<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt'>
<p>George and all, firstly, been away so excuse the late reply.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Then George I suspect there are a lot of people here are in fact misinformed.</p>
<p>As I previously commented, by reading of the Act, you are required, I also did not make it clear it seems that webhosts ARE required because I had AGD's advice on that, I dont know or care what some special interest groups (who are all mostly self chest beaters anyway - ACL anybody) think of it, anyone who looks with open eyes and spends an hour reading the Act and its related's that pull you in, would see this.</p>
<p>To make it clearer since you clearly aint ever gunna take my word for it, this is my original reply from the Communication Access Coordinator for our web hosting regardless of "relevant service" for SP's, if you offer email you bound by it.</p>
<p>I<strong>n Web hosting there are two services we treat as separate</strong></p>
<p><strong>The first service is the server hosting. Assuming that you are carrier, carriage service or </strong><br /><strong>internet service provider, this service is a ‘relevant service’.</strong></p>
<p><strong>This means that the service has data retention obligations unless there is a valid exclusion. </strong></p>
<p><strong>The second service is the email service. While you offer this service as a product in combination </strong><br /><strong>with web hosting, we consider the two as separate services for the purpose of data retention. The email </strong><br /><strong>service also has data retention obligations.</strong></p>
<p><br /><strong>I would also encourage you to submit a data retention implementation. This would warrant a formal </strong><br /><strong>response from the Communications Access Co-ordinator allowing you to know whether we consider that </strong><br /><strong>the way you intend to implement data retention obligations is appropriate.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>... END</p>
<p>Now as for the first, I believe I already pointed out why webhosts are regarded as service providers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>regardless of the former (argueing wif you are a SP or not), the later applies anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dont waste your time flaming or arguing with me either, argue with the AG Dept since that is there determination that you ARE required to comply.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 10/06/2015 11:33, George Fong wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->Its irrelevant whether the service is free or not, if you fall under the definition of a carrier/service provider in the Act and you are providing a relevant service you are required to collect metadata as defined in the Act.<br /><br /> The team from Internet Australia has since the very beginning submitted to and presented at the PJCIS and we have in collaboration with the Comms Alliance been working with the AGD. Unless you have been been living under a rock, you should also have been aware that we set up a Special Interest Group for ISPs to deal with the issues. Julian is in fact the State convener for Queensland. You're a little late to the party Noel. By all means contact the AGD directly as many of us have. But be aware of that fact that the Comms Alliance and Internet Australia have spent *significant* time ad effort trying to get this right. If you want to be a bit more constructive join the ISP SIG list and contribute there. <br /><br /> Cheers<br /> g.<br /><br /><br /> On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 11:19 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:<br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">On 10/06/2015 10:50, Julian De Marchi wrote:<br /><br /></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">On 10/06/15 10:28, Noel Butler wrote: <br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">Webhosting certainly is included (well, so far as Emails and client info<br /> etc)</blockquote>
<br /> Webhosting is not included.<br /> _______________________________________________<br /> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><br /> I find that impossible to believe given I am required to comply when I'm only providing a free usenet service.<br /><br /> I think a lot of people here need to start contacting the AG's Dept, taking bad advice from a mailing list member will not be an excuse to avoid prosecution.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
<pre>__</pre>
</blockquote>
<table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
</body></html>