Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikileaks Pages Added To Australian Internet Blacklist

Posted by timothy on from the paging-dr-streisand-dr-streisand dept.

cpudney writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has added several Wikileaks pages to its controversial blacklist. The blacklisted pages contain Denmark's list of banned websites. Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine as the hosts of the popular Australian broadband forum, Whirlpool, discovered last week when they published a forum post that linked to an anti-abortion web-site recently added to ACMA's blacklist. The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian government's proposed mandatory ISP-level Internet censorship legislation. Wikileaks' response to notification of the blacklisting states: 'The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship.'" So Australians aren't allowed to see what it is that the Danes aren't allowed to see?

25 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. Oh great, there goes slashdot by hedwards · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any Australians fined yet for coming here?

    1. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Aussie here, it has always been my contention that Conroy was in charge of the project to drag it out and make sure it DIDN'T happen, I think they are about to sign the death certificate...

      Relevent info in amoungst the links...


      "The Greens and Opposition also oppose the scheme, meaning any legislation to implement it will be blocked. The Opposition has obtained legal advice that "legislation of some sort will almost certainly be required", but others have said it may be possible to implement the scheme without legislation. Speaking at a telecommunications conference last week, Senator Conroy urged Australians to have faith in MPs to pass the right legislation."

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by novakreo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      No.

      --
      O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    3. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by SJ2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quoting myself here:
      "[...]many of Australia's rights are "implied" in the constitution and exist merely through the High Court's "creative" interpretations. Such as the implied right for Political speech in Australian Captial Television Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth (1992) which was also extended in 1994 in Theophanous v. The Herald And Weekly Times. Australia also took an active role in 1948 when drafting the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
      Unfortunately, many attempts to introduce entrenched Human Rights into the constitution such Lionel Murphy in 1973 and 1985 with the Federal attorney-general have failed before they even reached the stage of a referendum."

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=436328&cid=22244392

      Ironically it may turn out that my comment towards the end was a bit too quick to judge.

    4. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have no constitutional rights to free speech. We do have implied protected political speech, but that's not in the constitution. In practice, however, we have free speech. In fact, I can say things like s^@$[CARRIER LOST]

  2. Happiness is Mandatory! by Leafheart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFS:

    Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)

    So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

    Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

    --
    --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    1. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

      What is your security clearance, citizen?

    2. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by faloi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm afraid if you're not ultraviolet, you can't ask that question. Can you tell me if the chainsaw looks like it's going fast enough, look closer.

      I loved that game.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

    4. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by psyron · · Score: 5, Informative

      The link in question was to an anti-abortion page containing some pictures of aborted babies. Apparently a member of the forum decided to test the filter by posting a link to the page and then submitting a complaint to the ACMA asking for such a link to be banned, for the purpose of seeing what would happen.

      Lo and behold someone at the ACMA must of looked at the page, seen the pictures (I'm sure you can find much worse in any medical journal mind you) and decided that linking to the page was now illegal. So they sent a notice to the forum's hosting provider (bypassing the forum all together) informing them to take the link down within 24 hours or risk being fined $11K per day. The host then contacted the forum admin who obviously didn't want to put this on his provider took down the link.

      I initially thought nothing would come of this ridiculous filter idea because it was just so plain stupid and so many people, including most ISPs, are against it. But I'm not so sure anymore.

    5. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't that what we brits used australia for in the first place?

      And you used America to get rid of your puritans ;) Seems pretty ironic that your convicted criminals were more loyal to the Empire than your religious zealots.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course the prisoner's were sent over with loyalist guards who became the power structure of australia. The Puritans were not sent with guards and the powerful folks opposed english rule.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    7. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by conureman · · Score: 5, Funny

      The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    8. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by srjh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair, the fine is for ignoring a request for deleting links to prohibited content. It would be stupid to significantly penalise someone for breaking a law they aren't allowed to know about... but if I had a dollar for every time I thought "That would be stupid, there's no way the ALP will possibly incorporate that into the net censorship plan", I'd be able to forget about this whole financial crisis and retire at 26.

      What's just as concerning is the apparent recursive nature of the blacklist. Link to prohibited content, and your website becomes prohibited content. Therefore, any links to your website become prohibited content. Given the nature of hyperlinking and the internet, the whole web is probably only a few steps away from being banned. At this stage, I'm not even sure that's not what Labor wants.

      It's actually worse than this - the blacklist doesn't just deal with "prohibited content", it deals with "potential prohibited content". In other words, material that has not been found to be prohibited, but which a single bureaucrat thinks has the potential to be prohibited if it was investigated. Given that even MA15+ (i.e. material that is legal for a 15-year-old to view) content can be prohibited, and a significant proportion of the blacklist is legal for 18-year-olds to view (i.e. R18+ and X18+), that's an extremely low threshold for something to be considered off-limits to Australian web users by our government.

      Ugh... the whole thing sickens me. I was hoping it would have been dropped like a hot potato for now, but it's obvious they aren't backing down. Our only hope is if it goes to a vote in the senate and fails.

  3. That's Kafkaesque by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eh, what?? A $11k fine for breaking a secret law? How are you supposed to stay clear of it if you can't read the list of things you can't do?

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:That's Kafkaesque by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. No right thinking citizen would ever do anything that is on the list. What more do you need to know?

  4. No Internet For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why don't we just block Australia from the internet altogether until they learn to use it properly?

  5. Re:And it sucks more for Australians by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least in Denmark, you can drive a little ways and get your Internet uncensored.

    For those unlucky souls in Australia who can't access their favorite aberrent websites don't really have any good recourse.

    Wifi outside the US embasy?

  6. Actually... by acehole · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The anti-abortion website was purposely reported to ACMA (the gov dept looking after the censorship) to test the waters in reporting websites.

    All it took was one email.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
  7. dear all australians: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    welcome to what it feels like being an american during the bush administration. pariah, object of scorn and derision. you do realize what a joke this makes your country look like right?

    1. sites blocked not for pornography, but ideological reasons
    2. harsh punitive financial punishments just for linking
    3. secret lists you, as a common citizen, don't have the right to see

    i now think of australia the way i do iran and china in terms of freedom of expression. you better clean this disgrace up, you blokes can't let this continue, it is an embarassment

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  8. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

    This isn't a popular opinion but I think it's a natural consequence of people turning to Government for all manner of problems that Government wasn't originally intended to deal with. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:It's all child pornography. by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > The vast majority of the list looks like kiddie porn sites
    Please post ACMA's blacklist so we can verify.

  10. Re:It's all child pornography. by __int64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's not actually about stopping childporn, it's about imposing censorship. Whether childporn is weeded out is irrelevant, and these filters don't actually have be effective at stopping childporn to be effective at making people complacent.

  11. Finland is way ahead of you by mjrauhal · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Finnish police have already censored the Wikileaks page on Finnish internet censorship; see my comment at the appropriate talk page.

  12. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

    I like that quote, but have never heard it before. It didn't quite ring right for Jefferson, so I dug. According to WikiQuote, it's actually from Gerald Ford's address to Congress in August, 1974.