> > Complied with by a simple notice on ftp servers, and, funnily > enough, inside the package you need to open and read before building, > when was the last time you saw such a notice before downloading httpd, > or postfix etc > > I can't say for sure how the law is interpreted in Australia, but I > rather suspect it is like the US -- where there must be more > significant efforts to prevent unauthorized exports. I haven't seen > that kind of notice in a long time, because laws relaxed after the > Wassenaar Arrangement was adopted, and now mostly the servers will > just refuse to download files to IP addresses from NoKo, Iran, etc. >
There exists no way to compel them, how many virtual hosts can a network have, they are more interested in creating a web page, uploading data and making it available, they like most people, dont give a rats ass about government dictatorships, I too am of teh belief that denying access to, say, Iran, only penalises Iranians, their govt coudn';t give a flying f... they would get it by any means anyway, so embargoes only hurt the bystanders. I've been doing this shit since very late 80's, and not once anywhere has some govt official said " hey - you cant do this " or please prevent this, or whatever, obviously, in the US it is different and they do like to force their powers > Wikipedia and Electronic Frontiers Australia both disagree with you > about the requirement to hand over keys in Australia, and both of them > cite the Cybercrime Act of 2001 as the legislation that requires > individuals to disclose cryptographic keys or face prison time (even > if the disclosure would incriminate the person). > Actually, IIRC (has been many years since I read that Act) it does NOT specify cryptographic, thats a more generalised term to provide access to data, think, data centre refusing to let a LEO get access to a server, I concede, that like many laws are written loosely enough it might be argued to a court to include crypto keys > Argument by "of course" is not very convincing when it's made by > someone who shows so little understanding of the things he writes > about. > and you might be surprised, just because I dont drag out the ol law books before I respond to every post (because posting on mailing lists really dont count all that high on my care factor level) doesnt mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Its like everything, - its one thing to be written, it is another to be tested. The High Court here has thrown out govt knee-jerk reaction laws on appeals, and unless they had clear proof one was a terrorist or involved in sick kiddie material, or other very serious crimes, one would stand a 'fair' chance of the court protecting the right to privacy. and because I have a few minutes before I go shopping..... actual extract..... The magistrate may grant the order if the magistrate is satisfied that: (a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidential material is held in, or is accessible from, the computer; and (b) the specified person is: reasonably suspected of having committed the offence stated in the relevant warrant ...EFA are an activist group, one who I even support most of the time, but they do, like any activist group, only put up what supports their cause.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Coder-com mailing list Coder-com@undernet.org http://undernet.sbg.org/mailman/listinfo/coder-com
