[AusNOG] Site Blocking Coming

[Skeeve Stevens]

Yup... basically as I thought.... and thought it worth bringing up with the
community.  It will be interesting to see who/what/how happens.




...Skeeve


--

Skeeve Stevens - The ISP Guy - Internet Provider SME

Email: skeeve at theispguy.com ; Cell: +61(0)414 753 383
Skype: skeeve; 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 Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>
wrote:

> Skeeve - Seems to me that 115A(3)(b) indicates the court action needs to
> explicitly name each ISP that is going to be asked to implement anything,
> and 115A(4)(a) means each ISP that is named must be notified that the
> application is being made, so you can choose whether or not to participate
> in the court action or not. If you are not named and notified, you won't be
> served the injunction, so you won't need to do anything. These days, naming
> the top 5 ISPs is likely to cover a decent percentage of the userbase.
>
> 115A(5)f is something the judge has to take into account in deciding
> whether or not to grant the injunction. An ISP that is named might be able
> to advise the judge on this point, but an ISP that is not named doesn't
> have any say at that point - not your problem.
>
> If you receive an injunction, your entire requirement to act is described
> in 115A(2)  "Take reasonable steps to disable access to the online
> location".
>
> Like most things the law describes the desired outcome, not the method.
> Its up to you. If you are given a domain name or URL and your idea of
> 'reasonable step' is to block the IP address, and there is a pile of
> collateral damage, then the ensuing publicity might make the next
> application be considered differently. You might instead choose to add a
> DNS hack within your network. Its entirely your individual call how you
> "disable access", and it doesn't have to be 100% effective, just
> "reasonable steps". Whatever that means.
>
>
> On 23/11/2015 11:39 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Re:
> http://www.cnet.com/au/news/village-roadshow-prepares-site-blocking-application-for-federal-court/
>
> So, how are ISPs planning to implement this blocking.
>
> How indeed are all ISPs even going to be told of the requirements?  Does
> the right holder have to contact every ISP in the country or are ISPs just
> supposed to know it has to happen?
>
> The legislation:
> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r5446_third-reps/toc_pdf/15056b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> - 115A(3)b. Does this mean the rights holder has to get an injunction
> against each an every CSP (ISP)?
>
> - 115A(5)f. How would anyone know (with a certainty) if other websites are
> hosted on the same IP address?
>
> Doe anyone else have thoughts/understanding on the mechanics on how this
> is supposed to work?
>
>
>
> ...Skeeve
>
>
> --
>
> Skeeve Stevens - The ISP Guy - Internet Provider SME
>
> Email:  <skeeve at theispguy.com>skeeve at theispguy.com ; Cell: +61(0)414 753
> 383
> Skype: skeeve; 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing listAusNOG at lists.ausnog.nethttp://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151124/37bbea62/attachment-0001.html>