[MLB-WIRELESS] AFACT vs iiNET - implications for internet filtering?

['Mike Everest']

Interesting commentary from Paul Budde this morning:

(from:http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/335062/iinet_outcome_global_si
gnificance_budde/?eid=-180)

----------------------
Also crucial in the outcome was the reaffirmation of the notion that ISPs
are, in effect, the middlemen of the internet and therefore could not be
viewed as being responsible for the actions of end users, Budde said.

"The same principle applies to Australia Post which is not responsible if it
delivers a letter which contains death threats to someone," he said.

Locally, the principle that ISPs should not be responsible for policing the
action of their end users had the potential to re-ignite the debate on
ISP-level content filtering, Budde said.

"The question now is: can [communications minister] Stephen Conroy now
legally force ISPs to take on the role of policeman," he said. "While
everyone in principle everyone agrees with the idea of protecting children,
what he is doing could now be challenged based on the outcome of this kind
of court case."

----------------------
Cheers!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: melbwireless-bounces at wireless.org.au [mailto:melbwireless-
> bounces at wireless.org.au] On Behalf Of mw at freenet.net.au
> Sent: Thursday, 4 February 2010 4:40 PM
> To: 'Melbourne Wireless'
> Subject: [MLB-WIRELESS] AFACT vs iiNET - 3 cheers for iiNET! :-)
> 
> After all the hype and angst, the ruling is out:  ISPs 1 - Self-appointed
> vigilante group, ZERO! ;-)
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/iinet-slays-hollywood-in-
> la
> ndmark-piracy-case-20100204-ndwr.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Melbwireless mailing list
> Melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> http://wireless.org.au/mailman/listinfo/melbwireless