Slashdot Mirror

the government has just moved to block the greens from proposing the "oppositions" amendments to the bill, an opposition who is now voting against their own ammendments.

It is now before the senate in its original form.

I am reporting this to you in real time watch it for yourself

Actually the article said it had passed the house. It didn't say it has passed the senate.

I am watching it, in the Senate RIGHT NOW. I have shared the link has just passed the second reading

Has been stopped for now:

No it hasn't. It is being debated in the Senate right now.

It is now before the Senate Livestream link at the time of posting.

The Bill is being debated right now. This is the live stream link at the time of posting.

Here is mine... pity I sent it before Krebs wrote https://krebsonsecurity.com/20...

This is a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) review of the Telecommunication and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 [0].

Chinese surveillance society [1] offers a chilling vision of a society I never want to live in.

Just as Apple differentiates itself [2] clearly from Google and Facebook by saying we will never sell your data (you aren't the product), I think Western democracies ought to clearly differentiate themselves from China.

Currently we're heading towards a local optima that will look more and more like China. Because of certain problems (paedophiles, drug dealers, terrorists), government wants weak encryption. Then in large part because of weak encryption, we can't use Chinese components in our networks [3].

Well, the truth is that paedophiles/drug dealers/terrorists will all wake up to the fact that comms on common services can be intercepted, and will use their own encryption (routed over TOR or similar, so you can't tell who the endpoints are). Phantom Secure is evidence that this horse has already bolted[4]. Though I guess you might make any private encryption technology illegal? Why not?!!

The net result being that only people with "nothing to hide" will be using services that you can surveil.

Thinking more broadly, if drugs such as marijuana and MDMA were legal, then probably 95% of the so-called encryption problem goes away. And lots of other problems as well... Count on certain relatively benign recreational drugs being legalized soon after self-driving cars become common.

And then I'd argue that you catch the paedophiles and terrorists with creative policing[5]. You don't absolutely need this kind of legislation to then get into their phones [6].

In summary, a much better approach would be to support strong encryption (the global optimum), and say clearly we don't want to follow China. With strong encyption right across our telecomms networks, we'd be able to source equipment from Huwaie and ZTE ... Of course, there's the additional concern that the Chinese could stop packet transmission entirely (ie a kill switch), or make it unreliable, but that's a different problem to "they might read our stuff".

The real concern would then be any laptop server[7] or phone made in China (ie most of them) - the terminal devices where stuff must be decrypted for the user to see.

Of course, the problem is that embracing "strong encryption" is anathema to the received wisdom from the rest of the Five Eyes [8], and you need to take a broader perspective to realise it is the right choice for an open society.

[0] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliam...

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com...

[3] https://www.itnews.com.au/news... https://www.itnews.com.au/news...

[4] http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

[5]

We let in nearly 300,000 people a year, [...]

That's a very misleading figure because it includes short-term visas for students and business people. In 2015-2016, the number of immigrants was 189,770 under the migration program plus 17,555 under the humanitarian program. Net migration is around the 178,000 mark.

But even this is beside the point. The problem isn't that we let in so many people, the problem is that we shove them into capital cities. There is no housing crisis in regional centres. But there isn't enough infrastructure either.

Other people would disagree with you http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliame.... Want kidnappers et at pay for them and you will have all you want.

You don't seem to be capable of anything but aping the article so I thought I'd help you actually learn something instead of just parrot what you are told.

All of the costs are interconnected, part of the reason the transmission costs have increased is because most of the money had been funneled into green projects, ignoring infrastructure.

For anyone who is interested this was my analysis of the TPP [warning;pdf] made to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in my country based on the thousand or so pages I got through.

It was clear to me that it is not in the interests of any country to effectively dismantle their justice system in regards to any commercial laws they may attempt to make. Everything I wrote applies evenly to any country that signs on to the TPP, even the US.

This is not a new idea. Australian has has bills attempted since the 80's. I'm sure I saw it get slipped in at some point in the 90's.
source

I would support this if the government:

1. Pursued these companies for company tax, not just make them pass on GST from our pockets. 2. More funding to the ACCC to make these companies actually stick to Australian Consumer Laws (i.e. Sony PSN & Steam) 3. Do something about the price disparity to overseas that can not be reasonably be explained by the tax, shipping, costs to do business in Australia, etc.

