Just in case you've been living under a rock for the past few weeks, Australians have a Federal election fast approaching on August 21 which is just next month. There are many issues up for the discussion at the moment, from health to taxes, but probably the most important issue for all Australians to keep up with the 21st century is communication. Not only is it the back bone of business, it's also a vital component in providing health reforms, building better education for all Australians, and future proofing Australia as an economically viable place to do business.

The National Broadband Network is the election promise of the current Labor government. On offer is high speed broadband from one end of the country to the other, and the best effort yet at bridging the digital divide between the city slickers and tier country cousins. The incredibly frustrating thing is, that regardless of who we vote for on August 21, the NBN will be tarnished by either side of politics.

Labor has it in it's sights to fulfill the previous election promise of filtering the internet from nasty sites, based on a refused classification list from the OFLC. This list is now itself embroiled in controversy as Stephen Conroy has now delayed the implementation of the filter, based on concerns about the list. In the Liberal Party camp, Tony Abbott will take the axe to the $43 billion NBN as the Liberal Party plans to cuts Government spending by $10 billion in an effort to pay off the debt accumulated by Kevin Rudd's government through fiscal stimulus measures designed to keep the Australian economy out of recession during the global financial crisis.

So if communications in Australia is to remain progressive and competitive in the current world economic climate, who's going to earn your respect? Labor – who wants to build a NBN on one hand and then filter it with the next, or the Coalition who wants to kill it and is still yet to provide any form of alternative?

Well, there may be good news in the wind, as it looks like the Liberal Party's move to crush the National Broadband Network has suffered a blow with the Greens pledging to support the legislation in the Senate and block a private sell-off.

Crystal ball gazers say the Greens could hold nine of the 76 Senate seats following the next Federal election on 21 August, giving them the balance of power with some predicting the Greens could even win a senate seat from each state after the election next month. As well, for the first time in Green history, they may even win a seat in the house of reps. It's also worth mentioning Australia's two party preferred electoral system at this stage, where Labor and the Greens are doing, if they haven't done already, a preferential deal.

It's early days yet, and anything may happen, but it looks more and more like the two main parties are going to have to side with the Greens should they want to achieve political supremacy. Who would have thought Bob Brown and his party of environmental do-gooders would keep the bastards honest? Remember, you don't win elections… you lose them.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• There's hope for the NBN should the Coalition come to power August 21.
• The Optus 2-in-1 SIM Card Makes Upgrading To iPhone 4 Easier,
• Telstra drops price on $200Gb DSL broadband
• Optus flaunting Do Not Call register
• Qantas Introducing Smart Frequent Flyer Cards and
  
• Adam vents over ABC's move to dedicated 24 hour news channel.

In Australia, the states legislate how consumers and businesses must behave when it comes to refunding money for faulty goods. Here in Victoria, Consumer affairs have a detailed web page outlining consumer's rights and obligations which would no doubt reflect attitudes in other states, but nowhere does it mention what happens when consumers knowingly purchase goods and services that are flawed.

Apple zealots, put your hands over your ears now, as the rubbery release date of Apple's iPhone 4 approaches. If you're going to buy one of the glorified music player which just so happens to have a built in phone, then you're about to buy a lemon, and Apple knows it.
Despite selling 1.7 million iPhone 4 units in the first three days after its US launch, Apple has taken a beating over the past few weeks over antenna problems that cause calls to drop out when the phone is held in a certain way. In fact Apple's share price has taken a hit and many are calling for a recall after tests against similar devices confirmed that the problem was a significant "design flaw".



So how could such an epic fail be associated with the Apple brand? Some suggest STEVE Jobs's insistence on strict design control appears to have led Apple to overrule internal concerns about the iPhone 4's antenna reception. The chief executive's stance also forced the company to deny carriers adequate time to test the new phone before selling it. Apple engineers were aware of the risks associated with the new antenna design as early as a year ago, but Mr Jobs liked the design so much that Apple went ahead with its development, said a person familiar with the matter.

The company called a news conference to discuss the issue but doesn't plan to recall the phone, a person familiar with the matter said, and in the day prior, Apple shares dived by 4% last night, cutting US$9.9bn off its $230bn value after speculation grew that the company would have to recall or issue hardware fixes for the new iPhone 4.

The electronics giant kept such a shroud of secrecy over the iPhone 4's development that the device didn't get the kind of real-world testing that would have exposed such problems in phones by other manufacturers, said people familiar with the matter.

In a press conference last Friday night in San Francisco, Steve Jobs said "We're not perfect" Something that the Apple chief and zealots around the world now has to come to terms with.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Apple stops dodging iPhone 4 issues but knew of iPhone 4 issues before launch.
  
• Chile becomes first net neutrality nation,
  
• Optus hits 50 Mbps on Sydney LTE network,
  
• Cyber Safety Committee censors Family Guy,
  
• Skype severs ties with Fring,
  
• Microsoft extends Windows XP downgrade rights and
  
• Adam but Telstra's T-gadgets through the hoops!

As Australians approach the next Federal election, touted for as early as next month, politicians are scurrying around the country like a plague of locusts spreading the word about their vote winning policies, and dousing the flames of those which could contribute to their demise. This week saw the controversial plans to filter the internet been shelved by the Gillard government for at least two years.

As the government clears the decks for the coming federal election and facing a strong backlash against the policy, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday ordered a year-long review into content that has been refused classification.

Conroy said that the Government would recommend a review of RC guidelines to State and Territory ministers, following consultations with the Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, and a spokeswoman for Senator Conroy said the filter -- which was a 2007 Labor election promise -- would not be implemented until 12 months after the legislation was passed. The opposition said the delay was a "humiliating backdown".

Members of the parliamentary cyber-safety committee have criticised new Prime Minister Julia Gillard for standing behind her party's controversial internet filtering proposal. Representatives from Internode, Yahoo!7, the Australian Information and Industry Association (AIIA) and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), opposed the proposal, recommending the use of commercially available software and educational initiatives instead.

The delay comes after a fierce anti-filter campaign from activist organisation Get-Up! and criticism from internet companies such as Google, and the US government. They have warned that the filter will not be effective, could slow the internet and would set a dangerous precedent for web censorship.
Google Australia and New Zealand managing director Karim Temsamani said he was pleased the government had taken account of "genuine concerns" about refused-classification content.

