Electronic Frontiers Australia

EFA supports mandatory data breach notification

2012-05-09T02:56:56Z

At its April Board meeting, the Electronic Frontiers Australia Board voted unanimously to support the implementation of mandatory data breach notification regulations.

Karen Higgins, EFA Board Member said, "It is outrageous that an organisation can have a million people's private details exposed due to slack security, and then does nothing about it. If my birthdate and credit card details get into the hands of hackers, I want to know about it, so I can take steps to protect myself, such as closing the credit card account. And then I will stop doing business with the company that couldn't be bothered to protect my data."

In 2008, the Australian Law Reform Commission proposed many changes to the Privacy Act, including mandatory data breach notification. The Prime Minister and Cabinet grouped mandatory data breach notification into the second set of Privacy Act changes to make, and no action date has yet been provided.

A number of major organisations have stated opposition to mandatory notification, asserting instead that voluntary data breach notification is sufficient.

A number of high-profile data breaches have taken place in recent months, affecting businesses including Telstra, First Super, ANZ Bank and the global Sony Playstation network, and Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim has said that there is evidence to suggest that data breaches are on the rise. He said, “The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) was notified of 56 data breaches in the last financial year, equivalent to a data breach a week. This is up from 44 in the previous year, an increase of 27 per cent.” However, the Privacy Commissioner also noted that he opened a further 59 investigations into other breaches where he wasn’t notified of the incident (see the full release here).

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) this week released updated guidelines designed to assist organisations dealing with a data breach as well as providing advice on preventative measures.

The Australian Information Commissioner, Professor John McMillan has also this week stated that there is "strong support for the notion that the Government must treat data breach notification as a mandatory process", and that "Internationally, the tide is moving in this direction" (as quoted in itNews).

EFA supports these calls for mandatory data breach notification regulations and calls on the government to take prompt action in this regard.

EFA congratulates iiNet on its historic High Court victory

2012-05-02T05:18:18Z

EFA congratulates iiNet Limited on its historic victory in the High Court in the long-running Roadshow v iiNet case. The High Court has unanimously dismissed claims made by rights owners that an ISP should act to stop copyright infringements by users or be held liable as authorising those infringements.

This means that ISPs don’t have to act on automated notices from worldwide rights societies, or threaten their users with “three-strikes” escalations.

The Chief Justice French and Justices Crennan and Kiefel noted that international approaches to discourage peer-to-peer copyright infringements varied:

The difficulties of enforcement which such infringements pose for copyright owners have been addressed elsewhere, in constitutional settings different from our own, by specially targeted legislative schemes, some of which incorporate co-operative industry protocols, some of which require judicial involvement in the termination of internet accounts, and some of which provide for the sharing of enforcement costs between ISPs and copyright owners.

Following the case, rights owners were quick to demand the Government step in to change the law – presumably to penalise ISPs or introduce a “three-strikes” regime by law. The Government indicated it wanted the closed-door discussions between rights owners and the big ISPs to continue to find an industry-based solution.

EFA has been critical of these secret talks, as commercial interests cannot represent the views of end-users and not-for-profit groups. The High Court did not accept that end-users or ISPs should have to accept automated notices as evidence, but the Government would stand by while the big ISPs and the studios hatch that deal.

Experience overseas shows that the practice of studios prosecuting peer-to-peer use is full of evidential lapses, unjust consequences, grossly-inflated damages and the crushing expense of the legal process. Yet the litigation benefits no creators or artists, just a business model that won’t keep up with the times.

As iiNet CEO Michael Malone said after the trial – the studios can stop piracy by improving online distribution:

“Mr Malone said the film industry should increase the availability of “lawful, online content” in a “timely, affordable and reasonably priced manner” to protect owners’ copyright. Increasing the availability of licensed digital content is the best, most practical approach to meet consumer demand and protect copyright,”

EFA says it’s time to stop propping-up prohibitions against online distribution of worldwide media. The millions of Australians who resort to peer-to-peer file searching don’t want to break the law, they want to change the law.

The 20th Century business model of studio distribution of copyrighted media is broken. Much entertainment media is not for sale in Australia at any price, other outlets offered only in other countries or via a single distribution channel at inflated prices.

