[AusNOG] FW: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims engineer"
roland at chan.id.au
roland at chan.id.au
Thu Jul 8 06:44:40 EST 2010
You'd want to make that decision on more than a single issue, I think.
The post from David Havyatt captures the situation nicely, even down to stating the objective of the filter and the uselessness of the current response.
Discuss those 5 points (using your inside voice). I ended up with:
1: I don't think RC is an inaccurate representation of societal views.
2: there's no increased risk because of the filter
3: definitely no problem here.
4,5: presupposes that an accurate costing has been done and that the costs are prohibitive. I haven't seen one and I don't think they are.
The key point I see there is that a general liberalisation of societal views is needed, not a libertarian approach to censorship for a single medium. IMO society demands censorship and if we want the Internet to be everywhere we better get used to it in some form. If cross-jurisdictional takedowns worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In that respect the Internet is not designed to meet societal requirements and I see the filter as a patch over the gap between the Internet's design goals and societies demands. Maybe energy should be diverted to finding a better patch.
There you go. A pro-censorship argument. :)
Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra
-----Original Message-----
From: Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego.net>
Sender: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 23:29:24
To: ausnog at ausnog.net<ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: [AusNOG] FW: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful',
claims engineer"
From ISOC-AU list.
Perhaps we should all be backing the Greens.... let's throw the whole industry weight behind them (once we clarify their position).
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
-----Original Message-----
From: iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au [mailto:iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au] On Behalf Of Jon Lawrence
Sent: Wednesday, 7 July 2010 9:32 AM
To: Simon Hackett
Cc: ISOC-AU at umina.pps.com.au; Robert Gregory; Discussion List
Subject: Re: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims engineer"
The political reality is that the Greens are very likely to control the balance of power in the Senate after the election (though, unless a double dissolution occurs, the new Senate won't actually sit until June 2011). As they are the only party that appears to be listening, perhaps that's where our efforts should be focused.
jon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Hackett" <simon at internode.com.au>
To: "David Havyatt" <david at havyatt.com.au>
Cc: "Robert Gregory" <Robert.Gregory at maddocks.com.au>, ISOC-AU at umina.pps.com.au, "Discussion List" <iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 July, 2010 9:34:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims engineer"
I disagree with the presumption that they ever *were* listening.
---
Sent from my iPhone
On 07/07/2010, at 8:42 AM, "David Havyatt" <david at havyatt.com.au> wrote:
> All of which I guess just goes to the point that if we want to debate the
> policy we should do just that and not be misled by discussions about the
> legality of the trial. Similarly the industry has been desperately badly
> treated by those who repeat the claim that the "filter will not work"
> whereas it will indeed work for the narrowly defined objective - that is to
> prohibit visiting through the ordinary use of a browser a URL that has been
> listed as containing content that would be refused classification and hence
> be illegal to import or to sell or distribute in any other medium.
>
> Interestingly absent the filter proposal the interesting question is who
> does the importing or distributing of the content. Is it the person who
> publishes the page? Is it the person who carries the bits? Or is it the
> person who types the URL and [ENTER]? If the latter then the filter is a
> device designed to protect ISP customers from inadvertently committing an
> offence.
>
> The focus of discussion needs to be on;
> 1. The inadequacy of the current RC definitions as an accurate
> representation of community standards.
> 2. The potential for the current RC definition to exclude works reasonably
> required for the development of knowledge.
> 3. The inadequacy of the current RC definition to cover web content (I'm not
> sure I agree with this though).
> 4. Accepting that the filter will indeed "work" but that the scope of its
> achievements and the protections that it affords do not seem to warrant the
> costs of implementing the policy.
> 5. That there are alternative policies that could have a better outcome with
> less cost.
>
> Unfortunately because so much of the industry and internet community has
> chosen to engage in diversions (the trial was illegal) or false claims (that
> the filter would not "work"), the Government has largely stopped listening.
>
> David Havyatt
> Principal
> Havyatt Associates Pty Ltd
> (m) + 61 414 467 271
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au
> [mailto:iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au] On Behalf Of Robert Gregory
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:13 PM
> To: ISOC-AU Members Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims engineer"
>
> Wouldn't 7(2)(a)(i) cover it - installation of equipment ... intended
> for use in connection with a telecommunications service?
>
> BTW - I raised the exception with Holly in conversation.
>
> I agree that the key point is not whether DBCDE and the ISPs
> participating in the trial breached the Act (I'm not sure that they did)
> but the effectivness of filtering and the necessity to ensure that, if
> filtering is to proceed in some form, there is a proper, fair and quick
> process to address erroneous inclusions of URLs on the blocking list.
