether all the filter makers who 
receive ACMA notifications actually delete such URLs on advice from ACMA.

(And the same applies to the question of whether all 'approved' filter 
makers update their lists with new URLs to be blocked promptly on receipt 
of such notification from ACMA, or don't bother to do that more than e.g. 
about once a year, unless their list is leaked and it thus becomes apparent 
to ACMA that the filter maker's list has not been updated since e.g. August 
last year and so maybe ACMA asks questions, and suddenly the list is 
massively updated).

Irene