[AusNOG] Site Blocking Coming

Tue Nov 24 02:36:35 EST 2015

All hell breaks loose soon? :)

  Regards,
Kristoffer Sheather

----------------------------------------
 From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve+ausnog at theispguy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 2:33 AM
To: "Paul Brooks" <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>
Cc: "ausnog at ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Site Blocking Coming   
 Yup... basically as I thought.... and thought it worth bringing up with 
the community.  It will be interesting to see who/what/how happens.  

...Skeeve     

--     

Skeeve Stevens - The ISP Guy - Internet Provider SME     

Email: skeeve at theispguy.com ; Cell: +61(0)414 753 383      Skype: skeeve;  
Blog: TheISPGuy.com ; Facebook: TheISPGuy  

Linkedin: /in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile   

   On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Paul Brooks 
<pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au> wrote:    Skeeve - Seems to me that 
115A(3)(b) indicates the court action needs to explicitly name each ISP 
that is going to be asked to implement anything, and 115A(4)(a) means each 
ISP that is named must be notified that the application is being made, so 
you can choose whether or not to participate in the court action or not. If 
you are not named and notified, you won't be served the injunction, so you 
won't need to do anything. These days, naming the top 5 ISPs is likely to 
cover a decent percentage of the userbase.

115A(5)f is something the judge has to take into account in deciding 
whether or not to grant the injunction. An ISP that is named might be able 
to advise the judge on this point, but an ISP that is not named doesn't 
have any say at that point - not your problem.

If you receive an injunction, your entire requirement to act is described 
in 115A(2)  "Take reasonable steps to disable access to the online 
location".

Like most things the law describes the desired outcome, not the method. Its 
up to you. If you are given a domain name or URL and your idea of 
'reasonable step' is to block the IP address, and there is a pile of 
collateral damage, then the ensuing publicity might make the next 
application be considered differently. You might instead choose to add a 
DNS hack within your network. Its entirely your individual call how you 
"disable access", and it doesn't have to be 100% effective, just 
"reasonable steps". Whatever that means.

On 23/11/2015 11:39 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
  Hey all,  
 Re: 
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/village-roadshow-prepares-site-blocking-applicat
ion-for-federal-court/

 So, how are ISPs planning to implement this blocking.

 How indeed are all ISPs even going to be told of the requirements?  Does 
the right holder have to contact every ISP in the country or are ISPs just 
supposed to know it has to happen?

 The legislation: 
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r5446_third-r
eps/toc_pdf/15056b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 Some thoughts:

 - 115A(3)b. Does this mean the rights holder has to get an injunction 
against each an every CSP (ISP)?

 - 115A(5)f. How would anyone know (with a certainty) if other websites are 
hosted on the same IP address?

 Doe anyone else have thoughts/understanding on the mechanics on how this 
is supposed to work?

...Skeeve     

--     

Skeeve Stevens - The ISP Guy - Internet Provider SME     

Email: skeeve at theispguy.com ; Cell: +61(0)414 753 383      Skype: skeeve;  
Blog: TheISPGuy.com ; Facebook: TheISPGuy  

Linkedin: /in/skeeve ; Expert360: Profile   

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151124/920bede1/attachment.html>