Over a three-week trial, Australia’s competition and corporate watchdogs targeted 5579 scam websites using Netcraft technology.From June 29 to July 20 last year, the joint trial utilized 5500 URLs submitted by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) and 79 URLs submitted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
ASIC removed numerous URLs, around 5500 of them, related to cryptocurrency scams as identified by Netcraft.
According to an ACCC spokesperson who spoke to iTnews, the 79 URLs submitted were flagged in 1757 scamwatch reports, which pertain to scams targeted by the website and service run by ACCC.
The spokesperson said.“The ACCC does not have capacity to undertake routine website removal which is resource intensive,”
“The ACCC-submitted URLs that resulted in website removal requests were phishing (60 percent), fake online retailers (24 percent), technical support scams (six percent), malware (six percent) and cryptocurrency investment scams (2.5 percent).”
100 manual removal requests to various hosting and domain registration
According to sources, a Freedom of Information request, ASIC has made 100 manual removal requests to various hosting and domain registration providers. Also to Meta, Google, Apple, and AWS between 2015 and 2023. These requests were related to various scams, such as fake class actions, unlicensed binary options apps, and unauthorized financial services providers.
The entities did not make these requests through section 313 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. They informally made them without reporting to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Since the 2013 incident where ASIC inadvertently blocked 250,000 legal non-target websites.
SIC and ACCC have not provided annual aggregate numbers to ACMA
ASIC has mostly blocked specific URLs, which has resulted in no collateral damage. Even though the guidelines for website-blocking powers apply to federal agencies.ASIC and ACCC have not provided annual aggregate numbers to ACMA. The reason why ASIC and ACCC may not have provided annual aggregate numbers to ACMA. So that they made the requests as informal removal notices rather than formal legal requests submitted through section 313.
The 2015 inquiry found that only ASIC, AFP, and the Attorney-General had used section 313 for website takedowns. Before the ASIC incident, section 313 had never been interpreted as enabling federal, state, and territory agencies to block websites.
