Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[greg]

Australian regulation seems to have come a long way since this research 
paper (Can the Internet be regulated? ) funnily enough located in the 
APH archives..

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9596/96rp35

Regards all.
Greg

On 4/04/2019 11:18 pm, Karl Auer wrote:

On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:36 +, Bevan Slattery wrote:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Indeed.

Paul Wilkins:

There is much on the internet that is simply not fit for human
consumption, and the state ought to have the power to remove it.
Where the bill specifies abhorrent violent content, I think most sane
people realise there is nothing to gain in allowing this content.

Not fit for human consumption? So only non-humans consume it? Let's get
in quick and dehumanise the opposition!

What a lot in such a small para! Anyone disagreeing is insane. A
variant of the "all right-thinking people agree..." argument, well
known, if completely lacking in intellectual rigour.

"The state ought to have the power to remove it" - except the state
doesn't have that power, cannot technically have that power and very
arguably should not have that power. I'll allow that "ought" at least
indicates opinion rather than a wild stab at fact.

Now to the core of it: "Abhorrent, violent content". Abhorrent to whom?
Well, all right-thinking people of course! The only problem is that one
person's abhorrent is another person's nice cup of tea. Who decides,
and where is the line that distinguishes "abhorrent, violent content"
from other content?

No handy-wavey stuff, please! Who, specifically, decides, and on what
specific basis do they decide? Does this plan involve a panel of
qualified people, with well-defined guidelines, processes for altering
those guidelines, sunset clauses, public access to decisions and the
reasons for them, accessible avenues of appeal without undue cost and
with reasonable timeframes, exemptions for things like public interest
and documentary value, provision for penalties paid out of the public
purse if a mistake is made...?

If the new powers have all those properties, then I am right behind
them. If not, then their supporters can place them where the sun does
not shine.

It defeats me how anyone of even moderate intelligence[1] can look at
the last hundred years of Western history and agree so timidly to
placing of ever more onerous anti-civilian power into the hands of
agencies that have proven themselves time and again to be unfit to
wield them.

The link between hateful speech and hateful action is, however it may
look in the wake of an event like Christchurch, still a very indirect
and tenuous one. A thousand things and many years led to that hateful
act. Legally stifling any speech not directly and specifically leading
to injury[2] is a very dangerous thing to do, and should be approached
with vastly more caution that our puerile and incompetent government
has demonstrated.

There are presumably plenty of people that "abhorrent, violent content"
will not harm. They may not have enjoyed it or supported it, but they
can't watch it now. It's been taken away from them, too. Are we *sure*
there was nothing to gain? How will we ever know?

Except that of course it hasn't been taken away really - it is still
out there and available. Just not easily to ordinary people. It is
*most* easily available to those who now share it secretly; those who
do watch it for pleasure and with hate in their hearts. Nice work, hey!
Mission accomplished?

When asked, most people will say that they, personally, would of course
not be [harmed, radicalised, traumatised] by viewing [insert current
bogeyman here], but that there are others - weak, sad, awful or
vulnerable people - who [would, could, might] be terribly harmed and so
for the good of those people, said content should be [banned, burned,
buried].[3]

Go on - try it on yourself. Ask yourself if you honestly feel that you,
personally, would have been harmed in any way (other than temporary
discomfort) by viewing this abhorrent, violent content. Try it with a
few other bogeymen! What about porn? Violent video games? Sexist
diatribes? Racist rants?

I will *bet* that you too, dear reader, do not feel you would suffer
lasting harm from any of those. That you feel you are strong enough,
stable enough, sure enough of yourself, to be safe. This is not to say
that you would seek such things out, just that if you were to view
them, you would not be damaged. And if you feel that way, you being (of
course!) a normal, ordinary, right-thinking person, then is it not
likely that other normal, ordinary, right-thinking people might also
feel the same way and correctly adjudge such content as being harmless
to *them*? Hmmm!

Get hate speech out in the open. That is in no way "normalising" it.
Use existing anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws against it. Use
free speech to attack it. Teach others, especially your children, to
recognise 

[AusNOG] Fwd: PJCIS: REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ASSISTANCE AND ACCESS) ACT 2018, INVITATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION

[Paul Brooks]

And now for some new ammunition for the PJCIS - they've just opened the review 
of the
Data Retention program.

Submissions are due 1st July so we can put in a thoughtful submissions - note 
this
will probably survive the election period and continue on the other side, so 
worth
considering carefully no matter who has the hotseats later.

