Wikileaks and the Great Australian Firewall

A list of websites supposedly blocked by the Great Australian Firewall, most of which (but by no means all) are porn sites, has been posted at Wikileaks.  Since the list was posted, there have been recurring reports that Wikileaks has been blocked or shutdown.  It's also possible that high traffic in response to this and other stories has overwhelmed the Wikileaks servers. 

According to Wikinews, blocking is taking place (Portions of Wikileaks, Wikipedia blocked in Australia):

Portions of Wikileaks.org, the "uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis", has been blocked in Australia. Wikinews has also learned that portions of Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia anyone can edit, have also been blocked. Portions of the video sharing website YouTube have also been blocked.

The websites are among thousands of others that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a government owned entity, block access to when using their blocking software. The alleged three lists, from 2008 and 2009, were leaked to Wikileaks who published the documents. Most of the blocked websites are ones hosting hardcore pornography. According to their website, the ACMA's role in regards to the internet is to "address community concerns about offensive and illegal material online and, in particular, to protect children from exposure to material that is unsuitable for them."

Despite the alleged leak, Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in Australia, much of the listed websites were never an issue with the ACMA, but that some of the websites are. He also goes on to say that anyone publishing the content of the ACMA's list will face criminal prosecution.

The Great Australian  Firewall, is ill-conceived, and will probably be ill-executed.  Responsibility for children's well being in ths sort of matter should rest with their parents rather than with shadowy web censors, who's list of unacceptable web content is not only kept secret but is protected by draconian legistlation.  As I have blogged recently, similar issues exist with respect to the UK's Internet Watch Foundation, which employs four people to evaluate websites (suggested by members of the public) for possible illegality.  Note the emphasis.  These shadowy bodies need real oversight, particularly where banning of images and websites can be extended, whether through malice or ineptitude, to make entire sites or domains inaccessible.

The Australian legislation says that sites linking to banned URLs face a fine of $11,000 per day.   

The Register reports that "Wikileaks tells Aus censorship minister to rack off".  Visit that story for further links on the Australian  net censorship story.