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

[Paul Wayper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Tulloh wrote:
| 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.

The Minister keeps on talking about how this is "not about freedom of speech"
(partly, of course, because Australia doesn't have any law providing it), yet
calls the leak of someone else's document "grossly irresponsible".  To me
that's why Wikileaks exists - for all the information that some Minister or
CEO is going to bluster that it's "grossly irresponsible" to tell anyone that
the Emperor isn't really wearing any clothes.  (If you'll pardon the naked
punning there).

The fundamental contradiction in what Conroy is saying is that if the list
isn't the ACMA black list, and the ACMA black list is protecting us from harm,
then why is it grossly irresponsible to mention the URLs?  If the ACMA black
list is protecting us, then none of those URLs will have any effect in
Australia.  Only if the Minister knew that the _current_ system - not the
intended Clean Feed "initiative" - was not working would it be dangerous to
mention that list.

Well, Minister?

Paul

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknCFp0ACgkQu7W0U8VsXYLIYQCglOoASoMtgr878R1xuYxNUNij
MeYAoK/DoqtNFDSq8qSBG5MrUlgAYewG
=35Mc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----