Conroy slams iiNet court defence

By Suzanne Tindal, ZDNet.com.au

31 March 2009 12:04 PM

Tags: afact, court, defence, iinet, legal, stephen conroy, minister, yes

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has slammed iiNet, calling its defence in the Federal Court case brought against it by the Australian Federation against Copyright Theft something which "belongs in a Yes Minister episode".

Stephen Conroy at the ATUG Awards
(Credit: Suzanne Tindal/ZDNet.com.au)

"I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies," he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. "Stunning defence, stunning defence," he continued in what appeared to be a sarcastic comment.

I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy

"I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode."

Shadow Communications Minister Nick Minchin, speaking afterwards, said he believed Conroy's jibe was outrageous and only served to get back at iiNet for its exit from the government's ISP filtering trial. "I have to say his handling of his promise [the National Broadband Network] is much more typical of what you would see on Yes Minister," Minchin said.

Conroy believed the iiNet case would become further reaching than just on copyright matters, also touching on providers who allowed their networks to be used for services such as mobile premium offerings which were operating in an unfair manner towards consumers.

"The capacity to ignore what the customers are doing and claim no responsibility is being tested in court right now," he said. "It could be a ground-breaking case."

The theme of consumer protection was the focus of his speech, with the minister echoing the disgust ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel had expressed at an ATUG conference early this month about the level of consumer dissatisfaction with the telecommunications industry.

He talked about ways of improving the industry's reputation, including announcing a new review that would look into improving the process of creating industry codes, which Conroy believed took far too long, meaning the industry did not act quickly enough on emerging technologies. He also touched on giving industry bodies such as ACMA the powers to be able to tackle problem points.

"The government has determined to take a clear role in this," he said.

Talkback (53)
Print
E-mail
Share
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Reddit
- Slashdot
- StumbleUpon

Talkback 53 comments

Add your opinion

'Yes Minister' Conroy Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Have to agree with Nick Minchin on this one. Conrory, you are straight out of Yes Minister with your pathetically useless internet filtering plan. So many industry experts are telling you it will not work, but like a good little Minister, you're going to go ahead with it because you say so.

Get a clue Conroy.

Yes Minister Brian -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127251)

I agree. Senaror Conroy is being *courageous* with his *novel* plans and is not behaving like someone who is *sound*.

Speaking of Yes Minister Observer -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127251)

From Yes Minister itself:

"Two kinds of government chair correspond with the two kinds of minister: one sort folds up instantly and the other sort goes round and round in circles."

Guess which one Conroy is?

Then Telstra ought to monitor phone calls Anonymous -- 31/03/09

If ISPs should know what their customers are doing on the net, then the SAME telecommunications laws would require Telstra/optus/etc to KNOW what people are saying/planning on the phones too.

Phone calls are also used for illegal purposes, yet the minister is not calling for them to be monitored. Of course he is not, then he would have ALL of the citizens against him.

why stop with telstra? timp -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127255)

While we are at it, lets force Australia Post to inspect every letter that gets sent through its network, AND be liable for anything illegal that someone posts.

And lets make mainroads liable for anyone who is speeding on their roads. How can they possibly claim that they dont know/arent responsible for people breaking the law on their infrastructure?

Why Stop at all. Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127259)

Let us make everyone else but the person or people that commit any crimes. Kid ducks into the movie theatre without paying. The movie industry sues the cinema, The bus company he rode on to get there, the state governement for the roads, the cops for not doing there job, Kmart for supplying his clothes, and you never know he might of bought a camera to handycam the film, so sue all the handycam makers (except sony cause they want to do the suing not be sued themselves).

*Also conroy said Iinet's comments are like Yes Minister.... he does realise that none of the directors or employees of iiNet work for the Aus Government? Maybe he doesn't.

Pity Conroy does not know of the PRIVACY laws. Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Conroy needs to learn basic privacy and then learn about Australia's privacy Laws.

Yes Minister title belongs to you Senator Conroy.

And if ISPs were to keep tabs on their customers, who is going to pay for all the hush-hush spy equipment and the staff to review customers activities to determine if the content was a copyrighted song, or the musings of a 15 year old who named his song the same as one of the million or so copyrighted songs.

Conroy get a brain.

