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 (ka...@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 _______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog