Australian regulation seems to have come a long way since this research
paper (Can the Internet be regulated? ) funnily enough located in the
APH archives..
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9596/96rp35
Regards all.
Greg
On
And now for some new ammunition for the PJCIS - they've just opened the review
of the
Data Retention program.
Submissions are due 1st July so we can put in a thoughtful submissions - note
this
will probably survive the election period and continue on the other side, so
worth
considering
This passed the Senate after 90 seconds of debate without the bill itself being
made available to MPs last night.
It passed the House today after about four minutes of debate with no
crossbenchers being allowed to speak.
It’ll receive royal assent and become law, probably tomorrow.
But sure,
Apologies to any who consider it noise :-}
MikroTik have released patches addressing IPv6 memory depletion bug in
bugfix/long-term and stable release channels.
Our recommendation is to upgrade all routers with IPv6 enabled (whether
configured or not) to v6.43.14 (bugfix) as soon as
Top posting only...
I saved the original email to respond to, but this
covers everything I wanted to write, so x=i++
scott
--- ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
From: Karl Auer
To: "aus...@ausnog.net"
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 23:18:51 +1100
On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:36 +, Bevan Slattery wrote:
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
Indeed.
Paul Wilkins:
> There is much on the internet that is simply not fit for human
> consumption, and the state ought to have the power to remove it.
> Where the bill specifies
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
From: AusNOG on behalf of Paul Wilkins
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 4:48 pm
To: aus...@ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
I've skimmed the bill, and without apologies, I support
I've skimmed the bill, and without apologies, I support the intent, for the
following reasons:
There is much on the internet that is simply not fit for human consumption,
and the state ought to have the power to remove it. Where the bill
specifies abhorrent violent content, I think most sane
