SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two items of news from Australia which mirror similar stories from other countries in the West.
Australian legislation to counter piracy finally released
Kept under wraps until this morning [Mar 26], the site-blocking elements of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 are likely to please rights holders with their significant reach. The bill, which is set to cost telcos about $130,000 a year, contains no cap on the number of websites rights holders can request a judge to block in a single injunction.
Critics of the regime are likely to argue that having no cap on the scheme could result in what happened in India, where a number of legitimate websites were blocked, including Google services, when a judge agreed to block some 472 websites. An updated judgement fixed the error. But it appears consumers and rights groups won't be able to apply to a court to revoke blocks, as they are not listed as one of the types of parties that can do this.
The competition watchdog, the ACCC, and the communications regulator, the ACMA, are the only people envisaged by the government to be able to apply to revoke a block other than the people behind a blocked site, an internet service provider asked to block it, or a rights holder.
Mandatory Data Retention Becomes Law in Australia
The Australian Parliament has passed a series of amendments to the country's Telecommunications Interception and Access Act 1979, requiring "telecommunications service providers to retain for two years telecommunications data (not content) prescribed by regulations". The Coalition government and Labor party joined forces to pass the laws, ignoring a number of last-minute amendments from the Greens and other senators.
The Register reports that Attorney-General George Brandis continues to misrepresent the data retention requirement:
Brandis told ABC Radio's AM program this morning that “nothing is different to the way it has been for the last 20 years or so”. Yet Telstra recently told a Parliamentary Committee that it doesn't record IP addresses or missed call records for users of its mobile networks. So Telstra is clearly being asked to do something new.
The AM interview we've linked to above is worth a listen because Brandis, six months into the metadata debate, still can't speak with authority on the subject. He jitters and struggles to articulate his position. At times he makes little sense, such as when asked why we need metadata retention when there are so many alternative communications media for ne'er-do-wells to use. His response is that criminals always break the law and will continue to do so despite the new legislation.
Left unsettled is the cost of metadata retention to ISPs, which recently led them to write an open letter to George Brandis. One report suggests a cost of AU$3.98 per subscriber per year.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Sunday March 29 2015, @02:23AM
Since these stories were combined, here's some talk about how data retention may or may not be used for civil infringement cases:
Illegal downloaders could be targeted by new data retention laws [afr.com]
Oz gov lets slip: telco metadata might be available to civil courts [theregister.co.uk]
'Pirate block' proposal back on Oz agenda [theregister.co.uk]
Metadata laws may close piracy loopholes [smh.com.au]
As you can see, the messaging is clearly mixed (pun++).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday March 29 2015, @05:07PM
Everything makes sense, when you continually recollect that Australia was originally instituted and run as a crown penal-colony.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...