Slashdot Mirror

I sincerely hope not. It's frustrating how much LOUDER commercials are than the actual show.

And this despite regulations prohibiting this practice: Australian Communications and Media Authority (PDF, section 1.13 on page 3)

I understand their need for commercials; I'd rather not lose any of our free-to-air stations. But they've become so aggressive with ads that I can no longer tolerate watching television without a PVR.

At least the taxpayer funded stations display a modicum of decency around commercials. Unfortunately they're slowly being starved of cash by successive governments, so I don't know how long this will last.

Now the commercial stations embed short ads in the lower third of the screen during the regular programme. For $10 / month Netflix is starting to look really good. Just a shame we don't have the full catalogue here in Australia. (I don't care enough to bother with VPN's, etc.)

Instead do something that will actually work. Learn the basic of law and legislating and write laws to protect the security of email. Don't think it will work, well, how secure is snail mail, a bloody paper envelope that can be steamed upon, insecurity across the letters entire path but low and behold letters remain mostly secure. Want the same for email, encapsulate it and make it criminal offence with severe penalties to illegally open that digital envelope and when it is not addressed to you do not open it. Keep in mind opening email contents that are not addressed to you is generally not a good idea, I got a bunch of them for a while and just forwarded them to http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA... (I wonder what happened to those, I suspect phishing attacks and who were the naughty players involved).

Well, see the problem has an easy solution. If you come across dangerous images in a dangerous location, either delete as fast as possible and forget about it or do what you said, forward to the authorities and then delete as fast as possible, done and finished. No different to hacking tools whether embedded in email or in any other format. Simply delete as fast as possible or appropriately forward to the authorities and then delete as fast as possible. Although the exposure to the first has been really limited, just a tiny number of bad links of decades, the second have all made their way to http://www.acma.gov.au/Home/Ci..., although they are far worse than spam, what that authority chooses to do with them is their responsibility.

DEL is not Dell spell wrong it stands for the delete key, simply use it and your problems are largely over, unless someone puts more on there in which case forwarding to the authorities and deleting is the safest course.

I got hit with a bundle of them, one after another after another, over a couple of weeks. I think I likely kept getting them because I did not read them but simply forwarded them to http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen.... I assume as part of their spam analysis with a view to prosecution, those went into some ones more law focused inbox. Forwarding them on to your local authorities might not help much but it certainly doesn't hurt and it is still more satisfying than just blocking them and it might, just might lead to keeping the authorities appropriately busy and a prosecution occurring, one can only hope and a little hope is better than none at all. Oh yeah and I most certainly do not run M$ Office - Libre Office for me, for many, many reasons, least of which those much repeated attacks.

And the Australian allocation is half of the US band: 915MHz to 928MHz as per http://www.acma.gov.au/Industr...

(The US 900MHz ISM band is 902 to 928 MHz).

The ITU-R first received this issue as Question 236/7 in year 2001. They have spent nearly 15 years coming up with this list of 6 methods for dealing with leap seconds. In that note the most recent "Method D" from a group of countries who prefer no change because they are not satisfied with the documents that have been submitted to the ITU-R during the past decade.

The debate continues because it is not a technical issue. We know how to count SI seconds by physicists watching cesium atoms, and we know how to count calendar days by astronomers watching the earth rotate. The question is about time producers and time consumers -- which of the time producers will have the hegemony, and whether the time consumers have enough agency to choose what time scale to use for their applications. The question is whether the days of the civil calendar will remain related to the rotating earth, or change to be 794 243 384 928 000 hyperfine oscillations of cesium-133.

The ITU-R first received this issue as Question 236/7 in year 2001. They have spent nearly 15 years coming up with this list of 6 methods for dealing with leap seconds. In that note the most recent "Method D" from a group of countries who prefer no change because they are not satisfied with the documents that have been submitted to the ITU-R during the past decade.

The debate continues because it is not a technical issue. We know how to count SI seconds by physicists watching cesium atoms, and we know how to count calendar days by astronomers watching the earth rotate. The question is about time producers and time consumers -- which of the time producers will have the hegemony, and whether the time consumers have enough agency to choose what time scale to use for their applications. The question is whether the days of the civil calendar will remain related to the rotating earth, or change to be 794 243 384 928 000 hyperfine oscillations of cesium-133.

Lawsuits against companies for illegal spam also reduces spam.

Agreed. Occasionally ACMA reluctantly sends a warning letter to spammer here - that's the "authority" charged with prosecuting spammers. Once or twice they've reluctantly taken legal action (they're corrupt and lazy). Sending unsolicited commercial email is an offence in Australia - none of that "opt-out" bullshit. I've filed thousands of complaints with them - and provided comprehensive documentation on the parties involved and the number of spams they've sent, as well as organise many others to do the same. Maybe I should try civil action - though our legal system is completely different to yours.

When you sue the advertisers, they may terminate some of the spammer and the advertisers get some of the money from the spam networks that they use. At the very least, spam lawsuits get you on the spammer's suppression lists.

A big one is mail-nutrilife-australia.com they operate a phishing scam for email addresses they resell to spammers, they pose as a competition and use Virgin, BP, Caltex, and Woolworths as part of the scam - maybe those companies could be convinced to take legal action against them. The servers are based in Luxenberg, but the principal is based in the USA.

Thanks for the ideas, and especially for doing something.

The ITU-R has outlined 4 methods for the future of UTC. Methods A1, A2, B, C1, C2, and D are from various delegations of the international assembly, and they are in serious disagreement with each other.

That's silly. There's no reason for it. Let's just sit down and come up with a new standardized method that covers all of these use cases.

The ITU-R has outlined 4 methods for the future of UTC. Methods A1, A2, B, C1, C2, and D are from various delegations of the international assembly, and they are in serious disagreement with each other.

A recent draft of the set of options which will be presented when the World Radio Conference votes this fall is visible at http://acma.gov.au/Industry/Sp... This draft has options A, B, and C, but it is likely to be wordsmithed a lot before it is finished.

Bingo!

The Australian Communications and Media Authority's statistics breakdown shows of about 16,500 infected devices online at any one time, 20 Windows viruses make up more than 16,400 of the active IPs. Rarer Windows viruses, and Mac, iOS, Linux and Android infections all total less than 100 infections.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_600121

Kasperky says:

Over a 3-day observation period using Kaspersky Security Network data, Obad.a installation attempts made up no more than 0.15% of all attempts to infect mobile devices with various malware.

http://www.securelist.com/en/blog/8106/The_most_sophisticated_Android_Trojan

So to put this all in perspective, this new super-virus made up less than 0.15% of the attempts to join the 0.1% of infections that aren't Windows viruses.

If you read the Kaspersky analysis of the "super-malware", you'll see why. It ASKS for permission to install and to elevate privileges. If the user says "No", it doesn't happen.

As for this specific case? As somebody who works on systems 6 days a week? Yeah...smells like he has an infection.

I doubt it. You're just too used to Windows.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority's statistics breakdown shows of about infected 16,500 devices online at any one time, 20 Windows viruses make up more than 16,400 of the active IPs. Rarer Windows viruses, and Mac, iOS, Linux and Android infections all total less than 100 infections.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_600121

If the OP's computer IS actually compromised, it's far more likely to be a targeted attack or insider job than a random infection. My money's on a friend, family or associate with access to the machine.

Yep, it's another AV vendor beat-up.

"The Australian Communications and Media Authority has published detailed statistics of malware infections identified by their online security team (AISI). The team scans and identifies and compromised computers on Australian IP addresses and reports daily to around 130 participating ISPs.

Their breakdown shows about infected 16,500 devices are online at any one time. The malware type for all infections is available on the site."

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_600121

If you look at the breakdown of malware infected IPs, there are around 16,500 active infections at any one time. Around 20 Windows viruses make up more than 99% of all infections. In the "Other" section, there are around 100 active IPs with rarer Windows viruses, and Mac, iOS, Linux and Android infections.

In other words, the total of all Android malware is competing with space in the fraction of 1% of malware instances that aren't on Windows.

We know Windows still exists because almost all of the malware in existence targets it. Check out these AISI statistics: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/332451/pc=PC_600121

Out of more than 16,500 real live malware instances, less than 100 are all other OS/devices combined. Yep, that's real - for all the hype about Mac, Android and Linux vulnerability, they can't even reach 1% of all infections.

Talk about leaky pieces of crap...

yes, there is. the ACMA maintains a (secret) black-list of domain names and IP addresses which contains "prohibited content" which is used in filtering software. Some ISPs voluntarily use that list to block access.

The ACMA's secret blacklist has leaked on at least one occasion in the past.

In Nov last year, the Australian Federal Police started sending mandatory block notices to ISPs.

more info here:

http://www.acma.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_90102

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

The western capitalist system has no need for state propaganda.

Actually, in Australian, political spamming is basically except from our spam legislation. See the ACMA (the body here that is responsible for handling spam complaints):

Electronic messages from certain sources are exempted from the Spam Act. These include messages from:

        government bodies
        registered political parties
        charities
        religious organisations
        educational institutions (sent to current and former students and their households).

We had an incident here a couple years ago where one of our prime ministers paid his son's IT company to send spam on his behalf.

It is not really widely done - I think people are too scared of becoming labeled as jerk spammers as happened to Howard - but the fact that they've left these loopholes in the legislation is a little irritating.

The Telecommunications Consumer Protections Code C628:2007 establishes processes that will enable you to transfer between telephone companies, by stipulating the maximum length of time a transfer can take, notification and validation processes, and mechanisms for avoiding invalid transfers.

How will a transfer affect my telephone services?
The telephone company that currently provides you with a telephone service must continue to provide you with a service during the transfer. Your ability to make a telephone call should not be affected. Once the transfer process is complete, you will retain your current telephone number and any call barring or unlisted number status.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_1726

Another rant is you don't need certifications in network engineering such as my long expired CCNP to ... crimp a F-connector on a cable, or yank cat-5 thru a wall.

In Australia you do. :-( Permanent cabling requires a cabling licence recognised by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. No you can't just do the test and show that you know how to crimp cable, or what the spacing from AC wiring is. You have to do the courses, pass the tests and then do 6-12 months work under the supervision of a cabler. Having a degree in communications engineering doesn't exempt you. http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=IND_TECH_TEL_CABLE

Most technically inclined people do their own wiring, or if they are brutally scrupulous they use wireless, PLC, or leave the Cat5 draped around the walls.

Australia over regulates things. The Queensland Government puts out a brochure warning you of the dangers of DIY electrical work and has mandatory signs that have to go up in shops selling power sockets and light switches. The New Zealand Government puts out a booklet on how to do your own wiring safely. Queensland and New Zealand use the SAME electrical wiring rules (AS/NZS 3000).

My Dad had two power sockets that didn't work last week. He was able to clean the ants out of the wall, spend $10 on two new sockets and fit them himself. It would cost me about $150 to do the same here.

I don't have the FCC's spectrum allocation chart handy, but here's the one for Australia: http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/spectrum_plan/arsp-wc.pdf

The only unallocated spectrum is below 9kHz and above 275GHz. Obviously a lot of overlap can occur at VHF and above (if you allow for the odd tropospheric ducting event to cause interference) but TV is the last of the big chunks of spectrum, everything on the chart that isn't broadcasting (orange/red colour) is hacked up into small pieces.

Nothing. But as other have mentioned, it is not really necessary. There are very few registered transmitters within 100 km: http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/site_proximity.nearby_sites_list?pMODE=DD&pLAT=-26.70417&pLONG=116.6589 More info can be found here: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_100628 And transmission limits here: http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/frequency_assignment/docs/ms32.pdf And my rough estimate of Australia's SKA site: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=26.67s,+116.7e&hl=en&sll=-33.718613,150.617295&sspn=0.012244,0.022724&vpsrc=0&t=w&z=8

Nothing. But as other have mentioned, it is not really necessary. There are very few registered transmitters within 100 km: http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/site_proximity.nearby_sites_list?pMODE=DD&pLAT=-26.70417&pLONG=116.6589 More info can be found here: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_100628 And transmission limits here: http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/frequency_assignment/docs/ms32.pdf And my rough estimate of Australia's SKA site: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=26.67s,+116.7e&hl=en&sll=-33.718613,150.617295&sspn=0.012244,0.022724&vpsrc=0&t=w&z=8

Nothing. But as other have mentioned, it is not really necessary. There are very few registered transmitters within 100 km: http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/site_proximity.nearby_sites_list?pMODE=DD&pLAT=-26.70417&pLONG=116.6589 More info can be found here: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_100628 And transmission limits here: http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/radcomm/frequency_planning/frequency_assignment/docs/ms32.pdf And my rough estimate of Australia's SKA site: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=26.67s,+116.7e&hl=en&sll=-33.718613,150.617295&sspn=0.012244,0.022724&vpsrc=0&t=w&z=8

Amen brother. I too mute commercials because they are so much louder than the regular programme.

Further, I'm finding that, over the years, the stations are increasingly commencing programmes further and further off the hour / half-hour mark.
Why do they do this? Do they think they're preventing us from switching channels when we've finished watching a show on their network?

Also, I'm noticing that the stations are in flagrant disregard of limits on the frequency & length of commercial breaks. You'd be forgiven for thinking there's no government regulator.
(ACMA is such a waste of our tax dollars.)

End result --> I find myself increasingly using my PVR even when I could have watched the broadcast live.

Are you really so wound up about spam

Yes, spam is constant pain for me.

I'm a sysadmin. We maintain a special place for spammers, it's in the same cell as the lifer named Bubba.

that if you called up the wrong shop and started asking confusing questions

Wrong analogy.

A more correct analogy is if I went into BBQ's galore to ask directions to Red Rooster and they wouldn't let me go until I bought a barbeque.

So don't hide behind false dichotomies you sent unwanted emails without the consent of the recipient on purpose. That means you've actually broken the law in this country.

By your own admission you are in violation of the Spam act of 2003. Please read about it more on ACMA's website.. This is why I'd simply report you to ACMA.

You do not meet the criteria for "consent" or "unsubscribe". You are wrong here, legally wrong and using fallacious arguments wont fix that. Read this page for more info on consent.

Can I send an electronic message to customers to obtain their consent to send messages in the future?
No. Unsolicited commercial electronic messages cannot be used to gain consent.

If recipients donâ(TM)t object or unsubscribe, can I assume I have consent?
No, silence does not constitute consent. Just because a person does not actively unsubscribe from your mailing list does not mean they consent to receiving commercial electronic messages from you. You must have either express or inferred consent before you send such messages.

You must have express consent, a mistaken email address is not express consent in any court in the country.

And finally I do hate idiots like you, because you make it harder for people like me who maintain legitimate mailing lists of people who actually want to know about the products and services I (or my clients) offer. This is why I understand the Spam Act (2003), I work legitimately within it.

Would you like it if I, a legitimate bulk email provider, were to flood your inbox with offers for my services for bulk email (you're clearly OK with spamming).

Are you really so wound up about spam

Yes, spam is constant pain for me.

I'm a sysadmin. We maintain a special place for spammers, it's in the same cell as the lifer named Bubba.

that if you called up the wrong shop and started asking confusing questions

Wrong analogy.

A more correct analogy is if I went into BBQ's galore to ask directions to Red Rooster and they wouldn't let me go until I bought a barbeque.

So don't hide behind false dichotomies you sent unwanted emails without the consent of the recipient on purpose. That means you've actually broken the law in this country.

By your own admission you are in violation of the Spam act of 2003. Please read about it more on ACMA's website.. This is why I'd simply report you to ACMA.

You do not meet the criteria for "consent" or "unsubscribe". You are wrong here, legally wrong and using fallacious arguments wont fix that. Read this page for more info on consent.

Can I send an electronic message to customers to obtain their consent to send messages in the future?
No. Unsolicited commercial electronic messages cannot be used to gain consent.

If recipients donâ(TM)t object or unsubscribe, can I assume I have consent?
No, silence does not constitute consent. Just because a person does not actively unsubscribe from your mailing list does not mean they consent to receiving commercial electronic messages from you. You must have either express or inferred consent before you send such messages.

You must have express consent, a mistaken email address is not express consent in any court in the country.

And finally I do hate idiots like you, because you make it harder for people like me who maintain legitimate mailing lists of people who actually want to know about the products and services I (or my clients) offer. This is why I understand the Spam Act (2003), I work legitimately within it.

Would you like it if I, a legitimate bulk email provider, were to flood your inbox with offers for my services for bulk email (you're clearly OK with spamming).

"It is unsolicited commercial email"

No, you're wrong. Sending someone an unprompted email is a solicitation for a response. That they speak of one thing, and you respond with another is immaterial.

Where do you get that idea from.

solicitedpast participle, past tense of soÂlicÂit (Verb) 1. Ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.

An email that goes unintended to the wrong recipient is not solicitation. Using your logic, because you responded to my comment, I am entitled to bill you for the time it took to correct you. Please respond with your billing address, I charge A$2,500 an hour with minimum of 2 hours engagement.

Or yould you please understand words before you use them.

Sarcasm and logic aside, you're dead wrong because Australian law is quite clear and ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) is very strict on what is spam. See here.

Consent â" the message must be sent with your consent
Identify â" the message must contain accurate information about the person or organisation that authorised the sending of the message
Unsubscribe â" the message must contain a functional 'unsubscribe' facility to allow you to opt out of receiving messages from that source.

The GP is wrong on two out of three counts.

An email that is not intended for the recipient does not give implied consent.

In Australia, it is illegal to create certain "inter-entity" network links without a carrier license. Extra conditions apply if the traffic or service is classified as "commercial", such as *all* Internet-bound traffic.

http://www.acma.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_1622

If you compare the news article to the secret document released, the journalist really, really stretched one paragraph. To quote "Australian intelligence would need to stay engaged with its US counterparts to share lessons learned in the cyber arena", certainly the US has demonstrated many things not to do and Australian Intelligence has likely learned from them.

Likely Australia is far better off expanding the role of ACMA http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/pc=HOME, to investigate 'cybercrime' and make use of other authorities, State Police for local action and Interpol, ASIO and ambassadorial staff for overseas actions.

Internet security is really a civilian thing and done largely in public as a shared effort, firstly to protect people from attacks and secondly to prosecute those carrying out those attacks.

As far as defence is concerned the US after Iraq has proved that it can't really be trusted where the financial interests of it's defence and oil industry can readily outweigh it's defence treaties and the value it places upon honouring the shared trust with allies. So the big cyberdefence thing is the localised production of electronic components to be used in critical infrastructure as well as the computer software required to make it run, basically in the internet age, 'NO' other country can be trusted. You don't want to be drawn into someone else's idiotic cyber war because an ally decided to compromise your systems to make it look like someone else did (something the US has proved it is quite willing to do with it supplied false intelligence data about the threat from Iraq).

Australian already does it under another department http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/LANDING/pc=INTERNET_MAIN. Clearly the Australian government is signalling they are not interested in playing cyber warfare and feeding the global military industrial complex with billions more of tax payer dollars.

The threat is being hype up again and again, and yet all that bloody infrastructure not so long ago was safe from internet attacks because there was not internet and it ran fine. So cut the crap, in they connect important infrastructure to the internet in order to take stupid cheap shortcuts and skimp on a few dollars and their system gets hacked and costs hundreds of millions, then they're the bloody idiots and they should be the ones going to jail for criminal negligence.

Easy answer if governments want secure infrastructure then they can simply threaten executives responsible for keeping the infrastructure secure and safe with fines and prison time. Watch all the silly short cuts disappear overnight and a totally secure system take it's place.

As long as corporations are safe to take short cuts to inflate executive bonuses, then infrastructure collapse is ensured, whether mines blow up, oil rigs burn and sink, pipes burst, bridges collapse, workers die, internet failures etc. etc. as long those who make bad decisions are not individually prosecuted than expect them to continue.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_310317
"The AISI collects data from various sources on computers exhibiting 'bot' behaviour on the Australian internet.
Using this data, the ACMA provides daily reports to ISPs identifying IP addresses on their networks that have been
reported in the previous 24-hour period.
ISPs can then inform their customer that their computer appears to be compromised and provide advice on how they can fix it."

The only question seems to be when will p2p be seen as a botnet, limewire ect. Will the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) alter 'bot' behaviour to new areas isp use and account 'fixing'?
Will isp's get powers to pop packets to note 'bot' behaviour early on, rather than seeing their ip's reported back days later?

This is only the latest in a string of censorship proposals that the government claims are targeted towards protecting people from child pornography.

As the article says, if child porn is the issue then why not just limit it to that? The same question has been asked about the proposed internet filter, which the government also claims is for protecting people from child porn but has been extended to cover all refused classification material.

Just as filtering the internet as has been proposed isn't really feasible (at least with little impact on speed), I highly doubt customs agents would or can search the tons of laptops and phones coming into Australia. All it would take is one person with 10GB of porn to keep them busy for a couple hours.

It may be different in the US, in fact it probably is, but in the country that I'm writing from, political advertising is required by the Broadcasting Services Act to include;

1. the name of the person who authorised the broadcasting of the political matter; and
2. the town, city or suburb in which the person lives or, if the person is a corporation or association, in which the principal office is situated; and
3. the name of every speaker who, either in person or by means of a sound recording device, delivers an address or makes a statement that forms part of that matter.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310646

The number 000 was assigned way back in the days of rotary dial phones when such issues didn't exist, so you can't retroactively assign blame to poor choice of numbers. However, I would argue otherwise that the choice of 000 was and still is the better choice because it is easier to dial than 911 (especially on rotary dial phones in use at the time), and because, IMHO, it's more memorable.

See:
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_100580

Although, I have to admit that both 000 and 911 are significantly better than having separate numbers like 110, 112 and 113 for police, fire and ambulance (I can never remember which is which), at least in Norway (I'm not sure about the rest of Europe).

'ER' you have the proof, the email, it's source and it's content and no fine until it is investigated, perhaps say after receiving 10 separate complaints from different people, who could also be charged and fined for submitting false complaints if they are trolling. In Australian you can already forward spam to http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310300 and I assume once the receive sufficient complaints from a particular source they act upon them where possible.

So actual investigation by a legal authority rather than mass mailing complaints against anyone and everyone, so quite a substantive difference, law and justice versus blind greed.

If you live in Australia, can provide a web address, and can provide reasons you think the website is prohibited under Australian law, then you can report the website to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

If everyone reports a bogus site, they'll have to blacklist the whole internet. You probably don't even have to live in Australia to submit a blacklist request.

Let's start with scientology websites, but everything is fair game imo. Did you find an article about breast cancer? What are you waiting for? Report that shiz to ACMA!

If you live in Australia, can provide a web address, and can provide reasons you think the website is prohibited under Australian law, then you can report the website to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

If everyone reports a bogus site, they'll have to blacklist the whole internet. You probably don't even have to live in Australia to submit a blacklist request.

Let's start with scientology websites, but everything is fair game imo. Did you find an article about breast cancer? What are you waiting for? Report that shiz to ACMA!

If you live in Australia, can provide a web address, and can provide reasons you think the website is prohibited under Australian law, then you can report the website to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

If everyone reports a bogus site, they'll have to blacklist the whole internet. You probably don't even have to live in Australia to submit a blacklist request.

Let's start with scientology websites, but everything is fair game imo. Did you find an article about breast cancer? What are you waiting for? Report that shiz to ACMA!

If you live in Australia, can provide a web address, and can provide reasons you think the website is prohibited under Australian law, then you can report the website to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

If everyone reports a bogus site, they'll have to blacklist the whole internet. You probably don't even have to live in Australia to submit a blacklist request.

Let's start with scientology websites, but everything is fair game imo. Did you find an article about breast cancer? What are you waiting for? Report that shiz to ACMA!

Really? Surely you know that many forms of two-way radiotelephone misuse can also lead to heavy punishment in many jurisdictions.

[Censored by Australian Internet Censorship Agency]

Australian Communications and Media Authority

Common carriers are listed on ACMA's website. Interestingly iiNet's name isn't in the list.

