Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM The Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which in 2013 accidentally blocked innocent Websites in an attempt to disrupt financial fraud, has told a government inquiry it didn't actually know what it was doing. In using what are called “Section 313 notices” under the Act to shut down fraud sites, the financial …
> Why are these clowns deciding what to block and why do they even have the power to do it.
It seems to me that having such a group deciding the what and the why is a necessary requirement to enforce the law. However, what such technically ignorant groups absolutely should not be doing is deciding the how.
The reason jobs like this are given to people who are so incompetent, is because people who are competent have no interest in doing jobs like this.
Oh, I'd be interested in helping them out, but their main problem is that they don't pay very well. It reminds me of my favourite quote from the late Red Adair:
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur"
QED
..and these are the same people who are going to stop sophisticated cyber fraud?
I think John Cleese's explanation works here:
This incident highlights the main problem and it is not technical incompetence, which seems to be the focus of the article and comments.
No, the main problem - and it pervades the entire subject of online monitoring/collection/censorship - is that the people implementing these processes just don't place any importance on potential negative impacts.
To them, the goal they are trying to achieve - or at least are publicly professing - overrides any concerns about inconveniencing people or breaching their privacy.
This particular instance was a lack of technical knowledge on behalf of the people involved in making these demands. One has to ask, however, how it is possible that such actions could be taken without thorough vetting to ensure that the request/demand was correct, accurately targeted and did not affect unintended sites. If such a process was in place and this cock-up happened anyway, again one must ask why the people approving the action did not have the appropriate technical skills.
It's basic due diligence and this is clear evidence (though it has been known all along) that actions that have the potential to impact innocent people and businesses are simply not treated with sufficient care.
This attitude is the same that saw: Oz fed police in PDF redaction SNAFU. You should never be able to blame some junior person for this because any time you are either dealing with either personal information or making decisions that might affect innocent, unintended people, there should be a rigorous and detailed approval process and continued education of staff on how this works.
You can't always stop junior staff making the wrong decisions and f$#king something up and that is okay when its your own house you're breaking. When its other people who you are potentially impacting then you damned well make sure that the people making the decisions are qualified and do it by-the-book.
Oh, but if you don't let every Johnny access data and block websites then . . . terrorists! and drugs! and pædophiles! Why won't someone think of the children?!??!?
I imagine it went along the lines of
<Oz regulator> block this ip
<ISP> but that will cut off many innocent websites
<Oz regulator> don't you know who I am , do as I say or there will be consequences, think of the children, it is your legal duty to obey etc etc
<ISP> ok but it is your responsibility ...
Legal experts seem to be the most technically inept I have seen, and some are so arrogant they assume if they don't understand something it is because you are inept at communicating and not them.
Hopefully the problem will be solved in about 40 years when current 20-somethings reach positions of power.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
