@Networkguy, I have a feeling that MNHQ relise now they have been sold a pup.
I?m glad to see that some really good idea?s as to the solution has been sited on this thread today. A booklet with CD of prebundled open source soft wear with step by step guide is an excellent one.
An ongoing live thread with the likes of networkguy on MN would add one part to the need to keep up with the constantly evolving state of thing.
Someone posted earlier that the Australian trial worked well, I thinking that?s a extremely subjective way of looking at it.
I?m going to apologies now for a ridiculously long post this will be, but it?s the Wikipedia entry on the Australian Communications and Media Authority who were involved with the trial block , I think it makes for interesting reading.
"Since January 2000, internet content considered offensive or illegal has been subject to a statutory scheme administered by the ACMA...... The regulator has been criticised for its role in examining internet censorship in Australia and how it is enabled and might further be enabled.
Particular criticism has been leveled at the regulator's technical understanding of what is involved overall in internet regulation and censorship
On 10 March 2009, the ACMA issued the Australian web-hosting company, Bulletproof Networks, with an "interim link-deletion notice" due to its customer, the Whirlpool internet community website, not deleting a link to a page on an anti-abortion web site.
The web page, which is the 6th of a series of pages featuring images of aborted foetuses, had been submitted to the ACMA, who determined it was potential prohibited content, by the user whose post on Whirlpool containing the ACMA's reply was later subject to the link-deletion notice.[5] This came with an $11,000 per day fine if the take down was not actioned after 24 hours. In order for other URLs contained on the same website to be 'prohibited', a separate complaint would need to be submitted and reviewed by the ACMA.[citation needed]
[edit] ACMA blacklist leaked
On 19 March 2009 it was reported that the ACMA's blacklist of banned sites had been leaked online, and had been published by Wikileaks.[6] Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, obtained the blacklist after the ACMA blocked several Wikileaks pages following their publication of the Danish blacklist. Assange said that "This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks." Three lists purporting to be from the ACMA were published online over a seven day period.
The leaked list, which was reported to have been obtained from a manufacturer of internet filtering software, contained 2395 sites. Approximately half of the sites on the list were not related to child pornography, and included online gambling sites, YouTube pages, gay, straight, and fetish pornography sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions, Christian sites, and even the websites of a tour operator and a Queensland dentist.
Colin Jacobs, spokesman for lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said that there was no mechanism for a site operator to know they got on to the list or to request to be removed from it. Australia's Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy later blamed the addition of the dentist's website to the blacklist on the "Russian mob".[8]
Associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt of the University of Sydney said that the leaked list "constitutes a condensed encyclopedia of depravity and potentially very dangerous material". Stephen Conroy said the list was not the real blacklist and described its leak and publication as "grossly irresponsible" and that it undermined efforts to improve "cyber safety". He said that ACMA was investigating the incident and considering a range of possible actions including referral to the Australian Federal Police, and that Australians involved in making the content available would be at "serious risk of criminal prosecution".
Conroy initially denied that the list published on Wikileaks and the ACMA blacklist were the same, saying "This is not the ACMA blacklist." He stated that the leaked list was alleged to be current on 6 August 2008 and contained 2,400 URLs, where the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1,061 URLs. He added that the ACMA advised that there were URLs on the leaked list that had never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and had never been included on the ACMA blacklist. He was backed up by ISP Tech 2U, one of six ISPs involved in filtering technology trials.[9]
Conroy's denial was called into doubt by the Internet Industry Association (IIA), who publicly condemned the publishing of the list, chief executive Peter Coroneos saying, "No reasonable person could countenance the publication of links which promote access to child abuse images, irrespective of their motivation, which in this case appears to be political."[
Conroy later claimed the leaked blacklist published on Wikileaks closely resembled the official blacklist, admitting that the latest list (dated 18 March) "seemed to be close" to ACMA's current blacklist.
In an estimates hearing of the Australian Federal Government on 25 May 2009 it was revealed that the leak was taken so seriously that it was referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.
It was further stated that distribution of further updates to the list have been withheld until recipients can improve their security. Ms Nerida O'Laughlin of the ACMA confirmed that the list has been reviewed and as of 30 April consists of 997 urls".
Right Im going to shut up now, thats quite enough from me.