With a few years of practical experience under our belts, there must be some
suggestions and lessons-learnt that you'd like to see changed - this is the 
forum for
making that happen, as much as anything.

A reminder, Internet Australia has the ISP-SIG mailing list we used earlier to
coordinate responses and workshops through the first iteration of Data 
Retention. Not
to detract from AusNOG discussion of course, but ISP-SIG is deliberately just 
ISPs and
no media, which enabled us to have more traction with the Department and 
bureaucrats
for material that wasn't ready for the wider public. If you want to be added to 
that
list, please email me.

Regards,

Paul.



 Forwarded Message 
Subject:PJCIS: REVIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
AND OTHER
LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ASSISTANCE AND ACCESS) ACT 2018, INVITATION TO MAKE A 
SUBMISSION
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 02:57:27 +
From:   Committee, PJCIS (REPS) 



*PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY*
 
*Review of the amendments made by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation
Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018*
*INVITATION TO MAKE A SUBMISSION*
 
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has commenced a 
review
of the amendments made to Commonwealth legislation by the /Telecommunications 
and
Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018./
On behalf of the Committee 
I am
writing to invite you to make a submission to the Committee’s review.
The /Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) 
Act
2018/ (commonly known as the Assistance and Access Act) amended a range of
Commonwealth legislation to empower law enforcement and national security 
agencies to
request, or compel, assistance from telecommunications providers. It also 
established
powers which enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain 
warrants to
access data and devices, and amended the search warrant framework under the 
Crimes Act
and the Customs Act to expand the ability of criminal law enforcement agencies 
to
collect evidence from electronic devices.
Section 187N of the /Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979  
/provides
for the review and requires the Committee to report by 13 April 2020.Terms of
reference are available _here_
.
The Committee has resolved to focus on the following aspects of the legislation:

  * the threshold, scope and proportionality of powers provided for by the Act;
  * authorisation processes and decision-making criteria;
  * the scope of enforcement provisions and the grant of immunities;
  * interaction with intelligence agencies other powers;
  * interaction with foreign laws, including the United States’ /Clarifying 
Lawful
Overseas Use of Data Act/;
  * impact on industry and competitiveness; and
  * reporting obligations and oversight measures.  

 
*/Previous and concurrent reviews of Act/*
This review will build on the findings of a review currently being conducted by 
the
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and two previous Committee 
reviews.
On 26 March 2019 the Committee requested that the Independent National Security
Legislation Monitor commence a review of operation, effectiveness and 
implementation
of amendments made by the /Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment
(Assistance and Access) Act 2018 /focussed on the whether the Act:

  * contains appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals;
  * remains proportionate to any threat of terrorism or threat to national 
security,
or both; and
  * remains necessary.

The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is due to report by 1 
March
2020, to enable any findings to inform the Committee’s review. Additional 
information
about the review is available on the _Independent National Security Legislation
Monitor website_ . 
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security tabled an 
/Advisory
Report on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and
Access) Bill 2018 /
on
5 December 2018 and a report on a/ //_Review of the Telecommunications and Other
Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018_/

Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Mark Newton]

This passed the Senate after 90 seconds of debate without the bill itself being 
made available to MPs last night.

It passed the House today after about four minutes of debate with no 
crossbenchers being allowed to speak.

It’ll receive royal assent and become law, probably tomorrow.

But sure, take their consultation processes seriously, acknowledge the validity 
of the system, treat them with respect, never go for their jugular, join 
industry associations who tread softly and quietly and make-nice lest anyone in 
government become offended. Just like always. I’m sure one day they’ll all see 
the light and stop kicking the internet industry in the face.

One day.