Spot on Brian -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127256)

It is called the "Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979" and to quote Electronic Frontiers Australia's description of it, "This Act prohibits the interception of communications passing over a telecommunications system and prohibits access to stored communications (i.e. email, SMS and voice mail messages stored on a carrier's equipment) except where authorised in specified circumstances". I understand it applies to ISPs as much as it applies to telcos.

If iiNet had said they knew their customers were dealing in copyrighted material, it could only be because they had broken the law and looked. They best they could do is parrot the allegations from AFACT.

I would also question AFACT's members' ability to legitimately identify copyright material in the first place based on the difficulties Viacom seems to be having in the US. They are taking Google/YouTube to court over similar copyright breaches and have been found issuing 'take down' notices for material posted by their own subsiduaries. Apparently, Nickelodeon posted some Spongebob Squarepants promotional material on YouTube (Nickelodeon own the character) and Viacom, who own Nickelodeon sent letters to YouTube threatening them to remove it or else.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility for a similar thing to happen here where someone downloads legitimately posted promotional material put up by the left hand of a company, and its right hand declares it a breach of copyright and has the downloader cut off as punishment.

how exactly would they know? Anonymous -- 31/03/09

And how, minister, would you expect them to know if their users are downloading illegal content? While we are on the topic, why is their responsiblity anyway? If you support these ridiculous claims by AFACT, I would be expecting a good many allegations of illegal file sharing on your own ip address before too long. Doesnt matter whether or not you did it, right? Allegations is enough, byebye internet.

Consumer protection??? Angrinator -- 31/03/09

iiNet are *TRYING* to protect their consumers RIGHT NOW!

But surprise, surprise, The Minister for Bulldust, Censorship and Delusions of Ethicality is siding with the Media Cartels and their self-appointed fences like the Australian League of Internet Extortionists.

Yeah, the Rudd Labor Government's Internet Censorship Scheme was *REALLY* all about protecting children, wasn't it, Senator Conroy? And I'll bet when all the Big Media Cartels start asking to have "websites promoting intellectual property theft" added to the ACMA blacklist, you'll have NOO problem whatsoever, will you?

Jerk.

What a load Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Well, I've seen it all...

The Vic law system can call for Underbelly to be banned so as to not unduly influence a legal proceeding or prejudice it, but a minister can stand up and decry a defense that essentially says "If our customers are breaking the law, use legal remedies rather than getting us to police them for you".

What a joke.

I'd ask when Rudd is going to flush this turd of a minister but I suspect he is just a glove puppet of his FÃ¼hrer...

Permission to spread FUD. Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127263)

With no noise coming from the PM, the public must assume Conroy has full permission to rant about subjects; that he clearly does not understand.

Hear hear.... Tanar -- 01/04/09 (in reply to #320127263)

And what about the standard practice of not commenting on an ongoing court case / investigation?
Oh that's right..... doesn't apply if you get the chance to comment negatively on a company that has shown you up in the media recently.

Conroy - you were making inroads on QandA the other night (doing an ok job of defending the indefensible) - but you just can't help but put your foot in it can you?

What an unpleasant man Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Perhaps he should keep to stuttering and mumbling trying to explain basic questions on his internet censorship plan - before he gets knee deep in very complex copyright and technological discussions about p2p. Because only someone this clueless could show his face in public again after the totally stupid remarks he has made.

Conroy FUD Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Wow. It amazing that a communications minister can become so disliked by the industry.

How can Conroy believe his ineptitude will not be ridiculed, the public is not yet banned from broadcasting their continually increasing dislike and distrust of a minister.

"I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode." - Stephen Conroy

To Conroy
I believe you should be an Yes Minister series character.
From a not-so-incompetent-user

Bye Bye Conroy Steven -- 31/03/09

Conroy's statements just keeps getting better and better... not content with trying to breach the separation of church and state by imposing his religious "morality" on the entire population, now he's trying to breach the separation of powers. If that's not a good enough excuse for Kevin Rudd to replace him ASAP, I don't know what is.

Its not just US Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Look at what is happening in the US with Obama, Bidden and the RIAA (google: obama bidden riaa). Recent announcements re iinets trial coincide with our pet lambs trip to the US (as well as recent stupid statements on Afghanistan and reserve currencies)

ISpyP's? Anonymous -- 31/03/09

So ISP's should be spying on their customers, doing the job of the authorities?
Will ISpyP's get a budget allocation from the public purse for these activities?
Wouldn't that be a breach of the privacy act in any case?

Yes it is. Mat -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127325)

If this case does proceed We can as iiNet customers get ourselves excluded from any monitoring that breaches privacy.

OMG Who is feeding this bozo his lines? Anonymous -- 31/03/09

There must be a real party going on in the ministerial office as they think up new gaffs to feed this bozo. Reminds me of the "welease woger" skit from Monthy Python. Senator Conwoy doesnt have a basic underestanding of the how the Internet works or more disturbingly Australian law.

Nah He can be that bad! Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127327)

Most politicians are not that stupid. Well At least their minders arent. I just wonder what they are trying to distract us from..

Distraction? Angrinator -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127329)

This commentary is to distract us from the Rudd Labor Government's Internet Censorship Scheme.

The RLGICS is to distract us from his piddle-poor handling of the National Broadband Network.

The NBN is to distract us from backroom deals with Big Media and ALIE...which brings us back to where we started.

Conroy's actually a genius. All he has to do now is eliminate the middle man, and let all the distractions keep feeding each other.

The Full Conjob Reece -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127331)

I can't think of a better way of putting it, distraction. Maybe Conroy isn't as stupid as he is acting. He is still a Conjob though

Rudd, Sack Him! Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Time after time Conroy proves he should not be in his position. If it was anyone else they would have been fired by now.
Listen to the people who elected you Rudd. He needs to be removed.

Conroy statements must be censored for the duration Rob Demon -- 31/03/09

As they have the potential to influence a current trial, any statement made by Conroy must be censored by all media until the completion.
As shown in earlier statements, it would be illegal to monitor the content so how could they legally 'know' what is being downloaded. Sure, they would obviously suspect and presume, but can't prove.
Yes Minister indeed. Actually he appears more Keystone Cops.

government takes a role wtf and what a joke Mark -- 31/03/09

at the age of 16. im nearly killed on government property owned by the STA in which is now known as TransAdelaide or AdelaideMetro.

For approx 15 to 25 mins, I was fully thrashed and smashed into by a group of 3, the government employee and communitty leader actually did nothing to prevent further harm nor provide medical assistance after the attack had finished. The government organisation, were informed of the attack and did nothing in regards to providing medical.

The fact this government body was compelled too by duty of care, failed in that duty with criminal negelance and also criminal intent for the only conclusion too their conduct of not providing medical is in actual fact of them escaping a public liability claim.

Due to the attack my whole life has been fragged, in every aspect due to pernament physcological damage from post traumatic stress in which affects my abilities to function both personally and socially. Medical after the attack was mandatory, then my legal rights for compensation criminally denied by a government body soley responsible through their criminal intent and negelance, they were fully aware that a public liability claim would have resulted in millions. Due to the governments criminal conduct, im now disabled in which if my legal rights for medical and compensation would have been met, I wouldnt have occurred a back injury.

At the age of 16 and nearly killed and the government did nothing, didnt provide assistance in any shape or form, 100 percent obligated by law too do so. So seeing this article and these government officals proclaim that a government takes a role - wtf is the role model your trying too acheive, especially with me when the government allowed me to be smashed nearly too death.

So in actual fact, my whole life every moment of every day. My whole life has been infringed - I was a minor - the STA employee was an adult and had access to equipement to notify police and prevent further harm happening - the government is actually more responsible for more than meets the eyes in regards to choices or life experiences throughout my life after the attack occured.

Yes Minister Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Senator Conroy, you have just demonstrated a classic case of projection.

Its time to go Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Conroy its time you recognized how inept you are. You abuse those who have defended the net from those criminals but rather than solve the problem with supply side enforcement you follow the same failed consumer-side enforcement that has failed so miserably in the national drug trade.

Give the money to the AFP's and prosecute the scum, drive them off the net as I and other sysadmins have been doing for over a decade.

Conroy you show your ignorance every time you speak on ICT, you are an embarrassment to this country domestically and Internationally.. Time Magazines "Idiot of the Year"

Kevin> Sack this fool or are you just another spineless fiqure-head without a clue and without a solution.