>
> Cheers
> Rob Gregory
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au
> [mailto:iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au] On Behalf Of Rich
> Communications
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 July 2010 5:51 PM
> To: Holly Raiche
> Cc: ISOC-AU Members Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims
> engineer"
>
> Holly -
>
> Your message somehow did not include the key exception to which I think
> you are referring, which is Section 7 (2) (iii)
>
> "(iii) the identifying or tracing of any person who has contravened, or
> is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene, a
> provision of Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code;"
>
> So in spite of the extensive provisions specifying the conditions for
> lawful interception for technical, criminal or "security" purposes, a
> government need only ensure that a category of activity is potentially
> covered by 10.6 of the Criminal Code, in order for interception to be
> lawful under the Act as it stands.
>
> This might be the case for, say, chat-room grooming, but I doubt it is
> currently the case for passive personal browsing or downloading unless
> intellectual property offences are involved.
>
> Richard
>
> Holly Raiche wrote:
>> Hi Everyone
>>
>> On filtering and its legality - one of our Directors has pointed to
>> the Act itself (Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979
>> and the exception to the offence
>>
>> 7 Telecommunications not to be intercepted
>>
>> (1) A person shall not:
>>
>> (a) intercept;
>>
>> (b) authorize, suffer or permit
>> another person to intercept; or
>>
>> (c) do any act or thing that will
>> enable him or her or another person to intercept;
>>
>> a communication passing over a telecommunications system.
>>
>> (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to or in
>> relation to:
>>
>> (a) an act or thing done by an
>> employee of a carrier in the course of his or her duties for or in
>> connection with:
>>
>> (i) the installation of any line,
>> or the installation of any equipment, used or intended for use in
>> connection with a telecommunications service; or
>>
>> (ii) the operation or maintenance
>> of a telecommunications system; or
>>
>>
>> Arguably, what participating carriers were doing would fit into this
>> exception
>>
>> - which is not to say that the argument isn't valid and important
>> - which is NOT to use labels - please, manners on this list
>>
>> and finally, which is to take up the point well made - whatever the
>> legality of the tests, the point we keep making - on our own and as
>> part of the SIG group - is the ineffectiveness of mandatory blocking,
>> for the range of reasons already explored here.
>>
>> Our main task will be to convince all Parliamentarians of the futilty
>> of mandatory blocking, with money far better spend on education,
>> cooperation with law enforcement agencies, etc. So any suggestions on
>> how todo that are welcome Holly
>>
>>
>> On 02/07/2010, at 5:58 PM, Rich Communications wrote:
>>
>>> Reserving my position on the "lunatic" element (I don't know the
>>> individuals concerned), I think David is correct.
>>>
>>> There is a degree of "interception" involved in any firewall or
>>> content filter that might be implemented anywhere. As far as I know,
>>> the law does defines the communicating parties as individuals, not
>>> according to who is paying for the service as a "customer". Hence any
>
>>> school or company with a firewall in place is "intercepting" user's
>>> communication for the kinds purposes to which David refers, plus some
>
>>> content filtering that few would deem unacceptable.
>>>
>>> The best arguments against the Conroy plan are those based on its
>>> futility rather than those based on imagined levels of privacy
> rights.
>>>
>>> Richard Thwaites
>>>
>>> Skeeve Stevens wrote:
>>>> Mark is part of the lunatic fringe? Can I be?
>>>>
>>>> David, that isn't very nice... Mark has done an awesome amount of
>>>> effort creating awareness in the media regarding this situation.
>>>>
>>>> This latest accusation against the government (interception) seems
>>>> pretty well on the mark... and if it proves accurate (and there are
>>>> a couple of lawyers working on it at the moment), I am sure that it
>>>> could be front page news across the country.... and in that case, it
>
>>>> can only help us all.
>>>>
>>>> ...Skeeve
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The
>>>> Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego.net
>>>> <mailto:skeeve at eintellego.net> / www.eintellego.net
>>>> <http://www.eintellego.net>
>>>> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 /
>
>>>> skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; facebook.com/eintellego
>>>> <http://facebook.com/eintellego>
>>>> --
>>>> NOC, NOC, who's there?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: David Havyatt [mailto:david at havyatt.com.au]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 2 July 2010 9:01 AM
>>>>> To: Skeeve Stevens; 'Narelle'; 'ISOC-AU Members Discussion List'
>>>>> Subject: RE: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims
>>>>> engineer"
>>>>>
>>>>> To think that the lunatic fringe of the industry running around
>>>>> making outrageous claims that the Government might have breached
>>>>> the law is going to make the filtering issue "slowly die" is a
>>>>> distorted view of public policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly there exist exemptions in the intercept regime for devices
>
>>>>> installed to enable the operator to monitor traffic and quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Havyatt
>>>>> Principal
>>>>> Havyatt Associates Pty Ltd
>>>>> (m) + 61 414 467 271
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au
>>>>> <mailto:iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au>
>>>>> [mailto:iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au] On Behalf Of Skeeve
>>>>> Stevens
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:17 PM
>>>>> To: Narelle; ISOC-AU Members Discussion List
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims
>>>>> engineer"
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to see Conroy arrested and charged with being a public
>>>>> nuisance ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> But seriously... Mark is right... this is pretty serious and I
>>>>> would love to see it front page news... might even make the
>>>>> filtering issue slowly die.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Skeeve
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The
>>>>> Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego.net
>>>>> <mailto:skeeve at eintellego.net> / www.eintellego.net
>>>>> <http://www.eintellego.net>
>>>>> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383
>>>>> / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; facebook.com/eintellego
>>>>> <http://facebook.com/eintellego>
>>>>> --
>>>>> NOC, NOC, who's there?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au
>>>>>> <mailto:iamems-bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au> [mailto:iamems-
>>>>>> bounces at lists.isoc-au.org.au] On Behalf Of Narelle
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 7:50 PM
>>>>>> To: ISOC-AU Members Discussion List
>>>>>> Subject: [ISOC-AU-mems] "Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims
>>>>> engineer"
>>>>>> This is an interesting article for a number of reasons:
>>>>>> - that port mirroring by an ISP for the purposes of managing
>>>>>> traffic might be illegal
>>>>>> - that a complaint lodged on same might be treated so poorly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Net filter trials 'unlawful', claims engineer By Ben Grubb,
>>>>>> ZDNet.com.au <http://ZDNet.com.au> on July 1st, 2010
>>>>>> (2 hours ago)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The internet filtering "live trials" conducted by the Federal
>>>>>> Government in conjunction with internet service providers (ISPs)
>>>>>> were done illegally, according to claims by network engineer Mark
> Newton.
>>>>>> Network engineer Mark Newton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton, who has been a vocal opponent of the Federal Government's
>>>>>> mandatory internet filter proposal, has been involved in a
>>>>>> year-long dialogue with the government over this claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His claim centres on whether the Department of Broadband,
>>>>>> Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE), in conducting its
>>>>>> filter trials with ISPs, intercepted customers' internet traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He claims that one particular device used in the trials and
>>>>>> publicly outed by ISPs - the Marshall R3000 series web monitoring,
>
>>>>>> filtering and reporting package - probably intercepted customer's
>>>>>> traffic and therefore breached section 7(1)(b) of the
>>>>>> Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 by
>>>>>> authorising, suffering or permitting said equipment to be used in
> that manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He also claims that the department may have breached section
>>>>>> 7(1)(c) of the Act by doing "any act or thing" that enabled ISP
>>>>>> participants to intercept, namely paying for the equipment they
> used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> etc at:
>>>>>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/net-filter-trials-unlawful-claims-engineer
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> 339304184.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> short link:
>>>>>> http://j.mp/aFUxvt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Narelle
>>>>>> narellec at gmail.com <mailto:narellec at gmail.com>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> iamems mailing list
>>>>>> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au <mailto:iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au>
>>>>>> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-
>>>>>> bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
>>>>>> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-
>>>>>> au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> iamems mailing list
>>>>> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au <mailto:iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au>
>>>>> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>>>>>
>>>>> List-Unsubscribe:
>>>>> <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
>>>>> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-
>>>>> au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> iamems mailing list
>>>> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au <mailto:iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au>
>>>> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>>>>
>>>> List-Unsubscribe:
>>>> <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
>>>> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iamems mailing list
>>> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au <mailto:iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au>
>>> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>>>
>>> List-Unsubscribe:
>>> <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
>>> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Holly Raiche
>> Executive Director,
>> Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU) ed at isoc-au.org.au
>> <mailto:ed at isoc-au.org.au>
>> Mob: 0412 688 544
>> Ph: (02) 9436 2149
>> *
>> *
>> /The Internet is For Everyone/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iamems mailing list
>> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au
>> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>>
>> List-Unsubscribe:
> <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
>>
> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> iamems mailing list
> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au
> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>
> List-Unsubscribe:
> <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
>
> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Maddocks | Celebrating 125 Years in 2010
>
> Exceptional Service Winner | 2007 BRW-St George Client Service Awards
> ALB Fast 10 | Australasian Legal Business Award 2007-2008
> Employer of Choice for Women | EOWA 2004 - 2010
> Fair & Flexible Employer | Victorian State Government 2009
>
> Melbourne - Tel: (61 3) 9288 0555 Fax: (61 3) 9288 0666
> Sydney - Tel: (61 2) 8223 4100 Fax: (61 2) 9221 0872
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information in this electronic mail is privileged
> and confidential, intended only for use of the individual
> or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient,
> any dissemination, copying or use of the information is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission
> in error please delete it immediately from your system
> and inform us by email on info at maddocks.com.au.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> iamems mailing list
> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au
> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>
> List-Unsubscribe:
> <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iamems mailing list
> iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au
> http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
> <mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
iamems mailing list
iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au
http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
<mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
iamems mailing list
iamems at lists.isoc-au.org.au
http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.isoc-au.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iamems>,
<mailto:iamems-request at lists.isoc-au.org.au?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list