The review was announced as three of Australia's largest internet service providers -- Telstra, Optus and Primus -- agreed to block a list of child abuse websites compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Senator Conroy said the government's commitment to force ISPs to filter refused-classification content from the internet had not wavered. So it appears that the incumbent federal government which seems to have a “make policy on the go" approach, has struck yet again pushing the controversial internet filter to after the next poll, hoping that Australian's have a short memory. Hopefully that isn't the case, but unfortunately unless there's a change of government, it looks like we haven't seen the end of the great firewall of Australia.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Austar, allows downloads of content to its customers over the web.
  
• Adam wants a new high tech vacuum cleaner,
  
• Conroy delays the filter,
  
• VHA update mobile data plans,
  
• NBN launch new sites, and
  
• yet another newcomer to twitter - Conroy's department joins the Twitterverse.

When it comes to watching TV, time's are a changing, and never faster than it is right now. In recent times, we've ditched the old boxy 4x3 CRT tvs for 16x9 flat screen LCD panels promising crisp, high detail images in both 2 and 3 dimensions.

Very soon these screens will move yet again to OLED or Organic Light Emitting Diode technology – not to be confused with LED tvs currently marketed by some.
However, and more importantly is evolution of content delivery. It wasn't so long ago that the only way  we could watch movies and programs on our living room screens was via free to air broadcasters, subscription TV, and the ubiquitous DVD.

Today these traditional delivery methods are rapidly losing ground to internet or IP based systems. Internet speeds to most consumers are now seeing new players move into the content delivery market and becoming content suppliers in their own right such as Telstra, iiNet and of course Apple.

One of the benefits of IP based delivery is that consumers can now watch TV at a time that suites them. Rather than being in fromnt of the TV at the time a network dictates. So now we are beginning to experience Video on Demand, something that the rest of the world has had for some time.

Australia's government funded broadcaster, the ABC has been at the forefront of VOD technology for some time with it's iView offering. iView does not offer streaming of ABC channels, only delayed viewing of programs for a couple of weeks after programs have aired. It's probably only a matter of time before this facility is added. Other Australian networks have dabbled in this are but none to the level and success of the ABC.

ISP's such as Telstra are tinkering with content provision with products like Bigpond TV. Testra's latest offering is T-Box, an all in one device which gives access to free to air TV, Bigpond Internet TV channels and movies.

iiNet have their offering called Fetch TV, which according to their website brings you world class digital TV with movies, programs, games music, and interactive applications – all packed into a brand new set top box.

It's also worth mentioning organizations such as Sony. Sony have recently launched the Playstation store which offers a wide range of downloadable content  both for purchase and available free of charge including full online games, add-on content, playable demos, and now movies from the Sony catalogue. Movies are available in both HD and SD for both sale and rent.

So will the next generation of PVRs be lacking a TV antenna jack? And what of the future of Free to Air TV stations who treat their views with contempt? Who will be king of content in Australia in the next decade and beyond? One thing's for sure. The days of the local video library are definitely numbered.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Electronic program guides (EPGs) finally know when shows run late, but Freeview are still making it hard,
  
• Consumers sue Apple over iPhone antenna problems,
  
• Google rumored to be prepping a social network,
  
• Portable hard drive hit the 3TB mark and
  
• Whirlpool suffers Distributed Denial of Service attack (DDoS) from the other side of the world.

Last Wednesday, there was an interesting line up on ABC TV. Spics and Specs followed by The Gruen Transfer, and topped off with the demise of Australia's now ex Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. In as little as 12 hours, the bloodless coup was over. Kevin was relegated to the back bench, and Julia had been sworn in for the top job. So what of the policies of the then Rudd government now? Will Julia rethink the untenable, and what will become of Stephen Conroy, one of the instigators, and facilitators in the demise of Kevin Rudd.

Some in the technology industry have speculated that a front-bench reshuffle could see Communications Minister Stephen Conroy replaced by Canberra Senator Kate Lundy, who served as Shadow Communications Minister from 2001 to 2007. Lundy was among the first Labor Senators to voice her support for Gillard after the leadership challenge last week.

Noting that she had been raised to the position of Prime Minister by her colleagues, and not the Australian public, Gillard said she would speak to the Governor-General about holding a general election "in the coming months".

The rise of Julia Gillard to the top job seems to have arrested the slide in popularity for the labor government for the time being, but with an election to be called later this year, it's still possible that a change of government is in the wind.

Last week Telstra signed up to the NBN Co with conditions, so it seems that it's all systems go for the National Broadband Network, something that Abbot Liberal government has said is unnecessary and will be dismantled if it comes to power later this year. But what of the controversial internet filter? Was this one of Kev's babies, or is it a party policy which will stand the test of the new regime?

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't technologically speaking. If Labor is returned, Australia will have a high speed national broadband network free of monopolies and duopolies, but with an ISP level internet filter if they can get the bill through the senate. On the other hand, if the Liberal party has success in the poll later this year, then there goes the NBN, and we're back to where we are to day? What's the price of progress then? Who will you be barracking for come October or November this year?

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Does a change in Prime Minister mean a change in technological attitudes with technological decision makers?
  
• Adam Turner has inbox issues that can't easily be solved
  
• The .xxx domain name comes in from the cold after several long years of deliberation by ICANN
  
• Apples new iPhone 4 is a little hard of hearing, especially if you hold it the wrong way, and
  
• Visa launches a homegrown online micropayment service for sub $20 online transactions!

How often are consumers being treated with contempt by many of the major tech goods manufacturers? Have you ever noticed that the price of a particular piece of gear seems relatively and reasonably priced, then after you part with your hard earned cash, you find yourself the victim of an extortion racket when it comes to buying accessories for your new gadget? If you've bought a mobile phone in recent times, you would certainly have come across after market accessories such as car kits and blue tooth headsets. These are traditionally copies of original or authentic accessories, sometimes of a better quality, at half the price.

Last week the 4th generation iPhone was launched by Apple to less than a euphoric welcome, probably because apple had lost a few prototypes and we'd all seen it before, but on reading the fine print, Apple have chosen to use a micro sim which is not compatible with its recently released iPad.

