Slashdot Mirror


Australia Plans More Spying on Citizens

sg_oneill writes "The Australian Electronic Frontiers foundation report that the Australian Government is looking at introducing changes to the Telecomunications Interception Act giving Government Agencies (NOT just police!) the power to intercept email, voice mail and SMS messages without a warrant. Considering the concurrent proposals to introduce legislation to allow banning of organisations suspected of terrorist links, am I the only one suspecting Australia is about to have a whole lot less political parties?" I think our most recent Australia spying story was about the Australian government spying to win elections.

366 comments

  1. Email is not and never was secure. by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

    The net is ad hoc. Your email is not and never was secure. You were told that when you signed up for your service or hooked up to your peer. Pretending it's an outrage for anyone to be reading it now is shedding crocodile tears.

    --Blair

    1. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Imperial+Tacohead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not it at all. Yes, we're all aware that interested parties can intercept our Internet communications. The issue is whether it's ethical for them to do so, particularly when the interested party is the government of a democratic nation which, in theory at least, accepts the traditional Western notion of political liberty.

    2. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by WildBeast · · Score: 2

      Wait, but isn't the FBI doing the same thing, with its carnivore and some other spyware software?

    3. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Imperial+Tacohead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they're bastards for it. I'm not singling out Australia here -- things are going to hell across the Western world in this respect. And given that the excuse most commonly given for taking these sort of measures is terrorism, it almost feels as though we're destroying our liberties in order to save them.

    4. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by WildBeast · · Score: 2

      but where's the terrorism in Australia? It's most probably, terrorists least targeted country.

    5. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by 56ker · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Your email is not and never was secure." - saying that on /. is like telling Eskimos how to fish!

    6. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by stygar · · Score: 1

      What about the interception of SMS messages? This is basically a telephone service, which the average person WILL expect to have the same level of privacy as a telephone call. Your main argument misses the point also. Just because any number of people may be able to read your email without you consent doesn't make it ok for the government to do so any time it feels like it (it also doesn't make it right for anyone else to read your mail either). Any joe off the street can walk up to your mailbox and read your snail mail before you get it. Does it then follow that people are "shedding crocodile tears" if they complain when the government decides it wants to read everyone's mail without a good reason?

    7. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Imperial+Tacohead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you can never be too careful. ;-)

      The terrorism excuse is, obviously, mostly used in America. It's sort of puzzling to me that in a nation with no significant external threats, the people are still frightened enough to give up their liberties in exchange for some "temporary safety." But it was going that way in America before 9/11, too. Terrorism is really nothing more than an excuse -- that it simply boosted the case of those who were looking to make a power grab bombings or no. And as an excuse, it works almost as well in Australia as it does in America, insofar as it contributes to the average person's sense that a heightened state of security is a necessary condition for being alive in these days.

    8. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about regular mail? Would you be outraged if government agents were waiting curbside when you came to check your mailbox, sorting through your letters from granny?

      "Hold on a minute sir, we're almost done. Gotta make sure 'Aunt Edna' and 'hip surgery' aren't terrorist codewords. Then you can have your mail. Oh, and we're keeping the detergent samples. My socks are dirty...errr...I mean...it's a dangerous chemical compound, and we don't know what your true motives are."

      Would that outrage you? What makes email special, such that it's okay for the feds to read that?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by DarkZero · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not just email that's insecure. Regular mail passes through the hands of many, many people, and all it takes is a human finger to "circumvent its security measures". Phone lines are the same way. Even the most basic technical knowledge of how phone lines work will show you that phone lines are horribly insecure and that virtually anyone can tap into them. Cell phones are pretty much the same way, too.

      But does any of it matter? Front doors to houses in the US, which are required by law to swing inward, are ridiculously easy to kick/bash in. Does that mean that it should be legal for someone to kick down my door and do whatever the Hell they want in my home? Of course it doesn't. It's also ridiculously easy to kill people (a strong hit to the head alone will do the trick sometimes), so should that be legal, too?

      Lots of very bad things are easy to do. That's part of the reason why they're illegal (or, in this case, they're supposed to be). They harm others and almost anyone can do them.

    10. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by MaggieL · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that the FBI at least needs a warrant to capture your email. The Au EFF says this is written so a warrant isn't needed. And the power extends to *many* government departments.

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
    11. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by darkonc · · Score: 2
      There are inherent insecurities associated with sending emails, but intercepting emails and other communications is generally illegal. It is also illegal for the government to do so. This illegality, at the very least, forces them to limit the ammount of spying that they do on us. If we catch them doing so, then various responses are possible, including public censure and court cases.

      If it becomes legal for any government department to spy on us, then we have absolutely no defence whatsoever. They take a look, verify that it was done illegaly and then shut you the F up.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    12. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job 56k fucker!

      56ker is now posting @ 1

      lets see how long to drop his karma till he's posting at -1

    13. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only retards would mod this up as informative.

    14. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by plumby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to be mixing up what's technically possible and what's legally possible. It's technically possible for them to listen in on your phone conversations or tap you room, but it's not (normally) legal, and the terms of service of my provider mention nothing about reading the contents of my emails (they do have the right to track which web sites I go to, and possibly the addresses of emails, but not the content of them).

      It's not about whether your emails are secure, it's about whether your government has the legal right to read them.

    15. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Would you be outraged if government agents were waiting curbside when you came to check your mailbox, sorting through your letters from granny?

      Hell yes.

      But that's because an unencrypted email is like a postcard -- you hope no one will read it, but if they do, you should have known better.

      If the government was targetting any encrypted email I send (and its not much) that's when it'd be like the government rifling through your regular mail.

    16. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Only retards would mod this up as informative.

      What an astute observation, that your post containted no content and therefore shouldn't be modded up.

      Did you actually mean to say "The parent post shouldn't be modded up" by chance?

    17. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by jazman_777 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's sort of puzzling to me that in a nation with no significant external threats, the people are still frightened enough to give up their liberties in exchange for some "temporary safety."

      There is no risk too small about which Americans will do their Chicken Little routine. It's our nature now. We are a nation of cowards.

      Listen, all you liberty-lovers. The only way to secure your liberty is through force or threat of force. For example, secession was an acknowledged right of any state in the USA, until Lincoln _crushed_ that notion when somebody actually tried it. Unless you can enforce your actions through force, you are at the mercy of those who can.

      We hear a lot about freedoms these days from our government, but it's mostly boilerplate to pacify us while we are transformed into something authoritarian. What central State is not expanding its own scope and power these days at the expense of "the people"?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    18. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by zCyl · · Score: 2

      Your email is not and never was secure.

      By the same logic that supports this, your phone conversations are not and never will be secure, because they transmit along wires hanging around in public areas, and they are accessible by any number of employees at various different companies.

      But here's a news flash for you, people WANT to be able to communicate securely with others. This is necessary for business, this is necessary for personal comfort (you don't want a security guard to know details of your intimate life, do you?), and most importantly, this is necessary for political freedom. You cannot have a free political society when the government removes the right for its people to communicate without its knowledge.

      So flash around the technical details about the security weaknesses in the design of the smtp protocol all you wish, the fact remains that there is a social need for commonly usable secure email communication, and until that need is filled, governments need to keep their fingers out of email so that free societies can continue to exist.

    19. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      What about regular mail? Would you be outraged if government agents were waiting curbside when you came to check your mailbox, sorting through your letters from granny?

      As long as they informed me beforehand that they would be doing it, and didn't destroy anything, I wouldn't.

      Oh, also they would have to make it legal to send non-priority letters via competing companies.

    20. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but IIRC, FISA wiretap requests have *never* been turned down

    21. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Arandir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a difference between phones (and most other forms of communication) and email. Email is broadcast. Every communication send via email on this side of the gateway reaches my NIC. For my old DSL provider, that was the 252 other people using the same DSLAM as I. I haven't checked yet with my new provider simply because I'm not interested. And it's not just email, it's everything going out over your NIC. That's why we need wider usage of encryption.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    22. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by The+Qube · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it was Lincoln who said that "those who are prepared to trade their privacy for their safety deserve neither"!

      --

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    23. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Snover · · Score: 1

      In that case, the real question is "should you shed tears when your 1024-bit PGP key is cracked by distributed.net?"

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    24. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Dogcow · · Score: 1
      Bzzzzt.

      Read the EFF document. Read the legislation.

      It's not "without a warrant" - it's "without an interception warrant". The change that the proposed legislation (even the "new" package that's been announced (See here http://www.ag.gov.au/aghome/agnews/2002newsag/56_0 2.htm) is that instead of gaining access to "stored communications" with an interception warrant (think along the lines of email waiting to be picked up, voicemail waiting to be picked up, SMS awaiting delivery to a phone), all law enforcement will need is a search warrant for the premises at which the information is stored (ISP, Telecommunications carrier etc).

      It all happens with a warrant - it's just that the amount of resistance placed in the way of getting an interception warrant was always considered to be greater than with a search warrant, despite the propensity of law enforcement to "shop around" amongst Judges to get what they want. (Think along the lines of one judge refusing an interception warrant in the morning, then the Australian Federal Police taking the application back to the court in the afternoon and getting a different Judge...).

      Read between the lines, Slashdot flunkies.

      You'll be surprised what you find.

    25. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by blair1q · · Score: 2

      You seem to be mixing up what's illegal and what has yet to be made illegal.

    26. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Benjamin Franklin, you moron. And you got the quote wrong, too. Learn to cite (search google, I'm not going to do it for you).

    27. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone whos door will bounce a battering ram let me disagree with the secconed part of your statement. Many peple can and do secure their doors and kicking them would take some serouis time.

    28. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd never heard this quote before I started using Slashdot. Since then I've seen it so many times, even I now know it was Benjamin Franklin.

    29. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but where's the terrorism in Australia? It's most probably, terrorists least targeted country.


      Australia has quite a large number of American military bases - more than any country other than the US itself. There are a large number of surveillance bases here (Pine Gap is the most famous). So, if a terrorist wanted to strike out against US military bases, Australia would be an obvious target.

    30. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2

      Actually, my ISP's service contract (Pittsburg State University, KS) stipulates that the university has the right to monitor (read) all email, and all web connections, and all file transfers, and the status of all ports.

    31. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by mixbsd · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that the Aussie government didn't hire Veri$ign to do their email snooping in addition to their wire-tapping activities.

      On a separate note, email can be secure if you want it to be. I'm sure most terrorists are clued-up enough to use encryption, so email snooping really doesn't work.

    32. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like being a tech for your U's network would be a great job. There's gotta be a few coeds here and there being naughty with their webcams and White Pine or whatever is common nowadays.

    33. Re:Email is not and never was secure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this does make SMS as private as a telephone call, because the proposed changes are an addition to the existing system for intercepting voice telephone calls, to include these types of communication...

  2. it's amazing by deathscythe257 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    what people think they can and what they will get away with... just utterly stupifying to me that a gov't would allow such acts.

    1. Re:it's amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      just utterly stupifying to me that a gov't would allow such acts.

      Yeah, that would be bad. Unfortunately, in this case it's not that the government is just allowing it, they are committing the acts!

    2. Re:it's amazing by DMBoyd · · Score: 1

      yeah, stuff like this has been happening alot recently.
      firstly the "anti-terrorism" laws that allow anyone to be arrested and kept for 6 days without a warrant.
      The current party in power (liberals) at the moment has also been trying to extend its period in office through added legislation.
      And then there's that Tampa thing, with the government refusing to let in any refugees into our country, but instead putting all the asylum seekers into a prison. where alot of them still are.
      And how the government ordered our intelligence organisation(asio) to spy on citizens about the crisis, and then asio ratted them out.
      Now the australian government wants all these powers that allow for it to break into the privacy of all australians and ban any party or group that might oppose them.
      Sounds alot like nazi germany to me.
      oh yeah, and in the new budget theres all that extra spending on the defence force...

    3. Re:it's amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Australians never had any clue when it came to censorship laws and broadband internet

      (oh and I can say this because I live in australia).

  3. damn it! by sheean.nl · · Score: 0

    There goes my plan to sneek to Australia... what's next? Siberia closed for tourists?

    --

    If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
    1. Re:damn it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just sneak into communist china.. where peoples rights matter!

  4. Ho-hum... by wmspringer · · Score: 0

    It seems like I should be getting more worked up about this. But somehow, it just doesn't seem that surprising.

    I can't wait to read more about the public reaction..

  5. G'day! by Bob+Kronkel · · Score: 0

    What is going on in australia that has the government so uptight? The fact that they are planning to let "government officials" (not just cops) spy on you is what makes me wonder. What happened to all the good australians such as hollywoods mel gibson, or crocodile dundee?

    1. Re:G'day! by aquarian · · Score: 2

      What happened to all the good australians such as hollywoods mel gibson, or crocodile dundee?

      They all left. Make note of that.

    2. Re:G'day! by Hunter1776 · · Score: 1

      There isn't anything really going on, its just that our current conservative government (note that I did NOT vote for them in the last election) wants to ensure it wins the next election. They won the last election by demonising "boat people" and no doubt this tactic would work again. Shame Howard shame.

    3. Re:G'day! by thogard · · Score: 1

      But you did vote for them (if you filled out the paper work corrctly).

      Aussies have to go vote or they get fined. They have this list of canidates and they have to put numbers down for each of them. If there are ten canidates, they have to rank them all one to ten where 1 is your preferred and ten is least preferred -- or is it the other way around. If you don't put all the numbers in, your vote isn't counted. The result is that you vote for everyone at some level and with canidates like the skinhead party and too may others deserving a 0, you have to give someone you don't like a positive vote.

    4. Re:G'day! by Dogcow · · Score: 1
      *sigh*

      Another Slashdot bandwagon jumper that doesn't read between the lines.

      The "Government Officials" that are being referred to are the same law enforcement that have always had access to interception warrants and so on, and in certain cases involving Australians acting as agents of a foreign power etc, the Defence Signals Directorate (the Australian equivalent and partner of the National Security Agency).

