Day 15: ISP e-security draft code held up as "reasonable steps"

 

Sparks calls of relevance and furious debate.

The film industry has tendered for consideration a draft ISP code of conduct created this year in its copyright case against iiNet, despite presiding Justice Cowdroy believing its relevance was "peripheral" and probably not of much use to his decision in the case.

In a hotly-contested closure to iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby's cross-examination, the film industry's barrister Tony Bannon drew Dalby's attention to the Internet Industry Association's (IIA) draft e-security code of conduct.

The code suggested ISPs contact, and in some cases disconnect, customers that have malware-infected computers on their networks.

Dalby told Bannon he "didn't recall attending" a meeting convened by the IIA on 10 June, 2009 that attempted to explore the merits of a new voluntary e-security code.

"I'm not familiar at all with that particular subject," Dalby alleged. "It's quite possible I flicked through [the draft] but I'm not familiar with it."

He was then handed a document - later revealed to be a report by iTnews - in which he was quoted providing a reaction to the draft.

"I believe I made that [press] statement, yes," Dalby confirmed.

"I very often get calls from media where they want to talk to me about things I haven't seen yet. This very much looks like a response that is neutral and non-committal."

Bannon then attempted to tender the draft code, to which iiNet's senior counsel Richard Cobden SC objected on the grounds of relevance.

"What issue is it directed to?" Justice Cowdroy asked Bannon.

"The relevance is... what it identifies is what the IIA has published as reasonable steps an ISP can take in circumstances where on a customer account there is a computer that has a virus which when [the customer] goes online is transmitted across the internet," Bannon alleged.

"It then refers to actions of notifying the customer, throttling or temporarily suspending the account. In other words, steps have been agreed in the draft code in the IIA and iiNet is a member of [the IIA]."

"Is that agreed?" Justice Cowdroy posed to Bannon.

"How has this got relevance to iiNet? Did it participate or was it totally divorced from [the drafting process]?"

"Well... uh...," Bannon said, followed by a long pause.

"There's a couple of issues. There's the meeting on 10 June. We know iiNet was a member of the IIA..."

But Justice Cowdroy stated there "had to be more direct evidence" that established iiNet had been directly involved in the process in order for the draft code to be tendered.

"It represents a code issued by the IIA as [what it took to be] reasonable," Bannon countered.

"We have in evidence an absolute welter of material including Mr Dalby's evidence consisting of submissions to [or from] government, the IIA and Telstra as to what are reasonable steps for an ISP to take.

"Our issue is whether it is reasonable to take steps to notify customers in relation to an activity - we say copyright infringement. Here is an example that these are reasonable steps that can be taken."

Justice Cowdroy responded: "If there had been a code promulgated and adopted it would be another matter."

But he stated that as a draft, the code "may go nowhere. It's not going to be of use to me in this case," he told Bannon.

"With respect Your Honour, we want to balance it against the various matters [iiNet] put forward. They have put in a welter of material that attempts to put in a 2005 code which has all gone in [been tendered]," Bannon argued further.

Justice Cowdroy proposed to admit the code "in the interests to save time".

"I must admit its very peripheral," he said.

The IIA draft e-security code was created almost 10 months after the film industry filed its case against iiNet in the Federal Court.

The exchange concluded evidence from both sides in the case.

Proceedings have been adjourned until Monday afternoon when the plaintiffs were expected to commence their closing argument.

You can follow the case in-full here. For a background on the case, click here.


Day 15: ISP e-security draft code held up as "reasonable steps"
"@Digger11 You may have read 1984, but did you understand what it was about?"
By TruthSphere
 
 
 
Comments: 15
hellfire
Nov 6, 2009 8:40 PM
AFACT should forget any draft code wher the job of policing the copyright and the cost is the responsibility of an ISP. This is absurd. If they are of the opinion that there is a breach of their copyright it should be up to them to persue those who are responsible. Instead they sue an ISP who merely provides an internet service and has no legal liability nor should it to police what a user does on the internet.
grasuth
Nov 6, 2009 11:14 PM
Seems to me that a draft code handling situation of malware is completely different to an alleged copyright violation... malware is a network security issue, it will impact others, and may spread. That's protecting customers. An alleged copyright violation would not endanger the network or other customers, so is a completely different level of severity and much more murky and grey as to the need for the ISP to act quickly and decisively.
Digger11
Nov 9, 2009 7:53 AM
Of course Malware and Copyright Violation are different beasts.
I don't think you have been following the iiNet case have you ???

Their [ludicrous] defence is that it was not possible for them to notify iiNet customers who were stealing the copyright material as it was not something thay could technically do.
Yes, ridiculous defence.
The prosecutor's point in the current line of questioning was to highlight that if iinet was following the Malware notification guidelines then it has the technology and ability (which we all know it had anyway) to notify customers of breaches.
anonymous
Nov 9, 2009 10:01 AM
Hey, Digger11, you've apparently been outed, so how about giving it a rest??

