A secret Internet “blacklist” published this week on Wikileaks.org includes a list of Web sites the Australian government allegedly wants to block. Some of the blacklisted sites include harmless destinations such as a dentist’s Web site.
Although Australia’s government denies the list was the same as a blacklist run by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a manager at the dentist’s office told the Associated Press the ACMA had confirmed her site’s inclusion on the list.
Wikileaks’ publication of the list reignited the controversial issue of whether a government plan to impose an Internet filter for all Australians could inadvertently include innocent businesses.
The list in question is provided to developers of Internet filtering software that people can chose to install on their computers.
However, Australia’s Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has proposed requiring Australian Internet service providers to implement the list. If the plan goes forward, Australia would be one of the strictest Internet regulators among all democratic nations.
Several Internet service providers are carrying out trials of the filter through June. The ACMA says the list mainly contains addresses of Web sites that promote sexual violence and child pornography, although it has refused to makes its contents publicly available.
The proposal has triggered protests throughout Australia, with opponents harshly criticizing it as censorship. For their part, Internet providers argue that such a filter could slow browsing speeds, and note that illegal content can easily be traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, neither of which would not be covered by the filter.
Wikileaks accused the Australian government of “acting like a democratic backwater.”
“Australian democracy must not be permitted to sleep with this loaded gun,” Wikileaks said on its site, which casts itself as a venue for “untraceable mass document leaking and analysis,” with a focus on exposing government oppression and unethical behavior.
Wikileaks did not explain how it came in possession of the alleged blacklist, which contains around 2,400 Internet addresses, many of which are obviously for child pornography.
However, the list also includes the dental office, online poker parlors, a school-cafeteria consultancy firm and a kennel.
Kelly Wilson, a manager at Dental Distinction in Queensland, said told the AP she was unaware her office’s site had been blacklisted until a newspaper reporter told her of the news on Thursday.
Wilson contacted the ACMA, who confirmed the site was on the authority’s blacklist. The ACMA provided no further explanation, she said.
More than a year ago the site was hacked, when visitors were temporarily redirected to an adult Web site. The office immediately switched to an alternate Internet service provider and hasn’t experienced a problem since, she said.
“We’re a little annoyed that we’re on there.”
“It’s a great Web site.”
Jocelyn Ashcroft, owner of Tuckshop and Canteen Management Consultants in Queensland, whose seemingly innocent site was also included on the blacklist, is concerned her business might be hurt.
Ashcroft told the Associated Press she contacted the ACMA after becoming aware of the Wikileaks list, and was told her site was not on the authority’s blacklist.
However, since the list is secret, she is not sure what to believe.
The ACMA and Australia’s government called the publication of the Wikileaks list irresponsible, and dismissed claims that it was the same as the official blacklist.
In separate statements, the ACMA and communications minister Conroy admitted that the official blacklist and the list published by Wikileaks contained sites common to both. However, Conroy said many addresses on the Wikileaks list have never appeared on the official blacklist.
According to the ACMA, the list published on Wikileaks contains about 2,400 Internet addresses as of Aug. 6, 2008, while the official blacklist for the same date contained around 1,000.
The ACMA said its blacklist has never included 2,400 Web sites.
Conroy said the ACMA was investigating the publication of the list on Wikileaks, and was even considering forwarding the case to the Australian Federal Police.
Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, which favors the Internet filter, said concerns about the published list have not changed his position on the matter.
“It’s going to take time to develop any system and the processes that surround it. We don’t know at what stage of investigation these names on the blacklist were,” he told the AP.
“It’s a real shame that people can “” through illegal means “” challenge something which is purely and simply aimed at giving children a safer experience on the Internet,” he said.
—
On the Net:
Comments