[AusNOG] Internet companies forced to block The Pirate Bay, bittorrent websites in Australia, Federal Court rules

[Paul Wilkins]

Not to mention the direction came from ASIC, whereas 314(3)(b) pertains to
the ACMA.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On 21 December 2016 at 09:56, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whether or not it was stupid to seek arbitration is a a matter of opinion.
> I think most would agree that where the ACMA have asked for an IP block,
> there is no reason to assume an arbitrator will give you a better outcome,
> whether the cost of arbitration is a legitimate use of the company's funds,
> and there's the question of risk to the business if they are dilatory in
> imposing an ACMA directive. I think it would be stupid to assume such
> measures were imposed lightly, without running the consequences past
> engineering and legal.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 20 December 2016 at 23:05, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>
>> On 20 Dec 2016, at 1:18 PM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The ASIC case was interesting because the ISPs begged ASIC not to do
>> this, but in that instance, the decision was ASIC's, and the ISPs had no
>> choice.
>>
>>
>> The ISPs actually did have a choice, and were under no obligation to
>> provide ASIC with the assistance they requested.
>>
>> Which is one reason why only some ISPs accidentally blocked hundreds of
>> thousands of websites.
>>
>> In particular, every ISP could have invoked section 314(3)(b), but most
>> didn’t.
>>
>> Additionally, sections 313(3) and (4) only require that carriers or
>> carriage service providers “give such help as is reasonably necessary”.
>> It’s a stretch to say that collateral blocking of a quarter of a million
>> websites is “reasonably necessary.”
>>
>> In retrospect, it wasn’t; as the various inquiries into the matter
>> concluded. The service providers who listened to ASIC and said, “Yep,
>> sounds reasonable, we’d better do it…” no doubt believed they were doing
>> the right thing, but they were objectively wrong, and should have pushed
>> back, as the law permitted (required) them to do. There are lessons there
>> which almost certainly have not been learned.
>>
>> Various ISPs came out of that episode looking like a bunch of dickheads.
>> To portray the result as inevitable because they “had no choice” is a
>> pretty stupid rewriting of history, and a misunderstanding of the
>> legislation that governs the industry that you choose to earn your living
>> from.
>>
>> These laws MEAN something. The Parliament intended that ISPs would be
>> able to kybosh unreasonable demands from law enforcement agencies: That’s
>> what the legislation actually says. To behave as if those words were never
>> enacted into law and ISPs have to do what they’re bloody-well told renders
>> the Parliament’s legislated intent meaningless, and is *obviously *
>> bullshit.
>>
>>
>>   - mark
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20161221/f9873444/attachment.html>