Australia pays double for a fraction of available media for no good reason. Creators and artists also deserve a world-wide platform for their work, unencumbered by studio cartels and complex cross-licencing arrangements.

EFA calls upon the Government to resist knee-jerk toughening of copyright laws, and instead take time to ask the public how the copyright laws should serve the public and creators in a digital, global market.

Kimberley Heitman,
Secretary, EFA

Federal Court decision highlights need for flexible right of fair use in Copyright Act

2012-04-27T03:24:08Z

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) believes today’s judgement by the full bench of the Federal Court in relation to the Optus TV Now service clearly demonstrates the need for a flexible right of fair use to be introduced to the Copyright Act.

The Optus TV Now service is a cloud-based offering available to Optus mobile subscribers that allows free-to-air TV broadcasts to be recorded for viewing later on a mobile or other device.

The judgement, in the case National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59, denies Optus’ use of the ‘domestic and private use’ defence under section 111 of the Copyright Act. This ruling is based on the Court’s interpretation that Optus, rather than the subscriber was the party making the recording.

EFA believes this judgement is a blow for consumers, as it restricts their range of choices in how they watch free-to-air TV. EFA also believes this judgement will have a chilling effect on investment in cloud-based services specifically and internet-based technological innovation more generally.

EFA believes that the Copyright Act should be amended to include a flexible right of fair use, to replace the narrowly-defined and piecemeal exceptions that result in legal uncertainty and ensure that the law constrains innovation and restricts consumer choice. A flexible right of fair use is the basis for copyright law in the United States and has helped to ensure its position at the forefront of technological and service innovation.

Australian consumers have for too long had to wait for the law to catch up with new technologies and services. Australian technology and service innovators have similarly found themselves having to move to more flexible jurisdictions to avoid the legal uncertainty of the current Australian copyright regime.

EFA therefore calls on the Attorney-General to broaden the scope of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of the operation of the Copyright Act in the digital environment, to include consideration of a broad, flexible right of fair use.

Planned US anti-piracy laws a draconian mess

2012-05-06T14:16:51Z

By Kim Heitman, EFA Secretary

The battle over proposed anti-piracy bills in the US is not just about Hollywood versus the internet, it is a fight between the past and the future. It also throws up a real danger that the laws could become an easy way to silence critics.

Internet sites such as Wikipedia, the user-built online encyclopaedia, yesterday "blacked-out" in protest against the two bills going through the US Congress.

The websites hope to draw public attention to the draconian provisions of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

Internet experts say the laws would allow owners of copyrights or trademarks to shut down US websites; block foreign websites or freeze online banking accounts without judicial order. Infringers would be liable to massive new penalties and criminalisation of harmless activities such as uploading video clips of members of a family singing copyrighted songs.

See the whole article at The Age.

Melbourne event: War on the Internet

2012-05-06T14:17:56Z

War on the Internet

Update: videos from this event are now available at: http://vimeo.com/efaoz

Update: Julian Assange is recording a video that wll be played at this event. For anyone unable to attend, we'll be streaming the whole event here: http://www.livestream.com/efa_oz

Electronic Frontiers Australia, in partnership with the Australian Greens, is proud to present:
War on the Internet, an event featuring:

Jacob Applebaum - leading computer security researcher and hacker
Bernard Keane - 'Crikey' journalist and author
Scott Ludlam - Senator for Western Australia and Greens spokesperson for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy
Suelette Dreyfus - author and researcher on whistleblowing

When: Saturday 21st January 2012, 3.00 - 5.00pm

Where: Trades Hall, Corner Lygon & Victoria Streets, Carlton, Melbourne 3053

The response of governments and corporations to Wikileaks, Anonymous, the occupy movement and the Arab Spring has been defensive and warlike. The internet and social media were declared tools of agitation. Behaviour that sought peaceful democratic reform was characterised as treasonous or even terrorist.

Government asserted the right to flick the internet off-switch, and law enforcement, Internet Service Providers, telcos and the judiciary were enlisted to harass activists via subpoenas, takedown notices, mercenary denial of service attacks, and direct denial of services based on unexplained breaches of hard to find user licences. It also involved the ritual harassment of activists in the far corners of international airports, dark places reserved for unlawful arrivals and criminal suspects.

