Talk:Internet censorship in Australia/Archive 1

Western

Why does the first paragraph say that Australia is in the Western world? Because last time I checked a map, it isn't. Kirbytime 04:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It refers to culture and is not literally referring to Australia being on the nonexistant West side of Earth 131.170.90.4 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Usenet

On 13 April 2006 rgc added this text. However, some Usenet newsgroups are required to be blocked and ISPs in general adhere to this legal requirement. By law ISPs are restricted from naming the Usenet newsgroups they are required to block. After discovering the information on my ISPs usenet faq here. I have removed a statement that was added by User:220.233.172.74 who is currently engaging in a malicious campaign of vandalism in the Exetel wiki. This statement was an outright lie, and was intended as a continuation of his personal vendetta against this ISP.

"almost complete disinterest in enforcement from the agencies responsible for doing so" not exactly neutral I should say, or provable -> moderator required to evaluate this article i think —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.2.155 (talk) 14:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the right-wing qualifier for the Australian Family Association, as they have support from both sides of politics, eg. former opposition leader Kim Beazley is a prominent left-wing patron. Nazlfrag (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged porn blocking

"For example, Eftel and its related brand aaNet began filtering during the week of 23 February 2008"

A Google search, using "Due to new Australian Laws this website cannot be viewed from your ip" (including quotes)[1] provides no support for this claim. In fact, it provides quite the opposite. This thread, in an adult forum, indicates that the blocking has been put in place by the target website and this page clearly proves that the IP blocking is being done by the website itself. Since the claim was added an aaNet representative has posted a strong denial[2], in the forums at Whirlpool (website), that the blocking is occurring. Accordingly, I've deleted this section from the article. If somebody wishes to restore it in the future they'll need to provide a citation, as the editor who initially added it should have done. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

More information about blocked websites here

"Net Filters may block Porn and Gambling Sites" contains more information about the possible mandatory filtering which may be imposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cojoco (talk • contribs) 03:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion paper about R18+ rating for Games has been shelved

Censoring the censorship debate "The introduction of an R18+ rating for computer games has been delayed indefinitely after South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson withdrew his support for a discussion paper and public consultation process." cojoco (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Existing blacklist

There is an existing blacklist, which is secret and specifically excluded from FOI, after EFA tried to get a copy. Euthanasia material would be on list, as it's refused classification: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11346.pdf page 78 (82 of the pdf), presumably under the "promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence" criteria for refusing classification. This is why Conroy claims the filter that can't be opted out from is just enforcing existing laws. TRS-80 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've added more detail to the article cojoco (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to Whirlpool wiki

Someone added an external link to the Whirlpool Wiki which was immediately removed under WP:EL. However, this Wiki seems very good, with plenty of web resources, quite a few editors, and a great chronology of news stories. I'm wondering if it should be put back? It might qualify, as there are exceptions: "Links to be avoided: 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Please comment! cojoco (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is if it has a substantial number of editors and history of stability. Editors can't be proven due to sockpuppets (Wikipedia included...) and stability is relative. Tyciol (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Conroy's response

Should get some quotes from SC from Lifestyle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cojoco (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for very messy cleanup 7 December 2008

I attempted to clean up the article today, but somehow my subsequent edits were to a previous, un-cleaned-up version of the article.

Apologies for this messiness, but I think the article is good again, with some cleanup and some better-referenced information. cojoco (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of Wikipedia in the UK

It seems like Australia is light-handed compared to the UK, where they've started censoring Wikipedia: UK ISPs switch on mass Wikipedia censorship. While the proposed filter for Australia looks like it will be pretty bad, they at least have not turned it on yet. cojoco (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

uhh, given that Conroy seems to be deadset on getting this filter online, and that he has managed to get an agreement with the IWF to add their filter list to ours, and that their have been reports that parents can send in block requests, I would say that Australia's is far worse than the one in the UK. --Alphamone (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? If the Australian filter is tied to the UK filter, that would be relevant to the article. cojoco (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html on page 2. --Alphamone (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added this info. cojoco (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Man charged for uploading baby-swinging video

This is a new wrinkle, but I'm not sure if it constitutes censorship or not. A queensland man has been charged for uploading a video of another man swinging a baby, with happy results. The SMH won't even show any of the video clip: Police defend baby swinging internet charge cojoco (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Clive Hamilton does not make any sense

I found some supporters of the plan, so I added them. However, I then noticed that Clive Hamilton's arguments don't make any sense:

"The laws that mandate upper speed limits do not stop people from speeding, does that mean that we should not have those laws? ... We live in a society, and societies have always imposed limits on activities that it deems are damaging. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Internet."

While there are speeding laws, there is no physical mechanism to prevent people speeding, and people are booked when they break them. By analogy, Australia does have laws against Child Pornography, has no physical mechanism to prevent people accessing it, and people are jailed when they download it. What on earth is he trying to say? However, this is Wikipedia:OR I guess, so it will just have to stand. cojoco (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of a takedown of Hamilton at Spiked, not sure if it can be worked in to the article though. TRS-80 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've referenced it with a bit more about Clive Hamilton, but there is a lot more interesting stuff in this article which should perhaps be added cojoco (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Filtering sofware

"filtering software, which must be offered to all consumers by their Internet Service Providers."

as it stands this wording suggests the filtering only has t be offered, and so can be refused by the customer. is this so?--Mongreilf (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current Net Alert scheme is purely opt-in - you have to request the software. TRS-80 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Stephen Conroy state in parliament that the whole program has been a failure, so it will close down at the end of the year. Given the total lack of demand from parents for the software, this really brings into question the whole basis for the filter, as that green's senators questioning has brought up. Any source for this? cojoco (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Workplace Censorship

Is there a place in this article for discussion of workplace censorship?

It does seem to becoming quite common; my own workplace is now filtered.

Here's a complaint by (ex-?) Senator Lynn Allison about the internet filter at Parliament House, which blocked a news article about clean coal technology. cojoco (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

query Andjam - RE: Reversion of poorly referenced claims

the Senator edited his blog post after it was quoted by others, his post in it's original form no longer exists except as fragmentary quotes, the page pointed to includes the subsequent user posts with the quotes,

i am sorry the Senator decided to erase the direct evidence.

the filters in use in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China do NOT block peer to peer, therefore Australia will have the most oppressive filter on the planet. thats a simple fact.

how then is the section innaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.91.7 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are a few newspaper articles now which refer to the P2P comments, such as this one: http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,24833959-5014239,00.html. You could try inserting this material again, with a reference and without the inflammatory language: "most oppressive filter on the planet", even if it were true, is simply unreferenced, and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Hopefully people will fix it if it's not exactly right, instead of simply deleting it. cojoco (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of my edits so far have been adding {{fact}} tags to the article rather than deleting stuff. I was a bit more aggressive this time, partially because I had just dealt with puerile vandalism about living people (the revert just before my rouge revert), and partially because of the comparison with the nazis. Also, the edits were putting bullet point references into the body of the article. Andjam (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Where's the "neutrality check" discussion?

There's a "POV-check-section" in the "Response" section, but I can't find a discussion here in the talk page. Is that the way things should be? In any case, I guess this is it. In the meantime, here is my two cents worth. One of the difficulties in editing this article is that (from my POV, anyway!) there are many voices in the media which are against the filter, as can be seen from the many references in the article, yet the main players in support of the filter, including Stephen Conroy, appear to have so far refused any kind of comprehensive interview. Indeed, Stephen Conroy appears to have endeared himself to all concerned by asking his detractors if they are against him because they support child pornography! cojoco (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed both the "POV-check-section" and refimprove templates from the article, as they're from an IP address with only a handful of edits and don't really seem appropriate. Assuming for the sake of argument that this page is POV, this has been mentioned on this page before without much interest from anyone cojoco (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Sorry, that was Stephen Conroy's page cojoco (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"citation needed" tag on Introduction seems unnecessary

Someone's added a "citation needed" tag in the introductory paragraph for this sentence:

In 2008, the Australian Labor Party introduced a policy of mandatory filtering of the internet for all Australians. While the policy has not yet come into force, it has generated a groundswell of opposition from almost all segments of society, with only a few groups in support.

As this seems to me to be a fair summary of the many media responses to the policy, I'd rather remove the "citation needed" tag than list all of the references for and against the policy of filtering. Does this sound OK? cojoco (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think "groundswell" should go. Andjam (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "substantial" ? cojoco (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it's done now. cojoco (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of FTA and Copyright Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 for censorship?

There is an unsourced statement about the use of DMCA-like provisions in the US/Australia Free Trade agreement, and the Copyright Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, for censorship:

"Tough new copyright laws were passed on 9 December 2004 by the Australian Senate, going even further than the Australian-US free trade agreement (FTA). The impact will be felt most heavily on Internet service providers. The Internet Industry Association and EFA are actively opposing these efforts."

