[AusNOG] That list

[Adrian Chadd]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009, Andrew Cox wrote:

> Which imho are a good example of why the list should be open and debatable.
> On the other hand, having this list available now WITHOUT having the 
> relevant sites blocked is just asking for trouble.

It also makes it 100% verifiable.

Well, no, it makes it slightly more than not verifiable. I'd hate to suggest
methods for hiding content in a website which casual browsing would not
expose.

> Conroy should be held responsible for this.. handing the list out to the 
> cheapest ISP's he could find was a bad idea.

He should be held responsible for the content of the list. The fact that
this has stopped being a "block content already illegal" and has morphed
through "block content thats morally corrupting" through to "block stuff
which isn't illegal" is exactly why the list shouldn't be closed to start
with.

If someone wants to sit down and verify that all of the supplied links are
100% valid, and report in a public forum on those who are or aren't, then
they should be allowed to.

2c,


Adrian