[AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Karl Auer]

On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 10:56 +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> Now I would say that for instance, if the eSecurity Director posts
> the CRC of a file as being "abhorrent violent" content, and your
> company doesn't expeditiously take down that material, expect
> problems down the pike.

Numerous people have called you on your ongoing "fingerprint" fantasy.
It would be nice if you would take that on board, because your repeated
nonsense on that score is exactly the kind of talk that gets
cherrypicked by the 20-watt bulbs in government and used as if it were
fact.

Regarding recklessness and "expeditiously", I'd agree with you. A
properly framed legal demand has to be followed, even if daft,
unconscionable, or the product of flawed legislation.

Unfortunately, what we will almost certainly see is companies taking
down material even when the demand is not properly framed and/or the
material not illegal, just to avoid risk. Few will reinstate material
in the event that later due diligence reveals a flaw in the demand; few
will bother with due diligence at all. It's too expensive, and no-one
will reimburse them for their trouble.

There are no draconian laws working *for* legal material, so there is a
sort of "ratchet" effect. It seems very likely to me that material not
actually covered by the law will start being attacked using this law,
taking advantage of the fact that it is easier and cheaper for
companies to just take down anything they are asked to take down,
without bothering with due diligence either before or after the fact.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Old fingerprint: A0CD 28F0 10BE FC21 C57C 67C1 19A6 83A4 9B0B 1D75