If you are seeking to create a job opportunity or get revenge, you should do it elsewhere.
Digger11
Nov 9, 2009 11:48 AM
@anonyomous - outed by who ? and for what ?

Unfortunately I do not work for iiNet (never have and never would) and am just posting my unbiased opinions about the proceeding.

I find the iiNet employees opinions are the ones that are getting tiresome (a bit like the iiNet Fanboi rubbish we all can read on Whirlpool).

How you could ever respect Dalby and Malone after reading the responses they have given in court is just totally beyond me. Only a blinkered iiNet employee could think anything else.....
block
Nov 9, 2009 2:19 PM
@Digger11

Appologise from us all. Have you been following the proceedings from the court room? I myself have only been able to read the view point as expressed by the author of the updates.

My understanding was that it was not possible to send on the emails due to the law (matching user details with unfounded claims). As it is a grey area, different ISP's have interpreted the law differently. As also mentioned in another thread, it is technically possible to pass on the notices (legality aside) however it is not possible ot guarantee that it is the correct offender due to the uncertainty in the accuracy of the provided timestamp.

Once again, a appologise if I have a different understanding that you as I have not been involved the the actual proceedings and am going solely on what has been reported.
TruthSphere
Nov 9, 2009 5:37 PM
@Digger11

Why do you care about this case? Unless you're affiliated with AFACT or Sony or something as an individual this case only has the power to take away some of your personal rights. Don't you respect your privacy? You should ready 1984.
TruthSphere
Nov 9, 2009 5:37 PM
@Digger11

Why do you care about this case? Unless you're affiliated with AFACT or Sony or something as an individual this case only has the power to take away some of your personal rights. Don't you respect your privacy? You should read 1984.
Tesla
Nov 9, 2009 11:18 PM
Seriously Digger11, that you claim your opinions are in any way unbiased is laughably hypocritical. You've shown everyone here how prejudiced you are against Dalby and Malone by claiming that only a blinkered iiNet employee could respect them.

What’s more the fact that iiNet have customers that are so pleased with their ISP that they post positive comments on Whirlpool (to the extent that they are categorised by you as fanbois) indicates only that iiNet is meeting and surpassing the expectations of their customers.
Digger11
Nov 10, 2009 8:03 AM
@Tesla,
11:18p.m. is about 9:18p.m. Perth time - are you still at work ? Have the call volumes at the iinet call centre slowed down this time of night enabling you to post your biased iiNet spincrap ???
How is your Sth African call centre going ??

You can get my posts deleted on Whilpool because of the pro-Internode and iInet biased site owners - but ITNews seems to have a fair and reasonable editor.

It's a pity when you cannot just get the truth deleted hey ???

TruthSphere
Nov 10, 2009 10:38 AM
@Digger11

Answer my question.
Digger11
Nov 10, 2009 11:32 AM
@truthsphere. Why do I care is the question ????
Three main reasons,

1. Like the electric sportscar said "iiNet is meeting and surpassing the expectations of their customers". Of course they are - they are the only major ISP who has been turning a blind eye to AFACT notices and have attracted maybe 100,000's of customers because of this.

2. If you post anything negative about iiNet on Whirlpool then the "Chinese Type" censors delete it almost immediately. I hate the manipulation of free speech.

3. Just read the testimonies from Malone and Dalby, they are a total disgrace. Only an iiNet employee/fanboi could accept the total BS they have been saying under oath.

I have read 1984 - I don't see the relevance ?
Blade17
Nov 10, 2009 12:38 PM
Digger11, you seem upset, and your responses seem to me to be written with a purpose of being inflammatory to other users. I can't help but wonder why.

Is there a specific reason for your overly emotional responses to this ISPs legal issue, or do you simply have such a love for the minutiae of copyright legal issues, or is it tall poppy syndrome in regards to Iinet, or are you simply having a bad day/week recently? (or do you work for or owner of the competition even?)
Rhino
Nov 10, 2009 2:15 PM
LOLs @ Digger11. What's the matter, Tesla struck a nerve to reduce to you childish insults. My responses to your 3 points are:-
1. How do you know they are the only ISP that doesn't forward on notices. Maybe they have attracted their customer base by providing a good product.
2. I'm not sure what Whirlpool forums you read, but from what I've seen there are plenty of negative posts about iiNet, just like every other ISP.
3. Maybe they are, but the members of AFACt who are part of this case are just as laughable, especially trying to get a draft code which has nothing to do wqith copyright infringement entered as proof.

You do realise any shred of intelligence went out the door with your comments about call centres right?
TruthSphere
Nov 10, 2009 3:52 PM
@Digger11

You may have read 1984, but did you understand what it was about?
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Vito Forte: A CIO for tough times
Fortescue Metals CIO talks vendor management and innovation.
 
Tech staff spared in ANZ's 1000 job cuts
Cost cutting hits middle management.
 
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  83%
 
No
  17%
TOTAL VOTES: 245

Vote