It doesn't have to be like this. Come and hear from an activist, journalist, researcher and legislator challenging the gatekeepers and proposing alternatives to the weaponisation of cyberspace.

Come and add your voice to the global conversation.

This is a FREE EVENT and NO RSVP is required.

View Larger Map

For more information, please email: jlawrence@efa.org.au

In principle support of R18+ rating for video games

2011-07-23T09:05:37Z

Some of EFA’s campaigns, such as fighting against the Internet Filter and pushing for a R18 rating for video games, can be seen as long-term goals. We’ve been fighting them for a number of years and sometimes it can be difficult to see light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how hard we try or how logical our arguments seem to be.

Today we’ve made a significant step towards one of those goals, the government has announced in-principle support for introducing a R18 rating on video games; this means that its introduction is now all but certain and we could see it being implemented within months.

Part of the why it has taken so long is the result of how difficult it is for changes to censorship laws to be conducted inside Australia. The decisions ultimately come down to the Attorney Generals of each state and territories who must all agree unanimously. Decisions such as these are typically made at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting (SCAG) which only occurs three times a year. As you’d know, the Attorney General in each state is appointed by the majority government of that state. As a result, the list of active Attorney Generals is in a constant state of flux as each state and territory changes government in elections.

Historically we’ve have had some Attorney Generals in strong support of the reforms and others in strong opposition, but in many cases those in support have lost office before they’ve convinced their counterparts in the other states. Getting all our ducks in a row, as it were, was a seemingly impossible task.

So what’s changed? The Gillard government has come out in strong support of the introduction of the R18+ rating essentially saying that they’d planned to go ahead regardless of what the state Attorney Generals thought. Indeed there hasn’t been unanimous support this time around either with New South Wales failing to fully commit claiming they haven’t had enough time to form a viewpoint (despite the fact this topic has been out in public debate for years).

Consequently new games rated as R18+ by the Australian Classification Board will be banned under current New South Wales law, but these changes make it possible for that state to address the law in their own time, rather than holding back the rest of Australia.

South Australia have also put forth an interesting position where they support the R18 rating but also wish to eliminate the MA15+ rating for video games entirely within their state and place any games currently falling within its guidelines inside the new R18 rating. They claim the reason for this is so that parents have a clearer understanding that R18 means ‘not suitable for children’ and that parents are currently confused by the current MA15+ classification. The important thing to note is that, like New South Wales, these changes only have effect within South Australia.

Regardless of the positions of these two states this decision allows their debate to be restricted to their individual state borders and not hold back the reforms for the rest of Australia. It will also make it easier for people within those states to lobby more effectively.

There is, however, room to be cautious as the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has published a press release cautiously welcoming the decision. This will come as a surprise to those who have been following the debate as they have traditionally been one of the largest groups opposed to these reforms (despite the fact their view are shared by only a fraction of Australians).

The ACL feels that rather than allowing previously banned games to be available under the R18 banner, they will remain in the Refused Classification bracket and remain illegal to be sold. Is this going to be the case? We’ll have to wait and see how exactly it’s implemented, but make no mistake, we’ve taken a very positive step today.

Ultimately the thanks for the introduction of the R18 rating fall to one particular group of individuals: you. The only reason that these reforms have been made possible is that people, just like you, have tirelessly campaigned in the face of seemingly impossible odds. It is this campaigning that has made the Gillard Government push forward and ultimately secure the commitment of the individual Attorney Generals.

Congratulations all, you did it.

New domain names on the way

2011-06-29T03:53:17Z

At last weeks ICANN meeting in Singapore, the ICANN board made a historic decision, to go ahead with a program of creating many new top level generic domain names, and EFA was there. A top level domain is one at the top level of the domain system (a name like .com, or .org, or .au), and a generic name is a name that isn't a country code domain (e.g. a name like .com, rather than a country specific name like .au or .uk). What it means is that we can expect to see hundred of new top level domains, ranging from generic terms like .shop or .music, to domain names created by particular companies to support their brand (like .canon or .hitachi), and more fully international domain names (that is, domain names in languages that do not use the same alphabet as English).

