[AusNOG] That list

[Richard Bayliss]

> I'd hate to suggest
> methods for hiding content in a website which casual browsing would not
> expose.

You mean, like how the list does not have a single https entry?


On 19/03/09 2:43 PM, "Adrian Chadd" <adrian at creative.net.au> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog