[AusNOG] "ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates"

Sun Feb 22 12:31:11 EST 2015

Unless I'm reading the Introduction wrong, this only applies to ISP's
providing 'residential' Internet services.  So seems like the simplest
thing for any ISP to do is to email customers and say "The Govt is trying
to bring in an unworkable and unfair system for monitoring your internet
usage, in an effort to suck up to the movie studios.  This only applies to
residential customers, so please go to https://abr.gov.au/ and register for
an ABN, and add it to your account in our customer portal.  You have 30
days to do so, after that time we will no longer be providing you with
internet connectivity."

Voila, it's a dead topic.

On 22 February 2015 at 12:16, Noel Butler <noel.butler at ausics.net> wrote:

>  I pretty much agree with everything said here, however, in my skimming,
> did I or did I not read the only end user dispute can occur after they have
> final notice? what dropkick came up with that? anyone accused of anything
> has a right of dispute there and then, if they want to dispute and have
> wiped a 1st or 2nd warning, it is there right to do so at that time.
>
> I think it also needs to be made extremely clear that "all ISP's" should
> be replaced by all comms alliance members - which are a negligible number
> compared to overall alleged 600 or so ISP's, have you 500 customers, or
> 500,000, your input and choice is as equal as any other.
>
>
>
> The fact it specifically excludes wireless forms also places it into the
> joke box.
>
> I dont recall every ISP being asked by comms alliance for input, or even
> if they agree, maybe thats what they are doing now? in that case, the
> response is GAGF, your draft  has a  looooong way to go, its got more holes
> in it that a pallet of swiss cheese.
>
>
>
> On 22/02/2015 07:33, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
>
>  So, the draft code is here:
>
>
> http://www.commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/47570/DR-C653-2015.pdf
>
> A couple of questions.
>
> - How does this affect businesses, companies, etc which has many users
> behind their connection.  Universities/Schools, Internet Cafes, corporate
> internet, public wifi, etc - which may or may not have the ability or
> detect what their users are doing.
>
> What will be the penalties of businesses who can't identify the abuser?
> Will a company be taken down because of a user?
>
> Based on the definitions an 'Account Holder' is a natural person on
> Residential fixed internet account'.  Does does mean businesses (of any
> size) as end users are exempt?
>
> Will a family be taken down because of a childs actions? Is everybody
> affected by the actions of one/few?
>
> What if the account holder ceases to be a customer of 'that' ISP?  With
> the trend of short term accounts, a user could move between an ISP every
> month at little cost... so as long as they rotate every month or two, this
> process is moot?
>
> ----Specific Questions----
>
>
> 3.9.2 - This seems like a VERY administratively costly method.  Why not
> just email?  Pop-Ups is VERY hard technically to do and potentially
> requires intercepting of communications.  Registered mail is VERY expensive
> in bulk and may end up costing a LOT of money.
>
> 3.10.3 - Why is the account holder paying? What if they can't afford to
> pay it?  I'd like to see the circumstances on which it can be waived? and
> how the panel will pay for the costs of evaluating the work involved.
>
> 3.10.8 - Are you suggesting that the panel has the power to ask ISPs to
> bypass privacy legislation?
>
>
> 3.10.10 - How will the panel handle people who have been hacked (virus,
> wifi, etc etc) and there defence is simply "We didn't do it" regardless of
> wether their connection actually did or not?
>
> 3.11 - What is ISPs don't? Or if they lose the information through systems
> failure, hacking, or mistake?
>
> 3.12.7 - Is the ISP required to be involved in the request? Who will pay
> for this?
>
> 3.12.10 - So you are saying that this is a paper tiger and accomplishes
> nothing but a bunch of emails and potential costs for ISPs?
>
> *4.1.3 - Equal? Why? Why are ISPs being forced to pay for the policing of
> this?  What mechanism will ISPs be forced to pay for it?  How much will
> panel members be paid for this? This could end up in hundreds of thousands
> of requests and be more than a full-time job.  How will it handle thousands
> of queries from account holders?*
>
> In the Process flow.3 - Match IPA to Service.  If an ISP does not track
> this information, are they able to ignore all requests?
>
>
> If this is all so important... then why isn't the Comms Alliance building
> and hosting a platform to facilitate this process, paying for lawyers and
> so on?
>
> There are a LOT of other things in this draft, but I think overall it is
> massively faulted and based on a bad foundation that ISPs are responsible
> at all for what their users are doing.  It shifts an admin burden to the
> ISPs that has cost implications which are unknown and could be very
> significant - if not business affecting - to smaller players.
>
> If the ISPs of Australia do not fight back against this, many many small
> players (and bigger ones too) could be crippled by this process which the
> Comms Alliance has agreed to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
>
> --
>
> Skeeve Stevens - The ISP Guy
>
> Email: skeeve at theispguy.com ; Twitter: @TheISPGuy
> <https://twitter.com/TheISPGuy>
> Blog: TheISPGuy.com <http://theispguy.com/> ; Facebook: TheISPGuy
> <https://www.facebook.com/theispguy>
>
> Linkedin: /in/skeeve <http://www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve> ; Expert360:
> Profile <https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Peter Tonoli <peter at medstv.unimelb.edu.au
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Just to let you know, from the headline of this email, the whole ISP
>> community has agreed to this.. ISPs agree to graduated warnings for pirates
>>
>>
>> Draft copyright infringement code published.
>>
>> Australian internet service providers have agreed to implement a
>> graduated warning scheme for users engaged in online copyright
>> infringement, as part of a draft industry code issued today.
>>
>> The Communications Alliance, the ISP representative body, today unveiled
>> the draft code in order to meet the Government's April deadline for an
>> agreed industry plan for self-regulation.
>>
>> The federal government late last year warned ISPs and rights holders that
>> it would enforce its own code for tackling online copyright infringement if
>> the industry could not agree on one.
>>
>> The ISP body published a draft version of the code today [ pdf] . It will
>> apply only to fixed-line connections, and will see a series of escalated
>> warnings issued to those suspected of downloading content such as films and
>> TV shows without paying.
>>
>> But the ISPs and rights holders are yet reach agreement on who will fund
>> the scheme - the main reason similar talks broke down in 2012 - as well as
>> how many notices will be sent during the first 18 months of the code's
>> operation.
>>
>> From:
>> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/400747,isps-agree-to-graduated-warning-notices-for-pirates.aspx#ixzz3SFklq8dz
>> --
>>
>> Peter Tonoli < peter at medstv.unimelb.edu.au > +61-3-9231-2399
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing listAusNOG at lists.ausnog.nethttp://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>

-- 

Damien Gardner Jnr
VK2TDG. Dip EE. GradIEAust
rendrag at rendrag.net -  http://www.rendrag.net/
--
We rode on the winds of the rising storm,
 We ran to the sounds of thunder.
We danced among the lightning bolts,
 and tore the world asunder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150222/e5d17ec1/attachment.html>