    5. Re:G'day! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      But you did vote for them (if you filled out the paper work corrctly)...1 is your preferred and ten is least preferred -- or is it the other way around...

      If you can't be bothered checking your facts then don't bother posting.

      The purpose of the preference system is not to indicate a positive preference for the voter's least favourite party, but to provide a mechanism for redistribution of votes in the case where a particular candidate does not have a clear majority.

      The voter can distribute his or her own preferences in any order they choose, or they can put a 1 in the box next to the party name to accept the preferences that the party has negotiated "on your behalf" if you trust them (!).

      In practice, it is rare for preferences to be counted at all, particularly beyond the 2nd preference, and if this does happen, many ballot papers are simply not counted at all.

    6. Re:G'day! by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 1

      a bit like US big budget films - the matrix, attack of the clones, scooby doo, etc etc

    7. Re:G'day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well excuse the f*ck outta me, have you ever been over to Australia? I highly doubt it.
      I think you are a highly prejudiced person. I really don't think you belong on a place like slashdot, having read some of the absolute shit you post. Take your arrogance elsewhere.

    8. Re:G'day! by thogard · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm not an aussie, I just got this info from the Pommies that work (illegally) for the electrial people. I just report what I've been lead to understand is th truth. Too bad its not the truth. Just because I get lots of nasty letters about not voting, I'm still not allowed (or obligated) to put the numbers down.

    9. Re:G'day! by Bob+Kronkel · · Score: 0

      actually, i've been to australia twice.

    10. Re:G'day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to all the good australians such as hollywoods mel gibson, or crocodile dundee?

      They all left. Make note of that
      ---

      Yes, and wrt to to those two, you can keep 'em...

      You Americans seem to be pretty good at laughing at other countries political problems, considering you havent even got the guts to make people vote...way to be a "government of the people"!

  6. For people concerned about this story... by VersedM · · Score: 3, Insightful
    1. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIGHT ON!!! When you mail a letter to your girlfriend, do you place the letter in an envelope? Or do you write your private message on a postcard.

      These are good programs, learn to use them. If everyone did, then all this would be a moot point.

      You get NO expectation of privacy if you send your mail in plaintext. PERIOD!

    2. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure that may stop some script kiddie with a packet sniffer but if you think the NSA can't get through those you are being niave.

    3. Re:For people concerned about this story... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >if you think the NSA can't get through those you are being niave.

      If you think that the NSA has a exa-hertz machine for each message they want to decrypt, and can wait 10 years before they can use it for another task, maybe.

      I think that's just a crazy conspiracy theorists way to think about things, though.

      4096-bit encryption, IMHO, won't be broken in our lifetime. After I'm dead, I really don't give a crap what they do with any data related to me...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    4. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what kind of 4096 bit encryption...

      your amatuerish understanding of cryptography is giving you a false sense of security i see...

    5. Re:For people concerned about this story... by thales · · Score: 2

      "4096-bit encryption, IMHO, won't be broken in our lifetime."

      Isn't that what the Nazis said about Egnima? The Complancy that went with having an "unbreakable" encryption led to errors in procedure that aided in breaking it.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    6. Re:For people concerned about this story... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >what kind of 4096 bit encryption...

      Triple-DES or RSA possibly. I hear PGP supports Blowfish and IDEA as well.

      >your amatuerish understanding of cryptography is giving you a false sense of security i see...

      Until it was illegal I hacked satellite smartcards as a sideline. I see you haven't, since you haven't even bothered reading the stats on the maximum encryption PGP/GPG and the encruption they use can provide by default. We haven't even completely broken the crapply 56-bit (or was it 128-but, I can't remember) DES encryption used by ROM3 satellite cards, so why the heck do you think the gov't can break 4096-bit encryption alone?

      Just because I don't know everything about cryptography doesn't mean I can't find you thousands of webpages that will ensure that your amateurish understanding of encryption is highly flawed.

      Thank you.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    7. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4096 bit ROT13 encryption.

    8. Re:For people concerned about this story... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Isn't that what the Nazis said about Egnima? The Complancy that went with having an "unbreakable" encryption led to errors in procedure that aided in breaking it.

      Enigma had the only serious fatal flaw in any encryption standard that has ever existed: An assumption that the enemy would never be able to get their hands on the specs for the encryption.

      Assuming the enemy cannot see how your cipher works causes a lack of proper review.

      Most modern ciphers (such as DES and RSA) have been checked by ally and enemy alike and, apart from brute force attacks, I am told by experts that mathematically there is no way to break them if they are implemented correctly.

      I suppose if one could bend the laws of mathematics you'd be able to break modern ciphers in a heartbeat. But I think anyone with that power would have much more interesting things they could apply it to!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    9. Re:For people concerned about this story... by thales · · Score: 2

      "there is no way to break them if they are implemented correctly"

      This is where the complancy I mentioned comes into play. Is your keychain stored on your hard drive? Do you overuse encryption giving more examples to work with? Are you careless about including a known string such as the same sig line at the end of each message? Does the unencrypted header give important clues to the context of the message? This is the kind of carelessness that allowed Allied codebreakers to work out the key for a given day, carelessness that was due to having an "unbreakable" code.

      If you fail to follow good security measures encryption will only delay the time it takes to read your messages, while giving you a false sense of security.

      Do Not assume the goal of a codebreaker is just to decrypt one message. His goal is to recover your personal key so he can read all of your messages, and recovery is made easier if part of the message is known, or if the keychain is directly accessed.

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
    10. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't even completely broken the crapply 56-bit (or was it 128-but, I can't remember) DES encryption used by ROM3 satellite cards, so why the heck do you think the gov't can break 4096-bit encryption alone?

      You don't have a budget of 50 billion dollars and control over a small army of world class mathematicians.

      I don't think you really understand what level the NSA is on...

    11. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read the entire source to whatever program you're using and evaluated the algorithms it's using?

      Do you know for sure the authors aren't sympathetic to the united states government? Are you sure the authors aren't part of the united states government? Are you sure the authors aren't vulnerable to blackmail or bribery? How about all the people in between the authors and the distribution you use?

      Do you really think that when the french government fell victim to echelon it was becuase they where sending everything in plain text?

      Please, the high tech internet rebel may be a fun role to play, but realistically if the united states wants to monitor your communications PGP isn't going to stop them...

    12. Re:For people concerned about this story... by espo812 · · Score: 1
      Are you sure the authors aren't part of the united states government?
      The US government developed SHA and SHA-1 (two widely popular hash algorithms), and they had input on DES (which was/is a widely used encryption algorithm). Both algorithms have held up to yeas or cryptanalysis - both developed by the US government.

      But then there was the Crypto AG incident - where the US influenced a german crypto company to build in backdoors for them.

      So for balance - trust but verify the US government.
      --

      espo
    13. Re:For people concerned about this story... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >You don't have a budget of 50 billion dollars and control over a small army of world class mathematicians.

      Money might buy faster machines, but world class mathematicians will agree -- properly implemented (mathematically) cryptography is unbreakable except by brute force.

      >I don't think you really understand what level the NSA is on...

      I do, but there's no way the NSA has a machine this fast. There's simply no way known or conceived by anyone to create a processor fast enough to crack extra-high-level encryption fast enough for it to be useful.

      I suppose they could have 100 million Athlon chips crunching away on it, but in all seriousness, does anyone not think that people at the AMD factory wouldn't leak this? They'd have to ramp up production 1000x to handle this sort of demand!

      You can control people within your grasp, but when you would have to trust someone like me (who could probably get some sort of job at AMD, even if it is just stuffing the processors into boxes) its just not possible to cover it up.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    14. Re:For people concerned about this story... by shepd · · Score: 2

      >but realistically if the united states wants to monitor your communications PGP isn't going to stop them...

      Tell that to Phil Zimmermann. Here's some background to help out:

      >Philip R. Zimmermann is the creator of Pretty Good Privacy. For that, he was the target of a three-year criminal investigation, because the government held that US export restrictions for cryptographic software were violated when PGP spread all around the world following its 1991 publication as freeware. Despite the lack of funding, the lack of any paid staff, the lack of a company to stand behind it, and despite government persecution, PGP nonetheless became the most widely used email encryption software in the world.

      That doesn't sound like the niography of a man sympathetic to the US government, does it?

      >Are you sure the authors aren't part of the united states government?

      That's probably a very small part of the reason why Zimmermann ensured PGP was exported, even if it was illegal at the time.

      >Are you sure the authors aren't vulnerable to blackmail or bribery?

      You can't be vulnerable to blackmail when there's nothing for someone to take. That's why full details of PGP are available.

      >Do you really think that when the french government fell victim to echelon it was becuase they where sending everything in plain text.

      No, but I would suggest they had used the default levels of encryption availiable in various software packages. These levels of encryption are breakable by supercomputers in reasonable amounts of time.

      I would also suggest they could have screwed up and sent keys plaintext, or that their SSH sessions were man-in-the-middle attacked (for example) and no one paid attention to the warnings.

      4096-bit PGP-style encryption is simply not possible to break in any reasonable amount of time.

      If you are truly worried about a piece of information you have, and you properly follow all security rules, then you are safe for quite a while, IMHO.

      The US couldn't even get the clipper project beta tested without everyone on earth finding out about it. If they can't even do that, how the heck are they going to crack messages you actually put some effort in to encrypt?

      >How about all the people in between the authors and the distribution you use?

      That's why I prefer to use software that is used internationally, and software that includes source code. Hence, I prefer GNU/Linux.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    15. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once the information contained in the cyphertext reaches a certain level of sensitivity, it doesn't matter *how* secure your crypto is.

      Which of these codebreaking methods is the easiest and cheapest:

      1. Researching, designing, and building a massively-parallel quantum computer

      2. "We have your wife/daughter/mother and will begin cutting off her fingers in 5 minutes. What is your passphrase?"

      In other words, the strength of the encryption is NOT the weakest link. It's the person who knows the passphrase.

    16. Re:For people concerned about this story... by cicadia · · Score: 2
      Sorry, but I have to agree with the Anonymous Coward on this one. You come out with the phrase '4096-bit encryption' like you think it means something, and then you try to back it up with this:

      Triple-DES or RSA possibly.

      Triple-DES is a block cipher, with a key size of 112 bits. RSA is a public-key algorithm, which will work with 4096-bit keys.

      I hear PGP supports Blowfish and IDEA as well.

      Again you display your lack of basic knowledge of cryptographic algorithms. Blowfish and IDEA are both block ciphers, with key sizes of 32-448 bits and 128 bits, respectively. These have absolutely nothing to do with the '4096-bit encryption' you brought up.

      We haven't even completely broken the crapply 56-bit (or was it 128-but, I can't remember) DES encryption used by ROM3 satellite cards, so why the heck do you think the gov't can break 4096-bit encryption alone?

      First off, DES is 56 bits. Always has been, always will be. And a key space of that size can be brute-forced in a matter of hours (if not minutes, if you've got enough money to throw at it.)

      There are valid reasons for believing that "The Government" can't break 4096-bit encryption. The idea that 56-bit DES hasn't been broken isn't one of them.

      [I know, I probably HBT, so I'm going to quit now]

      --
      Living better through chemicals
    17. Re:For people concerned about this story... by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > but world class mathematicians will agree --
      > properly implemented (mathematically) cryptography
      > is unbreakable except by brute force.

      This is the "gut feeling", yes, but it has never been proven. Indeed, if the NSA secretely cracked this, wouldn't they continue to buy supercomputers and hire mathematicians, leaving them in the dark, just to provide a cover?

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    18. Re:For people concerned about this story... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Again you display your lack of basic knowledge of cryptographic algorithms.

      I didn't claim to be an expert.

      >And a key space of that size can be brute-forced in a matter of hours

      Then why was it hacked with an electron microscope rather than a computer?

      >The idea that 56-bit DES hasn't been broken isn't one of them.

      I never made such a claim. I only claimed that regular, everyday people seem to be having trouble with it. I'm sure anyone who is half decent working with it, or anyone who has access to software to do the job for them would have no trouble with it.

      Its obvious that people working on satellite cards are neither, if I can take your answers as fact.

      >There are valid reasons for believing that "The Government" can't break 4096-bit encryption.

      Glad to see you agree with my original statement.

      >I probably HBT

      No, you just assumed I had said I'm an expert. Just because I'm not one doesn't mean I have no concept of the idea of cryptography, though. I know enough to say that 4096-bit encryption (in whatever form that means to you or anyone else who insinuates they are an expert) is not crackable in anyone's lifetime with today's equipment, and I know enough that its very unlikely tomorrow's equipment will be able to either. I don't need to know every buzzword or the exact mathematical premise behind this. I only need to know that I've read enough statements from enough respected people dealing with these subjects that today's top notch encryption is no laughing matter.

      In short, don't jump on people's backs like that unless they claim to be "in the field" or they claim to have expert knowledge. Especially when you have to admit that, in the end, they're right. It all comes under that ASS-U-ME thing...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  7. Right On! by Bobzibub · · Score: 4, Funny

    Our governments are finally beginning to listen to us!
    ; )

    1. Re:Right On! by austus · · Score: 1

      Just enough to take you out if you're a dissenter.

    2. Re:Right On! by Erris · · Score: 1
      At least that's what the Wall Street Journal article from last week said. In order to counter terrorism, John Ashcroft has changed FBI rules on infiltration of public meetings, including religious and political groups. Previously "clear evidence of criminal misconduct was required." The rules were previously put into effect durring the 60s and 70s as a reaction to public disgust at FBI infiltration of Martin Luther King and others. Looks like it was just a silly rule and can be undone with another. Oh yeah, the FBI will now be paying agents to "surf the internet" for potential hijackers, mad bombers and other evil doers. I wonder if I could get a job looking for subversives on the internet, like Bobzilbub.

      Why does this have the ring of East Germany where every other citezen had been recurited into the secret police?

      Let's quote that great document, the US Bill of Rights, so that we don't forget how things are supposed to be:

      Amendment I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Amendment IV
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      I'm not sure what the constitutions of other nations say, but this one should keep government file clerks out of my mail. My email is a paper or effect. Why is it that government officials sworn to uphold the constitution tell me I have, "no reasonable expectation of privacy" with it regardless of encyption? My house has windows (not the software kind). Am I paying my governement to look through them?