But knowing this government, it will just be another hairbrain implementation that hurts anyone who is not a middle/upper-class baby-boomer.

• 2. ACCC? Aren't they the mob that reckoned Andrew Forrest's (Fortescue) plan to "cap iron ore prices" wasn't "acting as a cartel"? (even though it turned out to actually be the case). About as much chance as ACMA ignoring the Packer funded Christian nutjobs plans for internet filtering (that just happens to block overseas digital casinos) and their directors leaving for jobs with Salmat (quit pretending to police spam and get more money distributing junk mail).
• 3. You mean like - implement the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications recommendations? Not. Going. To. Happen. Don't forget we need to finance a war. Well several wars actually. And then there's the wars we're not officially in - yet (coughAfricacoughIrancough). Long live perpetual war. Blessed is the USA for they lead us to a partnership of peace and prosperity (and lower domestic petroleum prices).

2nd amendment? to what exactly?

AFAIK, the 2nd amendment refers to the power of the Commonwealth to take over pre-existing state debts to debts incurred by a state at any time. Source.

Get outta here with your right to bear[sic] arms!

Orders for production of documents are among the most significant procedures available to the Senate to deal with matters of public interest giving rise to questions of ministerial accountability. It is open to the Senate to treat a refusal to table documents as a contempt of the Senate. In cases of government refusal without due cause, however, the Senate has preferred political remedies. In extreme cases the Senate, to punish the government for not producing a document, could resort to more drastic measures than censure of the government, such as refusing to consider government legislation. (See also Chapter 19, Relations with the Executive Government, under Remedies against executive refusal of information.)

Lets hope that they continue to pressure the government for this information. The rest of the voting process is open, why not the counting software? Or at least easy access to the raw data, so members of the public can analyse it themselves.

The Department is also advised that sophisticated criminals and terrorists are exploiting encryption and related counter-interception techniques to frustrate law enforcement and security investigations, either by taking advantage of default-encrypted communications services or by adopting advanced encryption solutions. The Department’s current view is that law enforcement, anti-corruption and national security agencies should be permitted to apply to an independent issuing authority for a warrant authorising the agency to issue ‘intelligibility assistance notices’ to service providers or other persons. The issuing authority should be permitted to impose conditions or restrictions on the scope of this authority.

Where issued to a service provider, such notices would formalise existing arrangements....

When issued to a person other than a service provider, such as the subject of a warrant, the Department’s preliminary view is that a notice would operate in a similar fashion to orders made under section 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914. Section 3LA permits agencies that have seized physical hardware, such as a computer or an external hard drive, under a search warrant to apply for a further warrant requiring a person to ‘provide any information or assistance that is reasonable and necessary’ to allow information held on the device to be converted into an intelligible form.

...issuing authorities should be able to authorise an agency to issue ‘intelligibility assistance notices’, requiring a person to provide information or assistance to place previously lawfully accessed communications into an intelligible form, as discussed by the PJCIS at Recommendation 16...

Recommendation 16
The Committee recommends that, should the Government decide to develop an offence for failure to assist in decrypting communications, the offence be developed in consultation with the telecommunications industry, the Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority. It is important that any such offence be expressed with sufficient specificity so that telecommunications providers are left with a clear understanding of their obligations. ...
The Department’s preliminary view is to support recommendation 16 in principle.

- Comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, Submission 26

This has got to be the most full of crap post I have ever read on slashdot. Even in Australia, where they have a history of being big on Carbon (enough to spark a backlash of late) they won't claim half of that. Australia has ideal solar capacity and even they are projecting that they theoretically could reach 50% of baseline with renewables by 2040 and that is the most aggressive credible study I have ever heard of.

Keep in mind that Australia is largely ideally suited for renewables with ample sunshine, and a low population that is largely either in large cities or small towns and very little in-between. That makes it about one of the best places you could possibly have short of a small island for having a renewables based energy source. The resources to scale up windmills, solar panels and other forms of renewables are not infinite and have to come from somewhere.

