[ad] The service leader for Cloud is now in Australia. Secure, reliable cloud and managed hosting all backed by 24x7x365 Fanatical Support. Create your free account now.
Buy an Seagate Business Storage NAS for your chance to win a holiday
[ad] Purchase a selected Seagate Business Storage NAS to receive a $20 cash-back AND go into the draw to win a $1,000 Flight Centre voucher so you can holiday in the destination of your choice. T&Cs apply.
How mobile and social media affect your Customer Experience strategy
[ad] How will the adoption of mobile devices and social media affect your Customer Experience strategy? Are you reaching your organisation's customers through these touch points? Click here to download a whitepaper by Fifth Quadrant examining consumer and business attitudes to these new contact channels.
Great articles on other sites
- Turnbull to release NBN review next week
- Canberra blitzes states with NBN take-up rates
- War on whistleblowers from Abbott, Turnbull as ICJ case arrives
- Stockland tech revamp at centre of growth plans
- Clare warns of Gonski-like backflips on the NBN
- Victoria seeks early buy-in to avoid past disasters
- Vtalk bucks the China trend with plan for Aussie build
- Booksellers bristle at Amazon's arrival
- Australian customers upbeat on Dell going private
- FTTP NBN supporters lobby Turnbull
50 things top IT pros need to know
[ad] This 18 page TechRepublic whitepaper explores 10 things you should know to become an epic IT manager, 40 other essential tips to advance your IT career and practical guidance for starting an IT consulting business. Click here to access the whitepaper.
The new IT manager: Trends affecting IT in business
[ad] The tables have turned for IT managers. IT used to be able to dictate which computing assets would be used by employees and how they would be used. No longer. This free GigaOM Pro research paper (click here to download it) gives a solid, fact-based perspective on how IT consumerisation, mobile computing and cloud delivery trends are changing the paradigm.
Featured, Internet, News, Security, Telecommunications - Written by Renai LeMay on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 20:40 - 108 Comments
Interpol filter scope creep:
ASIC ordering unilateral website blocks
news The Federal Government has confirmed its financial regulator has started requiring Australian Internet service providers to block websites suspected of providing fraudulent financial opportunities, in a move which appears to also open the door for other government agencies to unilaterally block sites they deem questionable in their own portfolios.
The news came tonight in a statement issued by the office of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, following a controversial event in April which saw some 1,200 websites wrongfully blocked by several of Australia’s major Internet service providers.
On April 12, Melbourne publication the Melbourne Times Weekly reported that more than 1,200 websites, including one belonging to independent learning organisation Melbourne Free University, might have been blocked by “the Australian Government”. At the time, Melbourne Free University was reportedly told by its ISP, Exetel, that the IP address hosting its website had been blocked by Australian authorities. The block lasted from April 4 until April 12.
Subsequently, the US-based Electronic Frontier Foundation issued a media release linking the issue to the Labor Federal Government’s various Internet filtering initiatives, especially the voluntary filtering scheme currently implemented by a number of major ISPs including Telstra, Optus and Vodafone.
In November last year, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy formally dumped the Government’s highly controversial mandatory Internet filtering scheme, instead throwing his support behind a much more limited scheme which sees Australian ISPs voluntarily implementing a much more limited filter which Telstra, Optus and one or two other ISPs had already implemented. Vodafone has also implemented the filter, and the process is also believed to be under way at other ISPs such as iiNet.
The ‘voluntary’ filter only blocks a set of sites which international policing agency Interpol has verified contain “worst of the worst” child pornography — not the wider Refused Classification category of content which Conroy’s original filter had dealt with. The instrument through which the ISPs are blocking the Interpol list of sites is Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act. Under the Act, the Australian Federal Police is allowed to issue notices to telcos asking for reasonable assistance in upholding the law. It is believed the AFP has issued such notices to Telstra and Optus to ask them to filter the Interpol blacklist of sites.
The use of the Section 313 notices in this manner is believed to be the first occasion when the legislation has been interpreted to allow the Australian Federal Police to request ISPs to block website addresses. Some ISPs have questioned the legality of the use of the legislation in this manner, with some — such as one ISP believed to be major telco TPG — going so far as to refuse to follow the AFP’s requests to block websites.
Over the past week, a number of different Federal Government involved in Internet regulation, including the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Communications and Media Authority have denied involvement in the April block. However, tonight Senator Conroy’s office revealed that the incident that resulted in Melbourne Free University and more than a thousand other sites being blocked originated from a different source — financial regulator the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.
On 22 March this year, ASIC issued a media release warning consumers about the activities of a cold-calling investment scam using the name ‘Global Capital Wealth’, which ASIC said was operating several fraudulent websites — www.globalcapitalwealth.com and www.globalcapitalaustralia.com. In its release on that date, ASIC stated: “ASIC has already blocked access to these websites.”