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  8. democratic spirit by meis31337 · · Score: 1

    It is funny. I am relating this to the USA... but I am sure the same can hold true for .au..

    We win our freedom.
    We come up with a system of government to protect our freedoms.
    Time passes.
    The government THE PEOPLE put in place to protect these freedoms is slowly but surely taking them away.
    Is it 1984 yet??

    1. Re:democratic spirit by martissimo · · Score: 2

      It is funny ....

      ironic perhaps, certainly not funny though

    2. Re:democratic spirit by bafu · · Score: 2
      Time passes.
      The government THE PEOPLE put in place to protect these freedoms is slowly but surely taking them away.

      Just to flesh out the "and then a miracle occurs" steps in the process, I'd replace them with...

      Over time, in using the government to address more and more pet issues, the people turn a blind eye to the fact that the government has moved beyond the limits that were placed on it in the system of government.
      The people are shocked (SHOCKED) to discover that the government isn't very interested in protecting our freedoms now that it has been firmly established that it is not really bound by the old system of government anymore.

      Unfortunately, that change makes the process seem less mysterious. The people being shocked is still kind of funny, I guess.

    3. Re:democratic spirit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been? Rip Van Winkle...!

      It is LONG PAST 1984.....

    4. Re:democratic spirit by analog_line · · Score: 2

      The government is taking away the freedoms because a majority of the people who vote (who are the only ones who matter to the government...if don't vote (and no one is stopping you from voting for whatever reason) you have no say, and no right to complain IMNSHO) have voted these people into office. Opinion polls show strong support for the kinds of things that are happening nowadays wrt spying, reduced privacy, etc. If you don't like it, get off your ass and get out there and try to convince other people. If you can't, well it's a democracy, most votes wins. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. The gods know I've considered it on more than one occasion.

    5. Re:democratic spirit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either really, really stupid, or that was a really, really bad attempt at a joke.

  9. Australia government trying to fix elections? by BlackTriangle · · Score: 0

    Last time in 1975 they had American support, but looks like they decided to go it alone this time.

  10. What's the reason? by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    Can they blame it on terrorism? I don't think so. The question is, if the governments spies on us, why can't we spy on our governments? Afterall, the government is probably more at risk of doing something illegal than me.

    1. Re:What's the reason? by Bobzibub · · Score: 2

      I think a more effective counter argument than 'spy on your government' is that one that advocates government spying on all snail-mail, telephone conversations, crowds, car locations, and other traditional forms of espionage. There is not much difference in principle, but the issues would be clearer to non-technically minded.

      Most of the workings of government ought to be transparent in any event.

      Cheers,
      -b

    2. Re:What's the reason? by peddrenth · · Score: 1

      To prevent the risk of hypocracy, we'd like a net-radio broadcast attached to the home phone of each member of the Australian parliament.

      No, I'm actually serious here. That's equivalent to what they want to put on your phone

    3. Re:What's the reason? by gh00l · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother! Likewise, the next time a government agent asks to see something of yours that he has no business seeing, just say "I'd love to help you out, but that information is classified, and you don't have clearance (or the need-to-know) to view it."

    4. Re:What's the reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have it on your phone. And theirs. But they only get to use it with a warrant (even under this new proposal) - I'm assuming you're not actually planning on legally investigating them for committing a crime?

  11. Australians are not the only ones, Try Europe by wildumut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just saw this today at the Guardian
    Police to spy on all emails

    Fury over Europe's secret plan to access computer and phone data

    http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903, 73 0091,00.html

    1. Re:Australians are not the only ones, Try Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That URL is incorrect. You should learn to post clickable URL's. Even by copying and pasting the URL, I cant get to that page.

    2. Re:Australians are not the only ones, Try Europe by Maax · · Score: 2, Informative

      Clickable version of above URL (extra space got inserted):

      Fury over Europe's secret plan to access computer and phone data.

    3. Re:Australians are not the only ones, Try Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grasshopper, if you were around the block more than once, you'd realize that a URL pasted in (without HTML link code surrounding it) gets a space automatically inserted to prevent it from becoming "clickable" by HTML renderers that scan for those strings to make them clickable.

      Why does slashdot do this? I don't know. It's not like the reader can't see what the link is (as opposed to stealthed goatse.cx. Test of space insertion: http://goatse.cx)

  12. Well its not that surprising..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    When you consider that Australia was once used as ONE big prison for European criminals ;)

    1. Re:Well its not that surprising..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was America.

    2. Re:Well its not that surprising..... by TeraCo · · Score: 1
      True, but the US is just one big bunch of European religious fanatics :)

      Aussie aussie aussie

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    3. Re:Well its not that surprising..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol! So true!
      Americans like to judge others, but not themselves, right mate?

      OY OY OY!

  13. Procedural Minimum for Democracy by sam_handelman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    many scholars argue that without effective guarantees of civil liberties, elections do not constitute democracy, and that a procedural minimum for defining democracy must include not only elections, but reasonably broad guarantees of basic civil rights-e.g., freedom of speech, assembly, and association.
    -Democracy 'with Adjectives', by D. Collier and S. Levitsky

    The paper I link to (which is academic but pretty accessible - I'm a biologist, not a political scientist) is about military juntas in south america, not Aussies.

    I raise this point because I think John Howard (the prime minister of Australia) is Australian for Hitler. A modern Democracy can survive all matter of scuminess, but if this proposal goes through, Australia will need an adjective (such as crpyto or pseudo) to qualify their form of government.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I invoke Godwin's Law. You get nothing, sir, good day.

    2. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by kubrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I raise this point because I think John Howard (the prime minister of Australia) is Australian for Hitler.

      As an Australian, I agree, in a qualified sense. In his mind it's OK to suspend or abolish democratic freedoms in order to ensure that people he doesn't agree with can't be heard or be politically active. (Another example from recent history is Nixon -- government "by any means necessary", legal or illegal).

      For many years Queensland under Joh-Bjelke Petersen had a law, intended to stop street marches, that banned the public assembly of four or more people if such assembly had not been previously cleared by the police. It looks like we're moving back to those days... along with John Howard's racist issues on immigration (lock up the non-white illegal immigrants), we should soon be the new old South Africa, if you know what I mean.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    3. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee you're pretty smart considering godwin's law was created and promoted by groups who claim the holocaust never happened. They decided if they can make it so people on the internet never talk about it in an arguement that's a good step at curbing "jewish propoganda". Your work as a pawn is to be commended, sig heil.

    4. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by hype7 · · Score: 1
      As an Australian, I agree, in a qualified sense. In his mind it's OK to suspend or abolish democratic freedoms in order to ensure that people he doesn't agree with can't be heard or be politically active. (Another example from recent history is Nixon -- government "by any means necessary", legal or illegal).

      ... along with John Howard's racist issues on immigration (lock up the non-white illegal immigrants), we should soon be the new old South Africa, if you know what I mean.


      As an Australian, I can safely say that's a load of crap.

      I can sit here and post what i want without fear of recrimination. As can you.

      The democratic freedoms that have been abolished - name them? Name what I can't do now that I could do under the previous Keating Govt? The fact that they're doing something to prevent terrorism - whether there's a clear and present threat or not - is a good thing. I don't want it to take two planes slamming into Sydney skyscrapers before the Govt acts.

      The best you can raise is J-B-P examples. Howard has not infringed upon any civil liberties for Australian citizens. And whether or not you agree with mandatory detention - it's not racist. If people enter the country illegally, they're well within their rights.

      And you forget, the Australian people re-elected him.

      -- james
    5. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      ...In his mind it's OK to suspend or abolish democratic freedoms

      He has a mind? ...damn, looks like I just stepped in it... :-)

    6. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by kubrick · · Score: 1

      The democratic freedoms that have been abolished - name them? Name what I can't do now that I could do under the previous Keating Govt?

      If the laws he's trying to pass get through, try belonging to an organisation the Attorney General doesn't like. Say, Resistance or Amnesty.

      What can't you do now that you could under a Keating government? Belong to a union, maybe? Bring relatives over to visit from another country? Have a government working for all of the population, not just the white moneyed half? Besides, Labor weren't blameless -- they started these concentration camps up in the first place.

      And really, what fucking chance is there that anyone will fly planes into Sydney buildings, and why would the rest of the world care anyway? I guess we'd better be proactive about giving up any rights we have in order to prevent a zillion to one chance ever occurring.

      And whether or not you agree with mandatory detention - it's not racist. If people enter the country illegally, they're well within their rights.

      OK, let's see scoops along Bondi Beach, where they lock up all the Brits overstaying their visas for years in concentration camps in the middle of the desert... oh, but they're white. Can't have that, can we.

      Howard was also pretty quick to offer refuge to Zimbabwean farmers... even quicker than he was about sending the Kosovars back.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    7. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Say what you like about him, the man's a bloody good politician... i.e. he plays the game of politics very astutely. Fucked as a human being, of course, but that's no great surprise.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    8. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your Liberal party registration number?

    9. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stupid fuck. Godwin's Law (check this FAQ) was invented to cork stupid fuckers who think that all your have to do is say 'you're like hitler!' to win an argument. Once you can show that once Hitler said "I like cats," and since the guy you're flaming said "I like cats," too, then he must be like Hitler and Hitler was bad so I win the argument yeah!!!! Mike Godwin works the goddamn eff for christ's sake. So shut your fucking hole, you stupid fuck. You're trying to spread disinformation, just like Hitler did!!!

    10. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear his game show appearance they played on one of the current affairs shows last week?

      Not a very smart man... but he still thinks he's funny. They shouldn't have encouraged him :)

    11. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about non-whites. It's about *illegal* immigrants.

      Sounds like you just want to goad him and the rest of australia into argument.

      Send em back to their own country. It's not about white and black. geeze. get over it already. It's about keeping the peace. Everytime there's a riot here, it's because of some religious group against another. and most of them are fucken immigrants. SEND EM BACK HOME!!!!! LET EM RUIN THERE OWN COUNTRY!!!

      My problem with immigrants is that they come to our country because theirs sucks, but they try and tell us our religious beliefs are crap, their god rules.. and try and turn our culture into theirs. well. my question is: if your religious system works so well. why the fuck didn't you stay in your own country!

    12. Re:Procedural Minimum for Democracy by kubrick · · Score: 2

      It's about *illegal* immigrants.

      This seeking of refugee status is not illegal according to the UN; it's illegal according to specific laws used to make seeking asylum illegal. Besides, no need to lock them up *while their cases are being decided* -- most other countries don't, why do we? If we disapprove so strongly, wouldn't it be cheaper to completely flout our international obligations and fly them back to their home countries, and dump them there?

      SEND EM BACK HOME!!!!! LET EM RUIN THERE OWN COUNTRY!!!

      Ah, it's that welcoming Australian attitude yet again, from someone without even the balls to back up his or her opinions with a pseudonym.

      God, I get sick of Liberal-voting pricks like you.

      My problem with immigrants is that they come to our country because theirs sucks, but they try and tell us our religious beliefs are crap, their god rules..

      Your religious beliefs do suck... abuse children, then pay for silence? Doesn't sound right to me.

      and try and turn our culture into theirs. well. my question is: if your religious system works so well. why the fuck didn't you stay in your own country!

      (FWIW, my great-great-grandfather was born about 500 metres from where I sit now, in inner-suburban Adelaide. And I'm agnostic. Please troll elsewhere.)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  14. Right behind Canada by BlackTriangle · · Score: 0

    A few Synagauge (or however the fuck you spell it) burnings, but no fatalities. And hey, they send back money to Israel, so they're culpable. Canadian? No worries, my friend.

    Every once in awhile we throw the Americans a bone (like our troops helping in their little "War Against Afghanistan" or "War against Islamic peoples" or whatever they're calling it these days), but that's just because we're nice fellows.

  15. Phone != SMS & security != taxation by adoll · · Score: 1
    The Australian police still need a magistrate's permission to tap someone's telephone. How is SMS different from phone messages? The EFA's commentary clearly states that "Communications made using new technologies would have less privacy protection than a telephone call."

    Access to voice mail should also mean access to the room containing the recordings... so will this also replace the notion of a "search warrant"?

    Sounds ugly when applied solely to the police. But look at the collection of agencies who stand to benefit from this law: Taxation Office, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Immigration Department. So this may be a back-door way of gaining more prosecutions of those most hideous of criminals: tax dodgers!

    If it makes you feel any better, Australia's gov't is not alone in this type of thinking. -AD

    1. Re:Phone != SMS & security != taxation by Dogcow · · Score: 1
      SMS and Email are considered different by the legislation because they have the capability to be stored, rather than being immediately person-to-person, as a normal phone conversation is considered to be.

      Read the legislation.

      It's all there.

  16. George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by krypto246 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why does everything involving security/privacy have to come down to the same tired, inapplicable old refences to 1984? We get it- your real smart and clever, having read the book along with 100 billion other people. News flash - your not making some new, estute political observation that everyone else has missed, in the book 1984, the government takes away all privacy. Now this government is threatening people privacy, thank you for noticing. Can you please find a a factual basis for your argument, instead of just holding up an old novel and gesturing wildly? I get so sick of the orwell defence.

    1. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they prolly didnt even read the book, they just saw the old apple commercial, or pirates of sillicon valley and then found out what 1984 was.

    2. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by TastySiliconWafers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does everything involving security/privacy have to come down to the same tired, inapplicable old refences to 1984?

      Explain to me how the reference is inapplicable. As I recall, having *gasp* actually read the book, surveillance of individual citizens by the government and control of the populous through manipulation of all news and history was precisely what Orwell was writing about and feared would come to be in the future. So, now that governments throughout the Western world are rapidly enacting measures that enable far greater surveillance of their own citizens and chilling effects on free speach we're just supposed to shut up about it. We should retire the reference to 1984 because you think it's tired and overused, despite it being entirely on-topic to the discussion at hand? Maybe we should ban Kafka from the discussion, since he too voiced a number of poignant and applicable ideas regarding the nature of justice, beaureaucracy, and power? If Orwell is spinning in his grave, it is because governments throughout the western world are interpreting his novel as a howto guide for building morally bankrupt, totalitarian states rather than as a warning against such things.