I've added a reference which partially supports these statements, but can't find a reference which describes anything about the current situation: in particular, has this legislation ever been used? Can anyone help? Thanks! cojoco (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Some of the sources being used include the Green Left Weekly (which belongs to a political organisation rather than a news organisation) and The Register (anyone who's familiar with their coverage of Wikipedia knows how inaccurate they are). Can people please use more reliable sources? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Register is a generally well-regarded source for IT news. It appears to me that most of the snide remarks about The Register on WP stem from its obvious bias against Wikipedia, but some of the WP stories have been very informative (Mantanmoreland, anyone?) I'd prefer to find a better reference than the Green Left Weekly, but it was the best I could come up with for an event that has plenty of google search results. I wouldn't like to lose the IndyMedia events down down the memory hole if it can be avoided. cojoco (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is one fringe source reporting on one incident sufficient to support the claim in the header that Australia has tried to "censor political groups"? Andjam (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a better reference to the event, although I've ditched the claim that the website was Indymedia, as this seems harder to verify. Andjam, it would be great if you could find good sources for the currently-unsourced statements in the article, and even better if we could find out what those three websites were that Michael Costa was complaining about. I'll take it as read that The Register is generally regarded as OK for IT news. cojoco (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also re-instated the Green Left reference, with the caveat "The Green Left Weekly States ...", as it was an innocuous statement, and it's nice to know how it all ended. cojoco (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material/Warez

Would the censorship block or "throttle" with downloads of illegal material such as copyrighted material and "warez"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.116.232 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Conroy has said that the filter would be tested with torrents, but I don't think anyone is taking him seriously. I also don't believe that copyrighted material and warez will end up on the blacklist. There is legislation in the FTA for taking down copyrighted material, but I don't know if this has ever happened. Do you have any sources which give any more details about this? cojoco (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"illegal" content and censorship of protest groups

Hi, Andjam, I undid part of your last edit. while I agree that "clean" was a "sneer quote", I don't think that's true of "illegal". It is legal to own and watch X-rated material in Australia, so that Stephen Conroy describing content on the black-list as "illegal" seems very dicey, hence the quotes. Also, I think that any attempt at censorship of political groups, such as the attempt to block Indymedia, is very important to note in a democratic country, so I think that it deserves to go in the introduction. This is, after all, one of the very few actual attempts at censorship in Australia. cojoco (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were very important, it'd get a significant amount of coverage in mainstream news organizations. Andjam (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about internet censorship, and this is the only documented attempt at internet censorship of political material in Australia that I know about, so it is self-evidently important: we don't need multiple sources to attest to its importance. I don't think that it is "very important", but it is a significant fact in the history of internet censorship in Australis. I don't think the Streisand effect is relevant here: not every attempt at censorship leads to an explosion of material counteracting that attempt, more's the pity. cojoco (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

American vrs. Australian spellings

This is an article on an aussie issue, so I presume it is written by aussies. So i was surpirsed when i kept coming across american english, such as organiZed instead of organiSed. Why is this? Is the article being written by an American? If so I understand, if not then we should use our form of english

I corrected three instances, not sure if there is more.

If any one wishes to go through and check that would be great.

And to all who wish to edit or add new material please be careful and proof read.

Thank you. 124.171.165.139 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an "Australia versus America" issue, but more like "Australia versus much of the rest of the world"; the Oxford English Dictionary still prefers -ize:

American spelling accepts only -ize endings in most cases, such as organize, recognize, and realize. British usage accepts both -ize and the more French-looking -ise (organise, recognise, realise). The -ize spelling is preferred by some authoritative British sources including the Oxford English Dictionary — which, until recently, did not list the -ise form of many words, even as an alternative — and Fowler's Modern English Usage. The OED firmly deprecates usage of "-ise", stating, "[T]he suffix..., whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."[45] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[46] Despite these denouncements, however, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism.

You're welcome. cojoco (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

David Hicks

I added a bit about the Taliban's policy on the internet. I hope it doesn't violate WP:SYNTH, but if it does, then maybe we should remove mention of David Hicks and Work Choices. Andjam (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While I have no opinion about mention of the Taliban, GetUp!'s participation in David Hicks and Work Choices is well-referenced and gives context for the organization. cojoco (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment about Hicks supporting the Taliban and their policy on the internet is irrelevant, GetUp! was protesting against the illegal imprisonment of Hicks, they were not supporting what he had done. Jimi jones (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Was the point of the sentence to try to imply that GetUp is somehow hypocritical? GetUp never supported the Taliban, so the Taliban's approach to civil liberties is irrelevant to GetUp's advocacy of civil liberties for Australians. Rather, it's entirely consistent with their approach to David Hicks' incarceration. - Aucitypops (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't address the detainment of someone without addressing the reason for their detainment. Where's their sympathy for those oppressed by the Taliban? Andjam (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the blocklists are appearing on Wikileaks

All of the lists of blocked sites for at least Thailand and Denmark are appearing on Wikileaks, e.g. [link redacted by Andjam (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)] So, it seems that these filter lists are a very fine source for would-be child porn enthusiasts, supplied by the government! cojoco (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This talk page isn't to discuss the merits or otherwise of internet filtering, but to discuss Wikipedia's article on the subject. Can you please explain how this section complies with WP:NOTFORUM? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just leave the heads-up cojoco (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews has a news item on it. The Wikileaks page is listing all of the sites, not just those erroneously blocked, so I've removed the direct link (though Wikinews has a link with a warning in front of it). Andjam (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

When the trials are implemented and workarounds are discussed online and there is reporting on how in-effective and pointless the trials are, there should be a section that explains exactly how internet users are doing this. Blacklists at Wikileaks will be just one aspect of how bad this crazy scheme is. Note that a Google search for internet censorship Australia returns this page at the top and so it is likely that people will check this page for how workarounds are being used. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine, as people evading the filter is clearly relevant to an article about the filter, but we should be careful not to turn this into a HOWTO. Would it make sense to point to a HOWTO in the external links, though? cojoco (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

non web filtering

Other than the Honourable Stephen Conroy's dreamy allusion to filtering p2p traffic do we have any other information about the implementation of this during a trial? I placed the web filtering link in the lead because nearly all internet filtering referred to in the article is strictly web filtering. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided about "web filtering" vs. "internet filtering": it sounds like web filtering is the only realistic option right now, but it's clear that they want to filter the Internet. I guess this goes for all of the articles in the "Internet censorship in XXX" series, as they could all more accurately be called "Web censorship in XXX". I took out "web filtering software", because I think the filtering policy is the main thing, and the software/hardware used to implement it is secondary, so I moved the filtering software link to "See also". cojoco (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed cleanup tag

I've removed the cleanup tag, as it is pretty well-referenced now, and I think the sections make more sense. cojoco (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Filter discussion over at Stephen Conroy

There's currently a discussion over at Talk:Stephen Conroy#Current Issues about how much weight should be placed on the filter in that article. cojoco (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not dead yet!

I removed the reference to Nick Xenophon from the introduction while citing the "scuttled" article from the SMH because, despite the tone of the article, this was not actually a change in the status quo. NX had already stated that he would not support the filter in its current form, so Senate support was already missing. The filter can still go ahead without legislation, as it has done in Britain, where the ISPs have voluntarily decided to impose a filter on their customers. cojoco (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While I see that you have effectively WP:OWNed this article for the last 6 months, this was a well-sourced edit based on a reliable source that you have watered down with a blog reference that happens also to be an opinion piece. You obviously seek to keep the issue alive but there are definite WP:POV issues with these edits.

I'm reverting your edits but here is a reliable source that says what you are essentially trying to say at the end. I suggest you be a bit less WP:BOLD in future edits, rather seeking consensus here first. -- samj _in^out 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nick Xenophon has not actually changed his position, so I don't see the need to post anything about 26 February in the introduction, and this info is already present in his section. I did not remove your material, but tried to cast it in a less POV light. You have added the statement that the filter has been scuttled, in a very prominent position, based upon a single source, which disagrees with several other sources. You also WP:BOLD-ly removed the qualification I added, which is that the filter can be implemented with the support of the IIA, as has happened in the UK. While that link is an opinion piece, I don't believe that it says anything disagreeable. You also assume that the composition of the Senate is immutable: with the prospect of a Federal election in the next year or so, the filter might be closer than you think. cojoco (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the content is disagreeable - it's a blog source and an opinion piece and as such is obviously not suitable for Wikipedia. I've even given you a WP:RS which says what you want to say which is more than most would have done. -- samj _in^out 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a blog, it is Dale Clapperton's blog, who as an ex-chairperson of EFA is a recognized authority on Internet Censorship in Australia. So, while this source is not NPOV, I (and I believe Wikipedia) would regard it as reliable. I also don't think you should begin your first edits of a page by accusing an existing editor of being POV, non-RS and an OWNer; that's not exactly what WP:OWN suggests (extracting parts which support my argument):

Primary editors, that is to say, one editor who takes ownership of an article, should be approached on the article talk page with a descriptive header that informs readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of editors. .. In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.

