🚀 go-pugleaf

[Note: I urge all interested parties to distribute this message as widely as 
they see fit. If it is altered in any way other than the correction of 
typographical errors, I request that my name be removed from the altered 
message. Karl Auer]

Last Thursday, the final report from the Senate Select Committee on 
Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic 
Technologies was released, entitled "Regulation of Computer Online Services - 
Part 2".

Grab it. Read it. Weep that our legislators can waste so much time listening 
and then demonstrate so clearly that they have heard nothing.

The complete document is forty odd pages, but here are the recommendations. 
I've just banged this in, so any typos are probably mine. The general 
wide-eyed looniness of it is all the Select Committee's though:

"1: That it should be an offence to use a computer service to transmit, obtain 
possession of, demonstrate, advertise or request the transmission of material 
equivalent to the RC, R and X classifications.

2: That the Government give consideration to making the use of strong 
cryprography by service providers obligatory as a means of overcoming 
perceived enforcement problems with Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1915.

3: That subject to the making of contractual arrangements with access 
providers/service providers to require their compliance with the law, network 
operators should bear no responsibility or liability for material which passes 
over their networks.

4: That Access and Service Providers be required to verify the identity of all 
clients and that all clients are over the age of 18 years.

5: In any offence provision, a clear distinction must be drawn between the 
liability of the originator of objectionable material and a carrier of that 
material, in the manner of section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914.

6: That where Service Providers can demonstrate that action had been taken in 
good faith to restrict access to objectionable material they should have a 
defence from liability for carriage of such material.

7: (a) That a system of self-regulation be instituted for the on-line industry 
based on codes of practice and the establishment of an independent, 
authoritative complaints body with a capacity to impose realistic sanctions 
over breaches of the code including on-the-spot fines;

(b) That the Telephone Information Services Standards Council and its codes of 
practice provide a model for the proposed on-line services complaints body;

(c) That 50% of the membership of the body should be user representatives, 
with overall gender equity and with representation specifically from the 
education sector.

8: That the Australian Government pursue at appropriate international forums 
the concept of classification at source of all material placed on-line, based 
on an agreed set of classification standards."


That's it. I urge people to write NOW to their Senator, to their MHR and to 
object most strenuously to these recommendations.

Do not be so foolish as to think this will not become law unless someone 
objects to it. And please do not be doubly foolish to think that any 
statements made online will ever reach the eyes or ears of those who matter - 
those who matter in this process ARE NOT ON LINE. You must WRITE ON PAPER to 
get to them.

Here are some (very early) thoughts on the results of these recommendadtions 
becoming law: 

1: Children would be BANNED from the Internet. So much for the Clever Country! 

2: Adults would be prevented from transmitting or obtaining material via the 
Internet that is available in other media - not only X, but R material. And 
this after VERIFYING that they are over 18!

3: Clicking on a Web link that happened to point to objectionable material 
would render you liable to prosecution, even though you cannot know what is 
behind such a link unless you look. Same for downloading a news article, 
receiving an email message etc.

4: Obligatory strong encryption on all transfers will impose a HUGE 
computational burden on every single user of information services and on 
service providers. It will also render international correspondence vastly 
more complex. Or do they just mean "bad stuff" should be encrypted - and if 
so, why, since "bad stuff" isn't allowed to be sent at all? And how, pray 
tell, does encryption help identify sources unless keys are kept secret?

5: Why does the education sector get a special guernsey in the complaints 
body? Talk about a sop!

Regards, K.

PS: Five days after it was tabled, the report is still not available online as 
far as I can determine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer                                +61-6-2494627 (bh)
kauer@pcug.org.au                        +61-6-2486607 (ah)
Home page: http://www.pcug.org.au/~kauer