    3. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides the whole point of 1984 was about the horror of the communist regime in russia, not some capitalists passing the dmca or some anti-terror agency reading an e-mail. Most of the people on slashdot don't evn have a clue what 1984 was really about.

    4. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orwell was writing about what life would be like if communism was allowed to spread to the entire world...

      And in case you didn't notice the eastern world from middle to far has the west beat hands down when it comes to censorship and surveillance.

    5. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by TastySiliconWafers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a rather narrow interpretation of Orwell's work. Communist Russia may have been the inspiration for Orwell's novel, but the themes he developed in the book are far more general. If the book had been that limited in scope, it is unlikely that it would be as popular as it is today.

      Also, the fact that many governments of the Eastern world have already adopted mass surveillance and propaganda/censorship as a means of control does not in any way constitute a valid argument for allowing other nations to adopt equally abusive policies.

    6. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orwell is popular today becuase anybody can start shouting big brother and 1984 and think they look smart even if they are terribly uniformed and poorly educated.

    7. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a narrow view on the world you have.

      It's quite sad, actually.

    8. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by famillionaire · · Score: 3, Informative

      1984 is hardly only about the USSR, as people always seem to be so comfortable in believing - Orwell had already written a book dealing exclusively with the USSR and its betrayal of socialist principles in favor of continued exploitation in a new form (Animal Farm). A betrayal that Orwell was acutely aware of (remember that Orwell was a socialist and fought for the POUM [independent Marxists] in the Spanish Civil War), but by no means blinded him to the faults of capitalist society, many held in common with society in the USSR. 1984 is not just the 'fairy story' of Animal Farm elaborated, but a much richer, more universally relevant novel that encapsulates a large number of Orwell's theories of history, authority, his fears about the future of society, and to dismiss the novel lightly as being 'merely about the USSR' is to trivialize it and assign to it a datedness that it doesn't merit, especially in the present context.

    9. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      > Besides the whole point of 1984 was about the horror of the communist regime in russia, not some capitalists passing the dmca or some anti- terror agency reading an e-mail. Most of the people on slashdot don't evn have a clue what 1984 was really about.

      In case you didn't know, the nation of Oceana in 1984 was Great Britain. That book was decidedly not simply about the USSR.

    10. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1984 is hardly only about the USSR, as people always seem to be so comfortable in believing
      That's the first time I've ever heard of 1984 being about the USSR... I thought that Orwell was trying to make a point that this sort of thing comes from within our own governments, aided by propaganda and societal apathy/ignorance, rather than from some pinko commie bastards on the other side of the world.
    11. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The POUM were largely an anarchist grouping.

      Eric Blair was also responsible for pointing the finger at several "Communists" in the nineteen fifties, which lead to inquiries upon them from the British government.

      The main point of 1984 is that dictatorships, no matter what form they start in, are bad. It is very likely that it was written to deflate a sense of rightousness felt by communist sympathisers during the forties and fifties.

    12. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      Orwell was writing about what life would be like if communism was allowed to spread to the entire world

      Actually he was writing about totalitarianism, not necessarily communism. It's not the same thing at all.

    13. Re:George Orwell is spiniing in his grave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is COMPLETELY ON TOPIC, you STUPID MODERATOR FUCKS.

      I hope your moms get cancer.

  17. Duh! by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    Of course their view of human rights is upside down...

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
    1. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry reading a terrorists e-mail is not a human rights violation...

      Getting blown up by a terrorist that went undetected is however...

    2. Re:Duh! by CadeD · · Score: 1
      Of course their view of human rights is upside down...


      Budoom boom chhhh...
      --
      -cade "ahhhh kamisama! watashi no atama ni ono ga arimasu!"
    3. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's well known that most of the people sending e-mail in Australia are working for Osama. And even if they are a terrorist, it's still wrong to read their e-mail. Convenient, good for others, yes. But it's just as wrong as if they read your e-mail.

  18. Understanding by DarkZero · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's good to see that Australia is serious about combatting terrorism. The recent terrorist attacks on Australia in which many, many people were killed present a clear need for anti-terrorism legislation in Australia. In the face of such overwhelming horror on their own home soil, can we really blame Australia for jumping to the conclusion that security is more important right now than liberty? Personally, I think the international community should try to be understanding of the situation that Australia has been put in and try to give them some leeway in their knee-jerk reactions to the horrible atrocities that have befallen them.

    But on a serious, more blunt note: Should these people wait for terrorists, and by that I mean ANY TERRORISTS AT ALL, to give a rat's ass about them before enacting broad "anti-terrorism" legislation? Are the Australian people really going to swallow this crap?

    1. Re:Understanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can assure you - this is NOT the way to stop terrorism. It just gives them yet another tool to take down our infrastructure, and lets them know just how effective they are. This is just what they want. So lets not play into their hands and help them further their cause.

      They already know how to operate without even using the internet. And even if they get tempted to use it, there are 1000's of ways they can communicate totally undetected.

    2. Re:Understanding by narkotix · · Score: 1

      i think the key words here ppl are "WHO CARES", all the government will get if they monitor sms messages are those delightful porn picture messages ppl send and teeny boppers whinging about why some guy is going out with some girl. get real!!!!

      --
      We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    3. Re:Understanding by maaaaanis · · Score: 1

      No they shouldnt wait, in fact, they should take a leaf out of US policy and directly influence the deaths of a few million people, make sure theres at least 500,000 children in there aswell (thats acceptable isnt it Maddeline?). Then just kick back and wait for the terror to begin before adopting "draconian" legislation.
      Easy.
      The other cool part is, whilst in power you can use the legistlation to make yourself $$$ on the side by aquiring sensitive business info from companies that compete with your own and even destabilise them.
      Elegant.

  19. Tell me how much you'd like it by browser_war_pow · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    If your significant other walked in front of a window to close it while they were nude or in their underwear and I video taped it? Your significant other had no expectation of privacy because their window was open and I was able to see in.

    1. Re:Tell me how much you'd like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is slashcode getting buggier or are users getting more careless? The incidence of comments being posted to the wrong place is getting more common (I assume this was meant to be attached to the webcam story)

    2. Re:Tell me how much you'd like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If your significant other walked in front of a
      > window to close it while they were nude or in their
      > underwear and I video taped it?

      I've heard tales of angry spouses with cheating wives leaving pictures and video tapes of such on the hoods of vehicles around the neighborhood. This must not be that common because it has never happened in my neighborhood, unfortunately.

      I believe it IS illegal to use a telescope to look into someone else's window, which, of course, just adds to the excitement of determining the 48 year old neighbor lady has dark brown, ovular (in the vertical direction) 3x1.5 inch areolae, or how is it possible for that 16 year old daughter to have D-cup breasts but otherwise be quite slender?

    3. Re:Tell me how much you'd like it by downundarob · · Score: 1

      If your significant other walked in front of a window to close it while they were nude or in their underwear and I video taped it? Your significant other had no expectation of privacy because their window was open and I was able to see in. Unfortunately, where I live this has already been proven to be true, I cant find a cite but a man was charged with indecency because he could be seen from the street standing in his carport naked, the fact that his house was some 100+ metres back from the road and you needed to look through the orchard of Mango trees to do so was (apparently) irrelevant.

  20. You misunderstand by BlackTriangle · · Score: 0

    Australia isn't under any significant threat from terrorists actions, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Contrast this to the US' anthrax, Okalahoma city bombings, two WTC attacks, the Waco incident, yadda yadda yadda.

    The US' government is intent on attacking its citizens, its citizens are intent on attacking their government, other countries are intent on attacking the US and the US is intent on attacking other countries.

    None of this applies to Australia.

    1. Re:You misunderstand by mrfaustus · · Score: 0

      Contrast this to the US' anthrax, Okalahoma city bombings, two WTC attacks, the Waco incident, yadda yadda yadda.
      But I'll tell you one thing, it's still the greatest country in the world.

    2. Re:You misunderstand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its run by a bush.... vote for shrub next election date for 4 more years of war!.

      move to canada. where the people know whats going on microsoft doesnt control the news and dirty polotics end up getting mp's booted out.

      vive la canada.

    3. Re:You misunderstand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget an underfunded, overtaxed, overcostly health care system and the scientific ability to create a space shuttle arm. Canada is like the boring boyfriend with a stable job who drives a Ford Escort. Isn't the naughty US so much sexier? He'll defend your honor rather than running away when a bully kicks sand in your face, to go lie face down in bed, crying and rationalizing why that was the correct decision.

  21. "Big Brother Strikes Again?" by Seawolf359 · · Score: 1

    Ok I could be wrong but what exactly is the big deal? I mean honestly when is the last time some major criminal or terrorist organization used email to contact everyone. Not like they are using a yahoo group or something to say "ok folks lets go blow something up". This psuedo-invasion of privacy that people are so scare of when they hit the send button is rediculous. In the early and mid 90's netbus was around and it could watch, look and listen to what you typed, and this was availible to the general public. The goverment looking at your email is far from the worst thing that could be done and it may look like some "Big Brother" ripe off and that our government is trying to be evil and watch what we are doing but its not. Maybe I am the only one that is a little happier that the government is taking the time to actually try to curb terrorist communications, not like the email eachother anyway but the idea is kinda nice. I just find it funny how people yell kick and scream over monitored internet use cause they feel the government is "WATCHING" them yet they go each year and tell the local DMV watch make model year and type of car they drive, along with VIN number and everything. I personally find that more of an invasion of privacy.

    1. Re:"Big Brother Strikes Again?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What is the greek word for a question that answers itself?

      Your question "...when is the last time some major criminal or terrorist organization used e-mail to contact someone" is exactly the point. They haven't. So why facilitate government looking at everyone's a-mail?

      Your assertion that it's far from the worst that a government could do, though strictly accurate, is meaningless in this context. But this is not a good thing, particularly given the Australian government's previous record of illegally using wiretaps to augment their election bids and political decisions.

      In this context this is quite a big deal--a formerly democratic government that uses wiretaps for political ends making it possible for government agencies to have unprecedented acess to communications. These are not law enforcement agencies mind you. In Oz, you need an interception warrant to go after phones and such--only law enforcement agencies can get them. This is subjecting e-mail and SMS to the weaker search warrant, which most govt agencies can get. No, I don't want people with no valid reason looking at my information, thank you.

      Learn a bit about Aust govt, and of course your own govt first. The amount of ignorance you've betrayed here truly boggles the mind, but it does explain how governments in democracies can get away with attempting to foist onto us such outrageous law. Go back to your spoon fed pablum, make the soft bleating noises peculiar to your sad breed of electronic sheep, and leave ruling to your "democratic" overlords--since that's how you've obviously chosen to live.

      Wanker.

    2. Re:"Big Brother Strikes Again?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of DMV, do you know why the government calls Automobiles "Motor Vehicals" and the movment of Autos "Traffic"? Hint: Traffic ~= Trade.

    3. Re:"Big Brother Strikes Again?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is a motor vehicle is not a right.
      Privacy is.

      Thats' all there is to it. I have a right to privacy. No one has the right to spy on what I do within the confines of my own home.

      Where I live (canada) this kinda crap wont ever happen. They right trys to impose these kinda draconian laws (think photoradar) the public uproars and the incoming polotical party squash's the program. At a waste of millions to citizens.

      The difference is I can say freely that i dont like the alliance party or so n so without fear of reprisal. With laws like this it brings in a new ^power to dirty polotics.

      If this were law there'd be a new scandal every week. "So and so looks at porn!!!" .... mom at home says "wont someone please think of the children!!!!" votes right.

      Its screwy these countries claim to be democratic (us/au) yet they do everything in their power not to be. Whats up with an election where the majority of the people dont decide who the president is... Where legitimate technologies like napster can be bullied out of the market. Wheres the antitrust or legal bullying laws against the riaa on that one.

      Precident (betamax)... what changed was crooked judges. from what i've seen if you have 100 Million in the bank you cant loose a lawsuit in this digital age.

      Wait till bill gates runs for president. It will happen.. Welcome to microland.

      0.02. on this bs topic

    4. Re:"Big Brother Strikes Again?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why dont you kick and scream over monitored car usage ?

    5. Re:"Big Brother Strikes Again?" by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > What is the greek word for a question that answers itself?

      autofellatio

      Oh, wait. That's half Latin.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    6. Re:"Big Brother Strikes Again?" by Seawolf359 · · Score: 1

      Ok first off. My first statement was obviously either poorly writen or just wrong. Sorry if it annoyed any of you. I guess my point was really that I dont understand what the big deal is. From what I gathered Email never was and never will be a completely secure thing. I just am just confused on why it's such a big deal on it being monitored. Maybe I am wrong in hoping that even with some law being passed that grants this power, that it will be used wisely. I am probably just hopeful.
      As for the driving issue. I guess that was just a bad comparision. Sorry.
      Like I said. I guess I am just hopeful that it could be used correctly even if the government that is pushing for it has a bad history. Doesnt nessicarily mean its gonna be abused. Sue me for hoping for the best in human nature.

  22. British Criminals by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    No, just British criminals.;)

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  23. +sigh+ by PenguinX · · Score: 2

    Doesn't government have better things to do than threaten the citizens and tell them how to live? This is the sorta crap that revolutions are made up of.

    +sigh+

    1. Re:+sigh+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      yes, its the sort of thing revolutions are made of, but unfortunately most australians just accept that the government is going to keep screwing them over ( with the exception of the upper class, who good ol' johnny keeps on looking after. those private schools really need all the government funding they can get. ) so i think a revolution is sadly out of the question. i think the closest we can hope for in terms of a revolution is for illegal terrorist satanic ethnic child killing immigrants to swamp canberra and push out the pollies.

      i wish...

