[AusNOG] the legal consequences of ignoring compliance

[Mark Smith]

>________________________________
> From: Paul Wallace <paul.wallace at mtgi.com.au>
>To: Bevan Slattery <bevan at slattery.net.au>; Sam Silvester <sam.silvester at gmail.com> 
>Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
>Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013 8:39 PM
>Subject: [AusNOG] the legal consequences of ignoring compliance
> 
>
>
>Bevan is right where he says “companies of scale and their in house Counsel would not like network engineers calling law enforcement agencies playing Matlock, particularly when said notices are generally not even addressed to said engineer.” The ‘operative being SCALE (double entendre if you think about it! :;-)) (and Matlock was a cop not a lawyer wasn’t he?)
> 
>however …
> 
>Many members here work for, or own businesses that simply cannot afford, or don’t believe they should need to retain ‘In-House Counsel’, yet still need comply with a whole range of compliance which ALWAYS retains the possibilities of legal consequences should things go wrong.
> 
>Sadly, there are very few places for Australian businessmen to turn to get free legal advice.
> 
>Worse is the fact where I sometimes ponder whether or not Telecoms is possibly the most compliance heavy industry in this nation.
> 
>I’m sure Bevan is not suggesting that you either retain fulltime In House General Counsel or, alternatively, surrender your business. 
> 
> 

I don't think you necessarily need to immediately seek legal advice and then trust it blindly. I think laws are formalisations of society's morals. I suspect the concern and outrage expressed here has occurred without any of us seeking legal advice to determine if we should be outraged or not. As the implementers of these measures, we can raise the burden of proof that these measures are legal when we perceive it to be morally wrong. That isn't taking ownership of the legal issues, but it is taking ownership of ensuring they are dealt with correctly and fully.