Hi Jan, Seems the Melbourne Education site was collateral damage, from the regulation of the ISP - under the telecommunications act?
Marghanita Jan Whitaker wrote: > > Bumbling ASIC heralds new internet censorship era > > http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/05/16/bumbling-asic-heralds-new-internet-censorship-era/ > <http://www.crikey.com.au/author/bernardkeane/>Bernard > Keane | May 16, 2013 11:33AM | EMAIL | PRINT > > ASIC has been revealed as the agency behind the > blocking of a Melbourne education website, using > a hitherto-unused internet censorship power. > > An inept regulator exercising a hitherto-unused > internet censorship power has been revealed as > the source of the accidental blocking of a Melbourne education website. > > [snip] > > <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s313.html>Under > s.313, a carrier or carriage service provider must: > > � � give officers and authorities of the > Commonwealth and of the States and Territories > such help as is reasonably necessary for the > following purposes: enforcing the criminal law > and laws imposing pecuniary penalties; assisting > the enforcement of the criminal laws in force in > a foreign country; protecting the public revenue; > safeguarding national security.� > > ASIC in effect used this power to censor the > internet, in the course of which over 1000 sites > unconnected to the target site were blocked, > including Melbourne Free University, which was > told nothing by authorities or its ISP about why. > > ASIC is one of Australia�s most inept regulators, > with a string of courtroom defeats marking its > efforts to enforce corporate law. Despite its > record of bumbling, last year ASIC used the Joint > Committee on Intelligence and Security�s inquiry > into data retention to demand an expansion of its > power to intercept internet and phone communications. > [Gee, look how well that's working out....] > > ASIC�s use of the s.313 power opens the > possibility of a de facto internet filter scheme > with less oversight than the filter originally > proposed by Stephen Conroy in the government�s > first term. As LeMay correctly notes, a filter > comprised of individual requests from a variety > of regulators asserting they are �enforcing > criminal laws� or �safeguarding national > security� is harder to monitor or hold to > account. As Melbourne Free University discovered, > it is also very difficult for businesses and > organisations accidentally blocked to discover who has blocked them or why. > > In Tuesday�s budget, the government announced its > abandonment of the internet filter scheme would > enable a saving of several million dollars. It > has been replaced with a �voluntary� filter > scheme limited to sites identified by Interpol. > That filter is a minimal one compared with both > to the original Conroy proposal, which would have > targeted a broader range of allegedly �illegal� > content under Australian laws, and the one > available via s.313, which is driven purely by > the internal interpretations by regulators of > what is �enforcing criminal law� or �safeguarding national security�. > > [snip] > > > Melbourne, Victoria, Australia > [email protected] > blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/ > business: http://www.janwhitaker.com > > Our truest response to the irrationality of the > world is to paint or sing or write, for only in such response do we find > truth. > ~Madeline L'Engle, writer > > _ __________________ _ > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > -- Marghanita da Cruz Ramin Communications Pty Ltd http://ramin.com.au/ Phone:(+61)0414-869202 _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
