Tagged: australia Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • joly 2:50 am on 08/20/2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: australia,   

    WEBCAST TODAY: @InternetAUS Experts Session on Encryption in Parliament House, Canberra #aussiesencrypt 

    livestreamToday, August 20 2018, at 07:00 UTC Internet Australia and the Internet Society present an Experts Session on Encryption at Parliament House in Canberra. During the session, international and local experts from across the field will discuss the technical aspects of encryption and digital security. They will explain how encryption is used to secure communications and data, and explore its role in the Australian digital economy. Experts will also discuss the risks associated with attempting to provide exceptional access to encrypted systems i.e. backdoors. Speakers: Keith Besgrove, Internet Australia; Dr. Vanessa Teague, University of Melbourne; Dr. Hal Abelson, MIT; Christine Runnegar, Internet Society; Linus Chang, Scram Software; Mark Nottingham, IAB & IETF; Martin Thomson, Mozilla & IAB; Peter Tonoli, EFA, Internet Australia. The session will be webcast live on the Internet Society Livestream Channel.

    View on Livestream: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/aussiesencrypt/
    Twitter: #aussiesencrypt http://bit.ly/aussiesencrypt

  • joly 3:03 pm on 07/10/2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , australia, ,   

    Join the @InternetSociety DSNC member hangout 6:30pm ET Weds July 12 #a11y 

    zoomThe 10th weekly Internet Society Disabled and Special Needs Chapter hangout will this week be at the later time of 6:30pm ET on Wednesday July 12 2017. Please join and share your #a11y interests. This week’s special guest will be Gunela Astbrink, a director of ISOC Australia, and a leading voice on accessibility within the Internet Society and the wider Internet Governance realm. There will be live captioning.

    What: Internet Society Disabled & Special Needs Chapter Weekly Hangout
    When: Wednesday July 12 2017 – 18:30-19:30 EDT | 22:30-23:30 UTC | 08:30-09:30 AEST
    Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/623946888
    iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +14086380968,623946888# or +16465588656,623946888#
    Telephone: +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) or +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) – Meeting ID: 623 946 888
    International numbers available: https://zoom.us/zoomconference?m=GbFzjTFwFH1PFm1Ly8Nem33t7jnICnUn

  • joly 2:22 pm on 09/20/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: australia, , , holly raiche, , ,   

    Video: Holly Raiche – NBN: Taking the Internet to the People – INET Colombo presentation #NBN #broadband 

    At INET Colombo in Sri Lanka in May 2011, Holly Raiche, Executive Director of ISOC-AU gave a presentation ‘NBN: Taking the Internet to the People‘ (slides) – with a summary of progress thus far on Australia’s National Broadband Network.

    Part 1

    Part 2

  • joly 12:28 pm on 01/29/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: australia, , ,   

    Video: Vint Cerf & Geoff Huston at linux.conf.au #IPv6 

    ISOC pioneers Vint Cerf & Geof Huston were among the keynote speakers at linux.conf.au
    in Brisbane Australia this last week. Topics included IPv6 and the establishment of the Australian National Broadband Network. Videos of their talks are below:
    Vint Cerf

    Geoff Huston

  • joly 2:42 pm on 11/27/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: australia,   

    Structural separation gets the green light in Australia #structsep 

    The Australian Senate has passed legislation that would split Telstra’s retail and wholesale divisions to make way for the National Broadband Network. The bill facilitates an $11 billion deal under which Telstra would migrate its copper and cable broadband networks to Government-owned NBN Co.

    [Source: ITnews.com.au]

  • joly 6:51 am on 08/24/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: australia, , ,   

    Geoff Huston on Wired vs. Wireless #broadband 

    Geoff HustonGeoff Huston’s latest Internet Society ISP Column examines the Australian scenario where, in the recent election, the vying parties plumped down on either side of the wired vs wireless question. He concludes that, just like the election, there is no outright winner.