You still have not addressed some fundamental points which I think reflect rather badly on the "scuttled" comment being included in the introduction:

• Nick Xenophon was already "not in support of the filter in its current form" before the phone call on Feb 26, so that, despite all of the noise about it, this is not really much of a change
• Stephen Conroy has not even acknowledged this as a bump on the road to filtering. He's still talking up the filter at conferences
• Overseas experience shows that it is possible to implement filters without legislation. The government has plenty of carrots and sticks to assist with compliance, and may use them
• There is a possibility of a Federal election within the next year, and the government might gain control of the Senate. While the filter might be dead now, it is not necessarily dead forever

I'd appreciate some discussion of these points instead of pulling out all of your WikiLawyering, as it doesn't help with the blood pressure. Let's assume that we're both in good faith: I still don't understand what POV you think I'm pushing. cojoco (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern was that you were keeping the issue alive for whatever reason, over an opinion expressed in a blog and some synthesis about what's happened on the other side of the planet - presumably you don't like the filter (who does?) and don't want people taking comfort in what you percieve to be a false early victory. The problem is (and this isn't WP:WL btw) we need such things to be expressed in reliable sources - the reliable source we have says it's a dead duck and nobody's said boo since. All the points you raise may well be true, and if so you should be able to find references for them - I've already given you one. -- samj _in^out 10:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ui) Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. I wish you had stated your position in such plain terms originally instead of raising NPOV, RS and OWN all at once, which doesn't seem the right way to start a friendly discussion. While the SMH has said that it is a dead duck, as you say, it is frustrating when nothing substantive has actually changed. Once again, as then-chairman of EFA, Dale Clapperton can be expected to have a relevant opinion, so please stop calling it "a blog": he has been cited as an expert by reliable third-party sources, which suits WP fine. His analysis of the legalities surrounding the filtering plan seem quite detailed and, although he himself is opposed to the filtering plan, I can't see the POV in this kind of analysis. SC is still talking up the filter as if nothing has changed. If the filter really is dead, I guess we'll hear no more about it, but I shall eagerly await developments. I'll try to hunt down some references which I think would reduce the importance of NX's reported "change of heart":

• I hope you agree that DC can be regarded as a reliable source for the requirements for the government to implement the filtering plan
• NX is in fact irrelevant to the senate vote, as the Libs and the Greens have already stated that they are opposed to the filter, so I really can't understand the tumultuous celebration which occurred.
• While individual ISPs have voiced opposition to the filter, the IIA itself has remained somewhat neutral, and this has been noted, giving Dale Clapperton's statement more support. I need to find a better ref for this. cojoco (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's business as usual at the SMH, with a lot of discussion about the filter and no mention of the scheme being "scuttled". The scheme still does not have Senate support, as it has not had for months. I really don't think that Nick Xenophon's phone call and calling the scheme "scuttled" belongs in the introduction. cojoco (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikileaks really blocked?

Someone added the statement to the introduction that Wikileaks was blocked for Australian users on 19 March 2009. While this does need a reference, it does appear to be true, as I can't see Wikileaks any more. Does anyone have any information? cojoco (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No I have talked to can access wikileaks at all. Not even the proxy websites Jessica87au (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not Australia, it's wikileaks http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikileaks.org/ so I think I'll revert for now ... cojoco (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not the blacklist

I've removed this, for several reasons:

Thus referring to this list as the ACMA blacklist is inaccurate, and any response suggesting that this list is blocking more than just illegal sites as an attack against the plan is ungrounded.

• Wikileaks does not state that it is the ACMA blacklist, but that it is based upon the ACMA blacklist
• There is no reference for the accusation "any response suggesting that this list is blocking more than just illegal sites as an attack against the plan is ungrounded"
• Plenty of sources (including the SMH) have treated the Wikileaks list as if it were legitimate. cojoco (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cojoco, I added the line to attempt to add clarity to the situation. There have been many media reports which simply state that the ACMA blacklist has been leaked (such as "The seemingly innocuous websites were among a leaked list of 2300 websites the Australian Communications and Media Authority was planning to ban to protect children from graphic pornography and violence." from http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25214413-953,00.html . Even the phrase "have treated the Wikileaks list as if it were legitimate." suggests that the list actually has some weight to it.

The media are making quite a few assumptions about the list which have not been supported by any references. All we do actually know (if we trust wikileaks) is that the list was "used by a government approved censorship software maker in its "ACMA only" censorship mode." This sentence doesn't really make any sense since a software maker does not have a mode. The possibilities are, then:

• The list was used in end user censorship software - which is probably not the case, since ACMA surely do not think that the list can't be hacked out of the software if it is provided to the general public.
• This list was used by an ISP in a trial. Since no ISP's are currently performing any trials on systems which actually effect end users, this is in a simulated trial situation. (I may be wrong on that, but that sort of thing would not go unnoticed, especially with the list which was published containing some legitimate websites)
• The list was used by an ACMA trial similar to the one performed in June 2008.

Unless any other possibility exists, we can conclude that the list which was published on the wikileaks site was used only for trial simulations, and thus there are no grounds to make the assumption that the list is accurate.

There are still legitimate points of question regarding the actual blacklist (could sites which are not illegal be blocked, is there an appeal process, how can a website developer be sure he does not link to a page which appears on a list which he has no access to) and this 'leak' does raise those issues, but it's weight is insignificant compared to conclusions which the media have made with it as the only premise. Sainttux (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

interesting point: in the comments section of this slashdot article: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/2321259&from=rss multiple people mention that the reverse engineering of the government intergard filter software produces a similar list. although this is perhaps considered original research for the purposes of the wiki article, editors should be aware that the government is potentially not telling the full truth. need to perhaps rewrite to be impartial third-person style of the different sides to the story rather than stating that the actual list has been released. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sainttux, you are wrong, until December 2008 the Federal Government offered censorship software to the general public which presumably included the ACMA blacklist under its "Net Alert" scheme. Internet censorship software does have modes, as you may choose categories to block, e.g. gambling, adult, P2P etc. As you say, this would make it easy to hack out the ACMA blacklist and post it. While I accept that your reasoning may be correct, using it in the article violates WP:SYNTH, and we should wait for further information. You assume that Wikileaks is the only source: the SMH posted its own article at pretty much the same time as the list was leaked, which indicates that the SMH may have known of the existence of the leaked list before it was posted. As the SMH is regarded as a reliable source, then if it calls the list the "ACMA blacklist", then so can we, although with caveats if there are other RS which state that this is not so. Indeed, we do say that a "purported list" as been leaked, and the government denies that this is the list, so aren't there enough qualifications for you? cojoco (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"The list was used in end user censorship software - which is probably not the case, since ACMA surely do not think that the list can't be hacked out of the software if it is provided to the general public. " this argument has layers of assumptions that make it invalid. how can government provided software filter sites provided by the ACMA if it is not included in or accessible by the software itself. and if it is not included in or accessible by the software, what good is the software in the first place? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cojoco - I edited the page whilst you were writing this response, but I do not believe I have added anything which will contradict what you have just written, I intend only to present this issue without emotional response. My statement about the modes was not, as you have stated, a lack of understanding of how filter software works, I was simply mocking the language used - the statement by WikiLeaks is that the company has a mode, not the software. I realize that was not the intention of the statement. That minor issue aside, I have taken down my 'conclusions' and presented only the facts as I have discovered them, I am now looking into the SMH claim, and adding it into the format I have used should not present any issues. The last line of the section may violate WP:SYNTH since I have no reference for the idea that the two organizations claims do not contradict. I will leave that to you to decide since I am far less experienced in wikipedia than yourself. If the "Net Alert" scheme did contain the actual blacklist, then we probably should find some evidence of that and include it in the page. My point on the distinction of the lists - the list which was published on WikiLeaks never purports to be the blacklist, yet the media have made that claim. I hope that those two points are evident from the sources, and that the I have not violated WP:SYNTH in outlining that.Sainttux (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitehatnetizen, my point exactly, but it turns out i was wrong, the government have effectively provided the list to the general public... even if it was encrypted. Sainttux (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read two articles on the smh website which matched the search terms - not extensive research, I know. The SMH reports are simply reporting that wikiLeaks have the list and have shared it with SMH. We know from ACMA that SMH presented the list to ACMA before it was published on the WikiLeaks website. None of this suggests that SMH know anything more about the list than WikiLeaks who do not claim that the list is the blacklist, but rather is derived from it. The use of the term blacklist, or even ACMA blacklist is not limited only to the list of illegal sites, and in this case simply refers to the list of url's which are derived from the ACMA illegal site list, but I hope that a distinction can be made on the wikipedia page without violating WP:SYNTH.Sainttux (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks have posted a new version of the blacklist which is approximately the same size as ACMA claims it to be. TRS-80 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sainttux, this is a fast-moving issue and it's great that people are jumping in and adding details as they become apparent. While we can't insert our own analysis, I think (hope?) that it is OK to include as much detail as possible, which will allow people to draw their own conclusions. While this is not WP policy as far as I know, I personally would prefer to include all relevant information until the dust settles, whereupon we can tidy the language and make it all more coherent. For example, as information arrives it is being placed in "point form". This should eventually be condensed into paragraphs. cojoco (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

About the citation needed flag for: "No claim was made in the ACMA report regarding the source of the WikiLeaks list, therefore the claims by both ACMA and WikiLeaks do not suggest a contradiction." I dispute the flag yet since I'm not particularly experienced with wikipedia, I will need help and advice with this. I could add a reference to the first half, since it is referring directly to a lack of something in one single report. I did not add it in the first place because it is just a recap on the point made in the bullet points prior to it. Does the "therefore" need a reference? I have outlined all of the claims made by both ACMA and WikiLeaks, and there is no contradiction between them. I do not want to remove that part, whilst a thorough reading would pick that point up, in a quick reading it could easily be missed unless it it actually stated. It is not adding any further information which has not already been stated and referenced.St. Tux (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The first line of WP:SYNTH says:

Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.

While I don't understand the provenance of this rule, I agree with it, because news is made up of a collection of facts, some of which are well sourced and noted, and others which are "off-the-record". If it is not explicitly stated, then it is not directly attributable to a WP:RS, and does not meet the WP criterion for conclusion. If information is not from a reliable source, then it can be included, but only if the source is notable in some way, and only if it is noted in the article text where the info came from. That's my understanding, anyway. I don't mean to pick on you, because I think that there are still many assertions in this article which aren't well-supported by reliable sources, but with this issue fresh in all of our minds I think we can all be conscientious. cojoco (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "The ACMA and WikiLeaks have both stated that this list is the ACMA blacklist." and reference to the two relevant articles? Since the updated list went on WikiLeaks, there has been no coverage of the issue by any party involved, is that something which can be stated on wikipedia?St. Tux (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence would be fine (assuming it were true), as sumnarizing and consolidating content is OK, although I'd phrase it more grammatically. I don't think we could say that "there has been no coverage" without WP:RS, as, once again, this is WP:SYNTH, and also may simply be inaccurate: how can we know for sure if ACMA or Wiki have responded or not? The WP rules can seem very restrictive, but when you look at contentious areas such as Israel/Palestine, strict rules such as these are the only way to keep the place sane. At least the majority of people editing this article have a common POV with the media, although it's mysterious that there don't seem to be any people searching out those rare articles which support the filter. cojoco (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

wikileaks added to censorship list

just thought I'd point this out: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/1228224 the amca is now indlucing sites that link to sites that contain content considered worthy of being on the blacklist... madness! stick this in the wikipedia article? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this appears to be the new way censorship is to be achieved. There's a mention in the Two blacklists section, but the [SMH link] from slashdot looks like a better reference. Maybe it should go somewhere more prominent? cojoco (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added this ref and mentioned it in the introduction, as it's one of the few non-symbolic actions the government has taken. cojoco (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

link to the banned website list Stumbled accross it whilst trying to access the wikileak website.

I had a feeling the instant I heard of this that the government would not use it to just deal with "Illegal content" but would use it for plain old censorship. AVKent882 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it has happened even before the filter has been implemented: I thought we'd have to wait for a more fascist government than this one before a site like Wikileaks would be added to the list of censored sites. cojoco (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess they just couldn't help themselves. Just imagine how bad this censorship will get if this filter becomes fully implemented... AVKent882 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

URL for page

The citation needed tag was for the URL of the anti-abortion page, not for the description. Have there been any mainstream media citations for the URL, as opposed to blogs and forums? Andjam (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen the media link the URL or use the site's name (in Australia) but in Google News I do see one possible source. Bidgee (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should apply hard-line WP policy just because the Australian government has censored a link. We all know it's the correct link, and the only reason it's not in the Australia MSM is because it is censored. There is no legal reason for WP to censor the link, so why should we? cojoco (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: the original source of the link was a Whirlpool thread, which has since been censored. While Whirlpool would not usually be usable as a reference for a WP article, in this case the MSM has actually cited the thread itself, which in my opinion would upgrade it to a cite-able primary source. cojoco (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say "it's not in the Australia MSM", are you implying that overseas MSM have it? (If not, are they acting on reasons other than merely the iron fist of censorship?) With regards to the original whirlpool thread, how do we verifiably know that the URL that people are trying to insert is the same one as the one in the whirlpool thread? Andjam (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really know if our local skirmish has made much of an impression on overseas MSM, although The Register has the link. However, the link is available on several Australian websites, for example here, and I think that this would an acceptable citation: while the EFA is POV, I personally think that it is reliable, and this information, while censored, is not really in dispute by anyone. I hope that the Internet Archive grabs it in case it is taken down, as this would also be an acceptable link, although it might be six months before we see it again. However, having a good citation is enough to keep the link. I don't really care if the link is put back into the article or not: the ACMA email and the leaked watchlist are a lot more interesting and relevant to the article, and, although this is no reason to exclude them, the abortion images are a bit grisly without actually having much relevance to the topic at hand. cojoco (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've changed my mind: while the site does not have much relevance to the article itself, it is representative of the kind of site the government wants banned, and is the first documented banned URL, and therefore does have value. cojoco (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Much as I do not like El Reg, I have to acknowledge that it isn't user-generated content. Andjam (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, as it is in a comment, the Reg link is only user-generated content in this case. The EFA page is the best citation I know of. However, I can't see any reason not to cite the EFA. cojoco (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Conroy is on Q&A tonight, 26 March 2009

I hope there will be new material after SC's appearance on the ABC program, Q&A, tonight. cojoco (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Q and A would be more of a primary source than a secondary source. If the newspapers report on something said, then the newspapers would be a reliable source. Andjam (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to use the primary source if it's reliable, which Q&A is, just no analysis or opinions of that source you'll have to find a secondary source that's says why Conroy has failed. The transcript should be here tomorrow. RutgerH (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to spell it out:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

cojoco (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

some notable additions

Government admits that a dentist website was on the blacklist and explains why: http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25244836-5014239,00.html Conroy admits the leaked list “seems like ACMA’s blacklist” (after denying it was previously) http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25240699-5014239,00.html hmmm - honesty is the best policy eh? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is good material. As I understand it, the first list was from some censorship software, was not the correct list, and SC said so; the second list was the correct list, and SC pretty much agreed. If you take both Wikileaks and SC's statements at face value, there is no disagreement between them. The MSM seems to be playing up the uncertainties in these issues for no good reason that I can see, and this makes it very hard to write this fairly. I was wondering whether the dentist's site on the first, unreliable, list, or the second, more reliable, one. cojoco (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IIRC the dentist and other completely non-porn related websites were actually on the first list. my understanding of it is that the lists were reverse engineered from the integard software ( http://www.raceriver.com provided as one of the free options under the howard government's scheme). it appears that if the original list and the ACMA's one didn't exactly match up that integard had added sites to its list but not removed them, leading to an ever growing superset of the ACMA list. after the public contraversy integard cleaned up their list. incidentally, as it stands, extracting the list from integard software is trivially easy, and I'd imagine that this is the indepentant method of verification that wikileaks offers to journalists (see the wikileaks page). incidentally I'm studying software reverse engineering for the purposes of combating viruses however the same principals apply to any software... but this would be considered original research if I said the list came from the integard software wouldn't it.... Whitehatnetizen (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

stumbled on this in the last minute or so: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/99467,hacked-filter-reveals-blacklist-in-30-seconds.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitehatnetizen (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nature of the anti-abortion page

This article doesn't give much of a description of the anti-abortion page. Does the anti-abortion page merely have exceedingly gross pictures of abortions (which is either criminal or legal), or does it contain a hit list of abortionists like the Nuremberg Files did (which could be targeted under civil law)? Andjam (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a trick question? Nobody in Australia is allowed to visit that page, are they? Unless your sensibilities are too delicate, you could just go and have a look yourself. cojoco (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the trick question element. I also suspect that if someone in Oz did visit it there would be an uproar if they attempted a direct prosecution. In any event, I did glance at the page (it is honestly unpleasant enough that I really don't want to look at it in detail) but I saw nothing like a hit list or anything similar. Simply very graphic pictures. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I simply didn't understand why Andjam couldn't have a look for themselves cojoco (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If it were a terrorism-related web site, visiting it might make air flights more of a hassle than they already are. (BTW, I am "themself" or "himself", not a "themselves") Andjam (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, "themself" is what I wanted, "himself" if I had known. I would be surprised if your browsing habits brought you onto a watchlist, depending upon where you were, but hopefully this kind of craziness might lessen in the next few years. cojoco (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you mean "I would not be surprised"? Andjam (talk) 12:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised: I don't believe Australian ISP's track their users' browsing habits, and I believe they would only track a specific user if they had a good reason to do so, such as a request from police. As far as I know, kiddie porn downloaders have been caught using credit card transactions or social engineering. I also wouldn't be surprised if you corrected me with counterexamples, though. cojoco (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gizmodo page