  - mark



> On Apr 4, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Serge Burjak  wrote:
> 
> Very scary section
> 
> (4) The eSafety Commissioner is not required to observe any requirements of 
> procedural fairness in relation to the issue of a 3 notice under subsection 
> (1).
> 
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Paul Wilkins  > wrote:
> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
>  
> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 10:57, Simon Sharwood  > wrote:
> So I was in a thing yesterday with a very senior government relations person 
> from one of the top 3 clouds. And they'd been advised the legislation had 
> very vague wording, meant that they and all cloud services had potential 
> liability.
> 
> At least one other major cloud's lobbyists had the same advice. Both tried to 
> alert the government to the fact they'd cast the net far wider than 
> anticipated.
> 
> 
> So some hurried back-channel efforts were made to change the wording of the 
> legislation to be more specific about social media.
> 
> Those changes weren't made and this government relations pro was 
> flabbergasted at the haste and lack of consultation.
> 
> He said it just makes it easier for people to fling FUD at the whole local 
> industry.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:47 AM Narelle Clark  > wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify - it was introduced to the Senate and approved last night. It 
> will hit the House of Reps today.
> 
> And the PJCIS hasn't even seen it.
> 
> This is flawed in so many ways, and it will affect our industry massively. 
> 
> Why should anyone build a content related business here? How do we protect 
> staff and customers from malicious posting in order to invoke this 
> legislation? 
> 
> Narelle 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Apr. 2019, 10:43 am Narelle Clark,  > wrote:
> 
> Parliament has just rushed through more impractical legislation to jail 
> executives of content providers (that would be all of us) if vile content is 
> not removed "expeditiously".
> 
> Here is some reaction to it...
> 
> Overview: 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-04/facebook-youtube-social-media-laws-rushed-and-flawed-critics-say/10965812
>  
> 
> 
> Law Council:  
> https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/start-ups-concerned-about-new-social-media-laws/10969282
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Scott Farquar: 
> https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/rushed-social-media-legislation-is-seriously-flawed/10969482
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Narelle 
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net 
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Simon Sharwood | JargonMaster Corporate Communications |
> M +61 (0)414 37 37 26 |
> E si...@jargonmaster.com  | W 
> www.jargonmaster.com 
> 24 North Street Marrickville NSW 2204 AUSTRALIA
> ABN: 14743763968
> Work blog: jargonmaster.wordpress.com 
> Free/Busy details: http://www.jargonmaster.com/calendar/ 
> 
> I'm a member of  DHBC.org.au  and a vExpert
> 
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net 
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog 
> 
> ___
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net 
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog 
> 

Re: [AusNOG] Mikrotik IPv6 Vulnerability - Must Read if you have Public IPv6 Facing Mikrotik

[Mike Everest]

Apologies to any who consider it noise :-}

 

MikroTik have released patches addressing IPv6 memory depletion bug in 
bugfix/long-term and stable release channels.

 

Our recommendation is to upgrade all routers with IPv6 enabled (whether 
configured or not) to v6.43.14 (bugfix) as soon as possible.

 

Cheers,  Mike.

 

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Mike Everest
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2019 2:13 PM
To: 'aus...@ausnog.net' 
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Mikrotik IPv6 Vulnerability - Must Read if you have 
Public IPv6 Facing Mikrotik

 

For those not watching this issue closely…

 

Further information and updates here: 
https://shop.duxtel.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=89

 

Cheers,  Mike.

 

___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Scott Weeks]

Top posting only...

I saved the original email to respond to, but this 
covers everything I wanted to write, so x=i++

scott


--- ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:

From: Karl Auer 
To: "aus...@ausnog.net" 
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 23:18:51 +1100

On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:36 +, Bevan Slattery wrote:
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Indeed.

Paul Wilkins:
> There is much on the internet that is simply not fit for human
> consumption, and the state ought to have the power to remove it.
> Where the bill specifies abhorrent violent content, I think most sane
> people realise there is nothing to gain in allowing this content.

Not fit for human consumption? So only non-humans consume it? Let's get
in quick and dehumanise the opposition!

What a lot in such a small para! Anyone disagreeing is insane. A
variant of the "all right-thinking people agree..." argument, well
known, if completely lacking in intellectual rigour.

"The state ought to have the power to remove it" - except the state
doesn't have that power, cannot technically have that power and very
arguably should not have that power. I'll allow that "ought" at least
indicates opinion rather than a wild stab at fact.

Now to the core of it: "Abhorrent, violent content". Abhorrent to whom?
Well, all right-thinking people of course! The only problem is that one
person's abhorrent is another person's nice cup of tea. Who decides,
and where is the line that distinguishes "abhorrent, violent content"
from other content?

No handy-wavey stuff, please! Who, specifically, decides, and on what
specific basis do they decide? Does this plan involve a panel of
qualified people, with well-defined guidelines, processes for altering
those guidelines, sunset clauses, public access to decisions and the
reasons for them, accessible avenues of appeal without undue cost and
with reasonable timeframes, exemptions for things like public interest
and documentary value, provision for penalties paid out of the public
purse if a mistake is made...?

If the new powers have all those properties, then I am right behind
them. If not, then their supporters can place them where the sun does
not shine.