According to Nick Wilkins, press relations manager at O2, a UK based carrier, an iPhone 4 micro-SIM inserted into an iPad will detect that it is not in a smartphone and will not work.  He said "The micro-SIMs for the iPhone are set up to allow voice calls, SMS messages and data functionality, whereas the iPad micro-SIM is provisioned to allow pay-as-you-go data transfer only"

The decision will prevent Apple users from carrying over a data allowance from their iPhone to the iPad.
O2 said that it will in time make available a SIM which can be converted back and forth between the micro and regular sizes, but what about Australian carriers?

Another downside is that it will slow down the end users ability to swap sims out and change carriers based on their location or poor service unless they have a collection of micro sims. But not allowing the iPad and iPhone to swap sims looks only to be a sweetener for the Telcos that support the devices, ensuring Apple devotees have to buy two services. It also means, those with an older iPhone and a 4G iPhone, can't swap between the two devices with the same number.

So before you all race of to the local apple store, just remember you'll need a new micro sim from the carrier of your choice before you start making calls on your new toy.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Twitter's fail whale has busiest month in two years,
  
• Telstra launches T-box, and fixed line phone pricing to remain unchanged,
  
• Facebook issues detailed response to privacy concerns,
  
• Apple delivers a MobileMe update, and
• we take a look at online banking – who's good and who's not so good.

According to The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Senator Stephen Conroy, Google committed the crime of the century when it's camera cars sniffed and recorded wifi traffic of unsuspecting citizens in the moments it car passed any unprotected wifi network in Australia or around the world. According to the Attourney Generals department, Companies who provide customers with a connection to the internet may soon have to retain subscriber's private web browsing history for law enforcement to examine when requested, a move which has been widely criticised by industry insiders.

It should be noted that Telstra currently records and stores SMS traffic sent over its network for the same reason. The contents of the SMS are only stored for a short term, but like phone calls, the details of the A and B parties are recorded and stored for years. Even with cost effective data storage of today, it's still impossible to record all content, but this seems like it will change with ISPs.

In rather disturbing news this week reported on ZDnet Australia, The Attorney-General's Department said that it had been in discussions with industry on implementing a data retention regime in Australia. Such a regime would require companies providing internet access to log and retain customer's private web browsing history for a certain period of time for law enforcement to access when needed.

Currently, companies that provide customers with a connection to the internet don't retain or log subscriber's private web browsing history unless they are given an interception warrant by law enforcement, usually approved by a judge. It is only then that companies can legally begin tapping a customer's internet connection.

They said the regime being considered by the Australian Government could see data held for much longer than EU Directive time of 24 months — it would be more like five or ten years.

Internet Industry Association (IIA) chief executive officer (CEO) Peter Coroneos also confirmed that the industry was having discussions with the Attorney-General's Department. He said there has been some preliminary discussions with the Attorney-General's Department about a proposal for a data retention regime in Australia, but thinks those discussions are at a very early stage and hadn't seen any firm proposals yet from the government.

Electronic Frontier Australia (EFA) chair Colin Jacobs said the regime was "a step too far". In February, the senate passed a Bill allowing ISPs to intercept traffic as part of "network protection activities" but the question needs to be asked how far will it go. No other free country is pushing the privacy envelope as much as the Australian government is or has. The US government has voiced it's concerns ofver Conroy's proposed internet filter, as has Google, drawing parralells to China and it's internet censorship.

All things aside, the question needs to be asked, Are you happy for the government or ISPs for that matter to have a list of all the URLs you've typed into your web browser or contents of your email? What's next? Maybe the postie gets to open you snail mail. Has Australia become so paranoid that its citizens will revolt? Maybe this is the straw that will break the camels back.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Apple releases Safari 5 for Mac and Windows
  
• ACMA launches a new spam SMS reporting tool
  
• Windows 7 SP1 beta scheduled for July
  
• Google posts Chrome security fixes and
  
• Optus mulls lawsuit over Telstra coverage maps

How many definitions of the word “unlimited" would you expect to find in the dictionary? Well a quick search finds that “unlimited" when used as an adjective means:

1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

The problem is, that Australian telecommunications companies seem to think that when something is unlimited, then it has limits - something the flies in the face of every English dictionary known to mankind. The good news is that the ACCC or Australian Competitions and Consumer commission, also has a problem with telcos redefining the English language.

This week Optus and AAPT came under the watchful eye of the ACCC over their latest respective offerings in broadband and telephony. By definition, unlimited means and implies that there are no restrictions. To consumers, if you were to purchase a product or service which was unlimited, then one could safely assume that no restrictions apply and you'd be pretty dark if you hit a limit while using a product or service - right?

Another word which telcos pushed to the level of redefining recently was “free" a word which implies no cost. Phone companies, or any advertiser for that matter, is not allowed to say a product is free unless it genuinely is. According to Free TV Australia, the governing body responsible for approving commercials on free to air television, Particular care must be exercised when describing goods and services as “free". It is considered misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 to falsely advertise goods or services as “free" if the cost of those goods or services is recouped from the buyer in another way.

Where goods or services are available at no cost but subject to conditions, it is insufficient for the advertiser to advise merely that conditions apply. The relevant conditions must be made clear to the viewer, for example, where a second good or service is made available free or as a gift only if a first good or service is purchased for a price, this must be stated.

Price rises elsewhere or other conditions not clearly outlined (such as offering a mobile telephone for ‘free' or $0 but placing the customer under a contractual obligation of minimum payments for a set term) will be misleading or deceptive conduct.

So if this is the case for using the word “free" in advertising, why should “unlimited" be any different? The ACCC has viewed Optus' "$70 pre-paid Turbo Max plan" as deceptive and misleading, asking the question is 3000 minutes unlimited? As a result, Optus gets to explain this new usage of the word “unlimited" to the Federal court on June 25.

Telstra also had problems in 2007, with an advertising claim that Next G was everywhere you needed it. They told in no uncertain terms by Justice Gordon that you just can't say that, and that the statement was misleading. So thanks to Australian telcos, it seems that dictionary definitions need to be ratified by the federal court. If these companies insist on re defining dictionary definitions, what other antics to they apply this poetic license to?

As consumers, beware of the telco offers that seem too good to be true, because that they are.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Google are set to hand over WiFi data
• iiNet set to double ADSL2 speeds, but there's a hardware catch
  
• Microsoft unveils game-changing Windows Phone 7
  
• Open source workaround for Flash on iPhones, iPads and
• Zuckerberg tries to defend Facebook's privacy policy

Last Thursday, Australian's finally got a taste of Apples' iPad a little over one month after its launch in the United States. Demand for the device in the US exceeded supply within a week, and to the dismay of many Apple zealots around the world, it pushed out the global launch a little more than expected. So the iPad has finally arrived, to scenes which were quite demure compared to previous Apple launches, well at least in Australia anyway.