The Gizmodo page cited seems to be a (somewhat opinionated) opinion piece rather than a news article. Any thoughts? (The author's skepticism that criminal groups hack websites, and the fact that he misquotes a little what was said doesn't make him sound particularly qualified either) Andjam (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually quoting, like a few blogs, from the Sydney Morning Herald article by Asher Moses which has since been edited in the online version (print version where the original article would appear I don't have access to). Assuming the timestamps are correct which they appear to be the SMH article was last edited at 10:44am whereas the Gizmodo article at 8:00am on the same day. He's not skeptical about criminal groups attacking websites so I'm not sure where you got that from and Nick is the editor for that site and previously for T3 magazine so he's got some credibility. I posted the wrong link so I'll fix that up and link directly to Gizmodo. RutgerH (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I made some edits to remove gizmodo before I looked at the talk page. I started a new section, too. cojoco (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Some journalists have "blogs" which read more like opinion pieces than proper news articles. I would err on the side of caution with a subject like this one where people are getting a bit passionate, on both sides of the debate. I've tried to keep all opinion on one place, "Response". This isn't WP policy, but the article is long enough without opinion scattered throughout the text. That's except for reasoned analysis from organizations like the EFA, which has been in the article forever and I would regard more as "expert opinion". cojoco (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The bit that I viewed as doubting that criminal groups attack websites is "But that's when things started to venture away from normality and into the absurd. [Conroy quote snipped] WTF? The Russian Mob? Okay Conroy, you piqued my interest. Continue..." Andjam (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations after derisive laughter

I don't spot in the news section of the "'Technical error' behind ..." page anything about derisive laughter, and the comments section doesn't pass WP:RS. Should the citation be moved to being before "which was met with"? Andjam (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Script kiddie block quoting

On hot topic issues, there's a tendency to quote sentences and even paragraphs of statements editors agree with (or show how "dumb" the other side's point of view is). I understand the temptation. But do we really need to give the entire text of the h4Xor's statement? Andjam (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it there as a little harmless light relief, as with Razer's extended quote. However, I don't really know how well light relief fits within WP policies. cojoco (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Helen Razer comments

Does Razer's comments give the impression that porn is going to be totally blocked, not just from the clean feed? Andjam (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's why she's quoted rather than cited. However, it has today become clear (from The Age article ) that there will be R and X-rated sites in the mandatory filter: does anyone know how far the Government will go? cojoco (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, it does seem that all R- and X-rated stuff will get blocked by default. There are of course privacy implications if users are forced to request access to adult material, which is noted in her rant. cojoco (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Helen Razer? WTF? She's been out of the mainstream national media spotlight for so long... does anyone really give a shit about what she has to say (assuming they can cut through the paragraphs of bullshit she'd use to say it)? Is she even a relevant stakeholder who's comments are worthy of note for this article??? 203.206.66.218 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I added her because she's the only mainstream commentator who has admitted a liking for porn. I wanted to include a range of viewpoints, and she's the only one defending the viewers of porno. Also, I though it was nice to end the article with a little levity. cojoco (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To be completely honest blocking porn is not easy, people can set up proxy quite easily. An attempt would surely fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.43.88 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should start archiving this talk page

This talk page is getting a bit long, and some of the discussions are very old. I think we should start arching posts older than six months, perhaps automatically by using User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo. Any comments? cojoco (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added the archive template: here's hoping ... cojoco (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas on why it hasn't been archived as it is definately needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just had a check: I'd put "User talk" instead of "Talk", so I've fixed it, and here's hoping, again! cojoco (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be working, but the page is still pretty long. Maybe I'll change it to 90 days? cojoco (talk)

Yes, that would be better. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Light Laughter

I removed "derisive laughter" and the Gizmodo ref from the Bill Henson events for two reasons. The reference was an opinion piece, and it's not very respectful to the subject. We're not an attack site here, we have to try to present a balanced view. (even if every single editor holds the same POV!). I notice that a previous edit had "light laughter"; I don't know if that was properly ref'd or not. Also, it will be harder to read the article if we "quote" everything that ACMA says, so I tried to summarize some of ACMA's statements. cojoco (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Respect has nothing to do with it and this is not a personal article on Conroy. If you viewed the video you'll see the laughter it was met with so to say it isn't there isn't balanced. Context and response are very important. As I said above, which is why I'm going to change it back, the reference is an editorial from an experienced technology editor, not your average joe with a keyboard, but what he was quoting was a news article from a leading technology journalist in a leading australian paper before it was changed in the online version for reasons we don't know.

Quoting the statements should stay as otherwise any attempt to interpret them could leave people confused or mislead. That was, in my opinion, the statement's intention so let it stand verbatim like the newspaper did and let people interpret it for themselves and ease of reading is not sufficient reason to remove it even if that was the case. RutgerH (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. We don't have to include every single detail in this sorry saga, and the audience reaction to a SC statement doesn't seem high on the list of relevance. Where did the Russian Mob go? There are reservations about gizmodo's credentials, and it is an opinion piece. I don't think that ridiculing the players will do this page or WP any favours in this instance. You also completely reverted all of my changes without addressing the other points I made, which seems somewhat impolite. WP editors must summarize, and must leave out many details: including "derisive laughter" from an opinion piece does not seem at all necessary. cojoco (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well being two words that arguement is not relevant. I've already given information about Nick's previous job so doubting his credibility is rather poor form let alone not assuming good faith. For the third time the editorial quotes a newspaper article. We're not using the editorial for anything other than that's the only place online, other than blogs etc, where the original article exists. Summarising quotes I'm pretty sure is not on unless there's a good reason too and you haven't provided one. We're not ridiculing anyone, they did it themselves. RutgerH (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Credibility is not the issue. Is he a recognized authority on the subject, and has he been quoted by reliable sources? Include some evidence, and your case would be strengthened. Your newspaper quote seems a bit flimsy, as it doesn't appear to have made it into the print edition. Summarization of quotes and sources is everything that WP is about: WP could not function if editors did not summarize. I'd only use a quote if the speaker were saying something particularly punchy, entertaining or tricky to interpret. Statements from ACMA aren't even quotes from real people: just summarize them to death and leave their skeletal remains. cojoco (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've got the print edition and it doesn't appear in that then go for it. I believe it does, as Nick's wasn't the only site quoting that exactly, but I don't have access to it. Remember the newspaper was printed before that article was last edited at 10:44am and Nick quoted it at 8am. Asher Moses, the journalist at SMH who wrote that statement, is being quoted by a reliable source, Nick at Gizmodo Australia (there's an International/US version as well). The problem with summarizing the ACMA quotes is they don't have any real meaning and is a very broad statement so any attempt to summarize them will be possibly confusing...as this is starting to get. Apologies for being snippy above :) RutgerH (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm here because I saw an edit summary reverting another of cojoco's edits and telling them to See talk and discuss before making changes. I'm not even going to try to understand what's going on here (it looks trivial at first inspection) but it's clear that we don't have a consensus and (while being appreciative of all the work cojoco has done on this important topic) that they need to be reminded, again, about article ownership. -- samj _in^out 07:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Redux: I see (a version of) my earlier edits have survived in the lede along with the "scuttled" quote. I'd be happy enough with wording like "As the Liberals and Greens have both stated that they will not support legislation, it can only be implemented with the support of the IIA." which appears below and suggest that RutgerH take a look at this to give a third opinion. I have reviewed the subject and find the laughter pertinent and any video would constitute a reliable primary source, though the the adjective may not be ('light' vs 'derisive'). -- samj _in^out 07:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If Cojoco agrees with you and no other editors have an opinion then I think yes let's dump the descriptive I put in but we'll leave it at this stage in case Cojoco wants to go further as they are a major editor on this which we all appreciate. I prefer your wording as well regarding that second paragraph as it tells us why they can't rather than leaving open the question. Two people don't make a consensus but I think that should be fine to change now. RutgerH (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Have replaced derisive with light as just laughter is too much but leaving it out ignores the immediate public response. I was going to just link directly to the online SMH article however it has gone under the knife yet again so I'll leave Gizmodo in place. RutgerH (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (ui) I pretty sure Gizmodo is not a reliable source. You might find a better one in an ABC transcript, or you could say that "Gizmodo reports ...", to make it clear that it's from an opinion piece. cojoco (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of EL's

Someone started removing some EL's, but I reverted the edit: we've discussed the anti-abortion link here before, and there was no consensus to remove it. I agree that a lot of links should probably go, but not that particular link without some consensus here. Its removal in ACMA was a special case, as there was a lot of unwanted media attention on that page, but that is not the case here. cojoco (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The text from www.classification.gov.au

This text, which was on the vandalized classification.gov.au site, begins "This site contains information about the boards that have the right to CONTROL YOUR FREEDOMZ", and gets removed every few months.

