Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Australia's Vast, Scattershot Censorship Blacklist Revealed

Posted by timothy on Thu Mar 19, 2009 09:59 PM
from the please-don't-click-here dept.
mask.of.sanity writes "Australia's secretive Internet filter blacklist held by its communications watchdog has been leaked, revealing the government has understated the amount of banned Web pages by more than 1000. Multiple legitimate businesses and Web sites have been banned including two bus companies, online poker sites, multiple Wikipedia entries, Google and Yahoo group pages, a dental surgery and a tour operator. Andrew Twaits, CEO of Betfair, a billion-dollar business blocked by the blacklist, was furious the government has potentially annexed tens of millions of dollars in revenue after the Betfair.com gambling site was blacklisted. The blacklists were reportedly leaked by a Web filter operator to wikileaks which has published the full list of banned URLs. Outraged privacy advocates say the government has effectively lied about the amount of URLs included in the blacklists, totaling more than 2300, and the type of content which it would ban. The leak follows a series of attacks on the watchdog in which irate users successfully lobbied for web sites to be banned, only to be threatened with an $11,000 fine for publishing the link contained in the PR response. It was also revealed the watchdog can ban Web sites at a whim, with no accountability."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by pecosdave (536896) * on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:04PM (#27264495) Homepage Journal

    Then I typed the word "Goat" - I saw the .cx variation - well, at least they're making some attempt at saving the populace from the horrors of the web.

    • Re:I did a CTRL+F (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:13PM (#27264553)

      As I stated on the petition to reinstate Goatse's domain, instead of having a single site to block there we are now stuck with dozens of mirrors. The internet now has more gaping arsehole to gaze at than ever before. Furthermore, the constant attempts to shut down shock site's domains leads to them registering multiple domains in various TLDs to ensure at least one or two of the domains stays registered.

    • Re:I did a CTRL+F (Score:5, Insightful)

      by unlametheweak (1102159) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:21PM (#27264609)

      Then I typed the word "Goat" - I saw the .cx variation - well, at least they're making some attempt at saving the populace from the horrors of the web.

      So that would mean that Slashdot has (or likely will be) blacklisted, because it has most of the criteria for blacklisting: it posts secret, patented numbers; sites about gay Negroes, goats, gambling, and references the links to banned and immoral Internet domains (like in this front page story).

      • Re:I did a CTRL+F (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ghostcorps (975146) on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:30PM (#27264997) Homepage

        Yes! That is exactly what it means. Australians have very few 'rights'. The free speech thing.. forget it.

        There is a big issue with blogs, because, by Australian Law any presentation that may encourage dissent is illegal (remember: we were originally a penal colony). So the very nature of blogs.. ie opinionated ranting, ensures that they can be shut off without notice if anyone says they were offended. Indeed we have already seen this with wikipedia, wikileaks, yahoo and google group pages. Essentially, any ideas that have not been vetted by the govt is open to any misinterperetation and repurcusions..

        Behold ... the future

        • Re:I did a CTRL+F (Score:5, Informative)

          by RMH101 (636144) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:23AM (#27265835)
          Up until the 1950s, there was a blacklist of books in Australia.
        • Re:I did a CTRL+F (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dov_0 (1438253) on Friday March 20 2009, @07:21AM (#27266753)
          I must admit that I was one of the few supporting the blacklist, when all they said they'd block was porn. In the original proposal users could 'opt out' of the automatic censorship by contacting their ISP. Families can cruise the web with more confidence and those who want porn can get it easily. No probs.
          When they put the anti-abortion site on the blacklist they made an enemy of me. That's political. That's an attempt to stifle public debate. Public debate is the basis of democracy. The current Labour government is the most pro abortion government we've ever had in Australia with a number of 'Emily's List' MP's to boot.
          Guess I'd better not annoy anyone in that department too much though or those hairy arm-pitted lesbian feminist civil 'servants' will block my business website as well!
            • Re:I did a CTRL+F (Score:5, Informative)

              by MicktheMech (697533) on Friday March 20 2009, @06:55AM (#27266601) Homepage
              For the love of God, learn about your own civic structure. Australia is independent. The Queen rules Australia in right of Australia, completely separately from any other realm. The UK parliament has had zero authority over Australia since the statute of Westminster. The only reason that Australia has the same queen as the UK, Canada, etc... is because we all CHOSE to abide by the same succession criteria. Don't go crying to the rest of us if you don't like your laws. You only have your own selves to blame and we won't be your scapegoats.
      • Re:I did a CTRL+F (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eln (21727) on Friday March 20 2009, @01:08AM (#27265385) Homepage

        So that would mean that Slashdot has (or likely will be) blacklisted

        On the bright side, productivity in Australian IT departments will skyrocket.

      • by dbIII (701233) on Friday March 20 2009, @02:54AM (#27265735)
        Guess who owns the "cx" top level domain? The Australian government since they own the territory of Christmas Island.
    • But apparently, you didn't click the link. You should have. Apart from being funny, it's also a perfect example of the nonsense of these lists. Here it is: http://www.goat.cx [www.goat.cx] (and no, it's not exactly why you think it is)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:10PM (#27264527)
    i took a quick look at the blacklist and found some porn sites that i didn't know about. awesome! it's like a pre-filtered list of quality porn links! they saved me a lot of surfing time!
    • by Spit (23158) on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:04PM (#27264861)

      It's like a "What's HOT!" zeitgeist for the discerning pervert.

      • Re:*This is fake* (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nedlohs (1335013) on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:11PM (#27264903)

        And we would take him at his word, why?

          • Re:*This is fake* (Score:5, Informative)

            by stavros-59 (1102263) * on Friday March 20 2009, @04:34AM (#27266069)

            Because from a blocked ISP you can access the sites which are listed as blocked.

            The internet censorship system is not yet in place. The leaked list is the sites provided to ISPs that have "family friendly" services and to the vendors of the PC filters supplied under the previous government's NetAlert scheme.

            At the moment you should be able to get anywhere you like unless you chosen a PC based filter, a family friendly ISP or you use one of the ISPs testing the filters at the moment.

            There are 6 ISPs in the trial. One is iPrimus that deals with retail customers. One is Webshield that is a Christadelphian not for profit family friendly ISP and the other 4 are business only ISPs. There are people on facebook with more friends than the 4 business ISPs have as customers.

            You need to check your facts. The list isn't fake. It was pulled out of the definitions provided to one of the NetAlert filter providers. It also matches the dates and number of the published ACMA updates as downloaded from their site.

            What you should be concerned about it that the blacklist was designed for PC "filters" for children and that the government intended to use that list to censor the activities of adult at the level of a child safe filter.

      • Re:*This is fake* (Score:5, Informative)

        by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:15PM (#27264925)
        Don't believe [slashdot.org] what the government or its contracted agents say about themselves. I mean really, how naive do you have to be?
      • Re:*This is fake* (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Hecatonchires (231908) on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:46PM (#27265065) Homepage

        I don't believe Conroy. Do you?

      • Re:*This is fake* (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Swampash (1131503) on Friday March 20 2009, @12:31AM (#27265259)

        Conroy and ISPs implementing the blacklist confirm that this is a fake

        And yet in spite of this list's confirmed fakeness, Conroy has threatened that anyone distributing this confirmed fake list will be subject to investigation by federal police and suffer criminal prosecution.

        o_O

          • by Chrisq (894406) on Friday March 20 2009, @05:02AM (#27266155)

            Shouldn't it be easy enough to find out if its fake. If someone from OZ clicks a bunch of the links, and they can't access them, its real, if they can....its fake....or am I missing something?

            There could be a severe punishment for anyone dong this. They could even be transported to Britain.

      • Re:*This is fake* (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rahvin112 (446269) on Friday March 20 2009, @12:34AM (#27265269)

        "This is fake"

        um ugh, hmph... and...

        "ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution."

        If the list is fake what exactly are they going to prosecute anyone for?

        When my government denied their were secret CIA prisons then threatened to put people in jail for revealing stuff I nodded my head and said their are probably secret prisons. People don't threaten to call the police or put people in jail unless the item in question is real. I'm willing to bet that regardless of the fist pounding and outrage that this might not be today's list, and it might not be the August 8th list but it's the list at one time. No question about it because of the way he responded. The language makes you think they deny it's the list, but it appears to me their denial is very coached. It's not THE list. Not it's never been the list.

      • Re:*This is fake* (Score:5, Informative)

        by xenobyte (446878) on Friday March 20 2009, @03:04AM (#27265769)

        But I don't think stunts like this help :-(

        Actually they do help... A lot actually!

        1) They make the world aware of the censorship taking place.
        2) They make it obvious that a secret list might contain anything. We can't check.
        3) They make it obvious that the list needs to be public because that would make it possible to avoid non-relevant censorship. Even if the list is publicly available, it cannot be used to find the blocked stuff because - well - the stuff is blocked.
        4) They force the authorities to engage in debates about the censorship thus again making the world aware of what happening.
        5) They show that such secrets can never be kept and thus shouldn't.

