Yeah even if you only reviewed "flagged" videos it'd be a gargantuan task.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 08:55, Jake Anderson wrote:
> Just for reference youtube would need 18000 humans in seats watching
> youtube 24/7 to have human screening of youtube.
> Say around 72,000 employees give or take.
Just for reference youtube would need 18000 humans in seats watching
youtube 24/7 to have human screening of youtube.
Say around 72,000 employees give or take. If my maths is right (and it
could well be out by an order of magnitude) that's is a nice round
billion dollars in wages cost at US
Here's an honest Government ad on the anti-encryption law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE
___
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
“Tech companies” already employ human screening.
That’s why the Christchurch response that the politicians are all panicking
about worked so well.
For all their faults, I think Facebook’s response to the livestreaming was
superb. According to press accounts a couple of weeks ago, they took it
On 9 Apr 2019, at 2:22 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> 2 - Ensure you have in place a mechanism to match electronic fingerprints of
> material similar to anything identified in a eSafety Commissioner's notice.
Paul, no, you’re really going to have to explain how that’s supposed to work if
you’re
providers with the infrastructure for implementation…unlikely given that
it’s ostensibly broke…
Andy
From: AusNOG On Behalf Of Paul Wilkins
Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2019 12:00 PM
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
1 - Remove specified
They have based their PROJECTIONS of a surplus on the volatile commodities
> market…
>
>
>
> What could possibly go wrong?
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AusNOG *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Wilkins
> *Sent:* Wednesday
1 - Remove specified file based content and similar copies - doable, and
reckless if not actioned by hosting providers.
2 - Proactively remove unspecified content of abhorrent violent nature -
difficult, not reliable, and moot whether required under the legislation
for hosting providers. Arguably
I feel like legislation will compel tech companies to implement human
screening in some capacity, and there will be huge downsides to that - I
mean, which is more likely:
a) screening team members are offered abundant mental health support
resources, given follow-through on reporting (that video
On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 10:56 +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> Now I would say that for instance, if the eSecurity Director posts
> the CRC of a file as being "abhorrent violent" content, and your
> company doesn't expeditiously take down that material, expect
> problems down the pike.
Numerous people
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:56:12AM +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> Now I would say that for instance, if the eSecurity Director posts the CRC
> of a file as being "abhorrent violent" content, and your company doesn't
> expeditiously take down that material, expect problems down the pike. I
> doubt a
truggles with static
>> > images...
>> > How is a provider supposed to monitor video in real time?
>> >
>> > An interesting Open NSFW talk here -
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Bmt7tksvM
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >
>>
me?
> >
> > An interesting Open NSFW talk here -
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Bmt7tksvM
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AusNOG On Behalf Of Peter Fern
> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 Ap
On Behalf Of Peter Fern
Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 2:30 PM
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
On 9/4/19 2:22 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
2 - Ensure you have in place a mechanism to match electronic
fingerprints of material similar to anything identified in a
r video in real time?
An interesting Open NSFW talk here -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Bmt7tksvM
Andy
-Original Message-
From: AusNOG On Behalf Of Peter Fern
Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2019 2:30 PM
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
On
On 9/4/19 2:22 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote:
2 - Ensure you have in place a mechanism to match electronic
fingerprints of material similar to anything identified in a eSafety
Commissioner's notice.
By the by, without a mechanism for the eSafety Commissioner to match
content (a common mechanism for
So best advice I could make specific to hosting providers (not social media
companies) would be, to comply with the legislation:
1 - Update EUAs with a clause that abhorrent violent content breaches the
service agreement.
2 - Ensure you have in place a mechanism to match electronic fingerprints
I'm not sure that the legislation creates a duty to proactively remove
abhorrent violent content. It imposes a condition of "recklessness". Is it
reckless to wait for the eSafety Commissioner to issue a written notice
before addressing the issue?
It's arguable that it's not. If the eSafety
There are good third party clearing houses for some of this stuff. Whether
it's cost effective or appropriate for the average Australian ISP in this
context. We'll find out I suppose.
The Internet Watch Foundation is what we use for .org monitoring and
validation.
You really don't want your own
*474.32 Abhorrent violent conduct*
(1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a person
engages in abhorrent violent conduct if the person:
(a) engages in a terrorist act ; or
(b) murders another person; or
(c) attempts to murder another
On 8/4/19 11:55 am, Paul Wilkins wrote:
There should be little cost to service providers in implementing take
down notices. Video can now easily be fingerprinted, and repeat
postings autoflagged for moderator take down.
This is wildly inaccurate, as evidenced by YouTube's Content ID (at an
*474.32 Abhorrent violent conduct*
(1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a person engages in abhorrent
violent conduct if the person:
(a) engages in a terrorist act ; or
(b) murders another person; or
(c) attempts to murder another person; or
(d) tortures another person; or
(e) rapes another
On Mon, 2019-04-08 at 11:55 +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> There should be little cost to service providers in implementing take
> down notices. Video can now easily be fingerprinted, and repeat
> postings autoflagged for moderator take down.
Video fingerprints can be avoided by transcoding video,
In addition to previous comments, the kind of material that may become
subject to a take down notice, is of such a disturbing character that this
content should already be subject to the fiduciary duties of service
providers, ensuring warnings to those who would find the content
disturbing, and
On 4/7/2019 12:00 PM, ausnog-requ...@lists.ausnog.net wrote:
> They don't. This legislation is grandstanding, using the Christchurch
> tragedy to
> bolster the Coalition's flagging reputation ahead of the Federal election,
> and isn't intended to actually*work*. Not that that'll mean it'll get
On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 06:03:12AM +, Chad Kelly wrote:
> On 4/6/2019 12:00 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> > 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
On 4/6/2019 12:00 PM, ausnog-requ...@lists.ausnog.net wrote:
> 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.
>
>
not a valid protest make…
How about growing a set and standing up to this stupidity?
A
From: AusNOG On Behalf Of Mark Newton
Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2019 4:35 PM
To: Serge Burjak
Cc: aus...@ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] More legislative interventions
This passed the Senate after 90 seconds
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
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,
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 23:1
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
Very scary section
(4) The eSafety Commissioner is not required to observe any requirements of
procedural fairness in relation to the issue of a 3 notice under subsection
(1).
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Paul Wilkins wrote:
>
>
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 10:57, Simon Sharwood wrote:
> So I was in a thing yesterday with a very senior government relations
> person from one of the top 3 clouds. And
So I was in a thing yesterday with a very senior government relations
person from one of the top 3 clouds. And they'd been advised the
legislation had very vague wording, meant that they and all cloud services
had potential liability.
At least one other major cloud's lobbyists had the same
Just to clarify - it was introduced to the Senate and approved last night.
It will hit the House of Reps today.
And the PJCIS hasn't even seen it.
This is flawed in so many ways, and it will affect our industry massively.
Why should anyone build a content related business here? How do we
Parliament has just rushed through more impractical legislation to jail
executives of content providers (that would be all of us) if vile content
is not removed "expeditiously".
Here is some reaction to it...
Overview:
39 matches
Mail list logo
