URL blacklist 'creep' possible: Conroy

Conorys lies adn deceptions

Also the utter crap that comes from Conroy; including claiming "mandates" for apparently deeply unpopular policy , that rubbish about "trusting" politicians (and then lying through his false teeth about "fake" lists), and not to mention what he tried to do to Mark. This is the last person I'd trust my right to free speech to.

betfair balck listed

And betfair never new about it? Funny that....... So if "in race" betting was against Australian law why were they not notified by AFP or police about breaking one.
How much controversial can you get Senator?

Conroy is the "BLACKLIST CREEP".

Australian citizens deserve better that this over- promoted ex TWU thug.

someone please terminate the conroy creep

Conroy shows Australia he is a muppet

There are so many ínaccuracies'that Conroy speaks of.

Lets go through them one by one:

1. In race betting affects integrity of sport - I'm glad you are concerned that betting on sport in Australia will make it rigged. Congrats on informing Betfair, an Australian licensed and regulated operator of the legalities.

2. He admits concern of creeping - doesn't this highlight the need to not go ahead with this? Who plays God?

3. “This is just not the case and the trial, in my view, will prove you can block 10,000 URLs without any over-blocking at all,” he said. “I believe the technology is there.” WELL DONE! We now have a Senator that knows more about ISP banning technology than 2 of the top 3 ISPs in Australia.

You are a muppet sir. Thanks to Techworld for writing this article.

Scopecreep

Wake up Senator....
Not if parliament decides but what people want parliament brings on to the constitution, law but this country does not want internet filtered.....

Why was my comment about Lundy deleted? Presumably for mentioning her marital relationship with CCC lobbyist David Forman...? Internet censorship? Talk about irony!

Why was my comment about Lundy deleted?

Was it? Please send it to me.

<i>-Ed</i>

Transparency

Here's an idea:

Keep the blacklist publicly available. Everyone can see what's on it. That way, there can be accountability for it, and "creep" can be avoided.

The internet filter is suposed to block all these sites, so what harm is there in letting people know that something is blocked if they won't be able to access it?

Any proof?

Apart from the usual broken record slather of personal attacks on Mr Conroy, do any of you actually have any proof that the Betfair site was part of the ACMA list, was it part of the filter vendor add-ons, or was it an overseas Betfair page that was listed?
Do we have any proof that it was actually listed at all? The lists being published could very well have been doctored...
Conroy speaks openly about voiced concerns and addresses them, and some people go into yet another spate of simple insults...
You just do not learn do you? Some people harden significantly if you mindlessly attack them, some become very resolute and you end up achieving exactly the opposite of what you wanted.
Unless of course it is just some inane pleasure you are getting from throwing the attacks and insults... The Australian public are neither impressed nor swayed by such outbursts, and will judge the credibility of your arguments by the level of maturity shown in presenting them...
Calling Conroy a thug, a creep, a muppet etc will not get you broader support...

So first...

So first there was no chance of scope creep...

And people alarmed about it were "child porn supporters".

Then the list leaked but it was apparently not the list (although we have no way of confirming that)...

Then we are told to have faith in politicians (that's very funny Conroy, you decide to change careers to comedian?)

Now we're told their will be scope creep according to parliament's wishes because they got voted in so anything they want, they get and can claim a mandate (even if the assertion may never have been tested at election).

And last, 'if you don't like it, vote us out'... Yeah, because you've been up front and honest about this entire process... /sarcasm The general public are more interested (currently) in things like Workchoices because they are unaware of what is going on. I challenge any reader to ask 10 random ppl they know about the government's plan to censor the internet and see how many have any clue... The government has obfuscated this policy as effectively as they can manage and then claim a mandate?

Conjob, you're a joke. You're a bully, an egomaniac and your treatment of the public and your critics (particularly Mr. Mark Newton) is disgraceful. There is no reason a single Australian should trust a word you are saying when you've changed your story so many times, all well documented by the print media, for some reason TV news seems to ignore your gross incompetence.

