[LINK] Crikey: Two thirds of ACMA blacklist out of date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