So if you haven't made it to the local Apples store, what's stopping you? Well here's some food for thought. Both Adam and I from the Tech Talk camp, had iPads since the US launch, and in that time, personally speaking, the device has found its place in the family environment. If you didn't know, the iPad comes in two flavors, a wifi only version, and a combined wifi and 3G version. The price difference between the same capacity devices is anywhere between $100 and $200, so which one is right for you?

The answer to this is determined by what you want to do with it. Our iPad hit the mark with the younger folk, especially the one that can't type or read yet. The iconic style interface opens up a world of games, books and applications that traditionally would require adult help to open.

The iPad at this stage seems robust enough to take a few good knocks and drops without sustaining any harm- so early days seems to say that are childproof. The downside of easy navigation is having the youngsters find their way to Youtube where little eyes can see things that they probably shouldn't. The good news is that it is easy to remove the icon from the desktop in effect removing temptation, so my advice to those with kids is to remove this icon before you hand it over – then they don't know what their missing.

So the iPad is now the ‘always on' information and entertainment device which resides in the kitchen and living room, but if you're going to make the purchase, which one to get – wifi and 3G or wifi only? If your iPad is going to be like ours, then it'll spend more time connected to the wifi at home. 3G is only necessary outside the household environment.

Chances are you've got a mobile phone with a data subscription or add on, and if you can turn it in to a wireless hotspot, they you don't need 3G, so there's a saving of a hundred or so bucks. If you have a jail broken iPhone, then an investment of $10 will buy you the my-wifi app and you won't look back and save plenty.
The iPad will become as ubiquitous as the iPhone, so if you think it's a flash in the pan fad – then think again.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• In case you missed it, Apple's iPad finally arrives in Australia.
  
• Apple takes the lead from Microsoft in net worth stakes.
  
• Google's copping it from all countries over the wifi privacy issue from snooping camera cars,
  
• the sub $50 broadband market steps up a notch, and
  
• Microsoft looks to IE9 to try and regain some ground in the online world as well
  
• Adam heads to Bondi for the opening of Apples newest Australian store

This past week has seen some great leaps forward in something Australians' have been missing out on for some time, something the rest of the tech savvy world is now starting to take for granted – Video On Demand, or VOD as the 3 letter acronym will have it. On a very recent trip to the US, it was quiet evident that VOD is taken for granted on cable services throughout the US. For a couple of bucks, viewers can watch the latest cinema releases piped over the internet delivered straight to the TV. If you're in for a pizza and movie night in California as I was recently, you'll find the quality of image and sound much better than that of the food!

The lack of video or DVD hire shops in the states is testament to the success of Video on Demand. The only place you'll find DVD and Bluray media is in the retail outlets where movies sell for sub $15 US. This is a taste of things to come in Australia, and, if you ran a Video Ezy or Blockbuster here, I'd be looking to diversify.

While browsing through the aisles of Best Buy in Mountain View a few weeks back, I was drawn to the incredibly low pricing of Sony's PS3 game console – well compared to that of the same product in Australia. The Sony Playstation has been around for a while now and has really found a niche for itself in the market place, not only as a gaming console, but as a media centre for the living room, where basically everything from playing a video game to watching the latest Bluray release and now Video On Demand can be achieved with the one device. VOD which is now a reality here in Australia completes the trifecta.

Buying anything electrical from the US and bringing it back to Australia comes with risks, but the world really is becoming a global village and to my relief, the $250 US Playstation 3 worked here in Australia, just as it did in country where it was originally destined. Come on, how many of you have plugged 240 volts into the 120 volt socket, which I might add is clearly labeled 120 volts, only to be breathe a sigh of relief that the PS3 really does have a universal power supply. J Everything I've thrown at it has played flawlessly – well Blurays and games anyway, and now it seems that the US PS3 has taken a liking to Australia VOD offerings through Sony AND the ABC's iView. Even my kids have discovered iView since the arrival of the PS3 and a quite content to watch their programs delayed and played straight to the Bravia at the flick of a switch.

As of last Thursday Australian PlayStation 3 owners finally caught up with the rest of the world with the PlayStation Network video store open for business, with downloadable full length movies available to those with a PS3.This brings the PS3 into line with Microsoft's Xbox 360 console, which already has a streaming video service available. Unlike Microsoft, who only offers rentals, Sony will give users options to either rent or buy movies. Movies can also be transferred to the PlayStation portable handheld device.

Pricing so far is slightly cheaper than purchasing a new DVD or Bluray with say a new run movie, 3 or 4 bucks cheaper than a disc. HD and SD versions are both available to purchase or rent with rentals will starting at $4. Purchased movies are downloaded to the PlayStation hard drive, where they can be viewed or transferred to a PSP. They also come wrapped in DRM, limiting playback of purchased movies to the PS3 or PSP. Adam Turner will have more on this in this week's view from the couch.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Adam Turner takes a look Video on Demand and Sony's Playstation 3
  
• Pakistan shuts down YouTube, Facebook
  
• Google announced the new Chrome web store
  
• Telstra takes Next G out to sea, and
  
• Google takes Apps cloud to the enterprise

Last week it was Adobe and Apple hogging the tech limelight, this week it's Google's turn with the accusation of Wi-Fi sniffing from the camera cars used to collect images for Google's street view project. The BBC has reported that Google has admitted that for the past three years it has wrongly collected information people have sent over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.

The issue came to light after German authorities asked to audit the data the company's Street View cars gathered as they took photos viewed on Google maps. Google said during a review it found it had "been mistakenly collecting samples of payload data from open networks" which will now increase concerns about potential privacy breaches.
The data collected could include parts of an email, text or photograph or even the website someone may be viewing. In a blogpost Google said as soon as it became aware of the problem it grounded its Street View cars from collecting wi-fi information and segregated the data on its network.

Back home in Australia, the ABC has reported a similar story with Geordie Guy, the vice-chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia highlighting the fact that every wireless device has it's own unique serial number. Geordie went on to say “They (Google) may not be able to tell which house, or which side of the road it's on, but they'll be able to map where those are"

The office of Australia's privacy commissioner Karen Curtis responded in a statement that their preliminary inquiries had indicated generally that the information about Wi-Fi networks that Google is collecting would probably not on its own be considered personal information under the Privacy Act.

