🚀 go-pugleaf

I have a few cents worth to add (while it is still legal). they maybe
a bit wordy for a brochure though? And ( I use to believe)  pretty
obvious to anybody who used internet.

PS. where can one view the draft bill?

1. START WEARING YOUR BLUE RIBBONS NOW
                         DON'T WAIT TIL MAY 27

2. IF YOU CAN'T BE THERE, HARASS YOUR MP TODAY, DON'T BOTHER WITH
PHONE - THEY DON'T LISTEN - FAX IT, MAIL IT - MAKE THEIR SECRETARIES
COMPLAIN ABOUT THE VOLUME OF PAPER.

3. WHERE ARE THE PENALTIES FOR PARENTS WHO LET THEIR CHILDREN USE THE
INTERNET UNSUPERVISED? Why do we keep absolving parents of their
duties towards their off-spring?

4. What if All Internet Service Providers stop children subscribers
and get statutory declarations from subscribers that they are
responsible if their children gain access. Does this limit their
exposure?

5. Will the legislation make it easier to catch peadophiles ?

It will merely force the perpertrators to use readily available
encryption techniques which will require police forces to use multiple
supercomputers (which they don't have)  in order to read a simple
message. This combined with the daily exponential increase in network
traffic will only make it difficult for police agencies.

6. Perpertrators can fake their mail addresses making it next to
impossible to prove that a person sent the offending transmission. 

(Maybe a few million posts from Bob Carr to all MPs might prove a
point   :-)

7. At what point does an offense of receiving occur? 

The mail protocol used to transmit electronic mail uses the
indestructable abilities of the network, by the time it is recieved at
your mail box, your mail may have travelled through twenty other
computers (not too mention the peeping tom censors) to get to you.
Does this make each mail host legally liable? 
What about dead mail ? is the postmaster responsible for the contents
of dead mail ?

further when have you received it? when it has hit your mailbox? when
you download it to your local computer? when you read it? what if you
didn't read its contents but later it is found to have illegal
material?

On the recieving end, you have no way of stopping someone sending you
incriminating material. This leaves every mail user susceptable to
extortion, entrapment, or libeling ( after evidence at the NSW Police
royal commision they are already expecting massive numbers of appeals
and retrials due to police libels and other misconduct).

8. Does an electronic mail or USENET message meet the legal definition
of evidence? 
(excuse backyard legal interpretation).
- dangerous precedent indeed. One of the requirements is along the
lines that the evidence cannot be tampered with? But it can be
modified at any point in the network to a point that someone can claim
that the message received was not the one transmitted. (headers ,
reply to addresses - are a classic example) . EDI documents are only
legal because of the contractual agreements between the two parties
and a third party which keeps a copy of all EDI transactions between
the two parties, for validation purposes.

9. Internet Providers can stop the illegal material?

The NSW police force, don't have the necessary resources to stop the
material - how is an internet provider suppose to stop it. Prosecuting
an internet provider would be like prosecuting Australia Post because
someone tried to smuggle a marsupial.

10. Internet Providers have a commercial obligation to ensure that
traffic integrity is maintained.

Because of the many combinations of computer and networking standards
what looks like a swear word to one computer could be part of
sensitive balance sheet information for a major corporation. Any
attempts to enforce censorship  based on one computers interpretation
of a block of binary digits can severely damage the integrity of the
data being transmitted, leaving a Internet Service Provider open to
legal action depending on the contractual obligations.

11. The NSW legislation is technically irrelevent because some one can
simply use an account/computer outside of the State/Country. Unless
they are going to ban TELNET Sessions as well.

12. Can we submit our web pages to the Censorship board? are they
ready to take on the additional workload? Let alone technically
competent (at least more than the Attorney General department)

13. If the law is going to be really dangerous it will leave the
definition of "offensive" wide open so that any crank can get a USENET
or LISTSERV group removed or an INTERNET user prosecuted.

14. Goodbye USENET - I see the quickest way to counter the removal of
your favourite USENET groups would be to SPAM the other groups and
then lodge a complaint under the ACT. , was someone mentioning animal
husbandry -> goodbye REC.HORSES - Amy Grant singing the praises of
christ in REC.MUSIC.RELIGION is deemed offensive to moslems who are
significantly greater represented than children?