  24. No, you misunderstand by America+Uber+Alles · · Score: 0

    The statement "But on a serious, more blunt note" should have given you a clue that the preceeding paragraph was tongue-in-cheek.

  25. Re:This is NOT informative by symbolic · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Here's what you don't understand - it's not John Q. Hacker on a joyride down the superhighway that we're talking about - it's the GOVERNMENT. It's a huge bureaucracy that has the ability to collect this information, store it, retrieve it, and use it to profile what kind of person you might be- all without your knowledge or consent. You have no idea who else is using it, when, or for what purpose. As such, the repercussions can be much more severe and long-lasting. Basically, we have government agencies using the threat of terrorism as an excuse to turn themselves into the equivalent of the KGB.

  26. Feh by BlackTriangle · · Score: 0

    Never let it be said that Blacktriangle is one to read all the way through posts before responding.

  27. COME ON YOU GUYS!!! WAKE UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to WAKE UP and smell the roses you guys!!! this is going to get a LOT worse in the future.

    Already, the "forces that be" are slowly taking down places to download PGP, and there are going to be fewer and fewer places to download it. Network Associates have already discontinued their commercial version of this popular encryption system.

    NONE of this insanity is going to stop Al Quada or other terrorists. It's just going to drive them further underground.

    There are so many loopholes in this system it's almost impossible to stop.

    If Mr Terrorist wants to communicate in secret, they use PGP and an anonymouse Hotmail or Yahoo account.

    I HAD a great respect for the Australians and the supposed freedom they enjoy, and now this?

    SHAME SHAME!!!

  28. Ooh... there was a misunderstanding by BlackTriangle · · Score: 0

    I did read your whole post... but I thought you were a knee jerk American saying "Why are Australians unconcerned about terrorist attacks? They should be taking a pro-active approach to defending their country against dirty Arabs/dirty Muslims/dirty Non-Jewstian" or some such.

    1. Re:Ooh... there was a misunderstanding by DarkZero · · Score: 2

      It's understandable. Sarcasm is difficult to express on the internet. Even when you lay it on really thick, it can still be easily misunderstood.

    2. Re:Ooh... there was a misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry DarkZero. Us Aussies understand a good dose of sarcasm.

      it's a shame though that a good healthy dose of sarcasm won't make this hideous australian government go away!!

      but back on topic, no ... we won't swallow this kind of crap. A lot of us are getting really frustrated with the stuff we're being fed at the moment, and during the last election I (like a lot of my friends and family) pushed my plate back towards the centre of the table, threw my knife and fork down on the floor, my peas against the wall, and my hands up in the air. I'm full! no more!! And besides, it tastes like shit!

      Bring it on!

      Ubjneq, Ehqqbpx, Qbjare naq Qnely Jvyyvnzf ... vs lbh oybxrf pna urne zr ... (nf vs) ... lbh'er nyy gur ovttrfg wbxrf bs cbyvgvpvnaf naq uvfgbel jvyy erpbeq lbh nf gur snvyherf gung lbh ner.

      Ooo er.

    3. Re:Ooh... there was a misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its such a shame that so many Australians like yourself are convinced by the efforts of aussie media and the labor party to demonise John Howard.

      "and during the last election I (like a lot of my friends and family) pushed my plate back towards the centre of the table, threw my knife and fork down on the floor, my peas against the wall, and my hands up in the air. I'm full! no more!! And besides, it tastes like shit!"

      Well, sounds like someone is a little temperamental!
      And on another note, who would you rather in office than Howard? Kim Beazley? *snort*

    4. Re:Ooh... there was a misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring it on indeed!

      It's a shame that *people like you* are convinced the aussie media and the labor party are required to demonise howard! He does a great job demonising himself, along with his liberal party mates. (And I really think the media doesn't do enough to show Howard's tactics for what they are -- it's interesting where people see bias! I'm sure we could both find bias in the opposite direction with the same content)

      And while I actually didn't vote labor, yes, I would have preferred big Kim as PM over 'honest' John.

      On a serious note, the temper tantrum earlier aside -- I honestly felt physically sick when the libs won the election, a phenomenom felt across a larger proportion of the country than you might think.

  29. Not just emails at stake, regular phone calls too. by darkonc · · Score: 2
    In this digital age, this might also allow the government to intercept voice calls that are transmitted via digital methods.

    Such transmissions are also stored (even if only for microseconds) on routers while in transit. This would possibly make them susceptible to be intercepted without a warrent.

    In other words, only pure analog phone messages would require an intercept request. Phone calls that go through digital switches would not.

    IANAL, I've just dealt with the courts too damn much.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  30. Automate to inundate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come up with applications the send huge amounts of random messages between parties and hide in the noise .

  31. THIS WEEK : Homeland Defence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. GW starts DoHD
    2. UK politicians call for reform of intelligence agencies.
    3. Austrailia increases surveillance.
    4. New Zealand?
    5. Canada? The UKUSA agreement countries. Well spank my arse and call me charlie. Could these be at all related?

    1. Re:THIS WEEK : Homeland Defence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Defense".

    2. Re:THIS WEEK : Homeland Defence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Errr, NO. Defence. You're bloody lucky we don't reclaim New York city and rename it Chichester-on-Sea.

    3. Re:THIS WEEK : Homeland Defence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're lucky we don't go over there, claim London, and rename it Old-Nickle-Crack-Whore-Hand-Jobs-Five-Pounds-on-Th ames.

  32. Re: House doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As someone in the building trade who likes to move around (carpenters can ALWAYS get jobs) I can safely assure you that residential doors aren't required by buiding code to swing inward in any place I've ever worked. The reason they swing inward is because doors swing to the side the hinge pins are on. If you can take out the hinge pins you can open the door.

    Think you fell prey to false authority syndrome.

  33. STFU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shut the fuck up, loser.

  34. Re:Uh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No - DON'T blame Canada, blame the USA!!! I'm sure THEY are the ones bullying the other countrys to adopt such an Orwellian policy.

    BIG BROTHER = "New World Dis-order"

  35. Support Your Government!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Do you believe that individual rights trump the need of the government to maintain national security? Perhaps most of our governments would disagree. In these times of crises, liberty is discarded for unity of purpose.

    This philosophy was well articulated early in the 20th century:

    Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

    - Benito Mussolini
    "The Doctrine of Fascism"
  36. Oppoition by Yakk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Luckilly for us Australia seems to at least be starting to get a useful opposition. Labor Party, Democrats and Greens look like they're going to block the more nasty, invasive versions of the anti-terrorist legislation in the senate. In fact within the governing Liberal Party many members of parliament are pushing against the draconian legislation proposed by the Prime Minister. Democracy wins again. So how did this sort of thing get through in the US? Its being rejected in Australia and was rejected in Canada.

    1. Re:Oppoition by Dogcow · · Score: 1
      You're kidding, aren't you?

      The Australian Labor Party is more divided and misguided than they've ever been in the recent past. Internally, the leader is battling to reduce the influence of the Union movement on party policy making efforts. Externally, they're not even sure where they stand on the issue of border control and the inevitable discussion regarding asylum seekers that pops up. On the issue of this legislation, few people even remember the original fracas in 2001 that caused the Coalition Government to withdraw it for re-drafting. The originally proposed legislation (pre-September 11th, it should be pointed out), made it in some cases an act of treason to be a "whistleblower" of sorts. The Attorney-General assured the Parliament it wasn't so, but the opposition to the legislation ended up being so great when the media picked up the story that it got shelved. When the legislation was re-introduced earlier this year, now with the new mission of catching the evil terrorists in our midst, it was considered a bit of a shoe-in. It made it to the Senate and promptly got donked on the head by the Legal and Constitutional Committee, receiving in excess of 400 submissions for the "Terrorism" and "Treason" parts. Once the Committee made it's report, the Government backed down on certain elements of the proposed legislation only after their backbench staged a revolt of sorts. In the Telecommunications part of the "new" package (ie the part relating to interception etc), the Committee's recommendations were ignored, quite explicitly.

      And what have Labor been doing throughout all of this?

      Bugger-all.

      As much as it's convenient and heart-warming to think of the Opposition as a viable, or as you put it "useful" one, it's just not true, and this matter as well as the wishy washy response on the matter of border defence and asylum seekers is the perfect illustration of it.

    2. Re:Oppoition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Australian Labor Party is more divided and misguided than they've ever been in the recent past.


      The ALP is not divided, it is democratic . Like all democratic political parties it has varoius factions disagreeing over issues - this shows that the party is diverse and healthy. I'd be more worried if everybody agreed with each other all the time.


      As for being misguided, the party has been struggling to balance it's social-democratic ideology with the current groundswell of conservatism that has enveloped the Australian public since September 11. Frankly, most ordinary citizens support the immigration crackdown, while very few people within the party do; but the party can't reject the immigration policy (and these new anti-terrorism laws) outright, or they will be seen as supporting terrorists. Already shock-jocks like Alan Jones are accusing them of this for delaying the bill's passage through parliament.


      Basically, the general political mood of the community has taken a sharp jump to the right in recent times, and the ALP is trying to balance this with it's ideology. This is a struggle, and any perceived problems with the ALP can be attributed to this.

  37. Re:Uh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually:

    BIG BROTHER = "Stalin"

    But i wouldn't expect a slashtard to understand that.

  38. Calling Your Bluff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Three points:
    • All of the so-called "logged-in troll" accounts were created and are used by the same fucking person--that douchebag from SC that owns http://www.trollaxor.com.
    • For all of the accusations that CmdrTaco, Hemos, Cowboy Neal, &c. are "gay", it's the so-called "logged-in trolls" that continuously spew a stream of phallic ASCII art, links to photos of explicit homosexual acts, and explicit homosexual "confessionals". This guy must spend hour upon hour surfing gay porn sites and reading the "adult" newsgroups on his own before forwarding the "best of" to slashdot. In this day and age most people understand that a person's sexuality is his or her own business. At the same time most people will also rightly condemn hipocrisy when they find it (e.g., a closeted gay vilifying others for their supposed "homosexuality").
    • It's fucking TROLLING. At its best its a high form of performance art. Unfortunately douchebag from SC can only muster posts of the quality "I'm better'n you 'cause I LOG in!". You're not even in the same league as the more intelligent anonymous trolls.

    To paraphrase Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you post, but I will defend to the death your right to post it anonymously."

  39. The grimmest comment about government by alizard · · Score: 1, Troll
    "People usually get the local government they deserve." E.E."Doc" Smith

    We may get to see for the first time in an English-speaking country the first example of the domino effect claimed by the US National Rifle Association... where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy.

    You can't have legitimate political campaigns where elected government officials are using electronic surveillance not only against known terrorists and criminals, but against political opponents as well. That's why the Watergate scandal ended President Nixon's political career, because his people got caught doing exactly that.

    If this disturbing Australian trend goes to completion, how long before media outside AU realize that Australia is no longer a "free country"? Probably after we get significant numbers of people applying for "political asylum" in the US.

    The only suggestions I have for Aussies if this doesn't get stopped, and if it's gotten this far, your elected officials probably no longer care what you think are:

    1. You may already have seen the very last free election in Australia in your lifetime.

    2. If you are serious about freedom, your options are:
    think of a way to fight the new regime (isn't it too bad you gave up your guns?)
    or
    leave.

    I recommend departure. If you live among a people willing to vote away their freedoms even when there is no obvious threat, I can't see any good reason to risk death and imprisonment for them. The people who tend to do best during a migration are those who get out first, they have the best chance to find jobs and housing before the hordes of refugees show up behind them.

    For those who would neither fight nor depart, don't worry. I'm sure your regime will continue to call itself a democracy and even allow the facade of "free elections" for a while. Of course, your choice will only be among the parties the government allows to continue. And the forms of free enterprise that the government approves of.

    I wish you Aussies luck. You'll need it.

    No, I'm not offering the US as an example of perfect democracy, though we've had stolen Presidential elections in the past and 0wN3d legislatures and our democracy has survived. As to whether it will continue to do so, I certainly don't know.

    1. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy.

      As a Canadian I can attest to the fact that whoever uttered this statement needs to go back to grade school.

      As far as a _lot_ of things go, we, even without a first amendment, have more rights than Americans with their guns protecting their freedom.

    2. Re:The grimmest comment about government by HydroCarbon10 · · Score: 2

      At least for the moment you do.

      --
      The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
    3. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy.

      You ara drongo. Go and live in Australia first and found out how "banned" firearms are. Firearm laws are State level, in NSW if you want a gun you get a license and can have it. Australia has no laws equating gun ownership to militia readiness. So your post is a stupid piece of mis-informed NRA FUD and muck raking. I saw that NRA video on Australia, as an Australian I can safely say it was totally wrong. Incidentally it was only played in DC and TX where Bush and Gore were. What a load of bullshit.

      mocom--

    4. Re:The grimmest comment about government by beanyk · · Score: 1
      I saw that NRA video on Australia, as an Australian I can safely say it was totally wrong. Incidentally it was only played in DC and TX where Bush and Gore were.


      Nah, I saw in Pennsylvania, too. But it has a higher incidence of gun ownership than Texas, I've heard.
    5. Re:The grimmest comment about government by alizard · · Score: 2
      where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy.

      As a Canadian I can attest to the fact that whoever uttered this statement needs to go back to grade school.

      Actually, I stated that as the NRA position, I merely think it highly probable.

      Your pride in having a document defining your rights that lacks a guarantee of free speech and press is misplaced, that's in Part 1...

      As an American, I suggest you learn about your system of government before bringing your ignorant whines into a public policy debate.

      Your precious Charter can be shitcanned or modified into uselessness any time enough members of Parliament want it to be, after which it needs a "Mother, may I" from the Brits.

      Do you really think that Canada would have difficulty getting a UK Parliament to sign off on replacing the current version with a new and more restrictive version friendlier to repressive governments, particularly given RIP and the growth of an Orwellian "surveillance society" as the UK government has approved?

      It seems easier than getting 34 independent US state legislatures to sign off on gutting the US Bill of Rights.

