<div dir="ltr">All good... but it isn't for you or Mark, or anyone else to decide what someone else thinks their liability is or their policies should be.<div><br></div><div>I don't support filtering at the carrier/ISP level at all... it should be up to individual companies to decide whether they want to minimise their risk - not you to tell them what it should be. It won't be you being effected if the media does it's bullshit hype thing due to an incident.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br>...Skeeve</div><div><br></div><div><div><b style="font-size:13px;font-family:Calibri">Skeeve Stevens - </b><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:Calibri">eintellego Networks Pty Ltd</span></div><div><div><span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px"><a href="mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com" target="_blank">skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com</a> ; <a href="http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/" target="_blank">www.eintellegonetworks.com</a></span><font><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px">Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; <a>skype://skeeve</a></p><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px"><a href="http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks" target="_blank">facebook.com/eintellegonetworks</a> ; <a href="http://twitter.com/networkceoau" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve" target="_blank">linkedin.com/in/skeeve</a> </p><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px"><a href="http://twitter.com/theispguy" target="_blank">twitter.com/theispguy</a><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> ; blog: </span><a href="http://www.theispguy.com/" target="_blank">www.theispguy.com</a><br></p><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px"><img src="http://eintellegonetworks.com/logos/ein09.png"><br></p><p style="margin:0px"><span style="color:rgb(127,0,127);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The Experts Who The Experts Call</span></p></font></div><div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(127,0,127)"><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">Juniper - Cisco </span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">- Cloud</span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">- Consulting</span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">- IPv4 Brokering</span></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 October 2014 08:27, John Edwards <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jaedwards@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaedwards@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">(Opinons are my own, not my employers)<div><br></div><div>Australia's largest free WiFi networks do not filter porn. There was a lot of press about this recently:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/392353,canberras-wi-fi-network-to-block-file-sharing-p2p-traffic.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.itnews.com.au/News/392353,canberras-wi-fi-network-to-block-file-sharing-p2p-traffic.aspx</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>The capability is there, but it's not used. ISP's in Australia already block access to some of the nastiest parts of the Internet.</div><div><br></div><div>Following on from Mark's comments - Internode has operated a public hotspot network for 10 years without content filtering, without incident. I can't fathom a scenario where someone viewing porn on public wifi becomes a media story. Why isn't this an issue with smartphones on 3G?</div><div><br></div><div>Some retail-presence wifi operators have an interesting legal interpretation of who owns the data in the air inside of their store. In taking this position, they also own the porn - so they have a reason to be filtering.</div><div><br></div><div>For the carrier argument, there's an exemption to the Telecommunications Act for operating WiFi hotspots in a single location:</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Consumer-info/My-connected-home/Wireless-local-area-networks/wireless-lans-in-the-24-ghz-band-faqs" target="_blank">http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Consumer-info/My-connected-home/Wireless-local-area-networks/wireless-lans-in-the-24-ghz-band-faqs</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>John</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 October 2014 06:56, Skeeve Stevens <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:skeeve+ausnog@eintellegonetworks.com" target="_blank">skeeve+ausnog@eintellegonetworks.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Are we talking legally here? Perhaps not... but since when has that mattered in the press?<div><br></div><div>My general advice to customers is that with free wifi (public areas), you filter it... Paid wifi (hotels, etc), you leave it alone - unless there is a specific reason.</div><div><br></div><div>I've built the public wifi internet access for a lot of organisations, but some, especially councils are very susceptible to negative media coverage should someone use their infrastructure to do bad things. They don't want to be seen as a facilitator for bomb making, hard core porn, violence, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>My recommendations for any free wifi is the McDonalds model... The web is all you get (http/https)... anything else is blocked. Then you are limited by time/volume over a certain period. If you don't do this, your service WILL be abused without any doubts.</div><div><br></div><div>I've sat there looking at the logs of the filtering servers at the violations that pop up on public wifi... child porn, hate sites, gambling and so on.</div><div><br></div><div>To make it clear - I don't care what anyone does on the web, and if people are paying for it, do what you like within the law.</div><div><br></div><div>But if you are facilitating easy access, and don't want your local/state/national media coming up with headlines like "10 year old looks at porn via council free public wifi" or the many other possible variations, then you best be deciding on your policy for what you filter, and openly stating it in the T&C's... users have no rights when it is a free service as there is no implied understanding of a product.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br>...Skeeve</div><div><br></div><div><div><b style="font-size:13px;font-family:Calibri">Skeeve Stevens - </b><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:Calibri">eintellego Networks Pty Ltd</span></div><div><div><span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px"><a href="mailto:skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com" target="_blank">skeeve@eintellegonetworks.com</a> ; <a href="http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/" target="_blank">www.eintellegonetworks.com</a></span><font><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px">Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell <a href="tel:%2B61%20%280%29414%20753%20383" value="+61414753383" target="_blank">+61 (0)414 753 383</a> ; <a>skype://skeeve</a></p><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px"><a href="http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks" target="_blank">facebook.com/eintellegonetworks</a> ; <a href="http://twitter.com/networkceoau" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve" target="_blank">linkedin.com/in/skeeve</a> </p><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px"><a href="http://twitter.com/theispguy" target="_blank">twitter.com/theispguy</a><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> ; blog: </span><a href="http://www.theispguy.com/" target="_blank">www.theispguy.com</a><br></p><p style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:13px;margin:0px"><img src="http://eintellegonetworks.com/logos/ein09.png"><br></p><p style="margin:0px"><span style="color:rgb(127,0,127);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:13px">The Experts Who The Experts Call</span></p></font></div><div style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(127,0,127)"><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">Juniper - Cisco </span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">- Cloud</span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">- Consulting</span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">- IPv4 Brokering</span></div></div></div></div></div>
<br></span><span><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 October 2014 00:39, Mark Newton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:newton@atdot.dotat.org" target="_blank">newton@atdot.dotat.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
On 8 Oct, 2014, at 11:33 am, Skeeve Stevens <<a href="mailto:skeeve%2Bausnog@eintellegonetworks.com" target="_blank">skeeve+ausnog@eintellegonetworks.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> In my view, Filtering in this scenario is less about what the user can access, but more about the liability on the provider.<br>
<br>
There is no liability on the provider, you're a god-damned carriage service provider. That's supposed to mean something.<br>
<br>
If you're going to spin that line (especially when it's combined with product spruiking) then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be able to provide at least one example of an adverse judgement against a carriage service provider for content which might have been filtered being accessed unfiltered over a public access network.<br>
<br>
Whassamadda, you can't? Dawww.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
- mark<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>