It defeats me how anyone of even moderate intelligence[1] can look at
the last hundred years of Western history and agree so timidly to
placing of ever more onerous anti-civilian power into the hands of
agencies that have proven themselves time and again to be unfit to
wield them.

The link between hateful speech and hateful action is, however it may
look in the wake of an event like Christchurch, still a very indirect
and tenuous one. A thousand things and many years led to that hateful
act. Legally stifling any speech not directly and specifically leading
to injury[2] is a very dangerous thing to do, and should be approached
with vastly more caution that our puerile and incompetent government
has demonstrated.

There are presumably plenty of people that "abhorrent, violent content"
will not harm. They may not have enjoyed it or supported it, but they
can't watch it now. It's been taken away from them, too. Are we *sure*
there was nothing to gain? How will we ever know?

Except that of course it hasn't been taken away really - it is still
out there and available. Just not easily to ordinary people. It is
*most* easily available to those who now share it secretly; those who
do watch it for pleasure and with hate in their hearts. Nice work, hey!
Mission accomplished?

When asked, most people will say that they, personally, would of course
not be [harmed, radicalised, traumatised] by viewing [insert current
bogeyman here], but that there are others - weak, sad, awful or
vulnerable people - who [would, could, might] be terribly harmed and so
for the good of those people, said content should be [banned, burned,
buried].[3]

Go on - try it on yourself. Ask yourself if you honestly feel that you,
personally, would have been harmed in any way (other than temporary
discomfort) by viewing this abhorrent, violent content. Try it with a
few other bogeymen! What about porn? Violent video games? Sexist
diatribes? Racist rants?

I will *bet* that you too, dear reader, do not feel you would suffer
lasting harm from any of those. That you feel you are strong enough,
stable enough, sure enough of yourself, to be safe. This is not to say
that you would seek such things out, just that if you were to view
them, you would not be damaged. And if you feel that way, you being (of
course!) a normal, ordinary, right-thinking person, then is it not
likely that other normal, ordinary, right-thinking people might also
feel the same way and correctly adjudge such content as being harmless
to *them*? Hmmm!

Get hate speech out in the open. That is in no way "normalising" it.
Use existing anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws against it. Use
free speech to attack it. Teach others, especially your children, to
recognise it. Call it out when you 

Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Karl Auer]

On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:36 +, Bevan Slattery wrote:
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Indeed.

Paul Wilkins:
> There is much on the internet that is simply not fit for human
> consumption, and the state ought to have the power to remove it.
> Where the bill specifies abhorrent violent content, I think most sane
> people realise there is nothing to gain in allowing this content.

Not fit for human consumption? So only non-humans consume it? Let's get
in quick and dehumanise the opposition!

What a lot in such a small para! Anyone disagreeing is insane. A
variant of the "all right-thinking people agree..." argument, well
known, if completely lacking in intellectual rigour.

"The state ought to have the power to remove it" - except the state
doesn't have that power, cannot technically have that power and very
arguably should not have that power. I'll allow that "ought" at least
indicates opinion rather than a wild stab at fact.

Now to the core of it: "Abhorrent, violent content". Abhorrent to whom?
Well, all right-thinking people of course! The only problem is that one
person's abhorrent is another person's nice cup of tea. Who decides,
and where is the line that distinguishes "abhorrent, violent content"
from other content?

No handy-wavey stuff, please! Who, specifically, decides, and on what
specific basis do they decide? Does this plan involve a panel of
qualified people, with well-defined guidelines, processes for altering
those guidelines, sunset clauses, public access to decisions and the
reasons for them, accessible avenues of appeal without undue cost and
with reasonable timeframes, exemptions for things like public interest
and documentary value, provision for penalties paid out of the public
purse if a mistake is made...?

If the new powers have all those properties, then I am right behind
them. If not, then their supporters can place them where the sun does
not shine.

It defeats me how anyone of even moderate intelligence[1] can look at
the last hundred years of Western history and agree so timidly to
placing of ever more onerous anti-civilian power into the hands of
agencies that have proven themselves time and again to be unfit to
wield them.

The link between hateful speech and hateful action is, however it may
look in the wake of an event like Christchurch, still a very indirect
and tenuous one. A thousand things and many years led to that hateful
act. Legally stifling any speech not directly and specifically leading
to injury[2] is a very dangerous thing to do, and should be approached
with vastly more caution that our puerile and incompetent government
has demonstrated.

There are presumably plenty of people that "abhorrent, violent content"
will not harm. They may not have enjoyed it or supported it, but they
can't watch it now. It's been taken away from them, too. Are we *sure*
there was nothing to gain? How will we ever know?

Except that of course it hasn't been taken away really - it is still
out there and available. Just not easily to ordinary people. It is
*most* easily available to those who now share it secretly; those who
do watch it for pleasure and with hate in their hearts. Nice work, hey!
Mission accomplished?

When asked, most people will say that they, personally, would of course
not be [harmed, radicalised, traumatised] by viewing [insert current
bogeyman here], but that there are others - weak, sad, awful or
vulnerable people - who [would, could, might] be terribly harmed and so
for the good of those people, said content should be [banned, burned,
buried].[3]

Go on - try it on yourself. Ask yourself if you honestly feel that you,
personally, would have been harmed in any way (other than temporary
discomfort) by viewing this abhorrent, violent content. Try it with a
few other bogeymen! What about porn? Violent video games? Sexist
diatribes? Racist rants?

I will *bet* that you too, dear reader, do not feel you would suffer
lasting harm from any of those. That you feel you are strong enough,
stable enough, sure enough of yourself, to be safe. This is not to say
that you would seek such things out, just that if you were to view
them, you would not be damaged. And if you feel that way, you being (of
course!) a normal, ordinary, right-thinking person, then is it not
likely that other normal, ordinary, right-thinking people might also
feel the same way and correctly adjudge such content as being harmless
to *them*? Hmmm!

Get hate speech out in the open. That is in no way "normalising" it.
Use existing anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws against it. Use
free speech to attack it. Teach others, especially your children, to
recognise it. Call it out when you hear it. Make those who promote it
pariahs (censuring that piss-poor excuse for a politician, Fraser
Anning, was a great start). And if some band of nutjobs wants a
website, so what? It gathers them all in one nicely monitorable place
so that law enforcement can act when the next murderous thug 

Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Bevan Slattery]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...



From: AusNOG  on behalf of Paul Wilkins 

Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:48 pm
To: aus...@ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

I've skimmed the bill, and without apologies, I support the intent, for the 
following reasons:

There is much on the internet that is simply not fit for human consumption, and 
the state ought to have the power to remove it. Where the bill specifies 
abhorrent violent content, I think most sane people realise there is nothing to 
gain in allowing this content.

The big social media companies, principally US based, will beef, because their 
business model has to align to the 1st amendment. It will *gasp* cost them 
money to have to remove this rubbish.

Also why the focus on the rights of media companies to disseminate content not 
fit for human consumption? What about the rights of the individuals involved? 
The people being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered on video have rights, and 
those rights extend to not having the video available to indulge the morbid 
prurience of the deeply disturbed, 4chan, and others.

The bill explicitly excludes provision of carriage as grounds for being 
considered a content provider. So the bill can't actually be used to ban dark 
net, regrettable though that may be.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins


On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 12:38, Serge Burjak 
mailto:sbur...@systech.com.au>> wrote:
Very scary section

(4) The eSafety Commissioner is not required to observe any requirements of 
procedural fairness in relation to the issue of a 3 notice under subsection (1).

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Paul Wilkins 
mailto:paulwilkins...@gmail.com>> wrote:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 10:57, Simon Sharwood 
mailto:si...@jargonmaster.com>> wrote:
So I was in a thing yesterday with a very senior government relations person 
from one of the top 3 clouds. And they'd been advised the legislation had very 
vague wording, meant that they and all cloud services had potential liability.

At least one other major cloud's lobbyists had the same advice. Both tried to 
alert the government to the fact they'd cast the net far wider than anticipated.


So some hurried back-channel efforts were made to change the wording of the 
legislation to be more specific about social media.

Those changes weren't made and this government relations pro was flabbergasted 
at the haste and lack of consultation.

He said it just makes it easier for people to fling FUD at the whole local 
industry.


On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:47 AM Narelle Clark 
mailto:narel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Just to clarify - it was introduced to the Senate and approved last night. It 
will hit the House of Reps today.

And the PJCIS hasn't even seen it.

This is flawed in so many ways, and it will affect our industry massively.

Why should anyone build a content related business here? How do we protect 
staff and customers from malicious posting in order to invoke this legislation?

Narelle

On Thu, 4 Apr. 2019, 10:43 am Narelle Clark, 
mailto:narel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Parliament has just rushed through more impractical legislation to jail 
executives of content providers (that would be all of us) if vile content is 
not removed "expeditiously".