      Have you read the US Constitution? Or for that matter, your own Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

      Since you probably haven't, yours is at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

      If you had, you might have read the following:
      "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

      Sounds good... until you take a hard look at it. Who defines "reasonable"?

    6. Re:The grimmest comment about government by galaga79 · · Score: 2

      Firstly I don't think your comment is a troll, yes it is an opinion I don't agree with but it is a valid opinion none the less.

      We may get to see for the first time in an English-speaking country the first example of the domino effect claimed by the US National Rifle Association... where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy.

      The possession of firearms is not entirely illegal in Australia. Self-loading guns are readily available but there are restrictions on high capacity self-loading rimfire rifles, self-loading centrefire rifles and shotguns and pump-action shotguns. These were the types of guns mainly used in Australian gun massacres. For more information on this consult this link.

      How you can say that banning of certain types of weapons leads to control of political speech I am not sure. Sure guns are needed in the instance of a revolution against the government when it fails the people, but that is a last resort after democracy has failed.

      The only suggestions I have for Aussies if this doesn't get stopped, and if it's gotten this far, your elected officials probably no longer care...

      In that case you'll be glad to hear that so far these new anti-terrorism bills proposed the Attorney-General Daryl Williams have been rejected by senators forcing Williams to back down on the anti-terrorism bill. Whilst I am not sure if this is a different bill to that in this topic is an anti-terrorism bill and reflects the fact that most senators in Australia are sane and what stand for these crazy new laws.

    7. Re:The grimmest comment about government by alizard · · Score: 2
      The possession of firearms is not entirely illegal in Australia. Self-loading guns are readily available but there are restrictions on high capacity self-loading rimfire rifles, self-loading centrefire rifles and shotguns and pump-action shotguns. These were the types of guns mainly used in Australian gun massacres. For more information on this consult this link [guncontrol.org.au].

      How you can say that banning of certain types of weapons leads to control of political speech I am not sure. Sure guns are needed in the instance of a revolution against the government when it fails the people, but that is a last resort after democracy has failed.

      The banned guns are the ones which are most likely to be useful for citizens who need to get rid of an oppressive government after democracy has indeed failed.

      As to the success or failure of your democracy, that remains to be seen. Government is a continuous experiment. What is true of any government in terms of stability and benevolence may not be true tomorrow. Democracy only lasts as long as public vigilance does. The law under discussion is a massive step in the wrong direction.

      A government that genuinely intends to be oppressive isn't exactly likely to undo the ban described above to give the citizens a fair chance to allow them to get rid of that regime.

      As for my being labeled troll... just because someone has moderator points doesn't mean that he can't be an antigun fanatic, or even an imbecile. Or a Microsoft employee.I suspect the person who moderated my post is all of the above.

      Having moderator points just says that a person has posted a few things that people agreed with, and being a slashdot user doesn't exactly mean that one has a valid opinion on public policy issues.

    8. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Arandir · · Score: 2

      Sure guns are needed in the instance of a revolution against the government when it fails the people, but that is a last resort after democracy has failed.

      Oh, so sorry. We took away your guns while you were still living in a democracy. Now that we're a totalitarian regime, do you think we're so stupid as to give them back to you?

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    9. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Alas, the NRA is wrong.

      You said: "We may get to see for the first time in an English-speaking country the first example of the domino effect claimed by the US National Rifle Association... where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy."

      Why, if they're banned, do I have a firearms license, a safe in my home, a reloading press, all the equipment I need, and as of right now, 3 semi-automatic pistols that are licensed for use on authorised pistol ranges around this state and other affiliated ranges in the rest of the country?

      As much as I like the idea of a powerful NRA, they're kidding themselves if they think they're always correct.

      A related, but totally off-topic gripe, if I may... If America is the "Land of the free", why do I keep seeing words like "God Damn" censored to "G__ D__n" in otherwise quite ballsy and no-holes-barred magazines like Guns & Ammo and American Handgunner? Out here in Australia, God Damn is God Damn, Fuck is Fuck, and Shit is Shit. And when people give each other the finger on TV, we see the middle finger, raised in defiance. If you're so free, why are these things censored?

      Have you ever considered that you're the ones on the authoritarian, "god-fearin'" leash, and we're the ones bathing in freedom?

    10. Re:The grimmest comment about government by MagicKoala · · Score: 1
      The banned guns are the ones which are most likely to be useful for citizens who need to get rid of an oppressive government after democracy has indeed failed.


      It is horribly irresponsible to provide a ready means to overthrow the government by force. Sure, they might become evil and corrupt, but how can you be sure that some less reputable people don't use that power to install their own even more evil and corrupt totalitarian government? If you need to reform the political system, it should be done democratically, though referendums, not through the use of weapons. It might be slow, it might be painful, but the alternative potentially is utter chaos.


    11. Re:The grimmest comment about government by MagicKoala · · Score: 1
      It seems easier than getting 34 independent US state legislatures to sign off on gutting the US Bill of Rights.

      Maybe so. But it seems to me that the authorities in the US have no trouble sidestepping the constitution anyway (at least in regards to matters such as the DMCA and friends), regardless of what freedoms and liberties it is supposed to guarantee you.

      If you had, you might have read the following:
      "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

      Sounds good... until you take a hard look at it. Who defines "reasonable"?

      The courts, surely. "Reasonable" is usually taken to mean what the average person would consider to be reasonable. Yes, this is open to interpretation, but the potential for actual abuse is somewhat limited. Assuming Canada has an independent judiciary, the government would have no real say in defining the term.

    12. Re:The grimmest comment about government by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Sure you can go out and get a gun (of sorts) if you have the money and the inclination. You can't (legally) go carrying the thing around in the street, though. Good thing too, as far as I'm concerned.

    13. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
      This comment, and your obvoious stupidity made me almost vomit. It's no wonder Americans are viewed as they are worldwide with people like you making wacko comments like this.

      Just lok at the US - DMCA, anti-terrorism laws, etc - they are happening, and you gun-nuts just keep on saying "we've got guns, we'll be right". A free press is more important than guns - what point is there to guns if propaganda is keeping you blind to the truth.

      You should stop campaigning for your right to own the latest quadruple-barrelled fast-firing machine gun, and campaign for greater freedom of press. Not only is the (free) pen mightier than the sword, but it's far less dangerous to innocent people.

    14. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      Unless they try to open a medical clinic for rich people. Then the free there are sent to jail.

      Or if you talk about certain court cases.

      Or if you try to import simple, consentual adults-only pr0n.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    15. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > "Reasonable" is usually taken to mean what the
      > average person would consider to be reasonable.

      Which, of course, is circular reasoning in a democracy. What the majority vote for is by definition what the average person would consider reasonable. It sounds pretty reasonable to round up the Jews, remember, or that people who don't accept Jesus should be burned at the stake, or at least tortured until they do. It's pretty reasonable that Miss Cleo and John Edwards are not lying charlatans ripping people off.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    16. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > Sure, they might become evil and corrupt, but how
      > can you be sure that some less reputable people
      > don't use that power to install their own even more
      > evil and corrupt totalitarian government?

      You can't, of course. You can, however, turn to history. Oh, yeah. I guess a ban on guns is the first thing such corrupt, totalitarian governments do.

      > democratically, though referendums, not through
      > the use of weapons. It might be slow, it might be
      > painful, but the alternative potentially is utter
      > chaos.

      Why not just have a constitution with guaranteed freedoms? Then nobody, even the people through voting, can stomp on rights.

      After all, it's all about freedom, not democracy. Wielding the murderous claw of history with the force of democracy doesn't make it any more right than if a small dictatorship did it. You don't get un-evil by having a large mass of people do the evil.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    17. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you're so free, why are [middle finger raised, fuck, etc.] censored?

      Because some people in this country (on the left and right) think that if it's really bad, I mean, I'm really gonna whine about it, then it doesn't count as something that should be free.

      Let me ask you this, on the Internet in Australia, is fucking still fucking?

    18. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > I'm not offering the US as an example of perfect
      > democracy, though we've had...0wN3d legislatures

      "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." P.J. O'Rourke

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    19. Re:The grimmest comment about government by MagicKoala · · Score: 1

      > What the majority vote for is by definition what
      > the average person would consider reasonable.

      We simply aren't given enough choices in most democracies for this to be the case. Generally, the population votes for one of two, three or maybe even four major political parties. The issues, by contrast, may number in the dozens. And, at the end of the day, you might simply be voting for the "lesser of n evils", rather than what you think is reasonable.

      Also, the word "reasonable" isn't used pervasively. It's only used where a strict black & white statement is unsuitable. After all, there aren't too many legal systems in the world that say just "be reasonable, or you'll get a reasonable sentence".

    20. Re:The grimmest comment about government by MagicKoala · · Score: 1

      > Oh, yeah. I guess a ban on guns is the first
      > thing such corrupt, totalitarian governments do.

      Plenty of democracies have placed restrictions on the ownership of weapons (Australia, Britain, Japan, etc) and none of them show any real signs of becoming totalitarian. If it came down to it, do you really think that a government (totalitarian or otherwise) backed by a professional army could be overthrown by a bunch of uzi-wielding rednecks anyway? If the army is on the other side then it's a different matter of course, but then the issue of gun control is irrelevant.

      > Why not just have a constitution with guaranteed
      > freedoms? Then nobody, even the people through
      > voting, can stomp on rights.

      Yes they can. If the people in power can influence the judiciary, for example, they can have quite an effective say on the way the constitution is *interpreted*. Language is a wonderfully malleable thing in the hands of those who know what they're doing.

      > After all, it's all about freedom, not
      > democracy.

      Democracy guarantees freedom. Freedom without democracy is a very dangerous balancing act.

      > Wielding the murderous claw of history with the
      > force of democracy doesn't make it any more
      > right than if a small dictatorship did it. You
      > don't get un-evil by having a large mass of
      > people do the evil.

      Democracy doesn't weird a murderous claw to start with. Australia, for example, was *voted* into existence. We didn't go to war with anyone to ensure our independence, as was the case with the US, the USSR and the "People's" Republic of China, and as a result a lot less people were killed (ie. none) and we ended up with a fair, workable democracy. How many people do you think would have voted for the Taliban, or Saddam Insane if they'd had the chance?

    21. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The banned guns are the ones which are most likely to be useful for citizens who need to get rid of an oppressive government after democracy has indeed failed.

      I've always wondered how many Americans are sitting around waiting for democracy to fail, so they can go out in their blazy of glory.
      (I wonder how many high school students over there have done just that because their own equivalent of democracy seems to have failed them?)

      I haven't seen a lot of democracies failing recently and requiring an armed populace to set things right... you want to place bets on whether Australia or the US will go anytime soon?

    22. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that Americans know far too much about their own government.

      It leads to a misplaced trust; a belief that because it's written down, everything must be safe... and everywhere else, where it isn't written down, it'll be taken away with a snap of the fingers.

      Writing it down just sets down some narrow margins that can slowly be pushed back. Just because these rights aren't specifically mentioned for other countries, does not mean that the people do not value them, or will not vote to protect them if they are threatened.

    23. Re:The grimmest comment about government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why not just have a constitution with guaranteed freedoms?

      Because overlegislation is one of the surest and quickest means to reduced freedoms. Because inappropriate law weakens the entire legal structure. Because a constitution, no matter how comprehensive will leave some rights unaddressed and despite clauses which explicitely state that such unmentioned rights are equally important, their lack of inclusion does weaken them in comparison to those that are chosen.

      As to suggestions that the only (or even a) defence against a totalitarian government is easy access to firearms is ludicrous. All that that ensures is that if a revolution ocurs it will be as bloodthirsty as possible. There are ways and means for revolution to minimise bloodshed and the absence of modern firearms is a good place to start. That and having to live with the violence and levels of death that entails from common gun-ownership without a co-comittant sense of responsibility makes the suggestion that firearms are useful in the hands of the general population intolerable.

      I am satisifed that a shooting still makes front page and national news.

  40. Re:Uh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well these are the same fucktarded slashfags that think emmanuel goldstein is the editor of an 3l33t hax0r magazine...bwahahhaha....

  41. Beginnings of an Orwellian dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't democracy, this is totalitarianism masquarading as democracy. I would *really* like to know how any of this will combat terrorism. Who in their right mind thinks that terrorists send messages to each other saying in plain English: "Ok, we are going to bomb the Australian government on tuesday the 5th of January, using RPGs"? No. They talk in code - could even look like a letter to Auntie Mabel about her hip. What are the bets that this won't get abused to hell; industrial espionage, blackmail et cetera? Goverments around the world must have rejoiced after 9/11, just look at some the proposals that come under "anti terrorism". This is like a chapter out of Nineteen Eighty Four; "anti-terrorism" is "Newspeak", nothing more, nothing less.

    I hope that Her Majesty, the Queen of England, puts her foot down with this one. ;-)

    1. Re:Beginnings of an Orwellian dystopia by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      I hope that Her Majesty, the Queen of England, puts her foot down with this one. ;-)

      She won't, though. She's kept her paws off ever since Whitlam was sacked.

    2. Re:Beginnings of an Orwellian dystopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and even then, her paws had nothing to do with it. Whitlam had to call her in the morning to let her know what "her representative" had done in her name...

  42. Re: House doors by shepd · · Score: 1

    Just a point of interest:

    If you search around the uspto, you'll find Microsoft has a little known patent for a door with a hinge that protects the pins from being removed while the door is closed... Beats the hell out of me what Microsoft would want to become a building supplies company, but hey, its there!

    (BTW: Slashdot is very broken lately. I have to hit submit twice before messages are posted!)

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  43. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe its a good thing, they do descend from a bunch of criminals after all

  44. Steve Irwin by guttentag · · Score: 5, Funny
    OK, it's time to call out the big guns. Who do we know Down Under? We need Steve "Crocodile Hunter" Irwin to do an expose on the Australian government.

    Irwin picks the prime minister up by the neck...

    "Wow! Look at this beauty! What we have here is a rare Australian Brown-Nosed Prime Minister. Very valuable too, large corporations will pay big bucks for a fella like this one here."

    The prime minister starts gagging and choking...