This has been something ICANN has been working towards for several years (since at least 2005), and has been discussed at great length, in hundreds of separate meetings, and with the involvement of a very broad range of people, including governments, businesses, interested individuals and experts, and civil society organisations like EFA. It is not a decision taken lightly. It is still controversial, with some ICANN board members voting against it, and some government objections remaining on the record, but it is now moving forward with a definite timetable, and we can expect to see top level domains proliferating starting late next year.

Previously, ICANN carefully weighed the pros and cons of each possible domain name, and this is going to make the process much more routine. It is still no easy task to create a new top level domain name, with a complicated application process and a $185,000 dollar application fee.

EFA supports this decision. Not all of the new domain names will be useful - many of them will created purely in the hopes of attracting commercial use, and may prove to be as much of a commercial failure as domains like .biz. But the current situation of artificial scarcity and competition for a limited .com space helps no one. More importantly, we feel that many of the new domain names proposed may have important free speech or consumer benefits, and allowing generic top level domains in other scripts is essential for non-English speaking people to have true equal access to the internet.

EFA appreciates there are still imperfections in the process, and there will be a lot of discussion to follow, but the existing rules are a result of a lot of negotiation, and while there are flaws, few of those that remain are glaring. EFA still feels the rules in place still give too much power to trademark holders and individual governments, but many ICANN participants feel they give too little, and in a complex multi-stakeholder institution like ICANN, compromise is inevitable. A lot of work remains to be done, especially on support for developing nations.

EFA is always interested to hear members opinions on domain name policy issues.

EFA News

2011-06-21T13:15:38Z

I'd like to quickly update our members and supporters with a few bits of EFA news.

Things have been outwardly quiet recently; although we have been active behind the scenes and in the media, commenting on issues such as privacy, copyright, censorship and games, we have not been producing as much content and commentary as we'd like to.

Why is this? We've been working on some much-needed internal reorganisation, which includes: a completely overhauled web presence; a brand new system for managing our members and supporters (and letting you manage yourselves); and our own payment integration, so we can do away with the (deservedly) despised Paypal. When we relaunch, we want a new focus on providing useful and engaging information in the form of issue backgrounders and position papers, FAQs and legal explainers. The new site and associated tools will let us focus more on providing better content and on education and campaigning.

Once we're up and running we'll be doing a better job at managing our corps of volunteers. If you have skills in legal affairs, research, writing, campaigning, design or anything else that can assist our mission, and you're interested in volunteering, please drop us a line at volunteer@efa.org.au.

In the meantime, keep a lookout for us in the media, and you might be interested some recent submissions we've made to inquiries on classification and cyber-safety.

Finally, on a personal note I'm a little sad to announce that I'm stepping down as Chair of EFA. It's been a very rewarding experience, and as a result I am even more passionate about the issues than I was when I first joined EFA. That's why I'm pursuing an opportunity to work inside our nation's Parliament and see just how policy is really made in this country.

Fortunately, the organisation will be in excellent hands. I'm very pleased to welcome David Cake to the role. David has a long history with the organisation including seven years on the Board. David has recently been leading EFA's international affairs effort, and I know he is champing at the bit to lead our upcoming campaigns. Sarah Stokely will be stepping up as Vice-Chair. Both David and Sarah know the landscape very well and have many fresh ideas to drive the debate, and the organisation, forward. Over to you, David and Sarah.

EFA relies on your support and ideas, so if you have any feedback on campaigns you'd like to see, information you need or anything else, please contact us.

Conroy: Filter alive and kicking

2011-05-27T07:47:00Z

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy went in to bat for the Labor Government's mandatory internet filter again, reaffirming the commitment to the unpopular policy. Nothing has changed since earlier debates; the filter still has the same problems it has always had - it's useless, unworkable and expensive. It still won't help anybody.

The latest line, that the Minister trusts "to the common sense of the Australian public with respect to the classification system", is a little strange. Censorship policy is complicated, especially when it comes to the internet, and it's not clear how pursuing this scheme is somehow leaving the whole matter up to the folksy wisdom of the Australian people. Of course, if you ask people whether they want something done about child pornography (for instance) they are likely to say yes. Who wouldn't? But the more they learn about this particular "something", the more skeptical they become.

