[AusNOG] Legal Challenge To Meta Data Laws

[Andrew Kitchen]

I think the way the government would resolve it is to base the compliance around products and not on industry type….

Look while I don’t agree with these laws they need to be fair for all so if a Content Provider currently doesn’t have to comply while an ISP does then both either need to or don’t that’s my whole argument why should my client have to comply while XYZ competitor who isn’t an ISP get away with not having to comply that’s my whole argument.

Regards

Andrew






Andrew Kitchen | Business DevelopmentStrategist
PO Box 3279, The Pines, Victoria, 3109
T 1300 789 299 D 03 9909 3102 M 0449 561 461 F 03 8611 7946
a.kitchen at xi.com.au | www.xi.com.au



This email message and any attachments are the property of X Integration. The contents of this email are copyright and may also be confidential and/or legally privileged. They are intended solely for the addressee and it is not intended that either confidentiality or privilege be waived or lost by mistaken delivery to you. Please notify us immediately and delete this communication if received in error. Consider the environment before printing this email.
On 10/09/2015 11:05 am, "Ross Wheeler" <ausnog at rossw.net> wrote:

>
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>> I don't think it is anti-competitive. If I understand your argument,
>>
>> Webhost services only = no metadata costs
>> Webhost + ISP services = metadata costs
>>
>> then I think this is the reality,
>>
>> Webhost services only = no metadata costs
>> Webhost services = no metadata costs, ISP services = metadata costs
>>
>> In other words, for your webhost services, you have no more additional
>> metadata costs than a pure webhost services competitor. They're not
>> competing with you for ISP services, so they don't have an unfair
>> advantage because they're not avoiding metadata costs for ISP services
>> because they're not selling ISP services.
>
>I don't want to get dragged into this, but what I took away from the OP
>was that two businesses, both offering webhosting with webmail, but one of
>them ALSO offering carriage service, are being treated differently.
>
>In the case of the company ONLY offering webhosting, including webmail,
>there is no DR obligation, and therefore no compliance or ongoing cost.
>
>The identical webhosting and webmail operation run by a company that ALSO
>offers carriage service *IS* subject to DR obligations and must now
>maintain all the required metadata relevant to their business, including
>email logs (webmail), customer details, payment methods, etc, etc.
>
>This difference, is what I interpreted as the OPs "uncompetetive"
>component, but of course, I could be wrong. It is unbelievably badly
>worded and enacted legislation, and there's absolutely no guarantee that
>the department won't turn around and declare all hosting providers are
>(for the purposes of the legislation) providers. I actually see it as more
>likely that when faced with the argument, the government would simply
>include webhosting companies rather than excluding ISP/CSP/Carriers.
>
>R.