Storm in a tea cup? Maybe, but the sheer fact that global citizens are exposing themselves to all manor of prying, either by the likes of Google, or any other passer buy, means that they must assumes some level of responsibility.

According to the BBC, Google said the problem dated back to 2006 when "an engineer working on an experimental Wi-Fi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast Wi-Fi data". That code was included in the software the Street View cars used and "quite simply, it was a mistake"

"This incident highlights just how publicly accessible, open, non-password protected Wi-Fi networks are today." Dan Kaminsky, director of penetration testing for security firm Ioactive who was recently on Tech Talk Radio, said there was no intent by Google. He was reported to say that "This information was leaking out and they picked it up. If you are going to broadcast your email on an open Wi-Fi, don't be surprised if someone picks it up."

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• HTC tries to block iPhone, iPad and iPod sales in the US,
  
• Adam Turner takes a look at the ongoing Flash debacle
  
• Telstra ups the speed between Melbourne and Sydney, and
  
•  iiNet is off to the courts again with AFACT over Copyright issues that just won't go away.

Late last week Microsoft announced that it's new IE9 browser will not support Adobe Flash either in what seems to be a major move to HTML 5, the newest incarnation of code that brings websites to your browser.  Writing in Microsoft's IEBlog, Dean Hachamovitch, general manager of Microsoft's Internet Explorer arm, weighs in on the Flash debate echoing some of the arguments put forth by Apple CEO Steve Jobs in his much discussed “Thoughts of Flash" essay which also appeared on the Apple site in recent times.

In the past week Microsoft has clarified its stance on supporting Flash in Internet Explorer 9, explaining that it will continue to offer support for the software as a plug-in, as it has always done. IE general manager Dean Hachamovitch said in a blog post last week that "the future of the web is HTML5", and many assumed that Microsoft was dropping Flash support in the browser. However, the company has since noted that it had never natively supported Flash in IE9, but instead had done so through plug-ins. Hachamovitch published a follow-up blog post addressing numerous comments including those seeking reassurance over Microsoft's position on Flash.

He explained "Several comments asked about Microsoft's support for plug-ins (like Flash and Silverlight). Of course, IE9 will continue to support Flash and other plug-ins. Plug-ins are important for delivering innovation and functionality ahead of standards"  "For web browsers, developers can continue to offer plug-ins so that web pages can play video using these codecs on Windows. For example, web pages will still play VC-1 (Microsoft WMV) files in IE9.

However, Hachamovitch added that uncertainty in the industry over web standards for video meant that Microsoft will stick with its plan to deliver video through HTML5. He went on to say that "The biggest obstacle to supporting more than H.264 is the uncertainty.
H.264 video offers a more certain path than other video formats, and does so in a way that delivers a great HTML5 experience for developers and end-users.  Microsoft's refusal to support Flash as a native element of its browser will still be a sore point for Adobe as it tries to stamp its authority on the web video market.

In a turn for the better this week, Adobe has fought back at Apple's crusade against it by showing off what Flash can do on a rival to the iPad, an Android-based tablet from Google. While Apple has banned its customers from using Flash, Adobe was showing punters at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco what Flash looked like on upcoming Android-based tablets.  Adobe's chief technical officer Kevin Lynch has slammed Apple's policy on Flash as anti-competitive and anti-internet.

So while flash may have pulled through a near death experience this week, there's still going to be a rough road ahead as the Apple juggernaut rolls out 1 million iPads a month, as well as countless iPhones.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Net filter circumvention: it's completely legal
  
• Kevin Lynch (Adobe CTO) delivers harsh criticism at Web 2.0 Expo
  
• Government claims NBN will pay itself off
  
• iPad traffic is 10% non-US
  
• Google Latitude actually proving popular and             
  
• We talk to Sandrina Branton, senior sales managers for BMC software about women in IT

Adobe must be wondering what it did wrong to have it's Flash product rejected by Apple, and now Microsoft. Late last week Microsoft announced that it's new IE9 browser will not support Adobe Flash either in what seems to be a major move to HTML 5, the newest incarnation of code that brings websites to your browser.  Writing in Microsoft's IEBlog, Dean Hachamovitch, general manager of Microsoft's Internet Explorer arm, weighs in on the Flash debate echoing some of the arguments put forth by Apple CEO Steve Jobs in his much discussed “Thoughts of Flash" essay which also appeared on the Apple site in recent times.

According to the blog, “The future of the web is HTML5," “Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C. HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive Web applications and site design. The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only."

So Microsoft, like Apple, is casting its lot with HTML5, and largely for the same reasons. That said, it's not abandoning Flash entirely. Not yet, anyway, but it certainly seems that the writing for flash is on the wall. Flash started its life as an alternative to Microsoft's Powerpoint, a program that rose from the ashes of Macromedia's Director application, and as a result, was proprietary, which it is still is to this day.

This fact alone may be detrimental to its longevity and is one of the main reasons why Steve Jobs is against it, but it also has its own unique way of development using action scripts to achieve some of its niceties which does not really follow mainstream coding syntax.

Flash also requires plug ins to be installed on browsers which certainly opens up exploitation opportunities as the humble web browser is still the tool of choice for unscrupulous members of the online community. HTML 5 certainly looks to have the edge on the old Flash dinosaur.

Apple CEO Steve Jobs says in an open letter “Today the two companies (Apple and Adobe) still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests" 
Steve goes on to say, that “besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn't support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices. Apple knows from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform.

So if Apple and Microsoft don't see a future in Flash, it seems that Flash will no longer flash, as developers head down the path of HTML5. 

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Microsoft has put another nail in Adobe's Flash coffin,
  
• iiNet welcomes Netspace users into the fold,
  
• Conroy answers some tricky filter questions,
  
• Lidija Davis reveals just what's behind that stolen iPhone prototype
  
• Adam looks at Sony's top of the line DVD recorder, 
  
• Linux isn't as spam free as first thought, and
  
• NASA has a very expensive “Whoops" in Alice Springs.

I can't help to think back to when Telstra was run by the three amigos, one of which was Phil Burgess. Remember him? He was the controversial bull terrier of the organization, who had the role of group managing director of Public Policy and Communications. He had an uncanny ability to get most people off side as he spruiked the then Telstra policy of command and conquer, but that's history now.

When Phil decided to move on, in his parting speech, he made mention of how bad the mobile phone services were in the United States, compared to that in Australia. At the time, I didn't really realize just how bad things could be in the US until I experienced the American cell phone network first hand in the last two weeks. I chose AT&T as carrier of choice because I wanted to give Apple's iPhone a run for it's money in its home network. Having purchased a prepaid mobile and service and sim which was easy to get going, I was annoyed that the sim was locked to a device. Unlike here in Australia where SIM cards can be swaped between devices, it isn't possible on the AT&T plan I was on in the US.

There's also no such thing as roaming onto another network like we do here either. If AT&T didn't have coverage then I didn't either, Call drops were quite common, and in places where you would expect blanket coverage, such as Palo Alto in Silicon Valley California. It paid to remain stationary while on the phone.

In another bizarre twist, it is impossible to buy prepaid mobile data in the US. While post paid isn't a problem, if you need mobile broadband you'll need to commit to a contract. Not very practicable for a tourist like me. Having spent some time chatting to the phone specialist at Best Buy, I came to the realization that I wasn't going to be able to use the iPhone in the land of the free.

But here's the twist. I had my Telstra SIM in my iPhone, and the phone signed on to the AT&T network without a hitch, and surprise surprise, when there was no AT&T coverage, the iPhone logged in to T-Mobile. How cool. My iPhone with a Telstra SIM could do what no other US cell phone could do – switch between networks as coverage dictated. So maybe the last laugh is on the Three Amigos, I'm sure they the best coverage in the US.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Adam turner takes a look at new video on demand offerings in Australia and how you can benefit,
  McAfee admits "inadequate" quality control caused PC meltdown,
  
• Android now runs on iPhone, and
  
• Adobe hits back at Apple over Flash

Conroy seems damned if he does damned if doesn't these days, and why wouldn't he. According in reports in ITwire last week,Communications Minister Stephen Conroy rejected suggestions from ALP colleague Senator Kate Lundy that the Government offer an ''opt-out' for its plan for a mandatory ISP-level filter.

On the eve of the introduction of filtering legislation to parliament, Senator Conroy appeared on the 'Australia Talks' program on Radio National last night to battle an almost universal condemnation of the filtering scheme where he reiterated his policy and said Australian citizens should not be able to opt out of the filter as the Government does not allow the same liberties with other forms of media.

The Minister said he had received no official complaint from the US State Department about his plans to filter the Australian internet and yet The Australian newspaper reported that the State Department contacted the Australian Government to express its concerns over the filter. Who's telling porkies now then?

A caller accused the Minister of only using examples of content that causes "moral outrage" - such as child pornography and bestiality - as examples of what would be blocked, which suggested to him a "political agenda." But the Minister argued that trials of the filtering technology found it to be "100 percent accurate".

There would be "no overblocking or underblocking," he said. "It is 100 percent accurate, and blocks only an individual page within a network."He said that pages providing detail on how to commit suicide would be blocked, while pages containing debate about euthanasia as an issue would be left unscathed.  Conroy said the Howard government's client filtering alternative was a "complete failure" because less than 30,000 Australians downloaded a filter at a cost to the Federal Government of $84 million.

November is fast approaching and Conroy has two ticking time bombs in his portfolio – the NBN which still remains in limbo as there's been no decision made in the carve up of Telstra, and the internet filter which has been the target of world wide condemnation.  If only we knew what the Opposition party had in mind for both, we may have a clearer picture of what's in store for communications in this country in the decades to come.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Conroy under attack from all directions?
  
• Google toys with closing Australian office,
• Microsoft deploys updates for Internet Explorer outside the normal cycle
  The creator of the worlds first PC dies and
  
• Adam tells about the latest domain scams

Some food for thought as we all plunge head first in the world of the 21st century - a world where social networking, Twitter, Facebook, and youtube reign supreme. What happens to your online presence when you die? Yes, I bet you hadn't thought of that because neither had I until I caught a recent episode of the ABC's program, Hungry Beast.  Quite a vexing question really. Death in the physical world is inevitable, but is immortality assured in the virtual world?

It's a dilemma which needs some careful consideration, as the digital you will certainly live on. So what will the people you leave behind discover about the digital you? The more active you are in social networking sites and email, the bigger your digital footprint becomes. Regardless of what you've sent via email, uploaded to a video site such as youtube or kept buried in your Facebook page, could become available to your next of kin after your sudden demise. Oh, and if your demise is too sudden, then law enforcement agencies may also get the keys to your to your online boudoir.

Hungry Beast went on to reveal that “digital legacy is such a new idea that all companies do not have a policy on it yet." Yahoo requires a court order to hand over your password to the next of kin. Facebook will “Memorialize" your page meaning it stays up but is locked or frozen, meaning no changes or comments are possible. Gmail and Hotmail will hand over passwords providing they receive a death certificate as well as proof of your relationship to the deceased and Myspace has no policy.

So as the technological revolution continues to change life as we know it, it might be timely to leave the keys to the online palace somewhere accessible by a will. Also, the thought of an emerging industry of digital undertakers is quite creepy. Just think about it – a company full of people not unlike yourself, trawling the internet deleting the digital you after your six foot under – pushing up the daises.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• What happens to the digital you after the real you dies?
  
• A hacker gets 20 years for credit card fraud,
  
• More low income Telstra users seek bill help,
  
• Firefox puts windows 7 support on hold and
  
• Adam checks out the AFL's online Dream Team application.

The dust has barely settled on the AFACT vs iiNet copyright case, when news it.co.uk reported this week that the UK Government plans to force ISPs to crackdown on copyright abuse. The ambitious plan will cost the industry between £250 million and £500 million ($830 million) according to an estimate published by the Department for Business.

A report tabled in the UK Parliament said file sharing of audio, video, data, or anything in digital format between users on a computer network "has increased significantly in the last few years which has served to reduce the incentive for the creative industries to invest in the development, production and distribution of new innovative content."

The report went on to say that the UK government's intention, is to make it easier for rights holders to bring targeted civil actions against suspect copyright infringers and place obligations on ISPs when informed by rights holders to notify subscribers of their unlawful behaviour and to maintain records of the most frequent offenders to allow rights holders to take targeted legal action – something not that dissimilar from what AFACT were after.

It's worth noting that what Australians can do legally when making copies of media for personal use most likely differs from what uk citizens can do, as copyright laws are legislated by the respective countries parliaments, but it's safe to say the protection of copyright owners rights is paramount in both, the different here is that the UK parliament is opening up a path to the consumer which is what hasn't happened here but may.

Australian Federal court judge Justice Cowdroy found that ISPs cannot be held responsible for what their customers do on their network, which is subject to appeal in the High court of Australia soon. It seems that the powers that be in the UK have skipped these phase and opened up the possibility of mandatory reporting to copyright holders of what people are downloading through British ISPs

Both the Australian and British governments head off to the polls this year, and both have internet issues to take to the voters. One thing's for sure, both governments are putting citizen privacy to the test.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Adam compares CD to downloads,
  
• Telstra opens the door to LTE mobile communications,
  
• Google set to leave china next month
  
• iiNet to seek clarification in High court and
  
• IE9 not compatible with Windows XP

When we, as consumers, sign up to a telecommunications provide for mobile voice and data, chances are they want their pound of flesh for about 24 months, which in the world of technology, is an incredibly long time. Just take a look at the handset you were using two years ago, and compare it to the gadget you're currently using. But it's not just the technology you hold in your hand or plug into your computer… the door swings both ways.

Have you considered the technology and service that you receive from your telco which connects you to the world? The contract you enter into with your telco is all about tying you to them, and what you're allowed to do with the services they provide not the quality of service they provide to you. Some even go to the extent of what they call a “fair use policy" which in plain speak means they can limit or even disconnect you from their network if the feel the urge. But what happens if their service deteriorates to a point where it becomes unusable where once it was rock solid?

When Telstra turned off their CDMA network a few years back to make way for the 3rd Generation mobile network, there was quite a song and dance from both government and consumers to ensure that the new network  performed just as well, if not better than the outgoing CDMA network.

Earlier this month, Hutchison 3 switched their roaming partner from Telstra to Vodafone, a switch which certainly saves 3 Money, but at the cost of call drops to a point where the only way to use a mobile phone connected to 3 is to be stationary. If you're driving through the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, it is no longer possible to keep a call connected for any longer than a few minutes – something which until the switch, was never an issue. Maybe 3 don't have their in call handovers working just right yet, but the chorus of anger and willingness to switch back to Telstra is starting to become hard to ignore.

So what about the contract between the phone company and you? Because 3 is a city centric carrier and does not have the reach and coverage of the incumbent, it probably won't raise the attention of politicians or the general public, but if you're a Hutchison 3 user, there's not much you can do apart from churn to another carrier. After all, the contract you're in will say nothing about the level of service they have to provide. So what's it to be 3? If you don't restore the network usability to what it was in quick smart time, the mass exodus will start… and we all know how hard it is to retain customers in a saturated mobile communications market.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Adam talks to Dlink about the new Boxee Box
• Lidija Davis talks to Dan Kaminsky about flawed DNS (below)
• X-ray vision' coming soon to Nokia phones, yes you heard right – X-ray Vision,
  
• Joe Hockey praised for his filtering stance and
• The Do Not Call Register about to expire

This week, a new internet survey by Whirlpool Australia's leading internet forum, highlights the underlying thoughts of Australian internet users when it comes to Conroy's controversial internet filter, which, if surveys are to be believed, could be the undoing of the Rudd government at the Federal election at the end of this year.

According to Whirlpool's website, The survey was conducted over a four week period — from 1 January to 1 February 2010, during which it was successfully completed and verified a total of 23,683 times.

The results show a significant opposition to the government's ISP filtering plan, with only 7.4% indicating support. It also reveals that over 90% of respondents believe they could easily circumvent the filter if it was in place. The survey also covers consumers' attitudes on a wide variety of topics relating to their choice of broadband ISP and hardware which will be discussed at length on today's show.

The survey also revealed that education is paramount to online safety. Educating parents about the perils of the online world should be the government's main priority even above educating children. Parents are responsible for what their children say and do online, and greater emphasis needs to be placed on getting parents to learn and share with their kids online, regardless of whether they are or are not internet savvy. Surfing the web should be a family affair, not just left to the unsupervised computer in the study.

Dr Ron also took to the streets this week and made his way to the State Library of Victoria, (pictured above) which is located at the northern end of the Melbourne CBD for the Open internet Rally.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• With the launch of Apples new iPad, Adam talks to Rusland Kogan about his new tablet,
  
• Hungry Beast has some very thought provoking words to say about Google
  
• Apple sues HTC over phones with Google software and
  
• Is internet censorship a vote changer?

There are good sides and bad sides to social networking, and recently the bad side has been making headlines with disturbing regularity. Some members of the community think that it's OK to vent on sites such as blogs and facebook without any chance of being held accountable for their actions or in this case their words. Defamation is a false accusation or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions, something which is becoming extremely prevalent on today's social networking sites.

The general law has divided defamation into two categories - libel and slander. Libel is the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, while slander is the publication of defamatory matter in non-permanent form. Something defamatory that is printed in a newspaper or book is libel, but the same thing, if spoken, is slander. Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the publication of defamatory matter over radio or television is deemed to be in permanent form and is, therefore, libel.

Since the introduction of the Defamation Act 2005 on 1st January 2006, the distinction between slander and libel is abolished and the publication of defamatory matter of any kind is actionable without proof of special damage.

It is not uncommon for individuals to vent their frustrations in the online world, a world which is becoming more permanent as time rolls by, thanks to certain technologies which take snapshots of the internet at regular intervals to preserve it for posterity. (ie Wayback Machine) Saying something (online) in the heat of the moment can have long term and far reaching ramifications to both the author and those who are the subject of said outburst. It's extremely hard to remove these comments once published on the internet so unless things are factually correct, go easy on naming names and emotional outbursts on sites like facebook.

It should also be noted that parents are still legally responsible for what their children say and do online, and it's not uncommon that the first a parent will hear of such online outbursts is when law enforcement officers come knocking.

Just this week in Australia legal counsel Martin Bennett had a short message for those who allow themselves to attack reputations over the internet, imagining they are safe under the cloak of anonymity. He said ''You can be hunted down and found'' Mr Bennett has done just that for a Perth client, winning $30,000 in damages and costs, an apology, and undertakings from a Colac man that he won't post any more defamatory comments.

So a warning to all this week; be careful what you write, say and publish online. There is no such thing as anonymity on the internet, and things said in the heat of the moment have a way of coming back to haunt, either in a civil or criminal way.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• Adam checks out what's under the hood of the new range of Sony Bravia flat screen TVs
  
• AFACT to appeal the IInet piracy ruling
  
• Opposition continues to rise for conroys internet filter
  
• Facebook win a patent over news feeds, and
  
• Skype withdraws from windows mobile.

The internet is a living, breathing entity. Each day something new rears its head, sometimes it's good sometimes not so. Last week Lidija Davis drew our attention to a new social networking site which is sending shivers down the spine of many parents and law enforcement experts alike.

Introducing chatroulette – a website that allows random strangers to talk face to face via webcam. The media feeding frenzy began early last week with articles most major newspapers including the Melbourne Age, Sydney Morning-Herald, the UK Guardian, and the New York Times.

According to Alan Long, a researcher for Pacific, Online global sensations are far and few between and there is no guarantee whether Chatroulette is a flash in the pan novelty or whether it can be leveraged into a longer term idea of substance. He said that this is a smart piece of hacking or mashing from a Russian teenager that makes use of Skype to connect people around the world, and as the name suggests, it is a bit of a roulette gamble on the strangers you'll connect to via your webcam.

As the word started to spread, and a media driven peak on 16 February. Chatroulette currently stands as the 481th ranked website visited by Australian Internet users (17 February 2010), down from the peak of 356 the previous day and the number two webcam website behind Coastal Watch.

Chatroulette at face value looks relatively harmless, the concern is that it will connect unsuspecting people with a raft of unscrupulous villains who don't have the same motive in mind. It certainly is not for the young members of the family, nor the old for that matter.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

• 3DTV update
• Microsoft and Yahoo cleared to tackle Google in the US and EU
  
• Google faces class action claim over Buzz privacy
  
• Is the MacBook Pro finally going to get its Intel Core i5 upgrade next month
  
• Google traces recent attacks to Chinese schools and
  
• there are security warnings a plenty with Microsoft and Mozilla releasing patches.

Most Zoos around the world have a vast range of Animals, from the cute and cuddly to the dangerous and lethal. Would it surprise you that the Zoo, or menagerie of animals that Optus have been rolling out on our screens, magazines and online over the past however many years they've been playing in the Australian market, has omitted some of its prize beasts, one in particular is the scorpion.

A colleague, who wanted upgrade his handset, looked at the option to break his “Yes $79 cap". He had a 12 month contract which  had 9 months to run and was looking to re contract with a new handset, a scenario that many Australians would consider as a their existing contracts near an end. Doing the maths, and based on other contracts that telco's have been dishing up over the years, it was estimated that with 9 months to run, Optus would want something in the order of 9 x $79 or $711 dollars. This was calculated on the minimum spend over the remaining duration of the contract.

Time to call Optus to find out the payout fee. It was at this time that American Raccoon was caged, and my colleague was introduce to the North African Scorpion, Hottentotta.

Hottentotta can kill a human in less than 10 minutes, so it has one hell of a sting in its tail.

It's interesting to see that the TIO (Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman) has seen an almost doubling of complaints in the 12 months 2007/8 to 2007/9 across the four sectors of telecommunications, mobile premium, internet, mobile and landline. Their current report is available for download on their website, and highlights a very worrying trend.

There are several lessons to be learnt here, firstly don't assume all the information you need is online. If something bothers you about an offer, or if it seems too good to be true, then ring and ask the company concerned. Chances are there is cause for concern. Secondly, there are always other options – other companies, even prepaid options. If you have a desire for a new handset, buy it outright and put your existing SIM card in it, go on a non contract plan or even prepaid. You cash flow may suffer short term, but you won't regret it.

So for those who brazenly go into feet first into contacts with companies like Optus, just beware of their scorpion breeding program. Chances are they have plenty of other critters in their zoo you won't see in their ad campaigns.

This week on Tech Talk Radio

Senator Conroy is still up selling his Internet filter<br />
There's a Buzz surrounding Google, and it's a bit deja vous<br />
Adam puts it up to the commercial networks over P2P<br />
The internet industry rejects Conroy's call for code and<br />
Andy Sorcini, a.k.a. MrBabyman, is considered by many on the Web the king of Digg, he talks to Lidija Davis in Palo Alto California.

It's been an action packed break this time around with the launch of Apples new iPad. The NBN costs just keep blowing out, in fact the deadlines just keep moving, and probably not the best in an election year, and the big news from last week was iiNet's win over the film houses in Australia's first landmark antipiracy case.

In case you missed it, iiNet, one of Australia's largest internet suppliers was taken to task in the Federal Court over allowing its customers to download illegal material online. In plain speak, the movie companies, represented by AFACT (the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) claimed that they had caught iiNet customers downloading movies using bit torrent. A special downloading application which makes for a fast and corruption free downloads of anything.

The 34 film companies represented by the AFACT have expressed disappointment in the Federal Court's decision to rule in favour of iiNet. The verdict by presiding judge, Justice Cowdroy found iiNet had not authorised copyright infringements across its network. The judge also ordered AFACT to pay iiNet's legal cost.

Most commentators think that this will not be the last we hear of this as AFACT has 15 days to appeal the verdict.

Neil Gane, AFACT executive director, expressed disappointment in the Court's decision saying “The decision is a set back for the 50,000 Australians employed in the film industry," but he believes this decision was based on a technical finding centered on the court's interpretation of the how infringements occur and the ISPs' ability to control them.

He went on to say that AFACT is confident that the Government does not intend a policy outcome where rampant copyright infringement is allowed to continue unaddressed and unabated via the iiNet network.

On the other side of the verdict iiNet welcomed the Federal Court's judgment. iiNet CEO Michael Malone said his company has never supported or encouraged breaches of the law, including infringement of the Copyright Act of the Telecommunications Act. The judgment is a vindication of that and the allegations against us have been proven to be unfounded.

Malone (pictured above) went on to say iiNet has always been, and will continue to be, a good corporate citizen and an even better copyright citizen. From our perspective today marks the end of the matter and we will continue to get on with the business. and continue to provide Australians with the access to fast and cheap broadband with innovative new services and products.

There'll be lot's more on this verdict from the panel on Today's Tech Talk Radio.