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

[Alex Satrapa]

On 19/03/2009, at 19:25 , David Tulloh wrote:

> 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.

The way I'm reading it is that the leak contains the thousand-odd ACMA  
blacklist, but also another thousand-odd items that the filtering  
software itself added to the mandatory blocking list. So the leak  
contains the ACMA blacklist, but it isn't *the* blacklist - it's a  
superset of the blacklist.

> What serious risk of prosecution is there in publishing an arbitrary
> list of URLs, even if some of them are naughty.

According to the existing rating system, you can go to gaol for even  
talking about prohibited books or movies.

> I think even Conroy would see the folly in
> charging someone for a few URLs that overlap an unknown secret list.

I think the guy is actually stupid enough to consider prosecuting  
people who leak the list to "send a message" to the Australian people.

Alex

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 220 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux/attachments/20090320/f346c317/PGP.bin