🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Owens <ajowens@carmen.murdoch.edu.au> wrote:

>Greg Taylor wrote:

>[in the 1997 article]
>> "We were informed today that we were also expected to monitor
>> our users' activities on the Net, including reading private E-Mail.
>> Our response was that we thought such behaviour was in
>> breach of the Telecommunications Act.  But apparently not.
>> This new Act mandates behaviour that was previously a serious
>> crime."

>But if that's the case, the service provider could pretty easily get 
>leave to appeal to the High Court (although it would be expensive and 
>need the support of users and providers nationally hence) and have the 
>legislation struck down as unconstitutional ................

I think the point here is the analogy with other laws. Unauthorised 
interception of telecommunications is a serious offence under the
Telecommunications Act.  It is by no means clear that this Act 
applies to E-Mail or other forms of on-line communications.  
However, the NSW draft proposals would mandate 
"monitoring" of user activity.  Hence an offence in one sphere of
communications becomes a legal obligation in another.

Appealing to a higher court may well be a solution favoured by
the legal fraternity.  For the client who is bankrupted by the 
legal process or whose reputation and business is destroyed, 
this is not a prospect to be considered.

Better to stop bad laws before they are passed than to throw
unfortunate citizens to the mercy of the courts later.

Greg




_________________________________________________________
Greg Taylor.  Brisbane, Australia.
gtaylor@gil.com.au          <http://www.gil.com.au/~gtaylor/>
EFA Member
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gil.com.au/~gtaylor
EFA Member.