Last year, several large ISPs including Telstra, Optus and Primus announced they were voluntarily pursuing a blacklist filter against child pornography. It's disappointing, and a little surprising, that the Government did not use this announcement as a good pretext to put the filter policy out to pasture. The reason is, of course, that they don't believe it goes far enough. The Minister at one point in his remarks at the Estimates hearings commented that: "If you believe a voluntary filter should block child abuse, how would you justify having a voluntary filter not block a bestiality or pro-rape website?" This language will be very familiar to those of you who have followed Senator Conroy's role in the debate.

If, like us, you believe that the word "bestiality" does not automatically end a discussion, you can probably think of a few answers to that question. One reason might be that those forms of content, unsavoury as they may be, are not criminal to possess. Another reason might be that child pornography is defined in the statute books, but something like "pro-rape" is quite vague. Perhaps one calls to mind a website that encourages, and even provides instruction on, attacks against women - something none of us would tolerate. What about a website set up by fetishists to explore power games amongst consenting adults? It might not be popular, but is it a menace to public decency?

Playing the bestiality and "pro-rape" cards also begs some important questions. How many bestiality sites are out there? Is there any evidence that Australians are seeking them out? Would those who do be stopped by the filter? If they aren't stopped, will they be harmed? Of course, these questions are not answered by the Minister. If they were, the answers probably wouldn't add up to a public emergency that could be solved by the proposed blacklist.

We must be resigned to the fact that as long as Senator Conroy remains at the helm of internet policy, we're going to be hearing about this great Bestiality Shield. Luckily, there are others in Parliament who have weighed the policy more thoughtfully, and for now it appears the filter would be unlikely to pass through even the lower house. We still remain resolutely opposed to internet censorship, especially the Labor plan, and we'll work to make sure that those other policymakers don't fall for the moral panic line.

EFA Welcomes R18+ games guidelines

2011-05-25T23:48:17Z

Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today welcomed the release of draft
guidelines for the classification of computer games that includes an
adults-only category.

"Australia is the only developed country where computer games with adult
themes are seized at the docks," said EFA Chair Colin Jacobs. "It is long
past the time to harmonise classification laws and give adults the freedom to
choose what to watch and play. Whether the disc goes into the DVD player or
game console, the principle should be the same."

The guidelines include an R18+ category for adults-only games. Games that do
not fit into the MA15+ category are banned for sale in Australia under the
current system. For the new guidelines to be adopted, the agreement of all
the states is required.

"The federal government has shown strong leadership in this area which we
applaud," said Jacobs. "This is something the public wants and it would be a
scandal if one recalcitrant state attorney-general derailed it to score
points or because they thought it was all too hard."

"This isn't about putting more violent games into the hands of kids," added
Jacobs. "It's the opposite, a category that is specifically forbidden to
children. In a free country like ours, giving adults that choice shouldn't be
controversial."

- Ends -

Below is:

- Background information
- Contact details for media

Background:

* Minister's Media Release and draft guidelines
- http://bit.ly/m8Myxx

* Electronic Frontiers Australia
- http://www.efa.org.au/

About EFA:

Electronic Frontiers Australia Inc. (EFA) is a non-profit national
organisation representing Internet users concerned with on-line rights and
freedoms. EFA was established in 1994, is independent of government and
commerce, and is funded by membership subscriptions and donations from
individuals and organisations with an altruistic interest in promoting online
civil liberties.

Media Contacts:

Mr Colin Jacobs
Chair
Phone: 0402 631 955
Email: cjacobs@efa.org.au

Mr Stephen Collins
EFA Spokesperson
Phone: 0410 680 722
Email: trib@efa.org.au

Electronic Frontiers Australia

EFA supports mandatory data breach notification

Related Posts:

EFA congratulates iiNet on its historic High Court victory

Related Posts:

Federal Court decision highlights need for flexible right of fair use in Copyright Act

Related Posts:

Planned US anti-piracy laws a draconian mess

Related Posts:

Melbourne event: War on the Internet

Related Posts:

In principle support of R18+ rating for video games

Related Posts:

New domain names on the way

Related Posts:

EFA News

Related Posts:

Conroy: Filter alive and kicking

Related Posts:

EFA Welcomes R18+ games guidelines

Related Posts: