This week I was interviewed by Phil Dobbie for ZDNet's Twisted Wire program. Also interviewed were Peter Coroneos from the Internet Industry Association and Adrianne Pecotic from AFACT. You can listen to the podcast (direct link (mp3)).

One thing I found disturbing about this interview was AFACT's suggestion that the law was clear and that iiNet had a clear responsibility to monitor its subscribers' internet use and disconnect users who infringe. This is obviously a contested issue, and the law certainly is not clear. The particular requirement of the Safe Harbours are largely untested - both here and in the US - and particularly against ISPs. We have mostly assumed that ISPs were more like common carriers than the P2P networks that have been found responsible for secondary copyright infringement. The iiNet case challenges that assumption, but it is misleading to argue that the law is clear in any meaningful way.

After a very short consultation period, the Attorney-General's Department is soliciting comments on its exposure draft of 'computer network protection' amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth).

EFA's submission addresses our key concern that the proposed legislation provides a very broad exception to the prohibition on interception of network communications for the purposes of ensuring that a network is 'appropriately used'. This is a very broad category that means that all network operators in Australia will be able to monitor the substance of communications that pass over their network for compliance with their Acceptable Use Policies - the terms of which could include nearly anything. The AGD suggests that this is necessary to increase security, but have not shown any convincing justification why the contents of communications need to be examined nor why the scheme should extend beyond corporate networks to all Australian networks - including consumer ISPs.

This proposed changed threatens to radically alter the ability of network operators to intercept, store, and disclose information passing over their networks. There are no safeguards to prevent disclosure to law enforcement agencies or third parties. It is entirely possible for these new provisions to be used to examine P2P filesharing data for copyright violations, for example, and to disclose any captured information to copyright owners.

EFA contends that this exposure draft is far too broad and unjustifiably infringes the privacy of Australian internet users. We call upon the Attorney-General's Department to critically examine the proposed legislation and tighten the exceptions to the broad prohibition on interception to a clear set of defined purposes and parties.

The plaintiff has re-filed in the NSW Supreme Court, once again alleging damages of around $43M in lost film revenues for alleged defamatory statements made by participants on the ZGeek discussion forum.

It now appears that the plaintiff has additionally filed a trade mark application over the name ZGeek and threatened the forum operators with a trade mark infringement action - despite apparently having no legal interest in the mark.

We continue to follow this case closely. The ZGeek operators are soliciting donations in their ongoing legal struggle. Alternatively, if you are a qualified NSW legal practitioner and have the capacity to help out in the pending defamation litigation at a discounted or pro-bono rate, please contact me for more information.