(You May Also Download this Briefly as an Adobe PDF)
In the previous article I looked at the growing use of intranets as knowledge bases and information exchange systems. The ready availability of information from one organisation wide system is recognised as an extremely valuable asset in a variety of areas, ranging from staff training, to maintenance of document and information consistency, to cost reductions in communication and information traffic and handling.
With a web based interface, intranets can be truly global, and support an organisation with a world wide information repository and communications system. As described in the previous article, there are legal implications for intranets which should not be ignored.
Extending access to an “intranet” system to those outside the organisation, by creating an “extranet”, can provide significant benefits, particularly in customer dealings. This should not be allowed to obscure the corresponding increase in potential for legal exposure. The term “convergence” is well suited to describing the current trend in development of technology available for communication and information channelling and exchange. Exactly where an “intranet” ends and an “extranet” begins is not an easy line to draw. Similar difficulties exist when looking for lines of demarcation between an “extranet” and an open web interface. This “convergence” has significant benefits providing a seamless interface in and into an organisation’s information, communication and business channels. However, awareness of potential liability should be factored into these systems, considering how and to whom they are made available.
Once customers or external bodies have access to your system, several key questions need to be asked:
Clear terms and conditions of third party access need to be formulated to deal with the answers to these questions. These terms must:
It is essential that to have any effect, limitations of liability, disclaimers and terms of access must be brought to the user’s attention. A mechanism should be employed requiring the user to acknowledge their existence and that the user agrees to be bound by them. Web interfaces are ideal for this purpose as they can be structured in such a way that a user cannot progress to certain levels without acknowledging your requirements, usually through an “OK” or “I Accept” button at the least.
In the development of commercial “extranets” and more open web interfaces, some trade off may be required between the most desirable legal precautions, and the need for market appeal and customer relationships. Never the less, I strongly recommend that when considering and implementing an extranet and/or web extension of your organisation to your customers and the outside world, recognise that unless steps are taken to expressly limit your liabilities and responsibilities, you may ironically create a greater exposure through this new channel than you have through your more traditional avenues of business in the tangle arena.
For further information about issues covered in this article, please contact Guy Betar on + 61 2 9023 0118 or E-mail gbetar@normans.com.au.
Is Australia ready to embrace broadband? For a report from the roving reporter, George Bray see: http://www.techtrek.tv/TechTrekFinal.pdf
A recent US federal panel (3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals with Judge Edward R. Becker and US District Judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III) has determined that public libraries cannot be forced to install web filtering software. This is the third time in the last six or so years that Congress has failed in its attempts to protect children from internet porn. Under this latest Act (The Children’s Internet Protection Act) there was technical reliance on filtering programs that also block sites on other sites which are legitimate and contain useful, valid and educational material on a variety of topics like politics, health and science. The Circuit Court has determined unanimously that these sites of legitimate interest and content should not be suppressed. The judges’ position was based on the view that filtering technology necessarily “….. blocks access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest….”
Since 1996 Congress has tried on three occasions to pass legislation to protect young people from inappropriate internet materials. To date, those attempts have been unsuccessful – a fact which has been pleasing to the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. There are other options, the judges observed, including requiring parental consent before a minor has access to an unfiltered computer, or requiring a parent or guardian to be present while a child surfed the net.
As far as adults are concerned, even though the law would have allowed adults to ask that the filtering technology be turned off, the court took the view that this may cause embarrassment to some patrons and librarians.
Internet users will soon be seeing the proliferation of ladybirds on internet sites around Australia following a recent announcement by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) that it has registered three Codes of Practice developed by the Internet Industry Association (IIA).
For internet users the ladybird signifies that their ISP is compliant with best practice standards developed by the IIA and endorsed by the government. The IIA’s Chief Executive, Peter Coroneos, said that the significance of the Code to end users is that they will have ready access to tools and information to complement parental supervision in the home. “ISPs and content hosts benefit from the fact that they are not required to block content hosted offshore, nor monitor all traffic on their networks - clearly difficult and costly tasks,” said Mr Coroneos.
ISPs and Content Hosts who comply with the new Codes automatically meet their obligations under the Broadcasting Services Act relating to internet content.
“The Codes take a very practical approach to the difficult question of regulating access to internet content. At the end of the day, empowering users is their best protection against accessing unwanted materials online and the Codes are an important instrument in that empowerment process.
Compliance with the IIA Codes can be demonstrated by displaying the IIA ‘Family Friendly ISP’ ladybird seal. People who are concerned about inappropriate content on the internet should use an ISP who is Code compliant - they should look for the ladybird.”
This co-regulatory approach to internet content regulation, which sees industry acting in partnership with the regulator and community groups is quite unique globally and represents a workable balance of responsibilities which avoids undue burden on industry while providing meaning safeguards for end users.
Four IIA Codes are now in force. The first three, the IIA “Content Codes”, were written in 1999, after consultation with industry, end-users and the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA). These came into force on January 1, 2000. An additional Code was developed and implemented in 2001 to cover access to interactive gambling services on the internet. The Codes are registered with and monitored by the ABA.
While the IIA Codes of Practice are voluntary, the ABA can direct an ISP to follow a Code. This sharing of responsibility between industry and government is known as ‘co-regulation’. The Codes have been written to help industry comply with the law at a practical level. More importantly, they are there because the internet industry in Australia wants to support parents’ ability to supervise their children’s access to the internet. There are two parts to the Australian internet coregulatory regime. The first is that Internet Service
Providers must provide to the end users both tools and information about the ways in which they may exercise greater control over the content that is accessible in their homes. This is consistent with the IIA approach of ‘industry facilitated user empowerment’: the emphasis is on end user choice and control.
There are a number of different tools and strategies available to end users to enable them to minimise exposure to content considered inappropriate for themselves or their families. These include content filtering products and services. The revised Codes registered by the ABA in May 2002 require that where ISPs seek to charge for the provision of a Scheduled Filter, they do so on a cost-recovery basis. The tradeoff for ISPs in accepting these responsibilities is that the ABA will not require ISPs to block access to sites on the internet, including those hosted offshore.
The second part of the regime is that Internet Content Hosts in Australia must take down content that has been the subject of a complaint to the ABA, and where, in investigating the complaint, the ABA has deemed the content to be in breach of Australian law. If an Internet Content Host receives a notice from the ABA to take down content it must do so by 6.00pm on the next working day. For both technical and legal reasons, take down notices only apply in relation to content hosted in Australia and not offshore.
The result of all this is that the industry Codes mean that content regulation becomes a shared responsibility of industry, government and end users. The Codes are designed to operate in a way that is practical and avoids undue cost to industry, while recognising the inherent limitations in regulating a global communications medium.
They also obviate the need for ISPs, libraries and others who provide public access to the internet to monitor or control content. At the same time they promote solutions to enhance the level of end user confidence in using the medium.
For further information about issues covered in this article, please contact Celine McInerney on + 61 8 8210 1206 or E-mail cmcinerney@normans.com.au. Celine is also a director of the IIA, or visit the IIA website on www.iia.net.au. We produce the following Briefly editions:
We would prefer to distribute Briefly editions via e-mail wherever possible.
If you wish to subscribe to any of our Brieflys, or unsubscribe to any you are currently receiving, please e-mail svorrasi@normans.com.au.
We respect your right to privacy. You can view our Privacy Information Notice on our website and our Privacy Policy is available on request.
The contents of this newsletter are for information only and should not be taken as advice on the law. This newsletter may be reproduced in whole or in part with the prior permission of Norman Waterhouse and acknowledgment of its source and copyright.