The regulator today did not immediately respond to a request for comment clarifying that statement, but Conroy’s office tonight confirmed the agency had, as the Australian Federal Police has previously for the limited Interpol filter, issued a notice under Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act for “an IP address that was linked to a fraud website” — presumably the websites belonging to the group describing itself as Global Capital Wealth.
“ASIC believed that the website in question was operating in breach of Australian law, specifically section 911a of the Corporations Act 2001,” Conroy’s office said. “Under Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act, websites that breach Australian law can be blocked.”
“Melbourne Free University’s website was hosted at the same IP address as the fraud website, and was unintentionally blocked. Once ASIC were made aware of what had happened, they lifted the original blocking request. The government is working with enforcement agencies to ensure that Section 313 requests are properly targeted in future.”
Anomalies in the website block occurred, according to Conroy’s office, because of the differing nature of the methods which the two agencies — ASIC and the AFP — have used in their Section 313 notices. Users who attempt to access websites blocked under the AFP’s limited child abuse filtering scheme are directed to a website notifying them that the site has been blocked and how they can, if necessary, appeal such a block. However, ASIC’s process merely blocked the websites suspecting of hosted fraudulent material, leaving users such as Melbourne Free University’s users in the dark as to what had happened. In addition, the AFP process uses actual website addresses — whereas the ASIC process uses IP addresses.
ASIC’s user of Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act in this manner appears to be the first known occasion that the agency — or any other agency than the AFP — has done so, and appears to open the door that any Federal Government department or agency could request Australian ISPs to block websites which are believed to contain illegal material.
However, some segments of Australia’s technical and legal communities have long harboured concerns about using the legislation in this manner.
In contrast with Labor’s previous mandatory Internet filtering policy (which was to have been administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and which was dumped last year) there is currently no known civilian oversight of the Section 313 notifications scheme, no method of appeal and no way of ascertaining whether and why sites have been blocked under the legislation.
There is no mechanism in place to ensure that owners of web sites who have those sites blocked by Section 313 notices — deliberately or inadvertently, as happened with the Melbourne Free University case — are notified of the reason their sites have been blocked.
Furthermore, Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act does not specifically deal with certain breaches of the law. In fact, it only requires that ISPs give government officers and authorities (such as police) reasonable assistance in upholding the law. Because of this, there appears to be nothing to stop the Australian Federal Police, ASIC or any other agency from issuing much wider notices under the Act to ISPs, requesting they block categories of content which may be technically illegal in Australia but not blocked yet.
A number of sites which were on the borderlines of legality — such as sites espousing a change of legislation regarding euthanasia, for example — were believed to be included as part of the blacklist associated with the Federal Government’s much wider mandatory filtering policy. It is not clear what safeguards exist to prevent the Section 313 notification scheme to include such extra categories of content.
Because of this, the usage of Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act which ASIC applied in March appears to represent something of a “back door” for Australian authorities to request web sites be blocked from viewing by Australians — but with no oversight of the process, no appeals mechanism, and no transparency to the public or interaction with the formal justice system.
Long-time readers of Delimiter will note that I have for several years been warning that if the Australian Federal Police started using Section 313 of the Telecommunications Act to block child abuse websites, that there would be nothing to stop that newly re-interpreted legislation from being used by the AFP or other agencies to block whatever other websites they felt like on the day.
In fact, I remember getting into a very loud and angry argument with then-Internet Industry Association chief executive Peter Coroneos — who helped develop the Interpol filter/AFP process — about the potential for scope creep once Section 313 of the Act started to be used in this manner. I hope Coroneos will now admit that he helped open Pandora’s Box for Government Internet filtering.
It is very easy to foresee that other Federal Government agencies would like to follow the example set by ASIC and quietly use Section 313 notices to block other sites on the borderlines of legality. The Department of Health and Aging may like to block pro-euthanasia sites, for example, or sites promoting illegal drug use. The Australian Taxation Office may like to block sites promoting methods of tax evasion. The Department of Defence may like to block sites which expose details of Australian military misconduct. And so on. The list is endless, and I am sure that there are at least a couple of agencies closely examining what ASIC has done here, with a view to potentially doing the same in their own portfolios in future. Hell, the ASIC case may just be the tip of an existing iceberg; the example where someone actually got caught, because of a false positive.
The questions about the lack of transparency and oversight involved in such a process should be obvious to all concerned. It is very close to a universally accepted truth that the Australian public does not want government authorities to be able to unilaterally order websites blocked to Australian view without (at least) oversight of that process and a robust appeals process.
There are also questions here about how such a process may interplay with the existing courts system. I would ask, for example, whether ASIC has actually concluded a legal case against the individuals behind the ‘Global Capital Wealth’ sites which it ordered blocked in March. If it has not, one wonders whether it is exceeding its authority in ordering those sites offline. The evidence collected by the regulator, may, after all, not support its case that the sites are fraudulent. Where is the line? We’ve seen law enforcement authorities come unstuck in their accusations before, after all. That’s why Australia has a courts system — so that the claims of law enforcement can be tested, and not just taken for granted.
Let me finish this article by noting how disappointed I am in the personal integrity of all of the government public servants who enabled or abetted this situation to come about. In the course of my investigations into this matter over the past week, I contacted three of the key Federal Government departments and agencies concerned with Internet regulation — the ACMA, the Attorney-General’s Department, and the AFP.
In each case, each agency explicitly denied responsibility for the action which led to Melbourne Free University being unfairly blocked in April. However, in each case, each agency implicitly had knowledge of what had happened, but was unwilling to comment further on the issue. ASIC’s action has also completely blindsided Australia’s telcos, most of whom, having just gotten used to the Interpol filter, are right now wondering what the hell is happening and why they’re now being told by the financial regulator to filter a whole new category of content.
Eventually, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy came clean on the issue — most likely because I signalled I was determined to get to the bottom of the matter, and would pursue it through Freedom of Information requests if necessary, as I have done with previous government Internet filtering efforts.
However, coming clean on this kind of issue — unilateral government censorship of Australia’s Internet access, behind closed doors and with zero public transparency — is a little like owning up to being a serial philanderer. It lets people know what type of person you are, but it doesn’t solve the problem, and it won’t stop people feeling cheated.
The Australian public overwhelmingly rejected the Labor Federal Government’s previous attempt at a universal Internet filter. Now that filter is back: But it’s on questionable legal ground, it’s being done behind closed doors by anonymous public servants (remind you of the data retention process?), it’s already resulting in massive false positives and there’s no notification or appeals mechanism. Wonderful. But then again, don’t we trust the Government? Don’t we?
Latest Delimiter 2.0 articles (subscriber content)
|Politicians from Australia’s major parties need to stop issuing ludicrous blanket pardons for the intelligence community’s ongoing misdemeanours and start applying a basic modicum of transparency and accountability to this important national security function.|
|The independent pro-fibre National Broadband Network movement is doing a far better job of promoting Labor’s Fibre to the Premises-based NBN policy than Labor itself. When is Labor going to wake from its slumber and start supporting this scrappy but energetic grassroots network of activists?|
|Ziggy Switkowski's first substantial public appearance since being appointed NBN Co chief executive has starkly demonstrated just how different he is from his predecessor, Mike Quigley, and just how strictly he will adhere to the guidelines which his patron, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, has set for him.|
|Australian technology companies have been virtually absent from the the nation’s public stockmarket over the past decade as the stigma of the dot com bust took its toll on investor confidence. But a clutch of new listings planned for the closing months of 2013 shows renewed interest in the sector and that local entrepreneurs are smelling money in the air once again.|
|NBN Co’s Strategic Review process gives the company an unmissable opportunity to re-evaluate the early decision to deploy its FTTP network primarily through Telstra’s underground ducts. The company and its new Coalition masters must now seriously consider deploying more fibre aerially on power poles in an effort to speed up its rollout substantially.|
|That moment which many Australian technologists fervently hoped for but never expected to see has come to pass: Simon Hackett has been appointed to the board of the National Broadband Network Company. But what questions should the Internode founder be asking NBN Co’s executive management team? Here’s five ideas to start with.|
|The rapid replacement of respected NBN Co chief operating officer Ralph Steffens with a Telstra executive who appears less experienced with fibre rollouts but better politically connected represents a key signal that NBN Co’s senior executive hiring process has now become completely politicised and is no longer independent from the Federal Government.|
Enterprise IT, News - Dec 6, 2013 12:50 - 0 Comments
More In Enterprise IT
- Payroll disaster: Queensland sues IBM
- End of an era: Oracle Australia’s ‘safe hands’ leaves
- Qld launches whole of government IaaS panel
- Defence finally allows staff iPhones, iPads
- NSW Govt refreshes ICT Advisory Panel
News, Telecommunications - Dec 6, 2013 11:54 - 57 Comments
More In Telecommunications
- NBN Co internal FTTN analysis: Turnbull refuses to retract inaccurate claim
- Defying the Senate: Turnbull to release NBN Review by end of 2013
- Senate to force Turnbull to publish NBN Review
- Get on with FTTN job, Quigley tells NBN Co
- Senate circus shows politics has no place in NBN
More In Industry
- Xbox One goes off with a bang … but will the PS4 launch eclipse it?
- It’s not just Freelancer: Aussie tech IPOs are back in general
- Freelancer’s IPO: A billion reasons to care
- Australian retailers online: Late to the party and much to do
- DesignCrowd picks up another $3m
Digital Rights, News - Dec 5, 2013 14:08 - 25 Comments
More In Digital Rights
- Global privacy group files formal ASD complaint
- Labor open to surveillance discussion
- Snowden an “American traitor”, says Australia’s Attorney-General
- ASD goes rogue with Aussie metadata
- It’s live: Delimiter publishes AGD FoI mirror