Ah, yes, you are under no obligation to check. Now. But in the long view, its just delayed the inevitable.
6 months from now, the Telegraph or Today Tonight or A Current Affair will use it to take the next step :
"Your children can still see porn on the Internet - ISP's purposly bypassing the law in order to keep making profits"
"ISP's - Supposedly in the front line against smut on the internet, but a government report shows that not one of them enforces it"
"A child of 14, shown here getting all the naked pictures they want off the internet, simply by clicking on a box here, and using his mothers Visa card to sign up"
"Boy, 16, dies after building a pipebomb from information on the internet. Mother says 'Why wasn't this blocked under the Colston-Harradine laws like we were told it would be'"
Which means, the next law will be even tougher.
And we'll see the mandatory installation of filtering software that has to report it's installed before a download begins. Nothing like making the Users Pay for their own censorship.
Or Log checking and comparing, with questions asked "Why are you still getting 600 meg of naked pictures when you said here you have filtering software installed ? Please reply to this mail with the serial number & receipt number of the software you have installed or your account will be terminated"
Oh, yeah. This is great news.
Does your wonderful draft code of "pornographic content must not be hosted in Australia" address the concept of news and mail servers ? 'Cause I saw nothing about it in there, apart from 13.4
13.4 When an Internet Content Host is notified by the ABA that it is hosting on a web server or other content database within its control, material which is deemed by the ABA to be Prohibited Content or Potentially Prohibited Content
(a) the Internet Content Host must promptly remove that Content from the Web Site or database;
(b) upon doing so, the Internet Content Host must inform the customer that the customer's conduct is a breach of the customer's service conditions and, if applicable, an offence under law, and further,that a repeat occurrence will result in the termination of the customer's account;
(c) in the case of a repeat occurrence of offending conduct by the customer, an Internet Content Host, having informed the customer that his or her conduct is a breach of the customer's service conditions and, if applicable, an offence under law, must terminate that customer's account.
OK. I'm on a Naked Penguin Pic of the day mailing list. Someone subscribes a wrong address to that mailing list, and a complaint is forwarded to the ABA.
Based on my reading, and of the original law, and of listening to the senate discussion on the radio, you then have to make sure that that picture is not hosted or mirrored anywhere. Which means you have to then go in and delete it from your mail spool so it isn't hosted in Australia. Which means you have to delete it from anyone else who receives it.
Which is *worse* then the original law, which purposly bypassed email. And, as I've said before, after you apply this law to Usenet, we can go back to flying in Usenet on a tape spool once a week, because by the time the Howard definition of Pornographic is applied Usenet News Servers in Australia will be 1/1000th of the size they are now.
And of course, Earth is the only place in the universe that allows a country to be named after the most disgusting and depraved swear word in the universe.
"Oh, Belgium, Ford. Belgium!" - Z.Beeblebrox, to F.Prefect, while hanging off a 15 mile high statue of Arthur Dent.
BTW : If I'm hooked up to the internet 48 hours a day (One personal account, two machines), what does that say ?
Galilleo had two close passes with the Earth in '90 and '92 (the '90 was closer, 1000 km no ?) It was a lot sicker than Cassini, too, with the failure in the main antenna. Didn't hear a peep, then. Why ? Because no-one had an agenda to push back then. Now they do, and they go "Plutonium! Nasty! Be Scared! Cancer! They say it can't happen!!!!!!" and hope that no-one bothers checking up on the facts. (Oh, and the fact that most of the US was keeping an eye on that little tussle in Iraq.) Remember, the people who launch these things have friends and families here on earth, and, also, a mistake at this point means no more funding for the next 5 or 7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, you are under no obligation to check. Now. But in the long view, its just delayed the inevitable.
6 months from now, the Telegraph or Today Tonight or A Current Affair will use it to take the next step :
"Your children can still see porn on the Internet - ISP's purposly bypassing the law in order to keep making profits"
"ISP's - Supposedly in the front line against smut on the internet, but a government report shows that not one of them enforces it"
"A child of 14, shown here getting all the naked pictures they want off the internet, simply by clicking on a box here, and using his mothers Visa card to sign up"
"Boy, 16, dies after building a pipebomb from information on the internet. Mother says 'Why wasn't this blocked under the Colston-Harradine laws like we were told it would be'"
Which means, the next law will be even tougher.
And we'll see the mandatory installation of filtering software that has to report it's installed before a download begins. Nothing like making the Users Pay for their own censorship.
Or Log checking and comparing, with questions asked "Why are you still getting 600 meg of naked pictures when you said here you have filtering software installed ? Please reply to this mail with the serial number & receipt number of the software you have installed or your account will be terminated"
Oh, yeah. This is great news.
Does your wonderful draft code of "pornographic content must not be hosted in Australia" address the concept of news and mail servers ? 'Cause I saw nothing about it in there, apart from 13.4
13.4 When an Internet Content Host is notified by the ABA that it is hosting on a web server or other content database within its control, material which is deemed by the ABA to be Prohibited Content or Potentially Prohibited Content
(a) the Internet Content Host must promptly remove that Content from the Web Site or database;
(b) upon doing so, the Internet Content Host must inform the customer that the customer's conduct
is a breach of the customer's service conditions and, if applicable, an offence under law, and further,that a repeat occurrence will result in the termination of the customer's account;
(c) in the case of a repeat occurrence of offending conduct by the customer, an Internet Content Host, having informed the customer that his or her conduct is a breach of the customer's service conditions and, if applicable, an offence under law, must terminate that customer's account.
OK. I'm on a Naked Penguin Pic of the day mailing list. Someone subscribes a wrong address to that mailing list, and a complaint is forwarded to the ABA.
Based on my reading, and of the original law, and of listening to the senate discussion on the radio, you then have to make sure that that picture is not hosted or mirrored anywhere. Which means you have to then go in and delete it from your mail spool so it isn't hosted in Australia. Which means you have to delete it from anyone else who receives it.
Which is *worse* then the original law, which purposly bypassed email. And, as I've said before, after you apply this law to Usenet, we can go back to flying in Usenet on a tape spool once a week, because by the time the Howard definition of Pornographic is applied Usenet News Servers in Australia will be 1/1000th of the size they are now.
And of course, Earth is the only place in the universe that allows a country to be named after the most disgusting and depraved swear word in the universe.
"Oh, Belgium, Ford. Belgium!" - Z.Beeblebrox, to F.Prefect, while hanging off a 15 mile high statue of Arthur Dent.
BTW : If I'm hooked up to the internet 48 hours a day (One personal account, two machines), what does that say ?
Galilleo had two close passes with the Earth in '90 and '92 (the '90 was closer, 1000 km no ?) It was a lot sicker than Cassini, too, with the failure in the main antenna. Didn't hear a peep, then. Why ? Because no-one had an agenda to push back then. Now they do, and they go "Plutonium! Nasty! Be Scared! Cancer! They say it can't happen!!!!!!" and hope that no-one bothers checking up on the facts. (Oh, and the fact that most of the US was keeping an eye on that little tussle in Iraq.) Remember, the people who launch these things have friends and families here on earth, and, also, a mistake at this point means no more funding for the next 5 or 7 years.