    "You're all right, Mate. You're all right. You have to be careful when dealing with these buggers. I don't want to let go of the neck because then he could call his elite guard and then I'd be in a world of trouble. They'd come running and attack me with their projectile defense mechanisms. They wouldn't understand that I'm not trying to hurt the prime minister, I'm only trying to educate the public."

    The PM is grasping for his computer, but Irwin holds him out of reach...

    "Let's walk over to his computer and take a look at how he survives. Notice the program he uses to search his prey's email and telephone conversations. Very sneaky, but it's that survival instinct that allows him to maintain his dominance in the political jungle. That's why we call him the prime minister. Yeah? OK, I'm gonna let him down slowly, and hopefully he'll be too busy gasping for air to call for help and I can make my retreat."

    1. Re:Steve Irwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.pm.gov.au/images/newsroom/head_shot.jpg

      And there he is! Look at that!

    2. Re:Steve Irwin by HKTiger · · Score: 1
      The PM is grasping for his computer, but Irwin holds him out of reach...

      Computer? Computer?!? What on earth makes you think he even knows what that is?

  45. International political action? by vkg · · Score: 2

    Seems to me that we need some kind of international political voice to speak for our privacy and freedom: globally, the lock down is going on, and I don't see any effective transnational resistance.

    Perhaps Amnesty International would be a good place to start?

  46. Amnesty International URL by vkg · · Score: 2

    sorry, that should be Amnesty International

  47. Time for a change to the democratic system by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although we're constantly told that we're living in a democracy, the reality is that we are not.

    Most Western "democratic" countries operate a system that involves the election of representatives who are chosen by the people to speak on their behalf in government.

    The unfortunate reality is that these representatives are almost always looking out for their own interests ahead of those of the people who elected them. "Power corrupts" as they say.

    These representative systems were devised hundreds of years ago when it was simply impractical to run a true democracy and, at the time, they constituted the most democratic solution to the problem of allowing the people to dictate their own future.

    Clearly it would have been absolutely impractical to have every citizen voting on every decision related to the running of the country.

    But it's now the 21st century and things have changed -- a lot!

    Now we have the power to let individuals exercise their own democratic right to have a say in the decisions made by government.

    Several years ago I proposed that we now have the technology to implment a truly democratic system that would effectively impose strong checks and balances on the excesses of our elected representitives.

    I documented this system (as it applies to the New Zealand political system)
    here.

    The idea is to acknowledge that an elected representitive is effectively doing little more than exercising the proxy of the voters in their constituency.

    Until now, the only real democratic right that citizens had was to elect a different representitive at the end of each term. Now that's a very coarse form of democracy and offers little protection for the public.

    My suggestion is that each voter be entitled to withdraw their proxy and exercise it individually if they choose to do so on an issue by issue basis .

    In the event that a government tries to pass legislation which is not supported by a majority of the voters, those voters can recover their proxy and vote against it.

    The technology to allow such a "recoverable proxy" situation can be as simple as a telephone, ATM or Internet connection.

    Unlike other proposed improvements to the democratic process which involve cumbersome methods such as regular referenda, this system allows our elected representitives to carry on as normal, exercising the proxies of their constituents-- but simply reserves the publics right to say "no" when that representitive decides to place his or his party's interests ahead of the majority choice of the people he/she has been elected to serve.

    Of course politicians don't want a bean of this proposal -- because it would significantly curb their ability to rort the system and remove their ability to place self-interest ahead of the public's right to be democratically represented.

    A change like this would likely require a massive outcry by public -- and our politicians would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

    What do you think?

    1. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by grahamoconnor · · Score: 1

      Surely an elected representative is given the power by those who elected them to do more than just act as a proxy. The member is elected, suposedly as an intelligent and thinking individual, to make descisions on behalf of those he/she represents. Those descisions may not always be in agreement with some or perhaps even all of those who elected them but thats just the way it is - hence the need for care when electing someone - they can exercise a great deal of power. In general of course, the representative will tend to side with the views of his/her electorate if only for self-preservation. Leaving aside the arguements of self-interested representatives, they have a strong case to argue that they are in a better and more knowledable position than most of the populace to decide on such matters of state. Reverting to mob-rule when descisions are not to peoples taste hardly seems like a move forward.

    2. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

      Surely an elected representative is given the power by those who elected them to do more than just act as a proxy

      Very true -- and that's why the Recoverable Proxy (RP) system isn't simply one that relies on having a voter referendum on each bill put before the house.

      It is a system that allows the elected representitives to continue their role of making decisions and running the country -- but cements in place a guarantee that the privileges such a position provides are not abused.

      For example -- few people would be interested in 99% of the bills that are presented and the day-to-day operation of government would effectively be unaltered by RP. However, there was a bill (such as the one which started this /. discussion) that threatened to unreasonably erode the rights of citizens, then those who objected could immediately invoke their democratic right to veto such draconian law-changes.

      The mere fact that the government knew that voters had this power of veto at their disposal would, I suggest, cause them to be a little more circumspect when trying to mess with people's rights or pass legislation that isn't necessarily going to reflect the wishes of the majority.

      Any government that consistently attempted to pass legislation that was voted down by the population at large would then have to think long and hard about whether they were doing their job properly -- and everyone else would know it.

      It's the one thing that's been missing from politics for a long, long time -- accountability!

    3. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by raistlinne · · Score: 2

      Before trying to implement true democracy, I suggest that you first spend some time getting to know people who live in different places from you (especially in poorer neighborhoods). You'll find that most people have neither the time nor the inclination to get acquainted with facts concerning the things that they would be voting about.

      Hell, if this doesn't scare you just think about how much the mass media influences people's opinions on issues. Do you really want the deciding influence on the vote on a given law to be what the "friends" episode that aired the night before was in favor of?

      Believe me, I'm well aware that a democratic republic is a pretty bad form of government, but it seems to be better than all the rest. Direct democracy is actually a very scary thing. As it is it's bad enough when some large group of people decides to ban together and elects some idiot to government (this is rare, thankfully), but can you just imagine how legislation on complicated issues would go? People would hear "nuclear" and it would be banned. There would be a 100% tax on the "rich" where rich is defined as earning more than 51% of the people.

      Basically, life is very imperfect, it's amazing to what a degree we (i.e. the middle class and above in America) currently escape the suffering that is typically associated with life, and the prospect of most people directly telling their neighbors how to live is absolutely frightening. Say what you want about oligarchy (which is basically what every form of current government is), but at least (when it answers to the people) it is reasonably moderate and relatively hard to sway by emotion (the key word here is relatively).

      --
      They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
    4. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

      You'll find that most people have neither the time nor the inclination to get acquainted with facts concerning the things that they would be voting about

      Precisely -- and that's why the system would work.

      People who are politically disinterested would hardly be likely to exercise their right to exercise their own proxy on regular occasions.

      Over 99% of the time, the ability for the elected representitives to carry out the job they're paid to do would go on unchallenged.

      It's really just giving the power of veto back to the people. It's a safeguard to avoid a government that tries to ride roughshod over the rights of those who elected them.

      Remember -- it's the very people who you claim might be a danger who are the ones that help vote in the government of the day anyway. At least RP protects citizens from putting up with four years of a government that might turn out to be excessively corrupt or self-interested.

    5. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, i had the same idea couple of years ago... so of course i support it. But here goes another one which could be complemenetary.

      It is based on assumption that normal human behaviour is first to preserve self interest and only then the interest of the community.
      I believe that such an assumption explains why we have politician that are worride mostly for themselves --- it is normal human behavour.
      There are of course individuals who escape this rule but they are not 'normal' and are minority.
      We need an electoral system which
      1) Tries to keeps 'normal' individuals out of power
      2) assure that these not 'normal' individuals are given priority when competing for access to the power.

      I think that these goals are achieved by giving an electoral handicap to the people seeking to be elected on the second, third .... etc term.

      Example: In electoral competion between 2 newcomers the winner will be one who gains more than 50% of votes.
      In the case of a newcomer between a candidate seeking 2nd terme the newcomer will need only 40% to win.
      In the case between a newcomer and a candiadate seeking a 3'rd term the newcomer will nedd 30% of votes to win.

      This way the extraordinary leaders will keep the power, and the normal ones will rotate....

      What do you think?

    6. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The mere fact that the government knew that voters had this power of veto at their disposal would, I suggest, cause them to be a little more circumspect when trying to mess with people's rights or pass legislation that isn't necessarily going to reflect the wishes of the majority.

      Or possibly force them to be a little bit more clever about concealing the intent of "legislation that isn't necessarily going to reflect the wishes of the majority".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by detect · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think your line of thinking is great but as some others have pointed out, those in power will still be able to control public opinion through mass media.

      I think the reason we have the government we have at the moment is because they were the ones that influenced that -i beleive large- sector in the community who are not adequately informed about current issues. Because everyone must vote the election results becomes diluted by those uninformed voters.

      This can be a great thing if the public is informed, intelligent and active. The problem is a large enough number of Australians do not have that combination of qualities.

      The current system would be excellent if people were more educated. What is needed is a more honest mass media that educates rather than sensationalises. Higher Education must be actively encouraged and more places created for people of all economic backgrounds.

      --
      // The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
    8. Re:Time for a change to the democratic system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey guy come to switzerland! And stop telling bullshit about direct democracy

  48. Thought you'd slip this one by us, eh? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Or is it just an eerie coincidence?

    There was superb British comedy series in the late 70's and early 80's called "Yes, Minister" and later "Yes, Prime Minister" that beautifully parodied the British style parliamentary system and the stranglehold that the Civil Service had on everything (applicable to almost all countries, methinks).

    An episode titled "Big Brother" was about a government initiative to build a "national integrated data base" that took all distributed government data on its citizens and put it in one large database, profiling its citizens, and accessible to civil servants.

    Everything after your second hyphen is damn near a quote from the dialog. And the responsible Minister (who feared that public outrage would cost him re-election) name was named James, (not John) Hacker!

    1. Re:Thought you'd slip this one by us, eh? ;-) by symbolic · · Score: 2

      Funny...I've never seen this British comedy, so I guess it qualifies as an eerie coincidence. The irony in their use of the name James Hacker is quite good, whether it was intentional or not. :)

  49. Re:You're a nutcase! by squarooticus · · Score: 2

    Just because a criminal may attack you with a gun (or knife, baseball bat, etc, etc) does *NOT* give you the right of self defense.

    Unbelievable. There's nothing else to say.

    --
    [ home ]
  50. eh, is this a live playing book/story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    because Australia seems to be doing the exact thing that many predicted it would over 25 years ago, and in the same order too. Could history really be a good teacher? Nahhhhh.

    Who needs logic when you can have 'good intentions' backed by emotional knee-jerk reacting hippies

  51. If we make email interception illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...then only criminals will intercept email.

    1. Re:If we make email interception illegal... by times · · Score: 1

      You said it brother.

  52. Australia has gotten the government it deserves... by aquarian · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...actually, I don't believe that, but I see where it comes from.

    Australians have always been been politically apathetic, and apathetic in general. They're not civic minded people to begin with, plus anyone with ambition is quickly pulled down. Australians whine about everything, but no one wants to get involved. "Not me, not my job, mate." So they turn to government to solve all their problems, everything from keeping wages up and food prices down, to people driving too fast, to keeping the kids off drugs. Well, with that comes a price... and they're really paying it now.

    They're paying *for* it too. Something like 1 in 6 Australians is directly on a government payroll. Unemployment is high, and gaming the system of government handouts is a national sport. Half the country is working to support the whole other half. This is not good.

  53. You'd be in good company in Australia... by aquarian · · Score: 2

    I'm no gun lover, but attitudes like yours are why I left Australia. Everything is always someone else's job.

    1. Re:You'd be in good company in Australia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm no gun lover, but attitudes like yours are why I left Australia. Everything is always someone else's job.
      I'm an Aussie, and yes, the attitude that everything is someone else's job is pretty shameful. I don't know how other countries stack up, though... I suspect that sort of attitude is also pretty common in the US too, maybe UK. I think the other Europeans get a bit more fired up and passionate about what they believe in. I have no idea about anywhere else.

      OTOH, I find it a bit hard to believe that you left just because of that reason...

  54. The liberals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was almost ashamed to be an Australian at the last election, after all the bullshit the current liberal party government has put this country through. And my fellow australians voted these assholes back in! If you read this, and you voted for liberal, let me just say, i think you are a MORON.

    Now lets see:

    The liberals disarmed the entire country

    The liberals sold of a large portion of Australias monopoly telco, and plan to sell the rest. (Telstras quality of service keeps dropping, and they keep pissing off the consumer)

    The liberals dramatically decreased school and university funding. Currently, Privately owned schools get WAY WAY more government funding than government owned public schools (GO FIGURE?!?!

    The liberals also made it more expensive to study at university, putting fees up, and lowering the "HECS" threshold whereby graduates repay the government for their education.

    The liberals tried to pass a bill last year - It owuld make it illegal for any australian citizen to posess/use computer security tools such as port scanners and virus/exploit code.

    The whole "refugee" situation is a JOKE. The "Refugee Overboard" scandal shows this. As another reader mentioned, the liberal govt chose to spy on its own people purely for political gain. And THEN, the liberal party deliberaly lied and decieved the general public! These fuckwits have no idea. BTW, the international perception our "refugee" camps are out in harsh environments is WRONG. Granted, there are refugee camps in the desert. These camps are largely air conditioned, and sanitry facilities, the "Refugees" get fed three times a day, and have access to all manner of things they wouldnt have had access to at "home". All the do-gooders can die for all i care.

    I couldnt think of any more examples. I will stop whinging now lol.

    1. Re:The liberals? by times · · Score: 1


      Yep, we have the same problem here in the U.S.

    2. Re:The liberals? by Hunter1776 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know if anyone has pointed out but the somewhat deceptively named liberals aren't really liberal at all. Liberal = conservative.