Windmills and solar panels require rare earth minerals and those come from mines that are almost exclusively in China. A new mine has recently opened in the US so at least one mine will be run with environmental standards. However your notion that we have enough supplies to build enough windmills to power the world is absurd. Don't forget about present shortages in silicon for creating solar panels with the today's production capacity. The idea that we have the materials to supply the world is absurd as cold fusion.

Even when you get the power which often comes at less than ideal times (when it's sunny, windy etc) you have to store somewhere. That means creating batteries and batteries are either going to use materials that are bad for the environment or going to be hyrdopower based or air based and difficult to scale. They can be built, however you simply cannot scale these on a world wide basis at any kind of realistic rate, no matter how well they work at a small scale because the capacity simply isn't there.

I firmly support renewables and have followed the technology for decades. However I have to call out pie in the sky posts like yours as being environmentally irresponsible. The result of always claiming baseline renewables were right around the corner has been decades of keeping society firmly in the hands of the coal industry. Meanwhile we could have had real environmental change by building nuclear power plants instead of more coal power plants because people forget the power has to come from somewhere.

Your objective analysis of median household incomes is very helpful, but your final point about consumer goods being more expensive because of our welfare state appears to be largely unsupported.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the reason many Australians buy products from overseas is because of arbitrary price differences driven by artificial market segmentation. Hence, only a few years ago, if you wanted to buy a top-end MacBook, it was cheaper to fly to the USA to buy it. Apple's prices have (mostly) harmonised nowadays, but other examples remain (eg. specialist software). Look at any vendor that sells products direct to the consumer via a website, and you will likely discover that the cost of the Australian product is significantly more than the essentially identical USA product.

Indeed, the Australian government recently finished an investigation into discriminatory pricing. The foreword says "In many cases, the price differences for IT products cannot be explained by the cost of doing business in Australia. Particularly when it comes to digitally delivered content, the Committee concluded that many IT products are more expensive in Australia because of regional pricing strategies implemented by major vendors and copyright holders."

It seems to be the same method used in Australia over a book called Axis of Deceit.
Destroy the drive in front of the gov 'now' or the gov will take the drive.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fprspub%2FN16J6%22
".... office to cleanse the offending material from our computers. They transferred the data to a hard disk then gave us the option of having it taken away or destroyed in front of us. We chose the second option, then watched them do it with a special little disk-breaking hammer. They graciously followed up this service with a customer satisfaction form.12"
..."also had their hard drives cleansed around early September 2004, several months after the amended book had gone on sale."

Australia had its own day of 'cleansing' over a book, Axis of Deceit.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fprspub%2FN16J6%22
"...then watched them do it with a special little disk-breaking hammer. They graciously followed up this service with a customer satisfaction form"
".... also had their hard drives cleansed around early September 2004, several months after the amended book had gone on sale"

Turns out it was both unfeasible (i mean, it was obvious even to people who weren't going to have to implement it) to monitor everything and not everyone here is a complete idiot. Lucky for us, i guess.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis%2Fnsl2012%2Freport.htm

The right to petition Federal Parliament has been one of the rights of citizens since federation, and it is the only way an individual can directly place grievances before the Parliament.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Petitions

How about a proven example instead of one that hasn't been proven despite a year of media noise and attempts at legal discovery. It could be true, but I don't know for sure, neither do you and neither do the prancing poodles and other political opportunists scraping the bottom of the barrel without much luck.

Read the fair work australia report on Craig Thomson and HSU. It's here. It contains plenty of findings showing Thomson's actions for what they were. The cops are following through on this, but they are taking their time because the higher ups don't want to destabilize the Oz government further than what it already is. The second the next election is over though, they will hang him.

Did *you* read before commenting? The summary said:

Australia is currently in the middle of parliamentary inquiry into the country's disproportionately high prices for technology.

