[AusNOG] metadata conference on SkyNews

[Jake Anderson]

I presume the general theoretical use case for this sort of thing is, we 
hacked "killtheinfidels.com" and saw a bunch of Australian IP's hitting 
it, we'd like to see who is doing that.
Then they can percolate that through their databases and see if there is 
anybody interesting, add people to watchlists all the good stuff.
Obviously it isn't going to get anybody with half a brain, but 
thankfully most of the nutjobs seem to self select to fall into that 
category.

What I would find interesting would be if, now that they have said all 
they want is IP to account matchups. If IINET and the other players said 
something along the lines of "we support this limited data retention in 
the interest of national security, You can prove that your intentions 
are true and not supported by afact (or whomever) by legislating that 
these records not be able to be used for copyright infringement purposes"

I'd also suggest that they could create a class of warrant, whereby a 
judge could OK the acquisition by "the powers that be" of this 
information, which would breach the privacy of users. Though this could 
well reveal the information that lead to the desire for the IP addresses 
in the first place.
(Secret warrants are a bad thing)

On 11/08/14 13:14, Mike Taylor wrote:
> I was going to say;
>
> With IPv6 - you allocate a prefix, not an IP address, so perhaps 'Your 
> argument is invalid' might apply in that situation?
>
> (not you Mark, the lawmakers)
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> On 11/08/14 13:49, Mark Newton wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Beeson, Ayden <ABeeson at csu.edu.au 
>> <mailto:ABeeson at csu.edu.au>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 this. Though they deny it, the user -> IP listing is the ONLY 
>>> thing they don't have to start directly harassing people for 
>>> Copyright infringement notices sent from the US media companies.
>>
>> Notwithstanding that they can never get a “user->IP” mapping, they 
>> can only get a subscriber->IP mapping.
>>
>> This is something they know, having had their arses caned over it 
>> repeatedly in US courts, and having had the full bench of the High 
>> Court in Australia kick them in the face about it in AFACT v iiNet 
>> (so hard they had to change their name to recover their reputation. 
>> "AFACT? Who, us? We don’t know any AFACT…”)
>>
>> It’s possible to pay someone to continue to believe things they know 
>> to be untrue, and that’s what we have with the copyright industry and 
>> our A-D, and so here we are. The fact that they earn their money by 
>> being professionally wrong doesn’t mean anyone else has to provide 
>> them with the benefit of any credibility.
>>
>> Who here is making submissions to the copyright consultation that 
>> closes on 1 Sep?
>>
>>   - mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20140811/0da3ae0f/attachment.html>