v Potential conflict between corporate practise of monitoring web and email and this prohibition on workplace surveillance.
v Problem of Spam Act
v See David Vaile's presentation at AusCERT, web site
v Widespread attempts to get permission
v
Revise databases.
v Initial striking out of BAT defence due to 'evidence destruction' as motive behind 'document retention' policy.
v Overruled in Court of Appeal
v
v US Department of Justice seeks to examine law firm partner Cannar in NSW Supreme Court
v
Report released today in Moves in
v See our forthcoming Digital Documents Retention White paper, on website soon
v Concerns
about impact on Open Source software in
v Emerging campaign to review the concessions made
v CIE analysis not attempt quantify, criticised by Garnaut, others
v Fair use? Who will raise this?
v Fees charged for library and uni web caching?
v See our Web site: FTA symposium
v Creative Commons licence
v Free For Education
v Conference in November 18
v See our web site: IP conference
v Surveillance without a warrant of potential wide range of messages: email, SMS, MMS, web, voicemail ...
v See EFA and APF
Under current law, an interception
warrant is required to access the contents of email, SMS and voice mail
messages that are temporarily delayed and stored during passage over the
telecommunications system, (e.g. stored on an ISP's or telephone service provider's
equipment pending delivery to the intended recipient), the same as is required
to intercept a telephone call.
The Bill would remove the existing
protection from interception for email, SMS and voice mail messages that have
not been delivered to the intended recipient, thereby allowing government
agencies (not only police), private investigation agencies, telephone companies
and ISPs and other businesses to access such communications, without a warrant
of any type.
Although the
Commonwealth Government frequently cites enthusiasm for "technology
neutral" laws, this Bill is certainly not. It treats email, SMS and voice
mail telecommunications quite differently from facsimile and telephone call
telecommunications.
v http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/tia-bill2004-sc.html
v Behind closed doors, US influence weakening drafts
v Best practice, or weakest?
v APEC ecommerce
v APPCC Formed 2003, global membership
v Submissions
v See our web site: APPCC
v VeriSign attempt to redirect bad URLs Sept 2003
v Forced to stop
v Verisign case against ICANN, claim damage business, antitrust, outside power
v See our web site: Selby LTT
v Sun announcing the open sourcing of Solaris and possibly java.
v ATO has also promised to be "more open" and RDBMS sales on Linux are booming
v SCO: Most legal observers discount
the legal claims by SCO as illegitimate. But there are
bigger challenges to contemplate than those from SCO. In fact, users face a
convergence of issues that may ultimately lead to other claims being brought
against Linux and open-source software.
v
ttp://www.opensourcelaw.biz