Google turned up a reference

House of Representatives Committees
House Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications
Inquiry into IT Pricing

On 24 May 2012 the Committee resolved to inquire into IT price discrimination, following a request from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy.

oops stuffed up the link: http://aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/additional/discussion%20paper.pdf

Relevant Act: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Terms of Reference extract: 15. Modernising the Industry assistance framework a. tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts

The details are sorely lacking. Here is Electronic Frontiers Australia's submission to the inquiry (pdf):

EFA is seriously concerned at the lack of detail provided by the Attorney-General’s Department in relation to this proposal, as well as the lack of any cost-benefit analysis or even a substantive justification for such a wide-ranging proposal that would affect all Australians. It is therefore very difficult to make meaningful comments on a proposal that lacks any substantive detail. EFA recommends that the Committee reject this proposal out of hand, and request that the Attorney-General’s Department provide a detailed proposal that includes an explanation of the justifications behind it and a cost-benefit analysis.

Relevant Act: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Terms of Reference extract: 15. Modernising the Industry assistance framework a. tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts

The details are sorely lacking. Here is Electronic Frontiers Australia's submission to the inquiry (pdf):

EFA is seriously concerned at the lack of detail provided by the Attorney-General’s Department in relation to this proposal, as well as the lack of any cost-benefit analysis or even a substantive justification for such a wide-ranging proposal that would affect all Australians. It is therefore very difficult to make meaningful comments on a proposal that lacks any substantive detail. EFA recommends that the Committee reject this proposal out of hand, and request that the Attorney-General’s Department provide a detailed proposal that includes an explanation of the justifications behind it and a cost-benefit analysis.

"The laws are pretty clear that your online activity can only be recorded if the police specifically ask your ISP."

@Zouden since the legislation was signed yesterday have you personally looked at it?

I haven't but I've scanned through the discussion paper [0], "The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has commenced an inquiry into potential reforms of national security legislation." from the 'Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security'. [1] This legislation is simply a rubber stamp to update the Telecommunications act 79, 97, the ASIO act 97 and the Intelligence services act 2001. The outcome of the specific changes are not clear at the moment but the big picture is clear. Lets make it easier to collect and gather intelligence and share it between stakeholders - a nasty word that means intelligence, law enforcement and revenue collection at state & federal level.

    ''There is a big risk that we will in the future not be able to undertake even basic investigations...
      from our perspective data retention is a must. We seriously would not be able to do the majority
      of investigations without it' AFP, High Tech Crime Centre, Neil Gaughan. [2]

Future changes to the legislation make the ideas in the discussion paper and potentially the legislation (which I have yet to read) passed dangerous because an objective of the report is to identify & store information of online of all Australian individuals.

Reference
[0] http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/additional/discussion%20paper.pdf
[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/index.htm
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/data-trail-easy-to-follow-for-big-brother-20120720-22ffm.html#ixzz24N57ILoN

"The laws are pretty clear that your online activity can only be recorded if the police specifically ask your ISP."

@Zouden since the legislation was signed yesterday have you personally looked at it?

I haven't but I've scanned through the discussion paper [0], "The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has commenced an inquiry into potential reforms of national security legislation." from the 'Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security'. [1] This legislation is simply a rubber stamp to update the Telecommunications act 79, 97, the ASIO act 97 and the Intelligence services act 2001. The outcome of the specific changes are not clear at the moment but the big picture is clear. Lets make it easier to collect and gather intelligence and share it between stakeholders - a nasty word that means intelligence, law enforcement and revenue collection at state & federal level.

    ''There is a big risk that we will in the future not be able to undertake even basic investigations...
      from our perspective data retention is a must. We seriously would not be able to do the majority
      of investigations without it' AFP, High Tech Crime Centre, Neil Gaughan. [2]

Future changes to the legislation make the ideas in the discussion paper and potentially the legislation (which I have yet to read) passed dangerous because an objective of the report is to identify & store information of online of all Australian individuals.

Reference
[0] http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/additional/discussion%20paper.pdf
[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/index.htm
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/data-trail-easy-to-follow-for-big-brother-20120720-22ffm.html#ixzz24N57ILoN

From crikey.com.au
"The final terms of reference for the inquiry match the proposals sent to the committee by Roxon, and include the controversial 2 year data retention proposal long urged by Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s bureaucrats. However, the committee has now also published a discussion paper prepared by the Attorney-Generalâ(TM)s Department to commence the inquiry, outlining the rationale for three types of proposals: those the government wants to progress, those it is considering, and those it is merely seeking views on."
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/additional/discussion%20paper.pdf

from memory he has a criminal record for hacking in Australia yeah?
you cant be in parlment with a criminal record...

