Slashdot Mirror

... that 512 bit elliptic curve cryptography is still quite good. :D

Okay, it is worse... I found some concrete data: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Detai... (section 5A2)

1. Designed or modified to use “cryptography” employing digital techniques performing any cryptographic function other than authentication, digital signature or the execution of copyprotected “software”, and having any of the following: Technical Notes: 1. Functions for authentication, digital signature and the execution of copyprotected “software” include their associated key management function. 2. Authentication includes all aspects of access control where there is no encryption of files or text except as directly related to the protection of passwords, Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) or similar data to prevent unauthorised access. a. A “symmetric algorithm” employing a key length in excess of 56 bits; or Technical Note: In Category 5 — Part 2, parity bits are not included in the key length. b. An “asymmetric algorithm” where the security of the algorithm is based on any of the following: 1. Factorisation of integers in excess of 512 bits (e.g., RSA); 2. Computation of discrete logarithms in a multiplicative group of a finite field of size greater than 512 bits (e.g., DiffieHellman over Z/pZ); or 3. Discrete logarithms in a group other than mentioned in 5A002.a.1.b.2. in excess of 112 bits (e.g., DiffieHellman over an elliptic curve);

secondly it is your drone, you are responsible for it, if you can't secure it then you should not be using it around people.

thirdly, it should not have been flown within 30 meters of another person.
fourth (ly?), as it was used in a commercial capacity it should have been certified but neither Mr Abrams nor his business appear on the list of the 92 operators certified nationally.

You obviously know more about the situation in Australia than I do, and disabling the freedom of the press will definitely encourage corruption.

From the article however it appears that Australian civil servants regularly misappropriate technical information that comes to them under certain state-security statutes and then turn around and hand it to commercial parties of their choice to develop into products.

I honestly don't understand how these people can sleep at night. As a civil servant you're supposed to serve the people that employ you, not steal their work under cover of security statutes. And as for those "scientists" plagiarising (i.e. putting their own name on) ideas and inventions handed to them by state security ... words fail me.

Plus that gem about that new Aussie law (the Defence Trade Controls Act) that seems so broad that it can criminalise you for innocuous acts like sending an email with an explanation or leaving a server open (think about OSS) with e.g. software or information on potential dual use technology. (See e.g. http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/470072/Defence_Controls_Act_-_Information_v2.pdf and fos a list of controlled goods: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L02318/be04cd99-b7aa-4f39-a4cb-e35196ffc653)

In all probability the Australian government just wanted to impress the US with its zeal and preparedness to go after proliferators. In doing that they seem to have created a law (the DTCA) that allows communication about just about anything that could possibly find dual use to be retrospectively criminalised.

The only way to stay clear seems to be to either have a legal department vet each and every communication outside Australia (including accessible servers). Otherwise you put your head on the chopping block and all you can do is hope nobody will (with hindsight !) find cause to bring down the axe.

This is a school of legislation that goes back to the best traditions of the Crown asserting its Sovereign Rights over its subjects. Just put in a catch-all article and see if you're going to invoke it afterwards. Result: ease of legislation for the Government and everybody else has to live in fear of being prosecuted and can only hope for leniency and good will on part of the Government.

Now the US has got many things wrong, but this isn't one of them.

The Australian Privacy act defines personal information as: personal information means information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion.

This is not about 'internet restrictions'. This is to do with the fact that this represents a potential breach of the Privacy Act. Australia has fairly strong privacy regulations that govern how and when information can be sent overseas, and how people need to be notified of how their information is used, who can see it, what it can be used for etc. America OTOH is notorious for having probably the most lax privacy regulations/legislation in the developed world.

So yeah, in that respect, Australia's laws are "worse" (in that they are more strict with regards to protecting personal information). And we like it that way. Surreptitiously exporting information to a jurisdiction where similarly tough controls do not exist is not looked upon favourably.

Over here in Australia, the Advanced class has a lot more privileges than the Standard class - compare the frequencies and permitted modes for Advanced versus Standard. Also Advanced are allowed 400W pX for modes C3F, J3E or R3E and 120W pY otherwise, whereas the Standard class only permits 100W for modes J3E and R3E and 30W pY otherwise.

-VK5HZ

Over here in Australia, the Advanced class has a lot more privileges than the Standard class - compare the frequencies and permitted modes for Advanced versus Standard. Also Advanced are allowed 400W pX for modes C3F, J3E or R3E and 120W pY otherwise, whereas the Standard class only permits 100W for modes J3E and R3E and 30W pY otherwise.

-VK5HZ

Wait what - wouldn't providing this be a critical, basic role of government? Are you saying this doesn't exist already!? Or have I just been 'whooshed'?

I work in the legal sphere and my job involves a lot of trawling through legislation from various countries, and from various levels of government (Federal, State, local etc.). I have always taken for granted that the consolidated text of legislation (as well as the raw text of actual Bills passed) is provided by the Government in a freely accessible, easy-to-search (and easy-to-read) form. For example, for Australian Federal legislation, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ - there are similar services for each State legislature too, and in all the other countries I've worked in, mostly in Asia and Europe.

I mean, surely providing people with copies of the legislation and laws that apply to them (in their current, consolidated form, as well as the text of the actual Bills as passed) is an absolutely necessary requirement of any fair and just society? Is there really no such thing in the US? I kinda find hard to believe ... but I'm yet to do any significant amount of work with US legislation so simply don't know the sites out there that exist.

I don't know if a voluntary system would give us anything different here, the problem is that the lack of a rating within the codified guidelines result in a title being illegal to buy locally or import.

According to the code by which these classifications are made:
The Code
Under the Code, classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:
(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;
(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;
(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;
(d) the need to take account of community concerns about:
(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and
(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

Look at A there and tell me how not allowing me (a 30 year old) to legally acquire something like Mortal Kombat or Left for Dead 2 is abiding by their own guidelines.

If places like Hempstead make it too hard then the wireless companies should just pull out, and as soon as the council's CEO or Mayor finds their blackberry doesn't work anymore things might return to normality.

There was a case in Christchurch NZ (yep, shaky town) where the council ruling on a cell site on an old movie theatre was that there was 'no detectable emission' at ground level -- which made the installation completely pointless.

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.

No, you are only meant to fill in one box above the line. If you put a mark in more than one box it won't make any difference to your vote, or it may be marked as informal. (I say may, because my sources aren't clear on what happens if you fill out more than one box). What are you talking about is what Bob Brown of the Greens party is suggesting would be a better system, but its not what we have at the moment. Sources: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/DEC4F8A1D65DEBBCCA25776B001D4AC4

We do have a constitution. The bill of rights, however, is not in existence. We don't have anything similar to what the US has though. Probably due to having a completely different form of democracy.

Australia has an extradition agreement with the U.S.

The offences that are extraditable include:

11. Robbery.
12. Burglary; housebreaking or any similar offence.
13. Larceny.
14. Embezzlement.
15. Obtaining any property, money or valuable securities by false pretences or other form of deception.

I suspect this will not end well.

Sadly for the the employees left in the lurch, I don't see any of the offenses listed as extraditable committed or theft of any kind (IANNL). The head of a company, we will assume with the consent of its share holders, removed it's property from offices that it controlled. The employees have no right to this companies property or a right to dictate their actions except through lawful process.

The employees have a civil claim for their contracted wages, they should pursue those claims, perhaps with the assistance of a competent attorney. I suspect that this internet crybaby routine will only ensure they don't get paid. Frankly they got what they deserved for working without pay and not receiving an equity stake in the company/work. Chasing the CEO with a video camera and the police when they should have called an attorney likely sealed their fate.

This is a old lesson, people fall for it all the time, welcome to the club. The sooner you move on with your life the happier you will be.

Australia has an extradition agreement with the U.S.

The offences that are extraditable include:

11. Robbery.
12. Burglary; housebreaking or any similar offence.
13. Larceny.
14. Embezzlement.
15. Obtaining any property, money or valuable securities by false pretences or other form of deception.

I suspect this will not end well.

It really depends on the state. In the Australian Capital Territory for example it's illegal to even posses RC content.

See Part 10: Division 1 and Division 2: Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995

Whereas in Queensland, they have different legislation (see section 26). It's only illegal if you intend to sell or make an RC game or it has child abuse in it, otherwise you can do what you want with your RC game

you can still purchase them online and legally own and play them

Not true. From this post in the last discussion on the topic:

From the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995

10.99:

level 2 prohibited material means:
(a) a publication, film or computer game classified RC; or
(b) an unclassified publication, film or computer game that contains material that would be likely to cause it to be classified RC.

10.102:

A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has possession or control of material; and
(b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
(c) the material is in a prescribed area.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.

Wrong and Citation needed.

And you're still wrong.

From the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995

10.99:

level 2 prohibited material means:
              (a) a publication, film or computer game classified RC; or
              (b) an unclassified publication, film or computer game that contains material that would be likely to cause it to be classified RC.

10.102:

A person commits an offence if:
              (a) the person has possession or control of material; and
              (b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
              (c) the material is in a prescribed area.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.

There are actually only three levels to consider. Banned and Refused Classification are the SAME THING.

Also there's no real 'ban' here. You can still import the game or order it online, no problems. You just can't stock it on retail shelves in Australia because it hasn't been officially rated. The lack of a R18 rating meant the game couldn't be fit into any of the rating categories the classification board had available to it. Not much they can do about it.

Wrong. It is illegal to possess anything refused classification. At all. Go read the act.

And here's a citation:

From the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995

10.99:

level 2 prohibited material means:
                                          (a) a publication, film or computer game classified RC; or
                                          (b) an unclassified publication, film or computer game that contains material that would be likely to cause it to be classified RC.

10.102:

A person commits an offence if:
                                          (a) the person has possession or control of material; and
                                          (b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
                                          (c) the material is in a prescribed area.
Penalty: 100 penalty units.

No, Refused Classification makes it illegal to possess at all. In fact, just like in New Zealand, it is illegal to possess anything that would probably be refused classification if it were to be submitted!

From: Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrumentCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/6C888688A3BBD40ACA2574120004F72A

Films that exceed the R 18+ and X 18+ classification categories will be Refused Classification. Computer games that exceed the MA 15+ classification category will be Refused Classification.

Films that get refused classification involve bestiality, paedophilia, direct instruction in drug use etc. I expect that most reasonable people have no issue with this. Anything less than this gets an X18+ or R18+ rating and is legally for sale subject to conditions excluding minors. This includes every pointlessly violent slasher flick. A game that contains graphic violence that is "not justified by context" gets an RC rating and is banned from sale. Why the difference?

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/all/search/5E8E4A80A030A2C3CA2574FE0012C050

The organisation which classifies games for sale in australia does not have a rating system for games without a single player component.........game sales law which require all games to have a rating are very old (1980's)

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995:

5A Meaning of computer game
(1) A computer game is a computer program and any associated data capable of generating a display on a computer monitor, television screen, liquid crystal display or similar medium that allows the playing of an interactive game.
(2) A computer program, data associated with a computer program or
a computer program and any associated data that:
(a) is capable of generating new elements or additional levels into a game (the original game) that is a computer game under subsection (1); and
(b) is contained in a device separate from that containing the original game;
is also a computer game.
(3) However, a computer game does not include an advertisement for a publication, film or computer game.

I don't see anything in there specifically mentioning how many players define a "game".

Are you from the ACT perhaps? Certain locations are subject to a 99 year lease (see Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988), but your broader assertion is wrong.

That's because the Australian constitution is pretty terrible. It doesn't seem to have been proofread either. In one paragraph, it lists New Zealand as a state. See here. On page 8.
The whole thing was just a compromise between the states, it wasn't drawn up with new ideas by idealistic revolutionaries.

Huh. As I recall, the same kind of horse-trading went on with the passage of the GST many years back under the Howard Govt. They needed the support of Senator Brian Harradine to get GST through, and they traded off some Net Censorship thing which ultimately had no discernible impact on anything as far as I can tell (but it wasn't a mandatory filtering technology, obviously). Wikipedia seems to contradict me on the ultimate need for Harradine's support for GST, but I do distinctly remember him looking smug about some Internet-related thing in a TV news report at the time. A bit of digging makes me believe that the specific legislation in question is the "Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999", which amended the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to cover Internet content. Consequently, a lot of things are illegal to host online in Australia. There's no corresponding obligation for anyone to filter out illegal stuff hosted outside Australia, however.

I stopped reading the blog post after:

The IOC is a corrupt, bullying, greedy, hypocritical organization that uses trademark laws to limit the free speech and commerce of people who have the misfortune to attend or live near the games.

If I want knee-jerk rhetoric, I'll browse Digg, thank you very much. The Editors would have done better to link to the original CBC article.

From the CBC article:

VANOC said it has no desire to own the phrases and VANOC's use of the mottoes in no way changes how the national anthem is used by Canadians.

VANOC would only challenge the commercial use of the mottoes if a business began using them to create a specific, unauthorized commercial association with the 2010 Winter Games, said the statement.

This is only a trademark. You can still use the words/phrases as much as you want insofar as it's not connected to the 2010 Olympics. They're just trying to cut down on people cashing in on the Olympics without permission.

Whether they should be doing that is another debate. Personally, I think it goes against the spirit of the Games; but if you put a truck load of money into creating something, it's your right to decide how much of an asshole you want to be about sharing it.

The Olympic Games may be an imperfect representation of the ideals it is meant to embody, but it's still one of the few symbols regular people rally around. Abandoning it wholesale would be counterproductive—we'd just end up reducing the mindshare of these ideals in the minds of rich, well-off (compared to the rest of the world) people. Rather, we should look at how we can bring it back on track with all the things it's meant to signify to the world.

Having said that, I smell a Constitutional challenge in the wings. If they had to get a piece of legislation passed to enable this, that legislation just might be unconstitutional.

I don't know anything about Canadian law, but in Australia we had a similar case, Davis v Commonwealth in 1988. The government were all antsy about Australia's upcoming bicentenary (yes, Australia is that young) so they passed legislation banning the use of phrases like "Bicentenary", "200 years", "Australia" and "Founding" without licence from the bureaucracy.[1] It was struck down in our High Court as not being "reasonably appropriate and adapted" to achieving the end goal of celebrating the bicentennial.

Now, this situation is weaker in that they are not banning all uses, just the ones relating to the Olympics. But then, if it took a piece of legislation to get it done, the legislation may have overstepped the boundary of what's appropriate. I hear you guys have a Bill of Rights, something which Australia never had, which should help make the case stronger.

---- Footnotes ----

[1] Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980 (Cth) s 22, para (d) of the definition of Authority.

We have something similar here in Australia too, our Trade Practices Act 1975 (Vic) s 46—Misuse of market power. It'd be difficult to prove MS wouldn't be have been able to do this without their market power, though.

I don't know how much 12GB or 20GB SSDs cost (they haven't penetrated the Australian market); the only SSDs I could find online were ExpressCard SSDs. Amongst those, there's a $100 difference between Lexar's 16GB SSD and its 32GB one. 16G/32GB are massively different from 12/20GB, but the comparison shows that the price difference may be explainable by the different SSD. Yes, I may be wrong in using Australian prices since Asus doesn't do its manufacturing here, but then neither does Lexar. I can only presume price difference in Australia is somewhat linked to the price difference overseas, where both Lexar and Asus do the manufacturing.

As to the price of XP, an OEM disc of Windows XP Home costs about $100. Xandros Desktop Professional costs $99 to download. Those are end user prices. Asus would probably be able to secure further discounts. The question would then be whether Microsoft was supplying Windows XP to Asus at prices only explainable as an attempt to use their market power. I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to give Asus Windows XP for free—that would be clearly a use of market power. Short of that, any price they charge may be explained as an aggressive attempt to counter what they view as their biggest threat.

I agree, Google is involved in the generation and preparation of advertising material, and has taken on a great deal of legal responsibility by doing so. However I think your assumption that Channel 6 couldn't (or wouldn't) be chased by the ACCC is false.

It is my understanding that if a corporation distributed advertising that they knew, or should reasonably have known, was false, then they would be liable under section 52 of the TPA.

e.g. If you walked down the street handing out leaflets containing misleading or deceptive information, and you knew that to be the case, then you will have engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.
Luckily you're not a corporation, so the legislation would not apply to you.

Alternatively if a business was paid to put an advertising poster in their window that they knew contained misleading information, then they could be held liable, even if

1. They didn't prepare the ad
2. The ad wasn't for their business

You may be thinking of the Crimes Act 1914 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCom pilation1.nsf/0/33F7611CCEC92FD6CA2572BB008331DC?O penDocument

I am not sure what you mean by

Of course, conspiracy theorists would argue that this was all made up and the real story is being withheld.

PDF links to the bill in question and its explanatory memoranda. And here's the existing copyright act (which the bill ammends, think diff/patch).

I'm neither a lawyer nor a member of parliament, nor have I read the whole thing in detail, but my initial impression is: this bill is actually an improvement on the status quo. Sure, it doesn't go far enough, but it does introduce some exceptions for time- and format-shifting, for example. The issues the IIA points out are certainly true, but they are all existing issues with the law as it currently stands, that this bill fails to address, rather than new things introduced by this bill.

EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGES
The following are common examples of electronic messages which are likely to be considered a commercial electronic message:
* offers of stock-market options, credit and mortgage arrangements;
* offers of computer goods including software and hardware;
* promotions of pharmaceutical and health-related products;
* promotions of sales at markets, shops or warehouses;
* sale of franchises or business ventures;
* advertisements for restaurants, exhibitions or trades services;
* promotions of pornographic websites or services; and
      advance fee or Nigerian scam2 emails, get-rich-quick schemes and gambling services.
*
EXAMPLES OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGES THAT MAY NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE
The following are examples of electronic messages which are not likely to be considered commercial electronic messages:
* community-focussed messages, for example, about the closure of local riding and walking tracks;
* surveys, for example, collecting statistics about the use of public services and utilities; and
* newsletters, for example, providing updates about matters of interest to the local community.

Nuisance messages such as those containing viruses may also not have a commercial purpose and may not be considered to be spam.

Messages of these types however may be subject to separate Australian legislation.

The legislative provisisons cited above contain the specific law that applies to the use of patented inventions by the Crown and its agencies, and can be found on ComLaw.

Oh, and to all those IANALs blabbing about sovereign immunity: go and get an education. The State and its major agencies (the legislature, courts of record, and the Crown or ministers exercising the prerogative powers of the Crown) are immune in the exercise of the particular powers that are or were traditionally exercised by the sovereign (e.g. enacting legislation, issuing judgments in legal disputes, or declaring war), but that doesn't give any government official (including the person in whom the personality of the Crown is currently vested) licence to go around killing, maiming, looting, etc, as if they were above the law.