[LINK] RFC: IIA Draft Code re Privatised Content Censorship

rene rene.lk at libertus.net
Thu Apr 17 12:30:04 AEST 2008


On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:57:52 +0800, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 17/04/2008, at 7:55 AM, rene wrote:
[...]
>> While I more or less agree with that, imo it should also be noted
>> that the
>> IIA code itself is a direct result of government regulation/
>> censorship.
>
> Oh, absolutely.  Don't anyone think that the government's co-
> regulatory approach to Internet governance in Australia is for
> industry's benefit.  It serves the government's interests first and
> foremost by allowing them to co-opt the industry into supporting
> government policy and thereby securing greater compliance, reaping the
> benefits of the industry's expertise thus saving money, and creating a
> more adaptable instrument that can be put in place more quickly.

Exactly.

> Also, I forgot to disclose in the last email that I chair the IIA Spam
> Taskforce that is/was responsible for drafting the Spam Code of
> Practice, so whilst I wasn't posting with that hat on, maybe
> appropriate salt needs to be taken with anything I say.

Well, I certainly wasn't intending to imply anything like that - I knew 
you'd be aware of the purpose of the Code and weren't intending to 
misrepresent anything, just that obviously I thought a lot of people on 
this list may not realise that it's not "privatised censorship".

I'd also add that while I've had issues with some aspects of IIA codes from 
time to time, there's also been instances where this code/"co-regulatory"  
situation has enabled a more technically realistic approach to compliance 
to be taken (than tech-clueless politicians may otherwise enact), thereby 
avoiding what could otherwise be the worst excesses of government 
regulation (and imo avoiding those worst excesses is of benefit to 
end-users who don't want a government-mandated nanny, not only to industry 
in terms of compliance costs).

However, I have no comment in that regard in relation to the latest (draft) 
code because although I read it yesterday, it's imo just as much a 
complicated mess as Sch 7 itself, so much analysis time would need to be 
spent. 

Irene





 







More information about the Link mailing list