No Net Censorship...

Conroy's beliefs

I wish Conroy would listen to expert opinion rather than just the opinion of vendors trying to sell their filtering software!

There goes Feedom of speech!

If the Blacklist starts to include legal content Web sites then this isn't a Clean feed for saving the children it's clearly CENSORSHIP! This will confirm what we all have fear from the start that this is Another great firewall of China ... Get rid of the filter now or you lose the next election simple as that mr Kevin Rudd PM ... I'd be getting rid of "conjob" if I where you ... You have no right

delusional

posted at 10:31 "Conroy speaks openly about voiced concerns and addresses them"
This had me rolling on the floor in fits of laughter. Conroy has NEVER been open about anything and NEVER addressed an issue once that has been brought up. if you watch youtube footage of ludlam questioning Conroy conroy never goes anywhere near answering Ludlums direct concise questions and sidesteps them entirely.

Gald to see what Conroy believes is more important than the facts. How can we get rid of this clown?

Getting rid of Conroy

There's a couple of ways that I can think of - one is to write a letter to the Prime Minister and other senior ALP figures pointing out his blatant incompetence and requesting that he be sacked ASAP... if enough people do this Rudd may start listening although I wouldn't hold your breath. Alternatively, if you or anyone you know are ALP members start agitating within the party as much as possible, again pointing out Conroy's incompetence, and working through the system to get him replaced.

Getting rid of Conroy pt2

and the longer term approach is the one he himself mentions in the article - voting him out, although that is the slowest and the approach of last resort since he may have already completely destroyed the Digital Economy by the time he comes up for reelection. Hopefully he resigns or is sacked long before then.

I hope someone throws a shoe at this idiot.

That's the problem

You ask do we have any proof.

That is the crux of the problem. Since the list is secret how do we know and whom to we beleive? I beleive it is the list and I beleive that Conroy is a liar or grossly misinformed. The so called list can be obtained by a quick 30 second hack to the software the government (formerly provide by the Aust Government). Therefore the so call list the software uses matches the list on wiki ergo: the wiki list is the black list that the black list software uses.

What more proof could you possibly want?

Further...

Just to elaborate further on the hack to the IIA filter software.

The software in question maintains MULTIPLE lists in text form, which are stored encrypted. There are around 20 different lists with the word "Websites" in their filename. The hack in question very specifically extracts the list with the filename "Websites_<strong>ACMA</strong>.txt", and it is from three different extractions of this file, at three different times, that netted the three different leaks of the ACMA blacklist. If you were to download the software today, and perform the hack yourself, you would likely end up with a different list again, due to updates from the ACMA themselves.

Any assertion that "the vendor" added sites to the list themselves are disingenuous: they most likely DID add them to the list, but it would have been at the specific direction of ACMA, in accordance with weekly/fortnightly/monthly/whatever updates to the actual ACMA list.

Anything added by "the vendor" that WASN'T at the direction of ACMA would not have been added to "Websites_ACMA.txt" - it would have been added to "Websites_20.txt" or "Websites_4.txt" or "Websites_umpteen_zillion.txt".

Want more proof? Try getting hold of the actual ACMA blacklist under a Freedom of Information request...oh, wait, you can't.

<a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25240699-5014239,00.html">Guess we'll just have to take the Esteemed Senator's word for it, won't we?</a>

No - How dare they throw A shoe.

A whole truckful, nay, ship full of shoes needs to be thrown at this scrofulous dick-head.

Conroy has no idea and is wasting tax payer money

These so called filters were to originally block child porn which is fine and most of the population don't have too much problem with, how ever there are just too many ways around internet filters that block URL's.

If the filters ever do take off, business's overseas that re-sell proxy servers and VPN servers will make some money to get around these filters.

Conroy what the hell are you thinking? Why does the government even attempt to police an international computer network?

A stupid filter that 75% of Australia don't want.

“I believe the technology is there.”

What you believe and what is known as fact are in two completely separate realms of existence, Mr Conroy - just because you believe such a filter will block 10,000 URLS, with 100% efficacy, zero chance of overblocking and zero impact on the Australian technical economy does not actually make it true.

Time and time again, experts in the relevant fields have told you: this filter will not achieve the results you are telling the Australian public you are looking for (it's possible the results the government wants are different though) - those that truly want to access any blocked material will continue to do so, it will have no impact on the world-wide problem of child sexual abuse/violence and it is going to put further financial pressure on Australian businesses and households that are strained as it is.

Instead of wasting all this time, effort and money on a token effort, why not instead redirect those efforts and funds into supporting the appropriate agencies that can actually make a positive impact - the Federal Police and relations with Interpol et al to actually track down and imprison the abusers, community and government agencies to support and assist the victims.

I certainly agree that personal attacks don't really help in getting a point across.

I obviously can't speak for everyone here, but my own concern is not about 'OMG betfair is on the blacklist' or even whether the leaked list is accurate. I am concerned that a very small group of people (1 to be exact) has the authority to determine what the Australian public can and cannot view, and the Australian public are just being forced to accept that.

If your political, moral or ethical values differ from that 1 person or group of people then there is a possibility that material on the internet related to your religion, political views and social issues (not just abuse/violence/terrorism material) will be blocked.

We are not quite there yet, but this filter is starting to push us in the direction of certain countries that the same people supporting the filter would quickly denounce as lacking human rights and political freedoms.

someone get some directive, PLEASE!!!

Would somebody FOR the net filter, please lay out the reasons why this filter is in trial. Now take that answer and compare it to 6 months ago.

If the government would actually stick to it's directive, and original purpose, then those against the filter might actually have a reason to believe that there is a confident moral direction this whole concept is heading in.

Also remember, that morality, IS the primary objective driving this debate, from both sides. It is just as morally wrong to introduce a filter that can be over-corrupted by personal agenda's then it is to allow the internet to be over-corrupted by personal agenda's.

tosser

"people have the chance to toss us out if they don't like what we do"

I suggest Labor use that as their next election slogan, just in case there was anybody who wasn't already going to vote them last on their ballot paper.

What a pity that one stupid idea can bring down a whole political party. Just ask John 'WorkChoices' Howard.

What ever happened to Faith Conroy

It was only in the last week or 2 that this Senator was preaching for Faith in our elected members, and now he admits that he doesn't even have faith in the system to do right by us.

Doesn't this scare you Conroy, and are you trying to go out of your way to live up to the title Conjob?

Above all else this so called 'Creep' issue should be ringing alarm bells in everyones ears, this is why we as Australians are embarrassed to have voted you fools in. Can't you see that. Let alone the fact that you are trying to add the NBN to that list of embarrasments.

Wake up Conroy, the GST wasn't rolled back because it suits any Government. The same will happen with your Censorship tool. Do not doubt that that is what this filter will become.

Thanks for taking your faith back to church and leaving it, atleast partially, out of politics

the only creep here is conroy

shame there is no parimentary equivilent of crt alt delete

When is this website going to be included on the block list for dissent of the government?

Transparency?

If the Senator believed his filter was as bullet proof as he does, he should see no concern in publishing the full list so that total transparency on what is filtered is maintained.

This is no different to the banning of films or other media. A quick check of the OFLC database will explain what was banned and why.

Why won't you do this for the internet?

It isn't really about the children at all, is it...

...it's all about power. People in control want more power than they deserve. The right to turn a valve off on the single most powerful communications medium in history must be incredibly alluring to those in power. Would you trust *anyone* with this kind of power? Not one single child's life will be saved by this filter. Democracy, however, may receive a fatal wound if it's put into place.

Do you really want to be remembered as the man who single-handedly destroyed the democratic process in Australia, Mr. Conroy?

Do you really want to be the one who destroyed freedom of the press?

Expect pitchforks, Mr. Conroy. Expect torches in a long line up the hill if you do this.

not interesting article(