[LINK] How filters work (was Re: Possible Letter to Conroy (the

[rene]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:54:03 +1100, Stilgherrian wrote:
> Irene, a question for you...
[...]
> Senator Conroy is now claiming that the government never intended to
> implement filtering of the entire ACMA blacklist, only the RC parts
> of it. His media advisor told me on Friday, "Also, might be worth
> noting that the blacklist has been around for years, as implemented
> by Coonan's Government. It is not new and as you must know, we have
> indicated that we don't intend to filter the whole list."
>
> Conroy's media release last week included the paragraph:
>
> "The Government has indicated an interest in using ISP-level
> filtering technology to block URLs that display content that is
> Refused Classification under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992,
> including child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence,
> detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material
> that advocates the doing of a terrorist act."
>
> http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/014
>
> Does this wash?

Conroy/Labor has never said that before, and it 'washes' to about the same 
extent as the above claim that "The Government has indicated an interest in 
using ISP-level filtering technology" - notwithstanding that their 2007 
election policy said nothing about "an interest"; it said ISPs would be 
required to filter/block.

Imo, it's just an attempt to hose down criticism while they continue to 
work on their quarter-baked 'plan'.

> My memory (admittedly a faulty beast!) seems to hear him saying "the
> ACMA blacklist" and "just the ACMA blacklist", not "the RC portions
> of the ACMA blacklist".

Your memory is not faulty in that regard.

The ACMA blacklist comprises so-called 'prohibited content' as defined in 
law which includes some MA15+, and R18+, X18+ and Refused Classification 
(RC).

A list of 7 statements made by the Minister/Government, from Nov 2007 to 5 
Mar 2009, making clear their intention to mandate blocking of 'prohibited 
content' on the ACMA blacklist (not a sub-set of it) is here:
http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan.html#govstatements

The second quote in that list is Conroy stating in October 2008 on Sky 
News: 
	"You can't opt in or out of the prohibited material"

The most recent quote in above the list is DBCDE's current web site (last 
modified 5 Mar 2009) which says: 
	"The Government's election commitment was that filtering would block 
content using a blacklist of prohibited sites maintained by the Australian 
Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in accordance with legislation. 
The ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web sites, predominantly 
comprising images of the sexual abuse of children, which are defined as 
'prohibited' under Australian legislation which has been in place since 
2000. 
	Consideration is also being given to more sophisticated filtering 
techniques for those individual families who wish to exclude additional 
online content in their own homes."
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and_
_support/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering

If the government is now engaging in revisionism, they'd be just slightly, 
slightly, more believable if they revised/changed the DBCDE page.

Irene