[clug] OT: naughty hyperlinks to cost $11,000/day

[David Tulloh]

Ric de France wrote:
> I happen to PDF it - in case something like this happened... the list looks
> pretty awful, and can understand why some of the stuff is there... but other
> stuff like censoring some other wikileaks pages and some wikipedia pages is
> just straight out censorship...
>
>   
I did a little digging on the three wikipedia links listed.

The first one is an image, since deleted, of an adult film being made. 
You can see several cameras and three men having sex, two of them men
are clearly 20-40, one could possibly be 17 but it looks like a
professional production so I think it's same to assume he is old enough.

The second is a catalogue of weird images on wikipedia, thumbnails and
links.

The third has been deleted but from the deletion comments it looks like
it was a catalogue of porn images on wikipedia, like the second.



I was also privately sent this link by a CLUG member, it's Stephen
Conroy claiming that the blacklist is not real:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520929.htm

In typical Conroy fashion he contradicts himself and makes it very
confusing, in summary:
    The list is not the ACMA blacklist.
    Leaking the list was irresponsible and won't somebody think of the
children.
    Any Australian involved in leaking the list may be charged.


David