The Govt in the Firing line Anonymous -- 31/03/09

So by his logic, assuming the NBN (I know stop laughing) goes ahead, does that mean when someone downloads something copyrighted on their taxpayer funded superfast network (I said stop laughing) they (the govt) are now responsible?

To quote Yes Minister "Two kinds of government chair correspond with the two kinds of minister: one sort folds up instantly and the other sort goes round and round in circles."

Which are you Steve?

Sneaky "Con"roy Anonymous -- 31/03/09

""The capacity to ignore what the customers are doing and claim no responsibility is being tested in court right now," he said. "It could be a ground-breaking case.""

Conroy is just itching for iiNet to lose this case; then suddenly he almost has a legal mandate to monitor all traffic on the internet.

""The government has determined to take a clear role in this," he said."

Phew, glad they're tackling the big issues ...

Commenting on an active case? Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Why is Conroy even commenting on an active case?

Every other gov person states that they DON'T comment on active cases!

This is abuse of office - indeed, very close some form of contempt of court, surely!?

contempt? Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127346)

Thats what I was thinking. Conroy is actively trying to bias the outcome of a Court proceeding, which for any other case would be considered contempt! The Labor Party is probably being funded by the big media cartels, pushing for ISP monitoring that will help identify copyright violations. It explains why the TV networks rarely give his terrible filter proposal any news coverage at all.

A sad state of affairs! Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Geeez.. how many posters do we have on the Liberal/Telstra and iiNet payroll? You should really all declare your interests when you post. My interest is in ensuring that our nations leaders (whatever party they are from) are supported. The deliberate and manipulative ill intended negative statements made by a certain few show the unhappiness and negativity that the posters live in. I truly hope those whom engage in such behaviour can find inner peace and happiness and relieve themselves from the bitter existence they live in. Shouldn't we all be supporting each other?

Sad indeed Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127348)

My interest is in ensuring our nation's leaders are held accountable. The deliberate and manipulative ill-intended negative statements made by Senator Conroy contribute to the unhappiness and negativity that the voters live in.

sad Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127349)

Me too that's why *we* voted the last mob out.

very sad Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127348)

least you only accused people of being on the iiNet/Telstra/Liberal payroll and didn't fall back on Conroy's favourite move of accusing all those who disagree with him of being paedophiles.

Mindless support? Reece -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127348)

i love how you accuse posters here of being on some payroll, I work for myself and make sure I will never have to rely on a Government. It is far too obvious that neither party thinks too far past the next election nor past how much worse the other party is to them.
If they want support, they should work for it and im sorry but you can tell your boss Sen Conjob he's doing his hardest to miscommunicate with the Australian public and to abuse his position (as already mentioned above commenting on an active court hearing)

Support the leaders? Tim B -- 01/04/09 (in reply to #320127348)

You may misunderstand how our electoral system works.... But they are SUPPOSED to be working for us!

We should not be mindlessly accepting and praising the "leaders" WE CHOSE. They should be asking us what we want, attempting to put into effect WHAT WE WANT.
Under the way Australia works, when an entire nation poo-poos an idea, the "leader" should listen.

A visit from Washington... Anonymous -- 31/03/09

""I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies," he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. "Stunning defence, stunning defence,"

So every Australian isp is required to do deep packet inspection?
Did an Australian federal minister just confirming this?

Enjoy your gardening leave...

WWHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOO. Anonymous -- 31/03/09 (in reply to #320127350)

The frightening thing is that this is the guy running the NBN tender.

rock and a hard place paul -- 31/03/09

You know, I always despised helen coonan, but given the option between an idiot and a fascist ill take the idiot any day.

Ignore?.. Privacy? easily confused.. apparently Reece -- 31/03/09

"The capacity to ignore what the customers are doing and claim no responsibility is being tested in court right now," he said. "It could be a ground-breaking case."
Wow, your showing your true colours there Conroy, carefull. Everyones gonna know your a control freak nut job at this rate (well more ppl will notice)
Why are you beating around the bush on this one, here's a plan why not just buy Telstra back, kill the competition and monitor everyone, it would beat all this underhanded tactics your trying.
Keep living up to your building identity.. Conjob.

