3 ms·

Just for those reading, the bill introduces an injunction power for the Courts to order ISP's to block access to foreign sites. The important note here is that

by nness 11y ago

Just for those reading, the bill introduces an injunction power for the Courts to order ISP's to block access to foreign sites. The important note here is that the blocking isn't done by the Government, as you might expect by those concerned about censorship, but through individual hearings to hear the impact and whether blocking the site would be a proportionate response in the circumstances (blocking an entire VPN provider might be disproportionate response for example) Also it applies to foreign-hosted sites only, since running a hosting provider in Australian is already tenuous given we do not have anything similar to the US' safe-harbour provision. If you ran a torrenting site in Australia, there are already other laws which you can be tried under well before your site is blocked. A explanatory memorandum was issued which has a lot of insight to the effects of the law. Check for the ID "legislation/ems/r5446_ems_1599ec23-c036-4dee-9562-a8a2e4d3d6fe".

PebblesHD 11y ago
At this point it is aimed 'entirely' at minimising access to copyrighted materials, but as is mentioned elsewhere, the text of the bill is written so vaguely that it is almost designed to ensure future scope creep. Not to mention the habit of the current Aus government to disregard pesky courts because 'They might not do what we want'[0] [0] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/courts-might-let-suspected-terrorists-off-says-tony-abbott-20150619-ghs1il.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/courts...
- kuschku 11y ago
  We had a similar situation here in Germany, first they wanted to make an internet filter against child pornography, then they decided to add some filters for piracy... And then the politicians got voted out.
  - retrogradeorbit 11y ago
    That won't work here in Australia as the two major parties are, for all intents and purposes, identical. They both voted for all these recent draconian bills. We _could_ vote for the third party, who stands against all these things. But generally we are too smug and stupid to do something like that. If you knew Australians (remember, we have compulsory voting) you would know that there is no hope in the ballot box. The sheer size of the bogan [1] voting block will make sure that any election will go to whichever party cracks down hardest on dole bludgers/boat people/sex workers/terrorists/dual citizens/Internet pirates/etc. At the end of the day, as they say, we get the government we deserve. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan
retrogradeorbit 11y ago
It's more broad than ISPs. The bill refers to "Carriage Service Providers" (defined in Telecommunications Act 1997) which includes companies providing any service that carries communication. So as well as ISPs, you can include telecom carriers, VoIP companies, VPNs and anyone else involved in communication.

by nness 11y ago

PebblesHD 11y ago

At this point it is aimed 'entirely' at minimising access to copyrighted materials, but as is mentioned elsewhere, the text of the bill is written so vaguely that it is almost designed to ensure future scope creep. Not to mention the habit of the current Aus government to disregard pesky courts because 'They might not do what we want'[0] [0] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/courts-might-let-suspected-terrorists-off-says-tony-abbott-20150619-ghs1il.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/courts...

kuschku 11y ago
We had a similar situation here in Germany, first they wanted to make an internet filter against child pornography, then they decided to add some filters for piracy... And then the politicians got voted out.
- retrogradeorbit 11y ago
  That won't work here in Australia as the two major parties are, for all intents and purposes, identical. They both voted for all these recent draconian bills. We _could_ vote for the third party, who stands against all these things. But generally we are too smug and stupid to do something like that. If you knew Australians (remember, we have compulsory voting) you would know that there is no hope in the ballot box. The sheer size of the bogan [1] voting block will make sure that any election will go to whichever party cracks down hardest on dole bludgers/boat people/sex workers/terrorists/dual citizens/Internet pirates/etc. At the end of the day, as they say, we get the government we deserve. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan

retrogradeorbit 11y ago

It's more broad than ISPs. The bill refers to "Carriage Service Providers" (defined in Telecommunications Act 1997) which includes companies providing any service that carries communication. So as well as ISPs, you can include telecom carriers, VoIP companies, VPNs and anyone else involved in communication.