Australian ISPs Soon To Become Copyright Cops

srjh writes "In the Australian Federal Government's latest assault on the internet, draft legislation has been released that allows network operators to intercept communications to ensure that their networks are being 'appropriately used.' Such legislation is particularly important given the interference of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in a recent copyright lawsuit against iiNet, one of the largest ISPs in the country. Conroy called prominent filtering opponent iiNet's inaction over copyright infringement 'stunning,' whereas iiNet claimed that it would be illegal under current Australian law to intercept its users' downloads. While this latest legislation appears to be a concession of that point, the government is said to be watching the case closely and along with attempts to introduce a three-strikes law in Australia, it appears the law will be changed if the government dislikes the outcome of the case. The internet villain of the year just continues to earn his title."

Comments

Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

Is an incompetent, idiotic, totalitarian, vindictive, morally bankrupt cunt.

Same with Rudd. You can assume this assault on the internet is coming from the top.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Gwala]

It's pandering to the Australian Christian Lobby, who are a bunch of self-important wankers and have far too much power for a country where 28% of the population puts down 'atheist/agnostic/no-religion/blank' on the census.

Re:This will never happen.

[thelamecamel]

The libs and greens are voting against the filter, so yes the dentist-filter plan is dead in the water. But I wouldn't be surprised if the libs supported this copyright bill, which would be more than enough to get it through.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I preferred Richard Alston, who had the international reputation of "Worlds Biggest Luddite", as IT minister. At least he was too incompetent to do much damage.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[mjwx]

When it comes to having a choice between private enterprise providing a good or service and the government providing that good or service,

I disagree, the government is accountable to me once every four years, a private corporation never has to ask for my consent or co-operation. In addition to this, the governement does not have a profit motive where as a corporation must not only be making a profit they must also be increasing shareholder value. So either way the money needed to run the service comes from my pocket, with the government I get a say in how well they are spending and they dont need to make increasing ammounts of profit on it.

The idea that a government is inherently inefficient is a misnomer, the same as the idea that a corporation is inherently efficient is a misnomer. Both are inherently neither. Government organisations like Medicare in Australia and our Canadian analogue provide better care and service for a lower cost then the US private health system. I pay A$500 a year for health care.

As for this bit of stupidity, it will never pass parliament as the internet filter never passed parliament, its already been voted down (thanks to the Green's), despite the fact that the trials are still ongoing (Conroy is permitted to waste taxpayer money on the trial unfortunately). The Rudd government is in a precarious position due to parliaments rejection of their Emissions Trading Scheme. The ETS may be enough to trigger a double dissolution of parliament, which at this point in time would not be entirely a bad thing.