Nope, only a handful of convictions (treason, bribery, etc.) are disqualifiers from Oz parliament. His main problem would be he'd have to renounce any dual citizenship.

If they do vote him in, the beauty of democracy is that it thoroughly rewards masochistic voters.

No president wants to go into history as the guy that cut living standards by half only to have debt resolved a few decades later. And you'd need several presidents in a row in order to pull this off.

Interesting. Going with this mentality, either the US will slowly trickle down into lower and lower standards and more and more cutbacks are done, or it will simply default on repayments. While I do see that there are a LOT of defaults happening in the US, and that fifteen trillion debt is American personal debt, not how much the US owes other countries, I still can't really see how the US will be able to maintain the standard of living that it has - no matter what the presidents want to do. Bush was able to get away with the stupid levels of spending in a large part due to the fact that everyone still wanted to buy US bonds. That market isn't as open anymore, China is about full up on what it wants to buy, the European Union has likely learned its lesson already in the shit that it bought before the crash - and even if they hadn't, they have more than enough of their own problems to clean up to have surplus cash lying around.

Whatever the outcome, I think that this whole global economy is going to get a whole lot more interesting over the next five to ten years. While I live in a country that has terrible money management (mainly due to a slipperly slope that was started in the 80's, but we started running down it in the last ten years), at least I can be somewhat relieved that we are a massive exporter of minerals. I do seriusly wonder what will happen to economies like the US where the only things that they seem to export these days are intangible.

You link to an article that explains that in one particular region of the Sahara the localised effects of climate change may have caused more rain, and hence desert greening. This does not mean that the same thing will occur everywhere in the world. In fact, desertification is increasing. Consider some other recent evidence:

climate change is making desertification "the greatest environmental challenge of our times"
Australia suffers worst drought in 1,000 years
THE GREAT DROUGHT OF 2011 Is America's Worst Since The Dust Bowl
Africa drought pushes Kenya and Somalia into pre-famine conditions

Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains. Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Backlash made them rethink it? Or just pretending to go back on it, to reveal it all at the last moment again?

From the update:

The following statement has been received from the Attorney-General’s Department: The Safe Harbour consultation paper is currently on the AGD website. Comments are due by 22 November 2011. The Department is currently working on a number of copyright policy issues relevant to the digital environment. A draft document which incorporated other issues not included in the Safe Harbour review was mistakenly posted on the Departmental website. It was removed as soon as the error came to light. A clarification will be posted on the website. We believe that the ongoing departmental convened discussions between ISPs and content owners is currently the most appropriate forum to address these issues. The relevant page - with email address for submitting your feedback is here.

IMO they were caught out with too much detail and are now backpedalling

At this time I think besides feedback to the AG, you could discuss this with your federal MP or even your senator.

Don't forget to give your opinion about the NBN!

Backlash made them rethink it? Or just pretending to go back on it, to reveal it all at the last moment again?

From the update:

The following statement has been received from the Attorney-General’s Department: The Safe Harbour consultation paper is currently on the AGD website. Comments are due by 22 November 2011. The Department is currently working on a number of copyright policy issues relevant to the digital environment. A draft document which incorporated other issues not included in the Safe Harbour review was mistakenly posted on the Departmental website. It was removed as soon as the error came to light. A clarification will be posted on the website. We believe that the ongoing departmental convened discussions between ISPs and content owners is currently the most appropriate forum to address these issues. The relevant page - with email address for submitting your feedback is here.

IMO they were caught out with too much detail and are now backpedalling

At this time I think besides feedback to the AG, you could discuss this with your federal MP or even your senator.

Don't forget to give your opinion about the NBN!

AC did you read http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscc/cybercrime_bill/report/additional_comments.pdf ?
ASIO (Australia's national security service ~MI5) gets more power.
Your ISP will preserve traffic data for a ***foreign country*** in response to a mutual assistance request. (A 24/7 tap thats .au legal, NSA is in from the cold)
Traffic may be stored for up to 180 days
Domestic investigation data is shared without request to any country Australia likes.
No independent oversight.
Not clear on 'telecommunications data' - what can they collect?
No dual criminality test for mutual assistance - if your ip is found anywhere in the world on any forum...

Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 places three key requirements on the broadcasters of political advertisements. Clauses 3, 3A and 4 of Schedule 2 require broadcasters to:
...
cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day).

The Act in question Doesn't seem to include social media -- it has television and radio.
I'm no lawyer, but to be honest if any of Australia's laws were that current I would be shocked. I mean, we have a communications minister who thinks that you can filter bit torrent without killing it

For clarification of bill of rights in Australia read this http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm. So the specific concern is a bill of rights limits rights, rather than rights being unlimited until legally contested and put before state and federal governments. Apart from 'implied freedom of political communication' and of course constitutional freedom of religion, both of which can of course be stretched to infinity with regards to freedom of speech.

The more interesting point is that Facebooks privacy controls are a complete illusion http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/security-experts-go-to-war-wife-targeted-20110517-1eqsm.html and of course computer security experts (drips under pressure) can be a cantankerous lot and use the letter of the law like a club to attack others whilst believing is does not apply to them personally.

The "hahaha communism has never worked so we shouldn't even consider adopting communist features" attitude is stupid. Pure capitalism would also be a complete failure (if it ever existed), that doesn't mean you shouldn't adopt capitalist features to your government.

Adopting parts of communism and the parts of capitalism works. It creates societies with extremely high living standards. The highest in the world as a matter of fact.

I live in a country with such a mix of communist and capitalist features. Nationalised health care, nationalised education, government assigned jobs for those who can't get a job otherwise, communist style housing for the less fortunate and soon a new nationalised broadband network all running alongside the capitalist parts of the economy. The current party in government here, the Australia Labor party, is a member of the socialist international movement> . A movement which is in power in Australia and Norway. Nations that rate higher on standard of living charts that the un-socialist USA.

So yes, pure communism is a failure. Pure capitalism is also a failure. But a country with communist and capitalist elements to it rocks. We get the American style system but if we fail to succeed in the capitalist system there's this safety net of a communist style system.

I doubt batteries are the answer. However, I am not sure why renewables are automatically assumed to be incapable of meeting baseload.

Study on renewables as baseload in North Carolina
Brief paper on baseload and renewables
research paper on renewable baseload in Australia
Short paper from university of new south wales

I just wish our country could pick a direction and start moving toward it (even nuclear). The country changing its mind every 4-8 years isn't very conducive to upgrading the power grid to be 'smarter', store power (pumped storage, etc...), transfer more efficiently at longer distances, etc.. when many of these projects could take 20+ years.

Offtopic, but that is a very interesting link you have posted, and to my eye, looks correct.

I'm a dual Australian and American citizen, so am familiar with the politics of both countries and the recent debates re health care in the US. In Australia we have universal, single-payer health care and like 99% of people here I believe that is a good thing. However, your link led me to take a look at the constitutional situation with regards to healthcare matters here. The Australian Constitution is not dissimilar to the US one - both set up a system of Federal Govt. with certain powers, with other powers remaining with the States.

Lo and behold, implementing Australia's universal healthcare system DID require a change to the Constitution:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm

That is the Australian equivalent of section 8 of the US Constitution, setting out the powers of the Federal Government. Cast your eye down it and you will see one that breaks the normal numbering scheme - between paragraph 23 and 24 you have a random paragraph 'xxiiiA' that allows them to legislate regarding healthcare. It was indeed inserted to allow UHC to be implemented in Australia in the mid-70s.

Given this, and given the large scale similarities with the US Consititution, it does indeed seem as if any such system implemented in America would require section 8 of the US Constitution to be amended. Interesting how this is an issue that has seemingly been overlooked in the debate.

Most people had the expectation that they would be able to receive broadcasts with the addition of a digital box.

And most people could. Only the people near the limit of the error-correctable range would be affected. However, the people who are negatively impacted will always be the most vocal about the new system, and thus will create the impression that the system was somehow inherently broken...

The digital cliff effect (also at wiki:Cliff Effect) is what ends up with some people requiring new antennas... However anyone who could receive reasonable picture quality over analogue with rabbit ears should be able to get digital with similar equipment, except in the "cliff zone"...

Yeah I was staying fairly generic in not separating out our levels & types of government :) My understanding is that changes to law are raised by ministers ...

Not only by ministers.
Any Member can introduce a proposed law (bill) but most are introduced by the Government. To become law, bills must be passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They may start in either house but the majority of bills are introduced in the House of Representatives.
Other countries (not Australia) allow citizens to propose laws or require a referendum (if enough number of signatures are collected).

Only if you advocate use of force as a means of achieving it. Advocating it via legislative process is perfectly legal, and in fact Australia had a referendum on the matter in 1999 (the process was gamed by a monarchist prime minister, so we ended up with a proposed government model so odious not even the hard core republic supporters wanted to touch it).

The odd part about the monarchy in Australia is that the Queen is basically a rubber stamp, the duties are actually performed by the Governor General. There's an excellent article about this and the implications of an Australian republic here if you're interested.

http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/ This site contains a large group of masturbators showing the sort of thing you shouldn't bring into the country.

Go here http://abc.com.au/ and then here http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/all/search/2E7F5179D6598E8DCA2574730019A00B. As for fibre broadband network legislation is required to enable it, and unless language stipulating censorship is included then it can't happen and that legislation is amended. Government departments can not act outside of legislation unless that legislation incorporates that out of bounds operation, as for freedom of speech in Australia that is more complex http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm.

The biggest threat high bandwidth internet has politically, is an end to campaign contributions to pay for commercial broadcasting purposes. Every politician and every political party will be able to upload their message, speeches, supporting performance (on permanent record) to government hosted web sites (local, state and federal) which every citizen can freely access. No more for profit political commercials now that cripples the influence of the rich via mass media and promotes independent politicians as well as enabling smaller political parties to gain access to the electorate upon an equal basis. Additional every single sitting of any legislative body can be recorded, uploaded and accessed by anybody at any time.

Plus think of fun stuff it will enable, web hosted multi site parties, were web cams and big screen TV's can link together multiple locations around the world, for that family reunion Christmas (many sleepless day/night opportunities in there) etc.

Yes. His term expires in June 2011, so the next election will be the last one before his term expires and therefore he is up for the vote.

Disclaimer: I do not condone the DDoS attacks. I think they are childish, stupid, illegal and counter-productive.

We elected this government and the previous one which planned the censorship originally.

That's true, but there's one issue here which is important for everyone.

The previous government didn't "plan the censorship". Their plan was to clamp down on what is hosted in Australia that violates local content laws. The idea was to bring local Internet hosting under the same rules as local book shops. You may or may not agree with the classification rules, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me, at least in principle. If you don't like the rules on what is refused classification, you should change the classification rules, not the rules which brings everyone under the same rules.

The current government was not elected on the basis of what they are currently proposing. The policy that they ran on has mysteriously disappeared from the ALP's web site, but a copy remains at the APH library. Here's they key snippet:

Provide a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA ‘blacklist’ will be made more comprehensive to ensure that children are protected from harmful and inappropriate online material.

And just after the election, news reports were still saying:

Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.

I, and everyone else who actually read the policy prior to the 2007 election, interpreted this as meaning that ISPs will be required to provide a feed filtered with an ACMA-provided blacklist which filters only RC material, which will be provided by default, and that customers (possibly excluding schools etc) may opt out.

Essentially, the proposal looked like it was intended to move Net Alert from the client to the ISP, and restrict the filtering to the same standard that all other media are covered by, namely RC. Yes, this would have put a burden on smaller ISPs. Yes, it might give parents a false sense of security that the feed is "clean". Yes, details would have to be worked out. Nonetheless, everyone who read the policy document seemed to agree that it wasn't a ridiculous idea in principle and it might be worth trialling.

What is on the table now is something quite different. If the proposal happens, not only will you not be able to opt out (contrary to pre- and post-election promises), but classification decisions will also be secret (at the moment, every OFLC decision is in a public database).

Wherever you stand on Internet censorship, the bait-and-switch is something that you should be angry about, and I don't think you need to be Australian to feel that anger.

There is a ban on 'political advertising' in Australia for 3 days prior to an election as well. To quote from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb05.htm (an Australian Government Research Paper into Political Advertising in Australia):

Clause [...] 4 of Schedule 2 [to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992] require[s] broadcasters to [...] cease political advertisements in the three days before polling day (from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the close of the poll on polling day).

The aim of [the above] clause, which requires what is commonly known as the electronic media ‘blackout’, is to ‘provide a “cooling off period” for electors to consider their stance on the issues without the influences of electronic media advertising’. This provision had been in place for about 50 years before being deemed unnecessary in 1991 when a complete election advertising ban was imposed [...]. However, it was re-enacted in 1992 after a High Court decision declared the complete ban invalid. The ‘blackout’ can also be seen to prevent parties making claims late in election campaigns that cannot be scrutinised before election day.

However, as you can see from the quote, political parties can in fact advertise in 'non-electronic' media...

Let me state up front that for many, many reasons I think society is better of heading towards New Urbanism... both for sociological, psychological, resource efficiency and energy efficiency reasons. We could be happier, healthier, live in cleaner cities and maybe even work less hours and yet still have the same, if not better levels of comfort.

However, it seems the 2 main problems with EV's have been solved. Those 2 problems were:
1. No one wants to buy an expensive new battery every few years as the car battery runs down. (Although battery life technology increases all the time).
2. No one wants to have to stop and charge for 8 hours on the occasions they need to drive more than 160km.

This is solved with the "Better Place" battery swap system! The irony here is I actually think a "Better Place" is a car-free, or extremely "car-disciplined" town plan like New Urbanism is a much better place to live.

Better Place have developed a new international EV car standard and are inviting all car companies to join up or be left behind. Renault-Nissan have already joined up, and will be producing the first cheap mass produced electric car ever.

They sell you the car, but they own the battery.

Then for most suburban driving you'll just charge whenever the car is still. (Which works out on average about 22 hours a day!) You'll charge at home, at work, at the shops. (Better Place installs EV charge points everywhere when they "do" a city).

The CEO Shai Agassi gave a presentation at his TED talk.
Shai Agassi's bold plan for electric cars, Video on TED.com

Better Place is coming to taxis in Tokyo, a trial in Canberra, San Francisco, massive deployment in Israel (which will probably be the first country off oil for domestic car use), Hawaii, Denmark, and other places.

Shai's Australian talk basically said that on a per km basis, electricity will charge your car at about $0.80 cents a litre oil equivalent distance. Fuel in Australia costs around $1.20 to $1.30 a litre. Imagine how fast people are going to want these cars when they realise how convenient and cheap they are now, let alone when peak oil hits.

However.... there are a whole bunch of other peaks coming, including peaks in various rare earths and metals used in car production, which is why I prefer the lower embodied energy solutions of New Urbanism and walkable cities.

Even the Australian Senate found for "more walkable" cities... and yet realised this could be difficult.

"Increasing walking, cycling and public transport use in cities is a worthwhile goal for a number of reasons, regardless of predictions about the oil future. If there is a long term rise in the price of oil, it will be all the more necessary."

However we should not underestimate the difficulties involved. Vast areas of post World War 2 suburbia have been designed on the assumption that most travel would be by car, and with the aim of making this easier. The effect has been to make travel in any other way more difficult, as activity centres disperse to sites distant from the public transport network, and the environment for pedestrians and cyclists is degraded by traffic. In these areas existing public transport routes do not serve many travel needs, and existing services mostly function as welfare for people without cars, with a very low proportion of total trips (less than 5%)."

Chapter 5:21-22

My favourite piece ever to explore how quickly we could retrofit suburbia around walking distance plans is Worldchanging: My Other Car is a Bri

Independent Senator Nick Minchin

Nick Minchin is a Liberal, not an independent. Did you mean Nick Xenaphon?