    He notes the reality that while wireless IP service often actually costs less to provide, users are prepared to pay more for it, giving providers little incentive to invest in wire. But wireless bandwidth scalability is, ultimately, limited. What’s more its inherent unreliability is TCP hostile. However ubiquitous wireless service would be a lot cheaper to implement: $6B (AUS) vs $43B (AUS) for wired.

    He then gets to the big question, which all countries including the USA are having to address, namely how much of the taxpayer’s money is worth expending, and to what effect:

    Where should public funds be spent? On a comprehensive revamp of the wired access network, replacing the aged copper pair telephone network with a highly capable fibre optic network? Or on improving access in those areas where the copper pair network simply cannot support high speed access by public investment in wireless infrastructure?

    In trying to answer this question, we return to a persistent theme in the area of public communications infrastructure. What’s the role of public capital investment and how is that balanced against the role of private capital investment? Is it possible for private investment to fulfill the entirety of a public agenda? Given that a capable, cost efficient and effective public communications infrastructure that encompasses an entire national constituency is seen as a core deliverable of any national communications policy regime, then how is this best achieved today?

    To move back from generalities to the specifics of this broadband investment choice, is it realistic to expect that we have further decades of useful life from an already ageing copper pair infrastructure? As a consequence, should current public investment focus on current gaps in the national infrastructure, using a relatively cost effective approach of plugging these gaps using wireless infrastructure where the copper network is simply inadequate, and leave the remainder of the network in situ, as being adequate for the moment Or should we leave such wireless infrastructure investment to private enterprise, given that this technology is enjoying strong consumer attention and there is a continuing investment in wireless infrastructure by the industry actors. Instead, should a public investment program focus on a longer term national program of replacing the copper loop with a comprehensive fibre optic network? From such a longer term perspective perhaps the NBN is the better approach, as we need to concede that the level of investment required for a national very high speed access infrastructure in a fibre access network is probably well beyond the scope of private capital works investment. So far all that the industry has achieved in this space has been the rewiring of the CBDs in the major cities, while the upgrading of remainder of the network has been effectively ignored. It appears that this is, like many major infrastructure projects in the past, one that properly sits in the realm of a public investment program, in the same way that we’ve made investments in national road, rail and shipping infrastructure in the past.

  • joly 4:46 am on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: australia, , ,   

    Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy exoneration 

    The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft AFACT today lodged an appeal against the legal judgment which found Australian Internet provider iiNet was not responsible for illegal movie downloads by its customers, arguing the Federal Court had erred on 15 grounds

    “The court found large scale copyright infringements proven, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them,” said Neil Gane, executive director of AFACT.”In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorisation of copyright infringement.”

    via Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy ruling.

    • joly 5:32 pm on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      More details of AFACT’s grounds for appeal are here.

      Central to the appeal is an argument that the judge applied an incorrect test for whether iiNet “authorised” the copyright infringement.

      Also AFACT will:

      • seek to overturn the ruling that iiNet had a repeat infringer policy that allowed it to claim safe harbour under the Copyright Act.

        • challenge Justice Cowdroy over his reasons for rejecting evidence.
        • raise further questions over what could be inferred from iiNet’s choice of witnesses. The film industry had questioned in the trial why staff with more intimate technical knowledge of the iiNet network were not called on to give evidence.
      • question the number of infringements, which was a contentious issue in the case.
    • joly 3:45 am on 02/26/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I thank Paul Brooks for the following info:

      Five ways AFACT lost-the-iiNet case

      I won’t quote the whole article, but one section jumped out to me as being of special relevence to this group (emphasis added by me):

      2. The time didn’t fit the crime

      AFACT put forward an argument that because iiNet had failed to stop users infringing copyright on its network, it had “failed to take reasonable steps” to gain protection under safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.

      But as John Fairbairn, partner at Clayton Utz points out, AFACT “held out” on defining what reasonable steps would have been beyond disconnection of a customer.