I guess it looks like WP vandalism.

I'd like to keep it, because it is slightly humorous, and it was seen by a lot of people, and I think it's worth preserving in WP.

So, I keep reverting it, and keeping it in the article. cojoco (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Current status?

It would be great to be able to see at a glance (few sentences) what the current situation is with respect to policy, implementation, etc. - either in a dedicated section or the lede. -- samj _in^out 23:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone is too busy on Whirlpool and Twitter to be bothered updating this article - I know I have. TRS-80 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on holiday in the UK, and there's too much snow here! If nothing else happens, I hope I'll be adding SC's statements, Justice Kirby's take, Google's input, and the results of the filter trial. However, as it still can't get through senate, I don't understand what the Labor party can do 'til after the election. cojoco (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Also RSF as they're one of the major sources for Internet censorship. They're probably hoping they can get some Libs like Guy Barnett to cross the floor, or have it as a DD trigger and pass it in a joint sitting. TRS-80 (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of stuff has been added now: Michael Kirby, Conroy's announcement of trials and legislation, Mark Newton's response to the trials, Google's response, RSF's response. Is anything missing now? Can we lose that "update" tag now? cojoco (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, despite all of the fuss and bother, is the situation actually any different? The new legislation will still be blocked by the Senate, the results of the filter trial were not surprising, and a whole lot of people are still opposed. cojoco (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. -- samj _in^out 14:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Current Policy

Current policy seems to be against getting this firewall passed. Do you think it's still a good idea to keep raising the issue about how bad this would be if it was passed? Because after all, this could turn Australia into China if it goes into effect. AVKent882 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's happening. See reference [5] for the official press release. We here in Australia are screwed. I am surprised that this page was not edited earlier than four days after the announcement! Come on, people! Those of you who know these things need to keep pages like this updated! KatCassidy (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the ref. I changed your take a little, as it can't happen without Senate support, and neither the Libs nor the Greens support it. See below for snow report. cojoco (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for the Libs not supporting it? My local Federal member (Libs) won't tell me outright that the Libs don't support it. I can't find anything online that definitively states they won't support it.

I think it's important. At the moment, the entry gives the impression that censorship won't happen because of the statement in the opening paragraph that opposition parties' support is needed to pass it in the Senate. I'm not convinced it is as cut-and-dried as that and my view is that the Libs are prevaricating and would support it immediately if they could get some votes out of it (rather than treating it as a human rights issue). I would like to see that sentence removed from the article. maturin (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your correct. We can't know or verify future voting intentions so the statement you identified should be removed because it is crystal balling. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, because the opposition doesn't support the filter. Nick Minchin's comments are already cited in the article [3] [4] Has there been any change in their position since the beginning of last year? cojoco (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the cited article stated that the plan is currently "scuttled" due to the lack of support, so we are not crystal balling, we are simply citing a source. Again, has anything changed in this respect? cojoco (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth looking into again, and I think there may be further developments. Minchin has resigned his portfolio, and there has been a change in the Liberal leadership since the referenced comments. On the other hand, the new minister doesn't seem particularly supportive either [5] [6], but Tony Abbott appeared to support it on QandA last night. Also, Labor is much stricter on party discipline, and there is still a chance enough Liberals will support it in the Senate to get it through, but that is certainly my own original research without a reference for that. At the very least, a few updated references might be in order. StuartH (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bit more on the Liberals' policy here: [7]. Seems Abbott isn't as strongly in favour of it as I thought. StuartH (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Filtering technology used by Exetel

This text was inserted, and then deleted, several times:

Exetel have been trialling a product distributed by Watchdog International. This product is most likely the Marshal8e6 R3000 as it is marketed for ISP use. The Marshal8e6 R3000 or e86 R3000 is not only capable of URL filtering, but boasts the capability to limit both P2P and IM Internet traffic. This product also claims being capable of Proxy Pattern filtering, so the use of an external Proxy Server may be limited should it be required by law.

I don't necessarily disagree with the reasons for the revert, but the "filtering technology" section is a bit light-on at the moment. Can we get this material from a WP:RS in a suitable form for adding to the article? cojoco (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The source given is a forum [8] which is a WP:SPS. The information was added by IP 58.96.85.84, which is registered to Exetel [9], creating a potential for a WP:COI. I don't have any objection to the information itself, but it needs more traditional sourcing to establish the notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Filter submissions published

Plenty of news articles about this:

• http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/340516/public_weighs_internet_filter_plans/
• http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/340524/telstra_optus_disagree_isp_filter_blocking_notification_page/
• http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/conroys-filter-plan-unworkable-google/story-e6frgakx-1225844270444
• http://www.zdnet.com.au/anonymous-threatens-further-attacks-339301988.htm
• http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroys-internet-censorship-agenda-slammed-by-tech-giants-20100323-qt83.html
• http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/340550/microsoft_google_yahoo_speak_isp_filter_consultation/
• http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/340551/isv_internet_filter_threatens_national_security/
• http://www.zdnet.com.au/don-t-review-filter-blacklist-christian-group-339301998.htm
• http://www.itnews.com.au/News/170365,vividwireless-owner-proposes-carrier-license-fee-hike.aspx

TRS-80 (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly deserves a whole section to itself? cojoco (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ACMA blacklist

It is questionable whether the full ACMA blacklist as published by Wikileaks meets WP:EL. It contains known porn sites along with the foolish mistakes, and could be misused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous port sites linked from Wikipedia— in the appropriate context of course— and the overt mistakes are precisely why the list is as interesting as it is. I could buy the argument that there is some risk of misuse, but the list is already out there and nothing we do here can prevent that. Without access to the substance of censorship people are left assuming "it wouldn't effect me", so access to these kinds of lists is important. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

MORE INFORMATION PLEASE

The article should be edited to give more information about the life-destroying effects of paedophilia. For example, the victims of paedophilia are six times more likely to commit suicide and are eight times more likely to repeatedly attempt suicide throughout their lives. The victims of abuse in childhood are three times more likely to suffer from depression or to commit suicide with the victims of paedophila being the most affected with a 40% higher number of them suffering from depression than the victims of all the other types of abuse. This is important information and will give the reader a much greater understanding of the issue, including the damaging effects mentioned above.Link to Proof of Life-Destroying Effects of Child Pornography

Thank You!--86.44.252.83 (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This would have WP:TOPIC issues in this article, but it could be used in other articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Misnomer

This page refers to an "Internet filter" but it seems said filter only filters www traffic. Was the author of the page ignorant of the difference between the web and The Internet? The www page even has a note Not to be confused with the Internet. If this filter is actually merely a web filter, the page should be updated to refer to it as a "Web filter" and not as an "Internet" filter. If it truly is an Internet filter, we need to introduce a section which enumerates all the ports and the transfer protocols it intercepts.122.109.84.166 (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but a little bit pedantic. The terms "world wide web" and "Internet" are commonly used interchangeably, but they are not strictly speaking the same thing. The proposed filtering scheme, like the leaked ACMA blacklist, would probably block access only to specific www. addresses. FTP, P2P etc are different protocols.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is pedantic. Consider the popular analogy with roads. If the government announced it was introducing a universal speed limit of 40kmph on all roads to protect children from accidents, yet closer inspection of the proposed law revealed it only applied to roadways going over bridges (cf only monitors port 80) and it only applied to motorcycles (cf only monitors http protocol traffic) then would you still consider it pedantic if I objected to the "universal speed limit on all roads" title? Sure, technology novices might think the web is the only thing on the Internet, unaware of the existence of FTP, IRC, news, streaming, gopher, etc. but people editing wikipedia pages aren't so naïve and should strive for accurate representation. Consider the page on Referer - it acknowledges the official term as erroneous and explains how the error came about: because someone more aware of technology than English spelling made a helpful contribution. Here we have the opposite: bureaucrats who can rattle off jargon but not not know what the words mean are calling this filter something it is not. I think that should be redressed.122.109.84.166 (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would observe that there are two "correct" uses of the name. There is the technically correct one being discussed above, and the popular usage one as understood by politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream media and the masses. Technical truth and logic does not make the latter, common usage one wrong. They are both now valid usages. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely, the terms Internet and Web are very different. The Web was 'invented' in the late 80s while the Internet has been around since the early 60s. The two are completely different. The Web uses the Internet to transfer data. Many people have Microsoft Outlook software on their computer, this uses the Internet but does not use the Web. Why would Wikipedia promote an incorrect definition? It is demonstrably wrong. There is no reason not to change it. 122.106.165.83 (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is called Internet censorship in Australia per WP:COMMONNAME. Many of the citations use the phrase "Internet filter". The media and the public tend to see the Internet as primarily the web, it is the computer purists who say "What about IRC, FTP?" and so on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help that Windows Vista and Windows 7 label the shortcut to the user's web browser as "Internet". It also doesn't help that when Microsoft realised it was again falling behind the rest of the market and bought someone else's pre-made browser they rebranded it as "Internet" Explorer. Be that as it may, the term is wrong. Even if 40% of the population believe the Internet is a series of tubes that doesn't make it correct.122.109.84.166 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But common usage does. Do please click on that link and have a read. There are many parts (most parts?) of the English language that no longer have their original, pure meaning. Wikipedia's job is not to tell the world what to do. Its job is to describe what the world actually does. And most of it uses "Internet" to describe what they see in web browsers. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the common usage text says "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. For example, tsunami is preferred over the arguably more typical, but less accurate tidal wave." Consider Pigeon, Adrenalin, Racial mixing and the article titles you're redirected to. I agree that wiki is descriptive, not prescriptive. In this issue, no amateur will be confused or misled by referring to the topic as a "web filter". Can you see any disadvantage to using such terminology? If anything, it will facilitate readers' understanding of distinct but related concepts.203.111.38.35 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Although many amateurs might be unaware of the distinction between the web and the overarching Internet, nobody would propose merging the page for Internet into the page for web. Public misconception isn't a basis for encyclopedic misrepresentation. Here those two phenomena have two distinct pages with an explicit warning that they are not to be confused. If wiki's job were to never "tell the world what to do" such templates wouldn't exist. I would think wiki's job is to accurately represent information in a format that aids understanding. If people come to a page (on any topic) with a false or incomplete preconception of the issue (and let's face it, who doesn't?) they have the opportunity to take onboard the information wiki contributors provide. We do them a disservice to perpetuate urban myths we know to be false. It reminds me of Cargo cult programming but there's probably a more appropriate antipattern. 122.109.84.166 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The article should make clear that the proposed filtering scheme applies to web addresses. The battle to prevent the media and the public from using the terms "Internet" and "web" interchangeably was lost years ago, so WP:COMMONNAME applies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If you say so, though I don't think that's really relevant to this discussion. We're not proposing attempting to dictate what the media and public say. We're talking about what wikipedia says being accurate and avoiding impedence of understanding. I already addressed COMMONNAME - did you see? I agree the article should make clear the filter applies to web traffic... but would go further and emphasise it filters only web traffic, such that it is more accurately known (and referred to) as a web filter. 203.111.38.35 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I updated the page, taking into consideration the views expressed above. Go ahead and emphasise anything my addendum lacks. 122.109.84.166 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For someone claiming to take a purist approach to the language here, all those capitalisations of internet are interesting. Are you aware that it was originally, for many years, written without capitalisation, until that old foe, common usage, led to it being capitalised. Quite ironic really. And you have changed several occurences of Internet in the text to web without changing any source, and guess what? The sources say Internet far more often than web. This is not really a great edit. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the page for Internet spells it with a capital letter and past edits to this page have addressed capitalisation so that's fine by me. I just tried to make it consistent. If you want to change the capitalisation, go ahead - it doesn't change the meaning and that's what I was getting at. Previously the meaning was wrong. I don't see any irony in that. I changed "Internet" to "web" at points where it was misleading / inaccurate to use Internet (see someone else's response to common usage above). I don't quite see why you call common usage a foe. I would think it's a factor to consider along with all the rest. It's not a trump card and it's not irrelevant. Calling it a foe attaches some emotional preference or antipathy to it. 122.109.84.166 (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

ED likely to be blocked by the filter

I included a statement from the SMH article which indicated that ED is likely to be blocked by the proposed filter. This was reverted as WP:CRYSTAL, but I believe this to be inappropriate. To quote WP,

"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."

cojoco (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what the Sydney Morning Herald story said: "On the Australian Communication and Media Authority's blacklist of "refused classification" websites, which was leaked in March last year, encyclopediadramatica.com was included. This means the entire site will most likely be blocked under the government's forthcoming internet filtering plan." True, but still has an element of WP:CRYSTAL, as does the whole ACMA filtering proposal at the moment. The article should avoid extrapolation as far as possible, and stick to the Australian government's known dislike of ED.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? A WP:RS is doing the extrapolation, so why should we not cite it? If the SMH says that it is likely that ED will get filtered, then that's a well-referenced statement which can be inserted into an article. In any case, I'm pretty sure that WP:CRYSTAL is usually used for deciding whether an article is appropriate, not a tiny statements in an article, especially one which is well referenced. I think that this article needs to cite discussions of what may or may not be blocked, because the government has not yet specified if the RC category will be changed at all if the filter is introduced. Stephen Conroy has stated that it would be limited to the "worst of the worst", but then again, he has not exactly spelled out if anything would be removed from the RC category. cojoco (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a borderline call, but my understanding as a non-Australian is that the whole ACMA scheme could fail to be passed into law because it is so controversial. I'm not disputing that ED would be on the list if the scheme did go through, though. (See also [10])--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding might be correct. However, speaking as an Australian, and in my opinion, it looks like the scheme cannot possibly be implemented before the next federal election, but it is quite likely that that ALP will gain a majority in the Senate in 2011. If this is the case, then we will see if the filter is a genuine policy, or just a fake policy created to placate a single Christian Senator. I wouldn't say that it is "too controversial to be implemented", as the controversy is basically a bunch of nerds who care about civil liberties. After all, a mandatory Internet filter was pretty much implemented in the UK without anybody saying boo: how did that happen? Anyway, this is not the main point: it is possible that the filter will be implemented in Australia, and there is a lot of discussion of the filter in the media, and a lot of uncertainty about what the filter might entail. For this reason alone, I think it is important to keep track of citeable and/or factual comments about the likely reality of the filter, instead of a whole lot of "he said/she said" stuff which dominates the articles.

tl;dr If the SMH says that ED is likely to be blocked, then I think this is relevant to the article. cojoco (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IWF isn't mandatory, it only covers child sex abuse material (vs RC), and it happened back in the days when newsgroups were the main means of distribution and so ISPs actually hosted the content on their servers. TRS-80 (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When it's present at 98% of ISPs, the government wants to raise it to 100%, the blocklist is secret, and it has blocked Wikipedia, can you please explain the difference? Just to avoid being a complete rant, I'm wondering what to do in the article about all of the statements from people, such as Nick Minchin, which have been overtaken by events. Should they stay for historical interest, or should they go because they are no longer relevant? cojoco (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not 98% of ISPs, it's 98% of users use an ISP that subscribes to IWF, there's plenty of small ISPs that don't (some who advertise that as a feature), and the UK government backed down on making it 100%. I'm not saying it's good that it still exists mostly for web filtering, just that its origins are much more understandable in their lack of controversy than pure web filtering. Note that Australia already has a secret list of newsgroups banned by law that only civil libertarians care about.

As for historical statements, given that an important part of the article is how the Rudd government has changed the scope over time, historical context is pretty important. TRS-80 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

True 'blacklist' never leaked?

It was claimed above that

[the] blacklist of "refused classification" websites [...] was leaked [...]

In fact, Senator Conroy unambiguously and strenuously denied that the true list was ever leaked. See: [11]

See also guidelines of what constitutes RC material at [12]
—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Reviewing the transcript, I accept that the Minister in fact acknowledged that something "closer to" the true list was leaked on the second occasion. So I retract my statement above that the denial was unambiguous. He made it clear that the true list was not identical to any of the leaked lists, but did not clarify what the precise differences were — for example, whether or not the true list was a subset (component) of one of the leaked lists.

—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

The March 2009 leaked list may not have been exact, but it clearly came from a well placed source. Stephen Conroy's denial has to be seen in the context of a politician trying to avoid embarrassment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially a politician such as Stephen Conroy who cannot seem to give a straight answer to anything. That reference appears to have linkrotted; Newscorp links seem especially susceptible. All the Fairfax links, from The Age and the SMH, seem to have survived intact. cojoco (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've replace "reportedly leaked" with "leaked", as I don't regard SC as a WP:RS, and he didn't ever actually deny that the list was real. However, it is not clear that the ACMA blacklist will be the list used for censorship, so I've added a "presumably" to the statement that the ACMA list would form the basis for the filter. cojoco (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Conroy does have an unfortunate habit of not answering questions, but reliable sources seem to confirm the second list's authenticity and it's not difficult to read between the lines. One thing that should be noted is that it was a list of "prohibited content" websites that leaked, not "refused classification" websites. There is a substantial difference between the two under Australian law, since even MA15+ content can be prohibited if it doesn't use a certified age verification mechanism. The scope of the filter was formerly the full "prohibited content" list, but it has since been tightened to "refused classification". Our classification system is certainly confusing. StuartH (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is now deviating from objective viewpoints when we say "I think this source is reliable, but I don't think that source is reliable". Consider the first leak. It now seems to be accepted that the first leak was not the blacklist; however, I'm sure that a number of newspapers would have carried reports saying that the real blacklist had been leaked. It's not that those newspapers aren't reliable sources: it's just that there's a difference between a reliable source and an infallible source. Since those reliable sources were clearly wrong about the first leak, there's no reason they couldn't be wrong about the second leak. After all, they also want to sell newspapers!

Wikipedians must figure out for themselves which specific sources are reliable and which are not, based on the general principles in WP:RS. If we had to have a reliable source to tell us that a source is reliable, we'd conclude that there are no reliable sources and we would all just stop. So "I think this source is reliable/unreliable" is implicit in the very act of adding or removing material supported by that source. --John Cowan (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, politicians have got a self-interest. But, aside from their own morals, they would need to balance the benefits of lying with the very real risks of being found out, and then suffering worse consequences (both personally and for the party). My own opinion is that politicians are more likely to 'accidentally leave out' crucial information, or avoid questions etc. when they are being dishonest. What (I don't think) they don't normally do is issue very clear untrue statements. Misleading statements, maybe. But the strength of the denial says to me that it is credible. You can have your own opinion, but whether that fit's into WP's philosophy about neutrality is a bit more iffy.

Some recent WP edits have it that Conroy "didn't deny" that the second leak was the real blacklist. He did deny it, and that was the point of citing the Q&A transcript. As I already noted above, he did not clarify what the precise differences were. Nevertheless, he specifically and clearly stated that both leaks were different to the real blacklist. We might speculate, for example, that the second leak was from an ISP that had added their own set of banned sites to the original 'true' blacklist. For the record, it should be noted that Conroy stated that he had never even seen the blacklist himself, and was relying on the ACMA to judge whether the lists were the same or not (and what the differences were).

Personally I think the "reportedly" should be retained in the introduction. (After all, I added it.) It is neutral, factual, and doesn't undermine the reality that the leak was reported on!

—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

I think "reportedly" is a needlessly weasel-y qualifier. It has been reported in reliable sources, and can go straight in unless we find compelling opposing sources. We don't normally add "reportedly" to claims. StuartH (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The two lists were actually very different. The first list appeared to come out of a "Net Alert" list supplied by the ISP, and contained porn and gambling sites. The true ACMA blacklist doesn't go to any ISP, and SC never revealed any sites on the second list which were not on the ACMA blacklist. Indeed, he agreed that the most embarrassing errors on the leaked list were actually on the ACMA blacklist, including the Henson photos, and the QLD dentist. As the ACMA blacklist is changing all the time, it is very unlikely that any leaked list would match the current ACMA list exactly. In light of all of these factors, his quibble about the accuracy of the list don't seem to be very important, and many RS say that it's the ACMA list. DIV, you complain about "I think this source is reliable, but I don't think that source is reliable": As I understand it, the SMH is regarded as a WP:RS, especially as they talked to WL about the provenance of the list, and can be supposed to have more reliable information than we do. Also as I understand it, SC isn't, as he is not expected to have fact checkers for everything he says, and any comment by an individual is regarded more as opinion than fact. I also disagree that the papers were wrong about the first leak, as I don't think that they ever actually said that it was the ACMA blacklist, only that WL said that it was. For all of these reasons, I agree with Stuart that "reportedly" is weaselly, when everyone seems to agree that the source was the ACMA list. cojoco (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem with the 25 March 2009 section, because both of the links are dead with WP:LINKROT. What matters is that Stephen Conroy initially denied that the list Wikileaks obtained was genuine, but accepted on 26 March that the second list was reasonably accurate.[13]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:LINKROT is not a reason to remove the statements related to the missing references. cojoco (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Effect on Wikipedia?

How wide of a swath of articles will be blocked to Australians by a single link encyclopediadramatica.com/Australia ? This is actually a useful practical safeguard for American editors, since by blocking Australians from reading our work we can protect ourselves from lawsuits using their particularly exaggerated definition of libel. Wnt (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Dramatica are hosted under United States law, where they would have First Amendment protection. Also, Wikipedia articles cannot link to Dramatica articles. There is a link to the main page of ED (which is reasonably uncontroversial), but the rest of the site is blocked by the spam blacklist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that things that link to any banned site will be "filtered" (NewSpeak for "censored") in Australia. But would it be only the single offending Wikipedia page with the link that is blocked, or all Wikipedia, or something in between? Oh, and is the "http://" required for a page to be blocked? (I'd doubt it) Wnt (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is all rather speculative, since the ACMA scheme may never be passed into law. However, it is not giving away any secrets to say that logging in to the secure server on Wikipedia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:UserLogin) prevents local eavesdropping on the pages being visited. Short of blocking the whole of Wikipedia, access to individual pages could never be restricted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely they could simply prohibit the https connections (as I understand it crypto has never been all that secure of a right) or [other obnoxious things]. (Admittedly this strays from useful talk - I'm hoping mainly for some source that explains how large the scope of a ban on a site with a link has to be) Wnt (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

SC or ACMA has said that the filter is not on whole sites, but only on individual pages. If https connections don't let the proxy see which page you are visiting, then I really can't see how this would work. These seems like a somewhat glaring inconsistency. cojoco (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Conroy hasn't actually stated what is supposed to happen for HTTPS sites, but it's one of the (many) questions he's received on notice [14]. I wouldn't rule out them considering a man-in-the-middle attack. And while it's drifting even further into speculation and original research, there are still other issues that will remain if you take HTTPS out of the picture. The inclusion of a wikipedia article on the blacklist will repeat all the problems the IWF faced over its censorship of an album cover here - with all wikipedia traffic passing through the filters and resolving to a small number of IP addresses, users will be unable to contribute anonymously, may be unable to create new accounts, and will experience significant slowdowns in their connection speed. I also believe the filter doesn't work with query strings, so you'll just be able to access the content by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Conroy instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Conroy. StuartH (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A HTTPS site is unlikely to be hosting child porn or other illegal content. The issuers of SSL certificates insist on rigorous identification of the purchaser of the certificate, mainly as a means of preventing fraudulent financial transactions via an appparently "safe" site. It will be interesting to hear what the Australian government has to say about HTTPS sites, since they are one of the many reasons why the ACMA proposal has holes in it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Wikipedia's article talk pages are not a forum, I understand you're talking about what could happen if the Government is successful but this should be kept article related. Bidgee (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'm glad that this discussion has thrown up a link to some more technical details about HTTPS which could be incorporated in the article at some point. cojoco (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed. Ottre 14:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has recently changed significantly, and at one point states that "over 9,000" websites will be blocked by the filter, with no sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.217.241 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it has said 9,000 for a long time now, and the nearby ref has disappeared. The article hasn't actually changed much in the month or so. Any ideas when it changed? cojoco (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Added an image

I've added an image here to this article:

Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia.

with this caption: Usage of the Children's interest style of rhetoric as form of protest in Australia by supporter of Electronic Frontiers Australia. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change it as you wish. — Cirt (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

UK / OZ Cleanfeed Page

Hi, I was hoping to split Cleanfeed (content blocking system)(talk) down UK and Australian lines because they are different programmes and technologies that happen to share the same name. Suggestions for naming:

Cleanfeed (content blocking system) and Cleanfeed (content blocking system - Australia)

or

Cleanfeed (content blocking system - UK) and Cleanfeed (content blocking system - Australia)

or even the popular term:

Cleanfeed (UK Content Blocking System) and Cleanfeed (Great Firewall of Australia)

Or can I just put the Australian stuff on this page? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on government websites

The content of the section is false, misleading, and can not be proved. I would also assert the use of sexual content was ordered by the American Government or powers whom lie within it. While the content describes sexual content it fails to understand if a real anon had done it there would of been images of guns - the fact sexual content was sent is well known and because of its use people are afraid to ask further questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.101.42 (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Internet censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327075340/http://www.news.com.au:80/technology/story/0,28348,25240699-5014239,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25240699-5014239,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Internet censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090215191458/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,,24750766-2,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24750766-2,00.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060615113252/http://www.iia.net.au:80/ to http://www.iia.net.au

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Internet censorship in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25777414-15306,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)