David Goldstein wrote:
> I agree there must be safeguards, but is it really the best way to
> make publicly available a list of URLs to the public? After all, some
> of this will no doubt, if they are outside Australia, still contain
> content such as child pornography. I hardly think that it's advisable
> to provide an online "street directory" of child pornography.
The ABA could leave out the details for "child pornography"
(and possibly anything else that has been referred to the police)
and provide details of the rest. (Though I note that the OFLC is
happy to put into their public database details of news posts and
emails have been classified as a result of "enforcement requests"
from police agencies, and that these often include child pornography.)
At the moment, the ABA isn't even releasing details of content they
have looked at and declared to be "not prohibited"... which makes it
just a wee bit difficult for anyone hosting a web site in Australia
to know if it's legal or not (one of the reasons I advise people NOT
to use Australian web-hosting services).
> And the OFLC database doesn't contain the contact details of the
> "publisher" as does the publication of the URL for a web page. It's
> not just paedophiles either, the growing vigilante groups would
> surely use information such as this to target people.
The OFLC database contains details of the publishers of classified
items, including those classified RC.
Danny.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 03:10:06 EST