Here is some reaction to it...

Overview: 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-04/facebook-youtube-social-media-laws-rushed-and-flawed-critics-say/10965812

Law Council:  
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/start-ups-concerned-about-new-social-media-laws/10969282

Scott Farquar: 
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/rushed-social-media-legislation-is-seriously-flawed/10969482


Narelle
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog


--
Simon Sharwood | JargonMaster Corporate Communications |
M +61 (0)414 37 37 26 |
E si...@jargonmaster.com | W 
www.jargonmaster.com
24 North Street Marrickville NSW 2204 AUSTRALIA
ABN: 14743763968
Work blog: jargonmaster.wordpress.com
Free/Busy details: http://www.jargonmaster.com/calendar/
I'm a member of  DHBC.org.au and a vExpert
[https://communities.vmware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/26788-1-122263/vExpert-2014-Badge.png]
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
___
AusNOG mailing list

Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions

[Paul Wilkins]

I've skimmed the bill, and without apologies, I support the intent, for the
following reasons:

There is much on the internet that is simply not fit for human consumption,
and the state ought to have the power to remove it. Where the bill
specifies abhorrent violent content, I think most sane people realise there
is nothing to gain in allowing this content.

The big social media companies, principally US based, will beef, because
their business model has to align to the 1st amendment. It will *gasp* cost
them money to have to remove this rubbish.

Also why the focus on the rights of media companies to disseminate content
not fit for human consumption? What about the rights of the individuals
involved? The people being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered on video
have rights, and those rights extend to not having the video available to
indulge the morbid prurience of the deeply disturbed, 4chan, and others.

The bill explicitly excludes provision of carriage as grounds for being
considered a content provider. So the bill can't actually be used to ban
dark net, regrettable though that may be.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins


On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 12:38, Serge Burjak  wrote:

> Very scary section
>
> (4) The eSafety Commissioner is not required to observe any requirements
> of procedural fairness in relation to the issue of a 3 notice under
> subsection (1).
>
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Paul Wilkins 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 10:57, Simon Sharwood 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So I was in a thing yesterday with a very senior government relations
>>> person from one of the top 3 clouds. And they'd been advised the
>>> legislation had very vague wording, meant that they and all cloud services
>>> had potential liability.
>>>
>>> At least one other major cloud's lobbyists had the same advice. Both
>>> tried to alert the government to the fact they'd cast the net far wider
>>> than anticipated.
>>>
>>>
>>> So some hurried back-channel efforts were made to change the wording of
>>> the legislation to be more specific about social media.
>>>
>>> Those changes weren't made and this government relations pro was
>>> flabbergasted at the haste and lack of consultation.
>>>
>>> He said it just makes it easier for people to fling FUD at the whole
>>> local industry.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:47 AM Narelle Clark 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Just to clarify - it was introduced to the Senate and approved last
 night. It will hit the House of Reps today.

 And the PJCIS hasn't even seen it.

 This is flawed in so many ways, and it will affect our industry
 massively.

 Why should anyone build a content related business here? How do we
 protect staff and customers from malicious posting in order to invoke this
 legislation?

 Narelle

 On Thu, 4 Apr. 2019, 10:43 am Narelle Clark, 
 wrote:

>
> Parliament has just rushed through more impractical legislation to
> jail executives of content providers (that would be all of us) if vile
> content is not removed "expeditiously".
>
> Here is some reaction to it...
>
> Overview:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-04/facebook-youtube-social-media-laws-rushed-and-flawed-critics-say/10965812
>
> Law Council:
> https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/start-ups-concerned-about-new-social-media-laws/10969282
>
>
> Scott Farquar:
> https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/rushed-social-media-legislation-is-seriously-flawed/10969482
>
>
> Narelle
>
 ___
 AusNOG mailing list
 AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
 http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Sharwood | JargonMaster Corporate Communications |
>>> M +61 (0)414 37 37 26 |
>>> E si...@jargonmaster.com | W www.jargonmaster.com
>>> 24 North Street Marrickville NSW 2204 AUSTRALIA
>>> ABN: 14743763968
>>> Work blog: jargonmaster.wordpress.com
>>> Free/Busy details: http://www.jargonmaster.com/calendar/
>>> I'm a member of  DHBC.org.au and a vExpert
>>>
>>> ___
>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>>
>> ___
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog