3 ms·

It's worth noting that when the Labour party attempted an internet filter, they insisted INSISTED that the only sites on the black list would be pedophilia site

It's worth noting that when the Labour party attempted an internet filter, they insisted INSISTED that the only sites on the black list would be pedophilia sites. Wikileaks ended up on the black list.

nl 13y ago
Reference requested. I don't believe that is true.
- cabalamat 13y ago
  I don't know whether it is true, but similar things have happened in the UK, Germany and Finland, so it could well be.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist,_18_Mar_2009 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_... Which points to: http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009.txt http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009....
  - nl 13y ago
    The blacklist contains one url from Wikileaks, which (judging form the URL) is yet another (non-Australian) leaked blacklist of banned sites. I'm not defending censorship (one look at the list shows what a STUPID idea it is) but I think implying that it was used to "block Wikileaks" overstates what happened.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      It overstates the case for that point in time. But it doesn't overstate that they were prepared to do it. Remember: this is a secret list that Australians cannot legally see.
      - derefr 13y ago
        That does sort of make sense, though. Publishing the list of blocked URLs would be like publishing a list of the addresses of people under Witness Protection: useless to anyone except those who want to go to them. And not just those who want to look at one site in particular--you can know whether a particular site is on the list by just testing it, after all. Instead, the only use of having the entire list would be to look at sites just because they're on the list; in est, to get suggestions for new sites related to your interests.
        TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        How do you know the difference between a blocked site and a site with a networking issue without uh... subverting the block and using a proxy or a vpn?

nl 13y ago

Reference requested. I don't believe that is true.

cabalamat 13y ago
I don't know whether it is true, but similar things have happened in the UK, Germany and Finland, so it could well be.
jacques_chester 13y ago
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist,_18_Mar_2009 http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_... Which points to: http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009.txt http://wlstorage.net/file/acma-secret-blacklist-18-mar-2009....
- nl 13y ago
  The blacklist contains one url from Wikileaks, which (judging form the URL) is yet another (non-Australian) leaked blacklist of banned sites. I'm not defending censorship (one look at the list shows what a STUPID idea it is) but I think implying that it was used to "block Wikileaks" overstates what happened.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    It overstates the case for that point in time. But it doesn't overstate that they were prepared to do it. Remember: this is a secret list that Australians cannot legally see.
    - derefr 13y ago
      That does sort of make sense, though. Publishing the list of blocked URLs would be like publishing a list of the addresses of people under Witness Protection: useless to anyone except those who want to go to them. And not just those who want to look at one site in particular--you can know whether a particular site is on the list by just testing it, after all. Instead, the only use of having the entire list would be to look at sites just because they're on the list; in est, to get suggestions for new sites related to your interests.
      - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        How do you know the difference between a blocked site and a site with a networking issue without uh... subverting the block and using a proxy or a vpn?