Govt wants to dictate the software you run on your PC

Renai LeMay
23 June 2010, 12:00 PM


Do it, or lose your internet access, the government proposes to threaten.


The Federal House of Representatives’ Standing Committee and Communications has recommended that Australians be forced to install anti-virus and firewall software on their personal computers before internet providers allow them to be connected to the internet.

The committee – one of the Parliament’s main discussion venues with relation to the communications portfolio — handed down a report yesterday into Australia’s cyber-crime situation — entitled Hackers, Fraudsters and Botnets: Tackling the Problem of Cyber Crime.

Recommendation 14 of the report sees the committee recommend that the Australian Communications and Media Authority work with industry body the Internet Industry Association to create a code of e-security practice which would be registered under the Telecommunications Act.

The code of practice, according to the report, should include a provision that ISP acceptable use policies include “contractual obligations” that internet users “install anti-virus software and firewalls before the internet connection is activated”.

In addition, users would be required to “keep e-security protection software up to date” and take reasonable steps to remediate their machines when informed by their ISPs that they were likely to have been infected by viruses or other malware.

ISPs would be required to provide basic IT security advice when user accounts were set up, and would be forced to inform users when they became aware that their PCs had been infected. If necessary, the ISPs would eventually be forced to disconnect a users’ interne connection if they refused to get rid of the malware.

“The committee does not accept that the internet is a kind of un-policed ‘wild west’ — the internet is a global communication medium which is subject to the same laws as the offline environment,” the report stated.

The committee was staffed by members from all sides of politics — including high-profile politicians such as Labor MP Belinda Neal, and former and current Shadow Communications Ministers Bruce Billson and Tony Smith. Many of the more active players in the communications portfolio — such as Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Laborite Kate Lundy – are senators and so were unable to participate in the house committee.

Not everybody who participated in the committee was in favour of the recommendation that ISP customers be forced to install firewalls and anti-virus software.

“To dramatically and quickly institute a requirement that ISPs contractually require the subscriber to install anti-virus software and firewalls before connecting to the internet, whilst well-meaning, opens up a plethora of new liability issues for subscribers,” wrote Shadow Communications Minister Tony Smith in the report.

Smith was allowed a supplementary entry to the report as he only joined the committee in February. “I do not believe that this aspect of the recommendation could be implemented without creating major uncertainty and discloation,” he added.

The report also outlined a number of other wide-ranging recommendations that it thought the Government should implement — mainly relating to developing a coordinated national approach to cyber crime.

One recommendation would see the Government establish an Office of Online Security headed by “a Cyber Security Coordinator” with expertise in cyber crime and e-security — to be located in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This e-security czar would have responsibility of whole of government coordination of the cyber crime approach.

Delimiter


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

richendes (New user):

What happens if its a enbedded OS? are they going to make anti-virus and firewalls for iPhone, Android, Black Berry, Nokia, LG, Sony etc? what about older computers still running DOS are they going to be suddenly be banned from the internet? Almost all of these products are for windoze. what about mac, linux and unix?

There are so many holes in this proposal that its just going to be a waste of money for what benifit?

23 June 2010, 12:09 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Cornerstone member):

I agree. The committee clearly is out of its depth in not being able to understand the "connectedness" of a modern society - and with more to come. Everything from computers to televisions to cars are, or will be, connected, yet all they have singled-out is desktop and laptop computers; and in reality Windows computers. The membership of Belinda Neal on the committee speaks volumes about its intellectual level!

23 June 2010, 2:21 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (New user):

I'll go you one better; Make linux the only home based OS to be allowed to connect to the internet and I'll start voting again. Go on, I dare ya.

23 June 2010, 12:12 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting agami:
I'll go you one better; Make linux the only home based OS to be allowed to connect to the internet.

Did you check the membership of this panel? If you mentioned Linux to them they'd think you were speaking about a type of wild cat. Belinda Neal And Tony Smith comparing their Internet skills, it can't have been a long meeting. I rest my case.

Each new day we discover Labor has found another new way of spending large sums of money to achieve nothing.




23 June 2010, 1:45 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

BrownieBoy (User):

Yet another article that thinks all PCs run Windows.

If this idiotic proposal ever comes to pass, then all OS's except Windows should be exempted, until such time it can be proved that they have significant virus problems (too).

23 June 2010, 12:23 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Fornax (User):

The firewall argument seems a little stupid considering its built most broadband modems and into Windows now. Natural attrition will take care of the rest. If you are going to mandate up to date anitvirus why not target the other half of the problem unpatched systems. If you you forced people to install OS security updates then it would make it much harder for the system to become compromised in the first place.

23 June 2010, 12:50 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting Fornax:
The firewall argument seems a little stupid considering its built most broadband modems and into Windows now.


NAT alone prevents much of the on internet problem. Local firewalls then protect from LAN problems. So yes, mandating firewalls is stupid.
And on top of that, look at 3rd party firewall software like ZoneAlarm - these are firewalls that make things worse by annoying users and making them complacent with their clicking of "Accept".

Quoting Fornax:
why not target the other half of the problem unpatched systems.

Pfft... Now you're talking like someone with some sort of clue... We can't have politicians making rational, sane decisions about these things. Far better for us to have decisions made for us by people who don't know what their doing. That way me and you don't need to worry about thinking, and we can just keep voting Labor in again.

23 June 2010, 7:27 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Zoidbergmerc (User):

who the hell let these polis on computers and told them about the internet?

Sigh...

23 June 2010, 1:14 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Phred (User):

To have the likes of Belinda Neil dictate to me how and what software I run on my machine is a joke at best, really... "Don't you know who I am?"

23 June 2010, 2:17 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tony Grooby (Cornerstone member):

IM a linux User (Fedora Core 13) Should i have to install Anti-virus and a firewall when the device that i connect to the internet has a firewall all ready. My question is how do they know that you have the firewall and anti-virus software installed. You could install it then remove it how would they know. and like all good government thing's, who's going to pay for it and you all know the answer to that question. The TAX payer

28 July 2010, 9:28 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting Tony Grooby:
You could install it then remove it how would they know.


Presumably they'd use some solution for checking security status before allowing connection. Already something many corporates do.

28 July 2010, 6:34 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tony Grooby (Cornerstone member):

Wouldn't this be invading peoples privacy. Quoting Tin:
Presumably they'd use some solution for checking security status
This software could be used to gather data about the peoples websites that visit what software they have on their computer (illegal or not). what they are downloading. This could create a risk as i could leave a port on the computer open to sen and receive data.



29 July 2010, 10:16 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting Tony Grooby:
Wouldn't this be invading peoples privacy.


Would the government care? They're already talking about making ISPs keep usage data for years. I don't think they'd be too worried about it.

29 July 2010, 11:27 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user