Answer one of the following questions.

NB: If you are doing GENL0231, you may wish to also additionally observe the implications of Web 2.0, social networking or user generated content developments for your answer.

1. Problems with consumer confidence resulting from risks to security of online transactions and a history of internet scams have been nominated as factors that have inhibited the growth of e-commerce in Australia, including banking as an optional special case. Assess the level of protection from Internet scams that the law currently offers to buyers and sellers, or online banking customers, on the Internet, offering any suggestions for measures that may improve consumer confidence. Look in particular at the recent review of the EFT Code of Conduct in Australia, the proposals to transfer liability for unauthorised transactions related to computer malware infections to customers, and the contrary outcome in New Zealand, where this proposal did go ahead, leaving the two countries with different rules in this area.

2. The regulation of the Internet in Australia is characterised by attempts to prevent certain conduct. The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, the Spam Act 2003 and Schedule 5 and 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 all aim to prohibit specified activities in relation to the Internet, and to assign responsibility and partial immunity to ISPs and others. Assess both the effectiveness of these three Acts to meet their stated aims, and the overall approach to Internet regulation in Australia. Compare at least one of these with an international counterpart, such as in the US, UK, HK, Singapore, or Europe. [For the specific issue of censorship, see the question below.]

3. The Labor government proposes to commit c.40 billion dollars to extend broadband infrastructure, via the National Broadband Network. Assess the likely impact of the rules about competitive access, and argue the case for either stronger controls on competitive access to the proposed infrastructure funded by this public subsidy, or a more ‘free market’ approach that takes less account of regulation designed to restrain monopoly behaviour (and that thus may result in a different structure for telecoms access services). Frame your answer with a view to the best interests of users, especially poor, disadvantaged, regional, disabled or elderly users, or the broader public interest, not the interests of market participants or specific businesses.
   
   Refer to any document or statement issued during the course by the Minister, Senator Conroy (and his colleagues in parliament from any party or none) in relation to the operation of these provisions, or the handling of proposals, and material coming out of Parliamentary proceedings, reports, and related documents.

4. While some critics hold the view that Australia’s various defamation laws stifle public debate, others think that they are necessary in order to protect people’s reputation from unfair damage. Review up to four defamation cases decided in Australia in the last 10 years, especially those decided since the uniform national changes to the law in 2005, and provide your view on the level of protection the law offers to both reputation, on the one hand, and free speech on the other.  Also comment on any other recent legal developments which might affect a citizen’s capacity to freely express themselves about any topics they choose, and in any media.

5. The Classification Act 1995 and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003 have been used to classify and in some cases prohibit the sale of computer games in Australia. One of the reasons that games might be banned is that they are classified ‘R18+’. Examine two recent decisions of the Classification Board or the Classification Review Board relating to computer games and present your views on whether the Australian system for classifying games adequately meets the needs of both games users and the wider community. Take into account well supported and researched arguments and evidence about the impact of the more recent examples of immersive, violent multiplayer online games, where relevant, and refer to reliable evidence about whether this causes harm in your answer -- do not just assert a position without considering in detail the arguments of the other side, and the evidence and experience material which may support their case.

6. Alternatively, outline the arguments both for and against mandatory ISP level content filtering using the confidential 'RC' blacklist from ACMA. Consider which types of behaviour might be targeted (inadvertent or deliberate), what types of content (just 'child porn' or a wider range, and if so how classified), what methods (just http/Web or others like P2P etc.), and how the list is made and what might be on it. Consider evidence about the effectiveness or otherwise of this for various purposes especially promoting the interests of young people, and compare with other means to eg. protect against the harm from child porn. Consider international comparisons, and draw on infromation from recent debates, including the UNSW forums. Also consider how, if possible, the proposals could be implemented without Parliamentary support for changes to legislation.
   
   Supplementary note: this is a large topic, so we suggest you restrict your paper to only one or a few aspects. Perhaps the real and imagined needs of parents concerned about their offspring engaging with online material, and the degree to which the proposed static filter will deliver on consumer expectations. Is a flawed scheme better than nothing, a contribution to an overall suite of remedies, or in some way worse than nothing (perhaps due to encouragement of a false sense of security)?
   - Make sure you specifiy the way you are limiting the scope of the discussion.
   - Avoid simplistic reiterations of passionate advocacy positions, investigate the extent to which evidence exists to support or undermine positions: assess the strenght of the arguments.

7. In both the US and Australia record companies have been diligent in pursuing companies or individuals that provide software or online services which might enable users to exchange music files at little or no cost, with a view to making them also liable for unauthorised copying by their customers. Taking into account the key court cases about such file sharing, and who is responsible for what (including those dealing with iiNet, Cooper, Kazaa and Grokster cases), assess arguments made by record companies seeking to protect their rights and those of their artists; software providers; and the users who benefit from the software. Comment on whether the changes to the law introduced by the Copyright Act amendments in December 2006 have affected or improved the balance in any significant way, or consider how the recent case started, but not yeat heard in court, against iiNet fits in with the principles developed in those earlier cases. In particular consider the impact of the iiNet v Roadshow and others case in the Federal Court in 2010 (appeal decision due any day).

8. (New topic) Wikileaks: is it journalism? National Security threat? Illegal? (Necessary?) secrecy of state v. levelling intent of individuals? Describe the key legal features of the recent publication of the next in the series of US diplomatic cables by Wikileaks. Set out the competing arguments from supporters, impartial observers and critics concerning the risks and benefits of the activity, how it should be characterised, the basis for it to be legal or illegal, and ramifications for say the reintroduction of a D-Notice style government gag system in Australia, or the impact on the proposed Internet filter: Does its RC category test mean this material could be filtered? Refer as much as possible to expert legal commentary, not just popular narrative or news.

• Law cover sheet for assignments [PDF] - must be signed and attached to front of submissions.
  Note there are also copies of this in paper at the law office counter.
  (NB: If permission has been given to submit electronically because there is no other option, an electronic signature is OK, either scanned real signature or notation indicating intention for this to be a valid signature such as "(signed) your name".)