[AusNOG] Hoax calls ?

[David Walker]

On 17/07/2011, Ben McGinnes <ben at adversary.org> wrote:
> On 17/07/11 11:51 AM, Peter Tonoli wrote:
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer - or anywhere near that, however isn't that similar
>> to what the complaints about the current Australian internet filter,
>> that it may be illegal under the telecommunications interception
>> act?
>
> Neither am I, but it might also breach section 477.3 of the
> Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995:
>
> http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00261/Html/Text#_Toc290296377

Why that doesn't apply ...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

-------------------------<quote>-------------------------

Division 477 -- Serious computer offences

477.1   Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with INTENT to
commit a SERIOUS offence

...

Meaning of serious offence

             (9)  In this section:

"serious offence" means an offence that is punishable by imprisonment
for life or a period of 5 or more years.

-------------------------</quote>-------------------------

Notwithstanding the fun of dissecting other parts of that act and the
definition of carriage provider and what constitutes authorization or
access (ever had an AS read - or access - destination IP headers on
your packets and use that to do BGP - it's probably happened to me
several times ...

Reliability or provision and/or termination of certain services that
don't encompass the comitting of an offence unless in extremis
(national emergency, etcetera) is surely a civil matter and covered by
consumer code as discussed in the TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 - SECT
478:

The terms and conditions on which certain telecommunications-related
goods and services are supplied are:

               (a)     as agreed between the supplier and the customer; or

As an illustration ...
... at some point the AG has eyeballed this (the icode) ...

http://www.iia.net.au/index.php/all-members/869-get-ready-for-icode-in-force-1-december-2010.html

... which most of us probably know about.
If that's not prohibited by any relevant act then the IIA could
probably say in two minutes flat why the AG gave assent.

BTW, there's no tin-foil hats here ...

I suspect it's either specifically allowed/mandated by some particular
act or it's so mundane it's a case of SFOA ...

All my service providers (cloud or not) are ACCESSING and IMPAIRING
comms to their customers left right and centre at least as an option
and most of the time as opt-out (spam and port blocking as prima facie
examples) ... no problem at all.

Google search and malware warnings ... end of thread?

As for the internet filter ... you guys know why you want to fight
against that ...
... don't dilute that by using it as a straw man.

> Regards,
> Ben

Best wishes.