        There's no reason to have such a blocklist to begin with except to engage in censorship. You don't protect anybody against anything with a blacklist. For every site listed there's 10 others just like it. List those and each has 10 alternatives... The odds of you hitting one is the same with or without the blacklist.

  • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:11PM (#27264537)
    I can only watch as my jaw is hanging limply. I can't believe that anyone who got power to do something would abuse that power. Really. Truly. They promised they wouldn't when we brought it up before. They said they were only doing it for us.
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:44PM (#27264767) Journal

      Is I told you so redundant?

      There is NO reason to trust any government, ever. period.

      The more they ask you to trust them with, the less you should trust them. This is the rule of the land. Governments are not here to help anyone but themselves. When you get rid of one bad politician, 10 more are ready to take their place. They say that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Think about that for a minute. These people are not absolute rulers and look how fucked up they are. The more we trust them with, the more fucked up they will get.

      No, there is no simple answer, but citizens should never allow such things as this to exist in the first place. In the US, the second amendment helps to ensure that citizens have a method for revoking license given to governments... if it comes to that.

      P.S. They are NEVER doing anything for you, they (the government) always do things for themselves. They just say it's for you, kind of in the same way that a rapist says "this is for you" before they start in on you.

        • by Toonol (1057698) on Friday March 20 2009, @12:54AM (#27265343)
          The bill of rights pertains to individuals, not states. The framers knew their philosophical shit; rights belong to all humans, and only to humans. The 2nd amendment was more fundamental than either of those issues. It wasn't just for the defense of the states, it wasn't just for defense against rogue governments. It was a recognition of the fact that it is right that all men should be allowed to fight to defend their life and freedom. It is as morally wrong for the government to deprive people of the tools to defend themselves, as it is wrong to deprive people of the ability to speak or worship. And here's some advice: Far smarter people than you and I disagree with you. Far smarter people than you and I agree with you. That doesn't indicate who is right; but it does mean that calling the other side 'ludicrous' indicates you are probably approaching the issue irrationally.
  • by denzacar (181829) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:15PM (#27264565)

    The www.techworld.com.au blog link in the summary is broken. It is missing couple of "s" letters.
    Here is a working link:

    http://www.techworld.com.au/blog/broadbandvoice/2009/03/acmas_blacklist_a_bigots_battleground [techworld.com.au]

  • Wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordKaT (619540) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:16PM (#27264569) Homepage Journal

    god bless wikileaks.

  • by unlametheweak (1102159) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:16PM (#27264577)

    The blacklists were reportedly leaked by a Web filter operator to wikileaks which has published the full list of banned URLs.

    These numerous government blacklists have proven to be a boon to porn and gambling industries. There are Web sites that I never would have even thought to go to if it weren't for these black lists. I want to thank the government of Australia for helping to open my eyes and my mind to the vast unseen Internet.

  • by muzzy (164903) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:21PM (#27264607) Homepage Journal

    My favourite from the list: files.kavefish.com/pictures/collections/funny_cat_pictures/_index-list.html

    It's just funny cat pictures and nothing suggets there's ever been anything else.

    Also, the list (although a month older than one on Wikileaks) can be obtained from Integard filter software. Hex edit the integard.exe and change first occurence of "datetimepicker.js" to websites_ACMA.txt, then login to integard's webUI and request that file. Apparently there's a whitelist of files the webUI server can give to the user. I've confirmed myself that the lolcats URL is indeed in that ACMA file from the filter software...

    • by schon (31600) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:40PM (#27264753) Homepage

      It's just funny cat pictures

      Well, it's understandable why they blocked it - it's kitty porn. /me ducks.

    • by muzzy (164903) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:54PM (#27264825) Homepage Journal

      Before anyone mentiones about it, yes, I did check the commented out images too. They're funny cats as well, probably commented out to ease the load of the page.

      Other gems from the list:
      www.kids.net.au/forward.php?url=www.energizingbuddies.cc/ ... apparently the domain expired, and the ACMA decided to censor the redirect link instead of telling kids.net.au to remove the link!
      The whole forward.php has disappeared since, as well as that entry, the energizingbuddies.cc existed back in 2002...

      The happysong.com.tw url ... which has phpBB2 url with a sid in it. A session ID! So, nobody browsing the forum would actually get their access censored, only the guy with that specific session ID and the people that link to that specific URL.

      Ofcourse, 4chan's /b/ and encyclopedia dramatica are on the list, too. Since they censor stuff like animal cruelty as well I can understand that, because there probably is plenty of risque material on the sites.

      Also spotted sam hocevar's (VLC developer) site on the list, with two urls. Apparently he saved an animal abuse image from 4chan and somehow got it on the ACMA blacklist.

      There are also plenty of porn sites with a referrer in the url, a lot of TGP's like that on the list. Shows that whoever submitted them for review was browsing porn and actively clicking around. Some of the sites are listed multiple times with different referrer IDs in the URLs too, egrep '/\?(id=)?[a-z.]*.?$' for a list. One site is listed 3 times with different referrer in the URL :)

      A bunch of newsgroups have been censored at either myusenet.net, free-usenet.net, groups.google.com, groups.google.com.au or usenet-replayer.com. Only single groups, pages or messages. And ofcourse, the same content is still available at the other usenet archive sites.

      Well, that's some gems to begin with. Haven't bothered doing a full analysis of the content, kinda lacking the willpower to do more than just random dabbling.

  • by NevarMore (248971) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:25PM (#27264645) Homepage

    I just loaded up the wikileaks page and I hope I didn't make a mistake I'm going to regret.

    Some of those links at are perfectly normal, the gambling ones, the wikipedia ones, nothing unusual.

    Some of those links at are icky. Things that the extreme pro-lifers like to use in their pamphlets while I'm eating lunch icky.

    Some of those links are actually very nasty and abhorrent. Worse than goatse.

    Don't go randomly clicking.

    Don't go randomly clicking!!

  • by happyslayer (750738) <david@isisltd.com> on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:25PM (#27264649)

    [Bookmarks] -> [Bookmark This Page] -> [Done]

    Australia's Secret Internet Filter: Your one-stop shopping for porn!

  • by twostix (1277166) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:32PM (#27264689)

    And I'll say it again.

    In the haste to throw out the smarmy blue blooded $50k a year private school aristocrat wannabes known as the liberals out of government, we've introduced something that's so far been *far* worse. And I say that as someone voted for them!

    At least the liberals had a solid grounding in running the country and seemed to know what the hell they were doing. So far Rudd and that dimwitted treasurer Swan have been blundering about without any sort of cohesive strategy and burning through billions of dollars a day doing it.

    It would seem that like any 'revolution', when the dust settles usually the country ends up worse off when the populist leader takes power.

    Even my father, a dyed in the wool blue collar labour man has started questioning whether Rudd's more interested in selling us out to China, financially AND ideologically than the he is in the national good. What sort of politician pushes something like this onto his own free country?

    Who is Rudd really? (Seriously I'm genuinely interested).

    • by Cathbard (954906) on Friday March 20 2009, @12:00AM (#27265147)
      It was a damned if you do and damned if you don't sort of thing. We had to get rid of Howard with his IR laws and his other extreme right policies or we would have become america. However the alternative was a pack of wankas. Still, he had to go or else we would have ended up with the poor dying in the street like other hard core right wing countries (you know who you are).

      As for Rudd? He's one of the richest politicians in Canberra (oh sorry, it's all his wife's money /snark) and he's the leader of the Labour Party - I mean wtf? It just shows that we don't have a Labour Party any more. Thats what we really need, an old school Labour Party so we can switch back and forwards between the left and the right and retain a sensible balance like we once had.

      It's like Lewis Black said about the Bush vs Kerry election - "we were offered two bowls of shit, the only difference was the smell." All you can do really is vote for the opposition at every election so each bowl of shit doesn't create a permanent stain.

  • by kramulous (977841) * on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:32PM (#27264693)

    Conroy is going to be on the ABC's QandA next Thursday evening at 9.30pm.

    That should be good viewing :)

  • by Flynsarmy (1071248) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:35PM (#27264705)
    It should be noted that this isn't actually the ACMA blacklist. It's actually a list derived from the ACMA blacklist as stated on the wikileaks article in the summary.
  • by sam_v1.35b (1296319) on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:06PM (#27264869) Homepage
    Senator Stephen Conroy would like to recall the message: "ACMA Blacklist - see attachment".
  • by vmlojw (1504879) on Friday March 20 2009, @12:18AM (#27265225)
    I agree with NevarMore. Anti-abortion sites can have some stomach-turning pics. But that's not the real problem. The real reason why that one was blacklisted is pre-term porn. Yep, it's a growing evil. All those nekkid pictures of poor defenceless foetuses: Pre-term porn, a social disaster just waiting to happen. http://vmlojwclog.blogspot.com/2009/03/official-concern.html [blogspot.com]
    • Re:False alarm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by afaik_ianal (918433) * on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:20PM (#27264597)
      No they haven't, they've just said there are things on the published list that are not on the official list. They don't say that there's anything in the official list that's not on the published list. I suspect it's been intentionally seeded. It's kind of typical of politicians to say things in a way that sound like they're saying something else. You'll also notice he's threatening to launch an investigation into the people who released it. If it's not the list, then what exactly are they going to investigate?
      • Re:False alarm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:49PM (#27264795) Journal

        You'll also notice he's threatening to launch an investigation into the people who released it. If it's not the list, then what exactly are they going to investigate?

        Who embarrassed them.

        Kinda like when it was discovered the CIA was running secret prisons around the globe.
        Government didn't want to investigate "what are they doing at these prisons" it was "who leaked their existence."

        Shameful really, no matter which government or political party is doing it.

      • Re:False alarm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TapeCutter (624760) * on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:20PM (#27264963) Journal
        "It's kind of typical of politicians to say things in a way that sound like they're saying something else. You'll also notice he's threatening to launch an investigation into the people who released it. If it's not the list, then what exactly are they going to investigate?"

        I agree, speaking of "saying things" I still haven't heard Conroy say he is in favor of a blacklist...here let me clean up then cut&paste my theory from the last story...

        Labor is playing the same game with Fielding [wikipedia.org] as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.

        Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's also need a coalition to sucessfully block but only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.

        Xenophon[sic] and Fielding (the two independents) both wanted a mandatory filter, (Xenophon has an anti-gambling platform). Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon to his credit has seen the glaring human rights error in his plan to ban offshore gambling sites, Fielding has nowhere to go because he is now in the position of voting for a blacklist that bans his supporters (anti-abortionists), an independent's vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, the Lib's, Labor and Greens are happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, Rudd is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard,....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.

        Oh and check out the nude pictures of Hanson, unfortunately it's only funny because it's happening to someone I don't like.
    • Not a hoax (Score:5, Informative)

      by muzzy (164903) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:35PM (#27264707) Homepage Journal

      Not a hoax. I've confirmed it myself by ripping websites_ACMA.txt out of Integard filtering software. Even if it's not identical to ACMA's own list, it damn well is identical to Integard's version of ACMA's list.

      The list is real.

    • Re:False alarm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:35PM (#27264709)

      That's just obvious attempt at spin/cover-up. Some simple (as these things go) binary reverse engineering of the "Intergard" content filter already showed a similar (though not-identical, earlier) [snapshot of the] list - after all, it's a dynamic blacklist.

      http://techwiredau.com/2009/03/was-an-acma-blacklist-leaked/ [techwiredau.com]

      So, yeah, of course it's the real list, as at mid-2008. The current ACMA list is probably even bigger and more abuse-of-power filled.

      Look, nobody not mentally ill likes true child porn. But consider keeping something valuable - do you demand everyone chop off their hands so they don't steal your gold? Or do YOU put it somewhere safe, with CCTV surveillance? So it is with children -
      they don't have adult legal rights, being children. So monitor _children_, perhaps even encrypted feeds over the internet (and monitor who's watching the feeds, mind - unless they're parents or peers they're almost certainly sickos). When children turn 18, they get full adult legal rights, including right to privacy, and the camera monitoring is disengaged.

      i.e. if you want to keep children safe, restrict and monitor them, not everyone else, just like keeping anything else precious safe.

      When someone says "think of the children" about installing internet censorship, their goal is internet censorship, not keeping children safe!

      • Re:False alarm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by unlametheweak (1102159) on Thursday March 19 2009, @11:34PM (#27265019)

        When children turn 18, they get full adult legal rights, including right to privacy, and the camera monitoring is disengaged.

        By then it's too late. You've already conditioned them to accept the fact that Authority can and should monitor them for their own good. They're already used to the idea, so the next thing you know they'll think it is normal to pee in a bottle for a Manager so that employers will know what drugs they've taken, or they may think it's normal for companies or governments to monitor what you email to people. Nope, if you treat children like shit then they will grow up to be assholes. Garbage in garbage out.

    • Re:UK and Australia (Score:5, Informative)

      by MichaelSmith (789609) on Thursday March 19 2009, @10:45PM (#27264773) Homepage Journal
      In the US there is a lot of overlap between the Christian extremists and the Libertarians. The few christian extremists we have in Australia don't subscribe to libertarian views.

      Another factor here is the role of minor parties in the upper house of parliament. The Christian senator pushing the filters got in with less than 1000 primary votes. Most likely he got a lot of preferences because of the number of worse sounding groups on the senate ballot paper.