Slashdot Mirror

You should learn to use Google.

Exactly what I was going to say. In the near future $10,000 will be hailed (rightly, wrongly, or exaggeratedly) as a huge success in reducing tax evasion, with a new limit of $5,000 or less being proposed.

Meanwhile, if the politicians really wanted to limit tax evasion (err, avoidance) they'd ban money coming into/going out to tax havens. After all, they implement bans for other things. Of course then they'd be punishing themselves and their wealthy friends.

There is only one part of what I posted that was speculative, and that is the link between Manning and Assange. It isn't much of a leap, is it?

Taliban prepare to punish WikiLeaks Afghan informers

I assume you prefer that terrorist attacks against Australia and Australians fail, rather than succeed? (Hate to ask, but can't really assume on Slashdot, can we? Plenty of people (narcissists?) are actually indifferent.)

Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia

Australia's balance of trade with China is extremely positive at the moment. China buys almost twice as much Australian stuff as Australia buys Chinese stuff, as opposed to trade with the US which is 3-1 in the red. So, hao hao xuexi ba.

The stuff that China buys from Australia are mostly natural resources.

And...?

Australia's balance of trade with China is extremely positive at the moment. China buys almost twice as much Australian stuff as Australia buys Chinese stuff, as opposed to trade with the US which is 3-1 in the red. So, hao hao xuexi ba.

The stuff that China buys from Australia are mostly natural resources.

Australia's balance of trade with China is extremely positive at the moment. China buys almost twice as much Australian stuff as Australia buys Chinese stuff, as opposed to trade with the US which is 3-1 in the red. So, hao hao xuexi ba.

They are present in the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, Article 17.11. Curious how much of that document is about restrictions and not freedom.

I'm wondering how they got that kangaroo. There are strict export controls on live kangaroos from Australia. It's only allowed for non-commercial purposes, such as zoo exchanges, and even then I think they require them to be returned, like the Chinese deal with pandas.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html

Past news, like the the fact that our courts told AFACT to go AFUCK themselves?

Did the court said anything about ACTA before the govt signed it? You think it won't happen the same with TPP?

...or said that the Aussie national anthem is Waltzing Matilda...

Try Advance Australia Fair http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html

I'm presuming that the patents in question were granted within the United States of America.

A few questions are floating around my head: * How exactly does United States patent law apply to a Korean company selling products within Australia?

The answer.

* Why is this not being addressed against Samsung within the United States where the patent was presumably granted?

It is. But with the Aussie dollar on the rise, Australia started to become an interesting market, so why not in Australia as well?

* Is this tied to the relatively recent free trade agreements between Australia and the United States? Is Korea not a partner?

Re. US - the agreement is not THAT recent (2004). Recent is only Australia as a patent battle ground.
Re. Korea: nope, in negotiation only – long after the FTA with US has been signed.

They were violating UN sanctions against Iran. So it should be unlawful in any civilized country.

Except all (read the introduction) the UN sanctions against Iran are related with its nuclear program. That's a bit of a distance from interception/monitoring technology
(besides I really wouldn't expect Nokia or Siemens to conduct unlawful businesses, at least not unlawful under the Germany, Finland or Iran legislation)

Signatories to the NPT are required to sign a "safeguards agreement" with the IAEA, which lays out how the IAEA will monitor the country's compliance with the NPT. Iran did so, and then in 2005 the IAEA, after several warnings, concluded that Iran was not in compliance with its safeguards agreement.

According to the Chairman of IAEA Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation, this is in effect a declaration of NPT violation:

Formally IAEA Board of Governors (BOG) decisions concern compliance with safeguards agreements, rather than the NPT as such, but in practical terms non-compliance with a safeguards agreement constitutes non-compliance with the NPT.

Iran was then referred to the UN Security Council for the violation, as provided for in the NPT. Incidentally, as a signatory of the UN Charter, Iran also agrees to abide by all decisions of the UN Security Council. Security Council resolution 1696 demanded that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program; resolutions 1737 and 1747 have followed up and imposed sanctions for noncompliance (the two follow-up resolutions passed unanimously). Iran has so far violated all three resolutions.

It is, in the same way that Australia was treated as an extension of the USA during the "negotiation" of last "free" trade agreement between our nations. The result? Australia ended up with a DMCA-wannabe and extended copyright terms or lost other trade items. I particularly like the "Australia's IP laws will be substantially harmonised with the world’s largest intellectual property market, and a global leader in innovation and creative products." arse-kissing exercise. I'm sure that any Canada-EU equivalent will contain similar gems in English and French!

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/outcomes/08_intellectual_property.html

take the angle of a content creator, after all if you are making your own content and putting it online, competitors could easily take you out just by merely claiming you stole their work even if you didn't.

Also good to point out unfairness to ISP's and third parties etc

Here is where you can find information regarding sending people your problems with it. email and snail mail options provided, recommend snail mail for best results.

I'm not sure what the situation is in America, but the Australian Government seems to be covering its bases in this information page, saying "This decision to participate in negotiations does not bind Australia to join any subsequent treaty" and "Taking part in the negotiations does not oblige Australia to join any resulting treaty."
When the details do come out, and the public starts to scream about it, the Aussie government are likely to back away from it. I'd guess that other involved countries will take a similar stance. I mean, what are we? Iran?

Strictly speaking I think America went to war with Japan because the Japanese attacked them first. American volunteers had been helping out in China before that, but that's a far cry from an official declaration of war.

Check out this diplomatic cable from the Australian foreign minister to the Australian government recalling a conversation with FDR, some six months before World War II officially started.

http://www.info.dfat.gov.au/info/historical/HistDocs.nsf/(LookupVolNoNumber)/5~40

Note that FDR has told the Australians that he would not tolerate any additional Japanese expansion even if it meant war with the USA.

And, the flying tigers was actually paid for by the US Gov't. You might think of them, as well, privateers or mercenaries...

Just to add ... both the House of Representatives and the Senate have the same powers

Not true. Treaties are confirmed by the Senate only, as are a few other things, like ambassadors.

actually in Australia the Executive council consisting of the Governor general and 2 Minsters confirms a treaty.
http://www.dfat.gov.au/treaties/workshops/treaties_global/bliss.html

and the appointment of ambassadors is made by the Governor General , who of course takes the advise of the government of the day.

http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/category.php?id=2

Is the Australian legislation really identical?

I ask because I can't recall any DMCA style take down (ie notification, counter notification etc) taking place here.

I think we've adopted certain aspects of the DMCA (such as banning circumvention of "effective technical measures") but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest we have adopted the DMCA completely.

There doesn't seem to be anything similar to the DMCA's takedown notices mentioned in the agreement

It's not just about Americans.

Australians have had to use RFID-embedded passports for the past couple of years to comply with US regulations. Can't say it's sped up my travels at all.

Australians would do well to read the IP section of thier free trade agreement with the USA

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/o utcomes/08_intellectual_property.html

...and noone wants to get involved in a fabricated war...

Oh, you didn't?

I have wondered for a while why the US money was so similar, most other nations have different colour and size notes.
 
Check out the Aussie money for example, it is excellent, the US money by comparison is very backwards.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/currency.html/

Actually, copyright on the Australian National Anthem expired in 1966.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html

You linked to the wrong agreement. The older NAFTA is North American Free Trade Agreement, for Canada, US and Mexico, so it doesn't involve Australia. The New Zealand Australia Free Trade Agreement doesn't involve the US and isn't called that anymore. The agreement is the AUSFTA - Australia US Free Trade Agreement, according to the Australian Government, it was signed in 2006.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us.html

Here's a web site about the agreement:

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us.html

Well, it basically all boils down to the fact that it is usually much cheaper for networks, in say Australia, to buy programming from US networks, rather than to produce programming themselves. So if they had their way, programming would probably be 100% US (maybe apart from news/current affairs, for obvious reasons). It's not just TV btw, also music/film/art you name it.

To stop this, governments often regulate how much foreign content is allowed to be shown, however this has certainly been watered down a lot over recent times (at least in Aus).

Here is the Australian Federal Government's take on the "Free Trade Agreement" between Aus and the US:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/o utcomes/11_audio_visual.html

...and now a non-government organisation's (yes, that is "organisation" not "organization" he he) take on the issue: http://www.tradewatchoz.org/AUSFTA/Index.html#Cont ent

Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against US culture (some of my favourite music is from the US), but I think most people would agree that it is important for countries to preserve their own unique cultures (not to say that cultures can't change overtime), otherwise the world would not be such an interesting place. Having a decent amount of local TV content is an important part of this.

Sheesh, just my two cents worth for Friday morning :-)

As I stated in an earlier post, Austrailia, New Zealand and Singapore already have RFID passports. The information that can be obtained from the chip is encrypted, and will only be readable using the public-key which is encoded in a machine readable format inside the passport http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/passports/. The plan in the U.S. is the to do the same thing, as well as putting a metal lining in the cover of the passport so that the RFID cannot be read when the passport is closed. See http://www.aimglobal.org/members/news/anmviewer.as p?a=394&print=no

People fear what they don't understand.

What "US-FTA-required DMCA legislation"?

THIS Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement Article 17.4 section 7 details virtually the exact text of the US DMCA anti-circumvention law and section 8 details virtually the exact text of the US DMCA rights management information law, and reqires the Australian government to pass virtually that exact DMCA text into AU law.

7. (a) In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights and that restrict unauthorised acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who:

(i) knowingly, or having reasonable grounds to know, circumvents without authority any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, or phonogram, or other subject matter; or

(ii) manufactures, imports, distributes, offers to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics in devices, products, or components, or offers to the public, or provides services that:

(A) are promoted, advertised, or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of any effective technological measure;

(B) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure; or

(C) are primarily designed, produced, or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of any effective technological measure,

shall be liable and subject to the remedies specified in Article 17.11.13. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied where any person is found to have engaged wilfully and for the purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain in any of the above activities. Each Party may provide that such criminal procedures and penalties do not apply to a non-profit library, archive, educational institution, or public non-commercial broadcasting entity.

(b) Effective technological measure means any technology, device, or component that, in the normal course of its operation, controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, or other protected subject matter, or protects any copyright.

(c) In implementing sub-paragraph (a), neither Party shall be obligated to require that the design of, or the design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as the product does not otherwise violate any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a).

(d) Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is a separate civil or criminal offence and independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party's copyright law.

(e) Each Party shall confine exceptions to any measures implementing sub-paragraph (a) to the following activities, which shall be applied to relevant measures in accordance with sub-paragraph (f):

(i) non-infringing reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program, carried out in good faith with respect to particular elements of that computer program that have not been readily available to the person engaged in those activities, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs;

(ii) non-infringing good faith activities, carried out by an appropriately qualified researcher who has lawfully obtained a copy, unfixed performance, or display of a work, performance, or phonogram and who has made a good faith effort to obtain authorisation for such activities, to the extent necessary for the sole purpose of identifying and analysing flaws and vulnerabilities of technologies for scrambling and descrambling of information;

Um, for them it shouldn't be that hard. "Britain decided to use its new outpost as a penal colony; the First Fleet of 11 ships carried about 1500 people--half of them convicts. The fleet arrived in Sydney Harbour on 26 January 1788, and it is on this day every year that Australia Day is celebrated." Right from the Australian Foreign Affairs website

Wrong. Dead wrong.

The Senator you are refering to is (ex) Senator Brian Harridine [0]. You can read here an interview on ABC Radio, AM (22 June, 2005) [1] on his Senate retirement. Harridine was a independent hardliner from Tasmania. The Senator you refer to is Richard Alston, Liberal Party Hack & now gracing the powers of London as Australia's High Comissioner in the UK.

'... Thankfully Alston lost his powerseat during following elections ...'

No it has to do with fixed terms in the senate. You can read this in reference 1.

'... Alston was exposed as the luddite nutjob he trully was and the sun once again shone. ...'

No (unfortunately). He was among other things appointed 'Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Information Technology at Bond University in Queensland'.

Reference

[0] Australian Parliament Hansard, 'Validictory, Senate Hansard, 21 June, 2005':
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document. aspx?id=2220537&table=HANSARDS

[1] ABC AM, 'Brian Harradine bids farewell to the Senate':
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1397805.htm

[2] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 'Richard Alston
Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom':
http://www.dfat.gov.au/homs/uk.html

Wrong. Dead wrong.

The Senator you are refering to is (ex) Senator Brian Harridine [0]. You can read here an interview on ABC Radio, AM (22 June, 2005) [1] on his Senate retirement. Harridine was a independent hardliner from Tasmania. The Senator you refer to is Richard Alston, Liberal Party Hack & now gracing the powers of London as Australia's High Comissioner in the UK.

'... Thankfully Alston lost his powerseat during following elections ...'

No it has to do with fixed terms in the senate. You can read this in reference 1.

'... Alston was exposed as the luddite nutjob he trully was and the sun once again shone. ...'

No (unfortunately). He was among other things appointed 'Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Information Technology at Bond University in Queensland'.

Reference

[0] Australian Parliament Hansard, 'Validictory, Senate Hansard, 21 June, 2005':
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document. aspx?id=2220537&table=HANSARDS

[1] ABC AM, 'Brian Harradine bids farewell to the Senate':
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1397805.htm

[2] Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 'Richard Alston
Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom':
http://www.dfat.gov.au/homs/uk.html

Yeah, just a few minor facts wrong there.

Alston wasn't marginal or independent, he was first on Victoria's Liberal party Sentate ticket. He wasn't ultra(or uber)-conservative, just ultra-stupid. He didn't lose his seat, he retired and was appointed as High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. And we still have bans against any hardcore porn being hosted on servers located in Australia.

You're right that he was a complete luddite nutjob though. Google still views him as the "World's greatest luddite".

My understanding of the Australian ePassport http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/passports/ is that the "RFID" chip won't respond until you hit it with the public key which is printed on the passport and has to be scanned in, each ePassport having it's own public key, and a private key known only to the issuing government agency. This prevents tracking people by their passport "RFID" by unknown people. Then the "RFID" chip responds with things like a digital photo of the individual as well as other biometric data which can be verified electronically, so you can't use your cousin's passport. I would assume that the U.S. version would be something similar, since the technology for the Australian version is from a U.S. company.

They are too easy to counterfeit; A stolen passport can be used by someone who looks similar; positive identification of the carrying individual takes too long. Australia has ePassports which have a chip with biometric data which can be used to identify whether the passport carrier is indeed the person to which the passport was issued. http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/passports/

Australia has an ePassport with a chip that contains biometric data, but it can only be read after optically scanning the public key printed on the passport. http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/passports/

The Australian version, which was released this week, and I assume is technically identical to the US one (as the Australians authorities did testing at LA airport), is not rfid.
The chip is designed to release its information when the traditional Machine Readable Zone (the text that is not quite a barcode but in easy OCR font) is scanned on the inside of the front cover.
More info is here, together with HI-RES picture of the centre pages that contain the chip.

The Australian version, which was released this week, and I assume is technically identical to the US one (as the Australians authorities did testing at LA airport), is not rfid.
The chip is designed to release its information when the traditional Machine Readable Zone (the text that is not quite a barcode but in easy OCR font) is scanned on the inside of the front cover.
More info is here, together with HI-RES picture of the centre pages that contain the chip.

It's not true. Donations are allowed at the local level.

Here is a page talking about how donations must be disclosed. How can you disclose donations if you say they are illegal?

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html

Furthermore, apparently you also have lobbies and lobbyists. Which also is another way money influences the system.

It doesn't sound like our systems are all that different, honestly. I think maybe you just suffer from an overly negative impression of how the US system works.

Foreign Affairs explain Treaty-Making here.

Basically the Government can sign any treaty they like, but to have any effect in Australia it has to legislate those effects. (I think you might have been implying that)

Regulation (subordinate legislation) is useless because:

a) it can only be made under an existing Act giving power to a Minister to make Regulations in that matter

b) it can be disallowed in the Senate within 14 sitting days of the making of the Regulation

Basically if it's controversial then it's easier to legislate than it is to regulate.

You see to have a bad cough there, perhaps you should buy something over the internet for it. The free trade agreement http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/f inal-text/ did not stop any subsidies on prescription drugs. The only mention of the PBS was in an exchange of letters http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/f inal-text/letters/02_pbs.pdf What it comes down to is that US drug companies would rather get their drugs on the PBS list (where they make a large sale but at a wholesale price) because if they are not on the list they won't sell any.

You see to have a bad cough there, perhaps you should buy something over the internet for it. The free trade agreement http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/f inal-text/ did not stop any subsidies on prescription drugs. The only mention of the PBS was in an exchange of letters http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/f inal-text/letters/02_pbs.pdf What it comes down to is that US drug companies would rather get their drugs on the PBS list (where they make a large sale but at a wholesale price) because if they are not on the list they won't sell any.

Interestingly, in my country, the list of inventions that may be excluded at will from patent protection include those which would interfere with the public order or morality ( AusFTA 17.9 clause 2A ). As this clause applies to both parties in the agreement, it would seem the USPTO now has this freedom as well.

There's a Free Trade Agreement in the pipeline.

They only have to wait until the free trade agreement kicks in: http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/f inal-text/chapter_17.html It'll put the copyright up to 70 years, and means we have to wait another 15 years.

Acually in real $ official income per capita is $3,900 this year or about $5,000 a year if you take into account shadowy income.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/russ.pdf

Last time I checked, it seemed we were giving that house away rather than selling it...

Have you noticed how the Internet and things dealing with it are slowly sinking into a swamp full of legalization?

To me it seems this so-called "free" (read the text - it's not really free at all) trade agreement in reality will subject much trading activity to more regulation than already exists.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/f inal-text/chapter_17.html