AFACT v iiNet: Draft eSecurity Code introduced in court
- 06 November, 2009 17:50
- Comments (9)
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), which represents more than 30 film studios and TV broadcasters, has submitted to the court a draft ISP code of conduct relating to computer security, despite Justice Cowdroy questioning its relevance.
As iiNet chief regulartoy officer Steve Dalby’s cross-examination continued, AFACT barrister, Tony Bannon, quizzed Dalby about the Internet Industry Association’s (IIA) eSecurity Draft Code of Conduct.
A 10 June meeting between the IIA, internet service providers, security vendors and other interested parties agreed on an eSecurity Draft Code, which is intended to be finalised by 1 December 2009. It calls on ISPs to actively monitor systems for malicious activity and compromised computers as part of normal network management activities and notify trusted third party sources.
Dalby said he was not familiar with the draft code, however Bannon made light of a media report on the subject in which Dalby was quoted.
In reply, Dalby said it was not unusual for him to receive calls from the media within an hour of an announcement being made, even when he hasn’t heard the announcement himself. He said his comments in this instance were “neutral and non-committal”.
When asked whether iiNet had been involved in any discussions to do with the draft code, Dalby replied “not to my knowledge”.
Justice Cowdroy proceeded to question Bannon as to whether the report was relevant to iiNet, before agreeing to tender the document.
The case will resume on November 9.
Read more AFACT v iiNET updates.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
- Computerworld On-Demand Webcast | Winning and retaining customers through better web application performance
- Legacy Tools: Not Built for Today’s Helpdesk
- IDC Resource | IP VPN: The Key Enabler for an Optimised Enterprise ICT Environment
- The legal risks of uncontrolled web use and email content
- Delivering Desktop as a Secure Managed Service with VMware View
-
on Telstra T-Hub launches
-
on Labor to launch NBN blueprint
-
on Telstra T-Hub launches
-
on Case for opt-out NBN accelerates
-
on Report bombs Aussie broadband
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Microsoft Office
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
Comments
Hellfire
When is are the film studios and AFACT going to realise that it is up to them to police their own copyright and that it is unfair to expect internet providers to do this for them. ISP's are just providing a service and AFACT and their members should realise that there is no legal responsibility for an ISP to suspend or discipline it's customers or to monitor their activity. If they have a copyright concern then they should sue those responsible not those who provide the internet connectivity. It is just like trying to sue the Transport Authority because you had an accident on their road. This is a TOYAL waste of court time.
Waste of time
Agreed with hellfire. Why is the incompentant KRudd government not stepping in to clarify, via law, that an ISP is simply a carriage service just like Qantas and Australia Post. Lucky for Australia, the common-law system caters for precendence, and our judges are trained to look at the 'bigger picture' to look at how law can affect other instances in our lives... sometimes for good, sometimes for bad...
Down with Conroy
Waste of time, do you seriously expect the Government that is hell bent on getting ISPs to filter the internet wants it to be law that ISPs are simply a carriage service? I think that's highly unlikely given how committed Conroy & Comrades are to the Great Firewall of Australia.
Interesting Point
It may be a total waste of court time. But would it be that bad to let these ignorant bastards from hollywood fork out the money to pay for set time when they loose? Could help the economy lol. Maybe that's why KRud haven't done anything and everyone is letting them throw there temper tantrum like a spoilt little brat at the shopping centre that can't have what he wants.
Anonymous
The AFACT vs IINET, I am with IINET. The role of the ISP is one of a "conduit" to the www, if AFACT want to catch the perpetrators of illicit downloads, then they police it, not IINET or for that matter any other ISP.
For freedom of the Internet, IINET must win this case. KRudd and his cronies, of course, want Internet censorship, so if AFACT wins it will give the Government almost carte blanche to controll anything and everything going of the net wether it is in the national security or not.
AFACT win cannot happen.
Anonymous
AFACT - Association For A$#@#@*!, C@#$% & Timewasters
Yes
All I see is blackmailing. Stop your piracy or we will make your ISP disconnect you.
The point is having your someone internet disconnect doesn't prevent further priacy. Plenty of places for them to pirate such as internet cafes, open WIFI points, on neighbours and friends and family connection. Since they dont have a legal obligation to stop using the internet.
Stop blackmailling people.. if a person has caused you damages, prove it in court and you can sue them for compensation/damages.
If a person illegally fishes in a lake on your property you dont try to get their fishing licence suspeded, you sue them for theft or treadpassing.
ADarkGerm
It's the same in the UK the British government have been takeing a bribe. This now means the post office can read all our mail. After all they do the same thing delivery! Roll on the police state, thanks USofA. "People should not be afraid of governments, governments should be afriad of people." V.
ADarkGerm
People should not fear Governments, Governments should fear people. V
Post new comment