Wrong Approach Anonymous -- 31/03/09

If they want to stop piracy, someone has to come up with a better plan. Perhaps make commercial material only available to securely registered.. whatever. I don't have an answer. But it's not the current ones being tested for all the reasons mentioned in the comments here.

Now they monitor Whirlpool, let's hope the points are made there strongly also.

They make great reading. Thanks.

Dear Mr Conroy Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Dear Sir,

You have absolutely no idea what your doing. Please consult your children when determining policy as well as for programming your video recorder.

* I do not support internet filtering
* I do not support legal action on ISP's for traffic that travels down their wires
* I support a 18+ category for gamers.

I can't wait for the next election. You've annoyed two or three entire generations. The baby boomers time is over, when we get in we will cancel your pension and turf you onto the curb for the wreck of a planet you've left behind.

Who gave Conroy the shovel? Anonymous -- 31/03/09

He was doing SO well as communications minister while NOT saying anything (and hiding in his office avoiding all contact from the outside world), and now (having his blacklist leaked), he can't stop digging himself a massive hole!

Though I must admit, at least we get to see him say something stupid every day now. Forms part of my daily entertainment.

Inappropriate to Comment Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Senator Conroy has perhaps forgotten one of the most basic political no-nos. You do NOT speak of pending or in progress cases in the law. Clearly Sen. Conroy has never been taught ethical standards or believes he can re-write them.

Kate Lundy Anonymous -- 31/03/09

Why on earth Rudd ever dropped Kate Lundy from the IT portfolio I'll never know. At least she seemed to have a clue what she was talking about.

Conflict of interest. Sydney Lawrence -- 02/04/09 (in reply to #320127384)

Yes and her husband David Forman executive director of an anti- Telstra group would like it too.

Living a dream Anonymous -- 01/04/09

POLITICS - the only job where you do not need to know your subject or have a clue about your job. Lets ban all lawyers and teachers from politics - at least then we mightget some common sense.
I'd rather Mr Corner computer store owner running his portfolio - maybe he should take up drinking Conroy is lacking like alot of Rudd's bottom kissers.

Restaurants, cafes, pubs and other places of gathering Anonymous -- 01/04/09

Henceforth, all operators of venues that enable and facilitate gatherings of two or more persons shall also be liable to know, at all times, exactly as to the nature and legality of all discussions between said persons therein.

What is Conroy's defence? Anonymous -- 02/04/09

Redirection, of course. Must be using Rudd's 'PR' adviser. And I thought the Liberals and Nationals were bad...

Conroy is clueless Anonymous -- 26/09/09

Conroy obviously doesnt have a clue about what hes talking about, not sure how he got the job in the first place, pretty sure it wasnt using common sense. What a noddy!

What Conroy Doesn't Realise... Anonymous -- 01/10/09

is that there are people in his department illegally downloading videos and music, and illegally bringing pirate movies and music into the country.

How could he NOT know?

After all, he doesn't have 275,000 staff, sending 2 million emails a day, reading 25 million websites a day, downloading 15 million files a day.

It must be easy for iiNet to simply block access to 90% of the internet on the assumption that SOME of their customer base could be doing something illegal involving media.

But why stop there, as a percentage are doing drug deals, others perpetrating wire fraud - and so on.

This is what happens when companies go "lawyer shopping" - they get the yes men who can dream up the most outrageous claims to try out in court.

Are some of these lawyers downloading bad things too? You bet! And judges, magistrates, police.

It all has to end where it starts like any good application of law - you get the offenders, not their mothers, or their boss, or their phone company or their internet providers.

Conroy has no place at all to be making any comment about the legality or the morality of any case in the courts. Like all good politicians, learn to shut up and stick to the facts. Unfortunately, there are no good politicians in this regard as they tend to have a public comment on everything and in turn show they have knowledge about very little.

Telecommunications & government intervention in this country has been a debacle since the day wireless and digital communications were introduced.

I'll never trust any form of business that has a "government mandate" because its a sure thing that Here Today, Gone Tomorrow is well likely to be on the cards. What one party signs in, the other signs out.

I know that one day, the goverment will be reaching down the line and telling me what I can't watch, although legal, what I can't read, although legal - and of course, what I can't write. Just you wait.