      As such, there were “no other reasonable steps” the judge could focus on.

      The Court found that iiNet’s only power to prevent infringement – to terminate users – was not a relevant power under the Copyright Act.

      Justice Cowdroy then found that cutting off access was not a reasonable step.

      “The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step,” Cowdroy’s judgement said, as it would “also prevent that person or persons from using the internet for all the non-infringing uses.”

      In doing so, Cowdroy gave full appreciation to the significance of internet access and what it means to Australians, and the role of the courts in determining infringement.
      …and later…

      “AFACT’s notices were found to be defective because they did not establish copyright infringement as AFACT kept its methodology secret, they did not have any assurance of their veracity or indemnify iiNet for reliance, and they did not make clear AFACT’s right to give them on behalf of copyright owners,” said Australian Digital Alliance’s Dawes.

      “Thus, iiNet was entitled to be sceptical about the claims being made. Therefore it had no ‘knowledge’ of the alleged infringements by its users.”

      Determinations of infringement are complex, Cowdroy’s judgement said, and should only be made by a court. To do otherwise, he said, would be “highly problematic.”


    • joly 5:18 pm on 03/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

      News comes today that iiNet have filed a notice of contention in the appeal


      The first issue iiNet is contending relates to Section 112E of the Copyright Act 1968, which states that a carriage service provider that “facilitates … a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in an audio-visual item merely because another person uses the facilities”.

      Cowdroy had said in his decision that he was bound to rule in line with the 2006 case, Universal Music Australia versus Cooper copyright case, in which the Full Court — on appeal — decided a critical factor was whether the service provider had knowledge of copyright breaches occurring on its facilities.

      The judge found that iiNet did have knowledge that infringements were occurring on its facilities, therefore the protections under 112E “ceased to have operation”.

      Cowdroy’s overarching decision was that iiNet had not authorised its customers’ infringements, which meant in terms of his final decision the point was moot. Yet it may come into play in the upcoming appeal process in which the legal teams of both sides will contest iiNet’s alleged authorisation of its customers’ breaches.

      The second point of contention was Cowdroy’s decision that privacy provisions under the Telecommunications Act did not prevent iiNet from using its customer information to assist AFACT’s investigations. The question here was whether iiNet had the power to prevent infringements on its network and whether it took “reasonable” steps to prevent this from occurring.

  • joly 12:28 am on 12/09/2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: australia, , , ,   

    Australia debates broadband initiative 

    The Australian Government has organised a forum to debate benefits and structures from the planned A$40B plus investment in our National Broadband Network, in a session that will take place on 10 and 11 Dec 2009 (Australian time).

    ISOC-AU has been joint hosting the Australian IPv6 Summit 2009 over the last two days, where we have heard the point that IPv6 is imperative for continued growth of the open worldwide Internet, including from Leslie Dagle of ISOC. Now we need to ensure that this principle is embodied in plans for Australia’s National Broadband Network. See:

    Online input into the Australian discussions is welcomed. You can submit ideas and view streaming of presentations. See:

    In line with discussions at the Australian IPv6 Summit, I have submitted the
    following suggestion just now:
    “The National Broadband Network must be future proofed and as flexible
    as possible, incorporating and making available to users technologies
    such as IPv6 from day one, and fully available service enablers like
    high grade DNS (IPv6 of course).”
    Tony, ISOC-AU

    I encourage all ISOC members and supporters to go to the Website
    and vote for this idea so that it comes to the top of the list. URL:

    Please post this request to as many lists as possible. Thank you for your support.

    thanks, Tony

    | Tony Hill president@isoc-au.org.au |
    | President Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU) |
    | Tel +61 2 6257 5544 PO Box 152 |
    | Mobile 041 212 8755 Civic Square ACT 2608 Australia |
    | Fax +61 2 6262 9938 http://www.isoc-au.org.au |

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc