[LINK] Crikey: Two thirds of ACMA blacklist out of date
rene
rene.lk at libertus.net
Thu Mar 26 14:28:30 AEDT 2009
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:49:23 +1100, Stilgherrian wrote:
> I'm in Crikey today (again!) with some criticisms of the ACMA
> blacklist and som words about the Wikileaksraid.
>
> http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20090326-ACMA-
> blacklist-rubbish-Wikileaks-raided.html or http://is.gd/oZNc
[...]
> "I wouldn't pay $100 for it, let alone $15,000. That list
> would make my filtering look really bad," they said.
It is news that approved filter makers allegedly pay ACMA $15K. I am 99%
sure it has never been publicly revealed that ACMA charges for their
blacklist.
Re this claim:
"By comparison, their own company’s list contains around quarter of a
million URLs covering child-related activity"
I take it the filter vendor who makes such an incredible claim declines to
be publicly named. One wonders what their definition of "child-related
activity" is and/or means.
Given the AFP said said on Background Briefing a couple of weeks ago that
it's not easy to 'stumble' across 'cp' material on the web, I find claims
of a quarter of a million URLs entirely unbelievable.
It's believable only if they've used automatic scanning technology to
compile their list and pages that contain terms such as "child pornography"
get automatically added to their "child-related activity" category.
Does anyone believe that any commercial filter vendor employs enough staff
to actually look at a quarter of million URLs every three months to
ascertain whether the URLs still contain "child-related activity", along
with checking all their categories and adding new URLs and so on and on.
I certainly don't.
Irene
More information about the Link
mailing list