Huh. As I recall, the same kind of horse-trading went on with the passage of the GST many years back under the Howard Govt. They needed the support of Senator Brian Harradine to get GST through, and they traded off some Net Censorship thing which ultimately had no discernible impact on anything as far as I can tell (but it wasn't a mandatory filtering technology, obviously). Wikipedia seems to contradict me on the ultimate need for Harradine's support for GST, but I do distinctly remember him looking smug about some Internet-related thing in a TV news report at the time. A bit of digging makes me believe that the specific legislation in question is the "Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999", which amended the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to cover Internet content. Consequently, a lot of things are illegal to host online in Australia. There's no corresponding obligation for anyone to filter out illegal stuff hosted outside Australia, however.

http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf

The UK is not alone in this interesting statistic either. Last year here in Australia, too, it was announced that there were now more active mobile phone numbers, than people in Australia (~21 million). See: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311135

And yeah, most of this is because in the corporate world, your employer gives you a business mobile, which is separate from your personal mobile. Dual-SIM phones are handy for this situation since you can carry a single handset but have it respond to two numbers.

To get a full understanding of why this is something to be concerned about, you need to remember that the Restricted Access System Declaration 2007, content rules targeted at the internet, comes into force in 20 days. Among other things, this:

• prohibits X18+ and RC content.
• prohibits R18+ content, unless it is subject to appropriate access restrictions.
• prohibits commercial MA15+ content, unless it is subject to appropriate access restrictions.
• requires providers of hosting services, live content services, link services and commercial content services to have in place access restrictions if providing R18+ and commercial MA15+ content.
• requires that records of who has been authorised to view what by which means be kept for two years
• allows for 'take down', 'service cessation' and 'link deletion' notices to remove content or access to content that is the subject of a complaint

This, in and of itself, is pretty much unenforceable, as it just means our major content providers will move offshore or, at most, stop providing content that's aimed at teens altogether. But if a) X18+ and RC content is illegal for all Australians to view b) the government requires filtering at an ISP level and c) the ISPs will likely not be allowed to tell us what they filter out, one must ask: how 'dirty' is the unfiltered feed going to be? Really? Because our content laws are very restrictive - the X18+ and RC ratings cover a very, very broad swathe of material indeed, a lot of which is perfectly legal in places like the US, UK and western Europe. They only reason we don't feel the sting of our censorship laws more often is because our law enforcement agencies see enforcing the ones that don't deal with child pornography to be an utter waste of time and money.

At least you can opt out (or not opt in). The previous Government of this fair land thought it wise that USENET groups should be subject to involuntary blocking (through the Australian Communications and Media Authority, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=INT_IND_CONTENT_ABOUT). Of course contractual secrecy has been used to avoid any knowledge of the groups blocked and (hopefully) criticism thereof. See, for example, http://www.internode.on.net/content/usenet-news/#What_groups_does_the_Australian .

If I am reading these correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Film_and_Literature_Classification_(Australia), http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310907

The main elements of the new content regulatory framework in Schedule 7 to the BSA are:
a prohibition on X18+ and RC content;
a prohibition on R18+ content, unless it is subject to appropriate access restrictions;

R18+ is classified as 'High Impact', and X18+ is classified as Pornographic content.

If wikipedia is accurate with it's explanation of X18+, then this means australian sites can no longer host porn, at all?

No it is far simpler. Forward spam to a government department, after ten complaints, the department contacts the ISP to force a disconnect warning upon the account holder. The account holder if they are a spammer can simply then stop sending spam, or if their machine has been compromised and they can do something to fix it. No why wont they do this, apparently there is no profit in it. What is good to see is that http://www.acma.gov.au/interforms/spam/spammatters .htm is working in Australia, so all that needs to happen now is for other countries to follow suit and to create spam treaties.

"The other thing about terahertz waves is that they behave quasi-optically, being focused by teflon lenses and blocked by cardboard"
It is blocked by card board people! why would you want to use it as a LAN? ok maybe if you wanted comms between two pc's sitting right next to each other or some thing but if you are thinking of using it like you do 2.4GHz think again. cubical walls would block the signal! it would be great speed and licensing wise if it where practical but it just isn't.

also if any one wants a PDF of the RF Spectrum here is the link for the Australian Communications Authority (ACMA) one http://www.acma.gov.au/acmainterwr/radcomm/frequen cy_planning/spectrum_plan/arsp-wc.pdf

cheers