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

[David Tulloh]

Alex Satrapa wrote:
> On 19/03/2009, at 17:31 , David Tulloh wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I don't feel that Conroy contradicted himself. Compiling the list is
> not irresponsible, neither is distributing it to "trusted" third
> parties. It's simply the act of broadcasting this secret list to the
> world that he feels is "irresponsible". According to Steven Conroy,
> the process of viewing pederasty materials for the sake of protecting
> other people's children is a noble cause, but the publishing of a list
> of pederasty sites with no intention of actually viewing them is evil.
>
> This is perfectly understandable if you are willing to believe that
> being elected to Parliament makes you more intelligent, noble and pure
> than everyone else in the country.
>
> He's claiming that the list that was published is not the ACMA
> blacklist. The ACMA agrees:
>  - http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311669
>
> He does not make any statement about whether or not the published list
> was a superset of the ACMA blacklist. Neither does he make any
> statement about whether porn or dentistry sites will be added to the
> list willy nilly.
(url for people following along -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520929.htm)

If the list is not the ACMA blacklist then what was the leak he referred
to?  He said that the leak "is grossly irresponsible."  Maybe I'm
reading too much into it but if there hadn't been a leak shouldn't that
be, "would be grossly irresponsible".  The tense of the statement says
to me that there is a current leak.

What serious risk of prosecution is there in publishing an arbitrary
list of URLs, even if some of them are naughty.  If it's not the actual
list why is the ACMA investigating and why is there "serious risk of
criminal prosecution."  I think even Conroy would see the folly in
charging someone for a few URLs that overlap an unknown secret list.


David