[LINK] Conroy abandons mandatory ISP filtering

Michael Skeggs mike@bystander.net mskeggs at gmail.com
Sun Nov 11 21:33:54 AEDT 2012

Hi Irene,
Thanks for the follow up. My guess is the AU gov is just happy to have
somebody they can point the finger to for any blocking stuff-ups and
haven't really gone into how the list is put together in any detail.
I've tried the site in a current version of IE and get the same error, and
I concur it is a php error.
I think the frustrating thing for opponents of filtering is:
a) those that opposed it for slippery slope censorship reasons will still
be unhappy, this decision puts the infrastructure in place for later
mission creep.
b) those that oppose it due to the non-transparent nature of the banned
lists will be equally disappointed. There is little evidence this list will
be any better than ACMAs clown list
c) those who object to the waste of resources which could be directed at
real measures to fight CP etc. will remain unhappy as this 'voluntary'
scheme that is enforced by the police will still have that drawback.

So, while I take heart that Conroy's original scheme, which was worse in
every respect, is gone, this one still has plenty to object about it.
Michael Skeggs

On 11 November 2012 16:41, rene <rene.ln at libertus.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:52:49 +1000, rene wrote:
> ....
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 13:24:34 +1100, Michael Skeggs mike at bystander.net
> > wrote: [...]
> >>...
> >> Do you know what happens practically, if a picture is uploaded to
> >> mySpace (for example) and added to the list?
> >> Presumably there must be some notification to hostmasters as we
> >> aren't seeing the big social networking and image hosting sites
> >> flicker in and out of the DNS system?
> > I don't know, but my guess is... [etc]...
> Since then, my further research has turned up web pages/documents that I
> hadn't found in the past. Now, it appears *almost* certain that some types
> of sites do not get added to the Interpol blacklist, and in some particular
> circumstances (e.g. obviously hacked sites), hostmasters are notified of
> blacklisting at pretty much the same time as their sites are added to the
> Interpol blacklist.
> I say "almost certain" because the above is not said on the Interpol pages
> about their "worst of" list. However, such statements are made on pages
> hosted on the CIRCAMP Project site, but are not findable from the CIRCAMP
> home page ( http://circamp.eu/ ), only via search engines (possibly due to
> a scripting error on the CIRCAMP site, see later herein).
> The relevance of CIRCAMP is that I've become 99% sure that the Interpol
> organisation does not itself add any domains to the list, it merely
> compiles and distributes the Interpol "worst of" list, from a list of
> "worst of" sites that are sent to Interpol by about 5 EU police agency
> participants in the EU CIRCAMP blocking list project.
> Re what types of sites are put on the blacklist, an undated page, titled
> "CIRCAMP overview", found via search engine, says:
>         "In cases where a hosting company has been taken advantage of,
> like free
> photo hosting companies – CIRCAMP members will inform the
> owner/administrator of that domain that they are hosting child sexual abuse
> material. In most cases this will result in the removal of the files very
> quickly. Such services are not blocked as the implications for legal users
> and services would be substantial. If the domain containing child abuse
> material appears to be a legal domain or home page/company page of some
> sort, and is hosting this material without the knowledge of the responsible
> owner, the contact person of the domain is contacted and made aware of the
> hacking or abuse they have been victims of. The domain will normally be
> blocked until the contact person of that domain answers or contacts us,
> informing that the child abuse content has been removed. Our experience is
> that old domains that are no longer being updated and/or maintained are
> abused, due to the fact that the software or methods used to produce them
> are old and insecure, making it possible to hack and abuse them into
> hosting illegal material."
> http://circamp.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11:circamp-o
> verview&catid=1:project&Itemid=2
> I *think* that the above undated CIRCAMP page is *probably* current and
> supposed to be linked from a horizontal menu near the the top of:
> http://circamp.eu/
> However, in Firefox and Opera, what I see in a probable menu position is an
> error message: "Warning: Parameter 1 to modMainMenuHelper::buildXML()
> expected to be a reference, value given in
> /home/circamp1/public_html/libraries/joomla/cache/handler/callback.php on
> line 99"
> I'd be interested to know whether persons using e.g. MS IE see that error
> message or something else, such as a menu (although it looks to me like a
> php scripting error rather than a browser related problem).
> There is also an undated CIRCAMP FAQ page, that is probably supposed to be
> linked from e.g. a menu on the CIRCAMP home page,
> http://www.circamp.eu/index.php?view=category&cid=1:general&option=com_quic
> kfaq&Itemid=9
> The last Q&A in the 3 page FAQ states that:
> "...Well known domains, like yahoo.com, google.com, flickr.com and others
> are not put on any access blocking lists. ..."
> http://www.circamp.eu/index.php?view=items&cid=1%3Ageneral&id=25%3AWould+no
> t+blocking+yahoo.com+or+flickr.com
> +because+of+one+image+have+huge+consequen
> ces%3F&option=com_quickfaq&Itemid=9
> In conclusion, imo, Interpol and Circamp ought, in terms of provision of
> information to the public, "get their act together" much better, such that
> it would become much easier for concerned members of public to find
> out/know what roles Interpol and Circamp play in the production of the
> "Interpol" list, make 100% clear on the Interpol site whether or not
> Circamp policy and procedures re adding domains absolutely always apply to
> adding to the Interpol list, and Circamp should fix apparent scripting
> errors on the site.
> Failing that, DBCDE or AFP should produce and publish pages that explain
> which overseas agencies are responsible for what in relation to how the
> Interpol list is produced and distributed and whose policies apply in
> relation to additions (although one wonders whether they actually know, but
> if not they should find out).
> More clarity/transparency seems to me very likely to reduce some,
> potentially many, people's concerns about use of the so-called Interpol
> list by AU ISPs.
> Irene

More information about the Link mailing list