Feeds

back to article Australia's de-facto net filter has ZERO regulation

A couple of weeks back, Australia's Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) made a mistake: by trying to take down a Website promoting an investment scam*, it accidentally blocked 1,200 sites using the same IP address as the scammer. ASIC was able to attempt the take down thanks to a "Section 313 Notice", a legislative …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

s311 != s313

"Senator Conroy told Estimates that the government will set in train a process to improve the transparency surrounding the use of s311"

Sleight of hand on the senator's behalf, or typo?

0
0
Silver badge
Meh

I though Senator Conroy

Was an old codger who thought the Internet was used in catching fish, which would account for his idiocy.

Instead, and without surprise, I find he is one of those generic younger politicians we find the world over, in every corner of the globe who have absolutely no idea about anything.

It's very worrying that nations are being run by these people.

4
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: I though Senator Conroy

"Its application to the Internet was the brainchild of Senator Stephen Conroy"

The brainchild of "the man without a brain"

2
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: I though Senator Conroy

> The brainchild of "the man without a brain"

Given the disdain with which most Australians treat us Pommies, it never ceases to amaze me that they keep dancing to his tune...

Vic.

0
0
Silver badge

@Bootnote

Fortunately all the law enforcement operatives understand this distinction when they log you accessing an illegal IP address.

Remember there is no need to worry because they are only logging public traffic data, not anything private so no need for any warrants or protection

4
0
Facepalm

Re: @Bootnote

> Fortunately all the law enforcement operatives understand this distinction when they log you accessing an illegal IP address.

> Remember there is no need to worry because they are only logging public traffic data, not anything private so no need for any warrants or protection

You forgot the sarcasm smiley ...

5
0
Anonymous Coward

this is how it always starts ..

When Senator Ludlam asked whether a rights-holder could ask the police to seek a s313 notice, Senator Conroy responded: “I doubt that an individual citizen can walk in [into a police station - El Reg] and ask for a 313.”

He then continued - 'But it's a good idea, thanks for the suggestion'

1
0

“I doubt that an individual citizen can walk in [into a police station - El Reg] and ask for a 313.”

Of course, corporations are not individual citizens...

3
0
Silver badge

Re: “I doubt that an individual citizen can walk into a police station.”

Instead a concerned citizen would have to tell their MP who would have the site (and any others in the same netmask) banned

0
0
Bronze badge
Boffin

Conroy is still in power?

Why hasn't he sodded off yet? I'm sure all Aussies hate that man.

3
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Conroy is still in power?

Don't worry, we have an even more incompetent replacement lined up for September.

2
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Conroy is still in power?

Why hasn't he sodded off yet? I'm sure all Aussies hate that man.

I guess he's keeping the seat warm for Assange :(.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Conroy is still in power?

It's the red underpants we are forced to wear on our heads. They are just too strong.

0
0
ggm

313 and secrecy..

Some people have a problem that s313 requests relating to pornsites came with a requirement not to say what URL was blocked. Since this is an attempt to stop people finding content they want, the blacklist was the booklist of choice for the cogniscenti. Clearly, blocking the blocklist makes (twisted) sense in that game.

Arguably also true for bomb recipes.

But the non-porn non-bomb related s313 requests don't come with the same consequences. In fact, quite the contrary: open government demands we know exactly what we're not allowed to see, and why.

So I hope the policy twonks don't assume s313 == automatically not told. If its not related to specific, and understood risks, we should know whats being blocked.

If nothing else, it might stop unrelated third party damage from spreading..

-G

0
0
Silver badge

Re: 313 and secrecy..

The civil servants have a choice, publish each banned site along with the reasons and be prepared to justify it in court, or at least in the media when you 'accidentally' ban a breastfeeding site or a rape survivors charity.

Or keep everything secret and face no risk whatsoever

0
0
Gold badge
Meh

Just think the UK could enjoy this kind of "freedom."

Aren't you glad they don't?

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.