[AusNOG] Australian senate passes controversial anti-piracy, website-blocking laws

[Paul Brooks]

On 23/06/2015 5:23 AM, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> Really it's not that bad. They've seen fit to allow for a test of reasonableness.
> Perhaps after the data retention shenanigans, they're waiting for the dust to
> settle. This act will make for some interesting discussions around what is
> reasonable: if it's not reasonable to withdraw routes, and it's not reasonable to
> block IPs or do DPI, what else is there? I'm already looking forward to the first
> test case.

However, if *you* are the first test case, how do you plan to show to the court what
you interpreted as reasonable, and how you tried to use reasonable means? The court
order won't tell you what 'reasonable' might mean, or what measures might be
considered unreasonable. The content organisation that asked for the injunction
certainly won't tell you.

Situation: you are presented with an injunction to use 'reasonable steps to disable
access' to the URL:
http://www.fileshare.eu/?movie=someblockbusterflick.mp4.

Lets say www.fileshare.eu is hosted on AWS in all regions.

Answer: What do you consider is going to be reasonable for your organisation to do to
comply? and if you don't think what you will do will be effective in achieving the
blocking, how do you propose to convince the judge that you did everything reasonable
when the content industry brings you back to to the judge to tell her you failed to
comply with the injunction?  How will you explain that you thought withdrawing routes
or blocking IPs was not reasonable?

(Its interesting that the requirement to redirect the access attempt to a splash-page
identifying the block and the requestor of the block didn't make it into the final
legislation. A site blocked in error still has no way of finding out they have been
blocked, except for a puzzling drop in traffic to troubleshoot)

Better have a plan in place for when the first injunction comes through the door and
you find you are the first test-case.

Paul.

>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 22 June 2015 at 18:34, Damian Guppy <the.damo at gmail.com
> <mailto:the.damo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Given the impact this is going to have on ISP's I am surprised I haven't seen
>     this discussed much on here. 
>
>     Maybe infrastructure upgrades to support this blocking can be rolled into the
>     upgrades for Metadata retention. I am sure the legislation is pretty vague about
>     how the blocking will need to happen (URL vs IP vs DNS).
>
>     http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/australian-senate-passes-controversial-antipiracy-websiteblocking-laws-20150622-ghuorh.html
>
>     --Damian
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     AusNOG mailing list
>     AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto: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/20150623/2da94594/attachment.html>