    3. Re:The liberals? by thogard · · Score: 1

      I tend to watch the US$/AU$ exchange rate and I find it funny to see how the US traders treat news with the Liberal party. In gneraly when they do things the US Republican party way, they AU$ should rise aginst the US$. However if they party is mentioned the rate goes the other way. When the Rebublican party (the people that want to tell the queen to take a hike) get news, that sometimes would raise the AU$. Anytime the labor party does something the AU$ drops.

      I wonder how high the AU$ would go if one of the major parties (Labor or Liberals) would change ther name to the Republican party.

    4. Re:The liberals? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure, but I think the American concept of a 'liberal' is different to the Australian one. Can anybody shed some light on this for me? In fact, I think in relation to the Liberal party, it refers to liberal economic thought, as opposed to social/liberal thought. The Liberal party are a conservative party.

    5. Re:The liberals? by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      > * The liberals sold of a large portion of
      > Australias monopoly telco

      Is it still a (legal) monopoly? If so, don't expect any improvements any time soon. The US labored under 50 years of mandated monopoly, then decided it was illegal.

      Given that I can make interstate long distance calls much cheaper (via a handy cell phone yet!) than in-state long distance calls shows there are some anachronistic laws protecting monopolies in-place still...

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  55. I'm not xenophobic! by aquarian · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'm not xenophobic! I'm just sick of all these bloody wogs!

  56. Re: House doors by DarkZero · · Score: 2

    My mistake. I guess that's just an urban legend.

  57. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The country is fucked.

    Why get a job? When i can just open my legs, screw some bloke i met at the pub on saturday nite, and pop another kid out. Johnnie howard will give me an extra $54332524352 per week!

    The area in which i currently live is like this. I had to go to the australian version of "Social Secuirty".. our Centerlink offices.. to look for a new job. A centerlink official in consultation with an unemployed couple, was telling them how to dodge the system best (IE dont get married, tell us you r living together but not as a couple - you will get the most govt. assistance possible).

    I find this disgusting. This is why the country is fucked. The people of this country who pay tax effectly subsidizie the living costs of all this "scum" who refuse to work - IMHO there is no better term for them.

    To the poster of the parent message: You are right. This is the government the people of this country deserve! FFS, the people of this country voted for them, AGAIN! That, in itself, should show what a bunch of flaming retards the vast majority of my fellow australians really are :(

    They're not civic minded people to begin with

    duh im from western {Sydney, Brisbane, etc} what does that mean? And can you put it in my Honda CRX? Sweet mate.

  58. Simple circumvention by BobTheBooser · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Email, voice mail and SMS messages are stored on a service provider's equipment pending delivery to the intended recipient and could be read by a government agency before the intended recipient even knew a message had been sent to them.

    Well for email thats easy, use a forign web baised email.
    Voice mail dont use your telcos "Message bank facility", use an answering machine, or if you like those anoying menues set one up with a modem and a computer.
    For sms it's a little harder, if you realy dont want someome looking in on that sort of thing, buy an integrated phone / pda type thingy with GPRS and load up an instant messaging type client that has an SMS portal (ie ICQ) that way you can still recieve sms messages, and you can still send sms messages to phones but your incoming message never get "stored" on an australian server(if your IM is conecting to a forign server). They still pass through aussie servers and telco equipment but they arent stored.

    P.S. I'm an aussie and i realy doubt this bill will actualy pass. I was listning to a story about this on the radio and not only are the other partys rejecting most of the bill but i wouldn't be suprised if some liberal party members cross the floor and vote it down

    1. Re:Simple circumvention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MEDIC !

      Can we get a Spelling Doctor over here please ? This man appears to have a defective Spelling Gland !

  59. It will never get through the upper house ... by tdelaney · · Score: 1

    ... and if it does, it will fail in a court challenge.

  60. Re:You're a nutcase! by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, in a case a few years ago in New York City, the courts ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect you against an obvious threat.

    The matter arose when a woman had a stalker she knew of, and after a couple of non-fatal attacks, was begging the police for protection. They didn't provide it, and the lady was eventually killed. Her relatives sued NYPD claiming they should have protected her against such an obvious danger.

    The courts said no.

    It is your obligation to protect yourself. It is the obligation of the police to clean up after crimes have been commited.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  61. Big deal by MakerBreaker · · Score: 1

    I have enough trouble sorting through all the crap in my 4 different inboxes ... multiply that by the number of ppl using email in Aus and they have absolutely NO CHANCE of effectively implementing anything that could be deemed the least bit useful. They cant even clamp down on tax evasion, so how do they ever hope to do anything useful with this strategy? I am more concerned with wasted tax dollars than anything else.

    1. Re:Big deal by times · · Score: 1


      It's not that they will monitor everything. It is the fact that they legaly can.

      Freedom is not always taken all at once, it can be taken little by little...

  62. Not really surprising... by times · · Score: 1

    This does not surprise me given the Australia Gov. track reacord.

    1st. They take all firearms from all citizens.

    2nd. They take away all warrent protections that keep police from abusing there power.

    3rd. (future) I wounder how long it will take to do away with thoughts pesky free elections.

    Democracy just gets in the way when the government know whats best for you...

    1. Re:Not really surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They haven't taken all firearms
      2. They haven't done anything like this.

    2. Re:Not really surprising... by csirac · · Score: 1

      riiiiight... how did they take away warrant protections? What are you talking about?

      The only thing I can possibly imagine you are thinking of is questioning a civilian. A couple of years ago it was possible for a policeman to come up to a random civilian, ask some questions and the civilian was allowed to just walk away and not say anything. Now, you still have that right, but changes were made so that if a policeman thinks it is worthwhile, they can take you to the station for questioning.. I think.. can't remember the details. Anyway, point is, they can't keep you there until you are actually arrested and even then you are still allowed to "remain silent".

      . The criteria/procedure for arrest is still the same.

      . Warrents are still given out the same as they always were - by a Magistrate who has to believe that the situation deserves/fits criteria for a warrant; ie. there is sufficient evidence, the crime is bad enough, etc.

      . The only other thing I can think of is perhaps drug raids; warrants are still needed for public raids, but on private property... hrmm I still think you need a warrant but maybe it was made easier to get, or something.

      - Paul

    3. Re:Not really surprising... by OzJimbob · · Score: 1

      Ooo look, if it's not another small-penis-man whigning about firearm rights. The Australian government has not taken ALL weapons off ALL citizens. It has taken AUTOMATIC weapons off the TINY MINORITY of citizens who were stupid and psychotic enough to own them, and most Australians feel they should have gone further than they did. Australians aren't LIKE gun-obsessed united-statesians. We don't WANT guns, we don't NEED guns, and we resent the implication that we are somehow downtrodden and poorer for the fact that people don't OWN guns here.

      Most people (apart from a few psychotic small-penis Sporting Shooters Association rednecks) in Australia feel that the increased gun laws was about the best thing the Howard government has done for the country, and as someone who's been pissed off by most everything else the current government has done, I've got to concur. The SSA (equivalent of your NRA) is regarded in a very poor light by most Australians, of all political pursuasions.

      --
      -"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
    4. Re:Not really surprising... by thogard · · Score: 1

      The elections dates are already called by the party in power so that puts things massivly in their favor.

      At the S11 protests in Melbourne a few years ago, there was no way the police would have been able to stop an angry mob. They had just about every cop they could find in the state. It took them about a half hour to resuce on of the morons from his car who tried to drive through the mob. There were people in the crowed that were prepaired to rush the police and take their stores of riot gear should things turn ugly. If any one of the large unions get mad and stormed parlment, there isn't anything the guards could do other than shoot a few of them. The unions routinely have large prostest within three blocks of the parelment building. Guns would not be needed to put the state govement up aginst the wall. That would imply that the local goverment does have a real security issue and they will fight to fix it. Lucky for them most people don't care what the goverment does.

    5. Re:Not really surprising... by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget England's recent entry into the Idiocy Bowl:

      4. Anything you say, or don't say, can and will be used against you in a court of law.

      That's right, your silence may be used as evidence against you.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    6. Re:Not really surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, could be that plenty of people care what the government does, but would rather solve it through the democratic process and by using their right to free speech. Frankly I'm happy to live in a nation where we don't feel the need to shoot politicians if they do something disagreeable.

      Particularly having been around to see some of the ridiculous stuff that people do protest about... I'd hate for some of the groups to feel that they had a right to force the government round to their way of thinking :)

  63. Re:Not just emails at stake, regular phone calls t by csirac · · Score: 1

    Huh? Name one phone exchange in Australia that isn't digital. I used to live "in the middle of nowhere" in a town with less than 20 people... we had a fibre optic miniexchange; before that, a DCRS microwave radio tower.. .which come to think of it was analogue? Ok, so maybe about 1000 remaining isolated farms around the country with a microwave-link would be analogue.

    - Paul

  64. Hope they aren't in a hurry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Broadband Internet services down here are so amazingly, stupendously, jaw-droppingly *crap* that they'll have to do most of their spying on us poor straw (l)users. Yoo hoo, spies, look: I've been online all day and I just finished downloading the latest Mozilla! *twirls finger in air

  65. I'll be buggered. by csirac · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of wankers you all are. From a tiny window (a slashdot article) you can judge that the sky is falling in Australia, abandon ship, evacuate...

    Well I live here (in Queensland) and what can I say. This will never get through. The politicians argue the absolute bloody crap out of everything, even themselves, and even the sensible bills that really should pass without even a second glance are debated for weeks/months/years not over their content but for political brownie points.. can you imagine how unspeakably pathetic the parilement session will be like when this baby gets to being debated?

    The political system in Australia sucks because of the friggin massive beuracracy involved. It is so damn slow, and the two major political parties are extraordinarily anti-constructive - they argue about EVERYTHING simply because they think it's their f*cking job, "I'm the opposision therefore I must oppose _EVERYTHING_" kind of attitude.

    Hmmf. I knew people were ignorant of other people, but jeez... what do you take us for?

    Are any of you aware that we have a federal government that has no representation in ANY of the states? That's right. "Everyone" voted the liberal party to run the Federal government, and for the state elections the labor party won each of the states. Kinda funny huh? You can imagine how little gets done.

    Simon Creamy: So.. sorry about that bitch fight the other day in parliament.. can we get a federal grant to build a new hospital/invest in Universities?

    Peter cost-a-lot: Johnny says no, screw education, go to a private Uni/school, we've gotta "protect our borders" or something...

    Hehe come to think of it that was kinda lame. Anyway I'm off to the real world.

    - Paul

  66. Disarming The Police Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add this to the mix. I just read that the "adjunct" police (they call them something else; in the states they would be part-timer cops) used extensively in the "out back" are going to be disarmed. WOW. These guys are a significant contribution to law enforcement in the outback, where the "real" cops are 3+ hours away.

    Get out now. They will only be using boomerangs to stop the bad guys!! UNTIL those are banned as well.

    Good luck maties...

  67. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, you forgot the oldest line of them all - "they're just convicts!"

    Idiot.

    Australia is one of the few countries where voting is compulsory, so the middle-of-the-road voters dilute the extremists in every election. We really *are* getting the government we deserve.

  68. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see where you are getting your figures......mate.

    A concerned Aussie.

  69. OZ = New USA by SJ · · Score: 1

    Something I have been thinking about for quite some time is the fact that Australia is one of the few countries on Earth that has never seen a huge war or conflict on our soil. (WW2 Darwin doesn't count). Yes, I am an Australian.

    I wonder where you Americans are going to come when you finally screw up/blow up your environment. Lets see, which country has a butt-load of space, but not may people. Wow! Australia does!

    As for the Australian government trying to get more spying powers... Well, the Australian government is just a front for the US. John Howard is a wanker (As are most politicians).

    1. Re:OZ = New USA by gibler · · Score: 1

      New Zealand hasn't at all. Even those boat people can't reach us ;)

      Yep, NZ is just another branch of United States Inc. Follow the sheep -baaaaaaa

    2. Re:OZ = New USA by OzJimbob · · Score: 1

      In fact, if you shuffle the letters...

      AUSTRALIA = A TRIAL USA

      :)

      --
      -"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
    3. Re:OZ = New USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia sure has alot of extra space ! I'm sure the Chinese will put it to good use after they take over ! What do yo u expect from a bunch of idiots who give their gun rights away ! The sooner China invades the better ....

    4. Re:OZ = New USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      what the fuck are you on about, you stupid ignorant little toss?

      Maybe we could give the Port Arthur massacre fuckwit his gun back and he can go on a country wide rampage shooting the fuck out of innocent people, and pave the way for an invader to come in and start afresh!

      America is a fucked up country because they think the gun solves problems. The gun solves nothing (except for the odd kangaroo cull because the little tykes are taking over!!) We don't want your fucking violence.

      I feel safe in Australia, even if our politicians are a bunch of wankers, that was one thing they got right. I FEEL SAFE.

      I could play soccer on the roof of our Parliament, while at the same time watching a V8 touring car race literally a few metres away if I wanted to. This place is unique, and America needs to butt the fuck out of our business, and the rest of the worlds.

    5. Re:OZ = New USA by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "I wonder where you Americans are going to come when you finally screw up/blow up your environment. Lets see, which country has a butt-load of space, but not may people. Wow! Australia does!"

      Hmmm, sounds familiar. Didn't your ancestors do that to the Aborigines?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    6. Re:OZ = New USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy it while you can. The Chinese military is going to rape Australia like a pestilence of LOCUST.... AND NO ONE WILL HELP YOU !

      HA HA HA HA !!!! Hey, look at the bright side, at least you will feel safer ! IF YOU LIVE ! So get yourself a lollypop and watch some cartoons...

      Anyhow, isn't it the right thing to do ? Australia has alot of wasted real estate, and the Chinese have so many people. Shouldn't China invade Australia and make good use of all that space ? Don't be selfish ....

  70. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you about Australians being apathetic: so apathetic we can't be bothered taking guns to school, can't be bothered with massacres, serial killers, hate crimes and crack whores.

    If it wasn't apathy that led to the election of Bush then what the hell was it?

    Perhaps Australians should adopt the US model of politics, throw in a few interns and make a minidrama out of the most powerful position in the world or maybe we should be such diligent, privacy loving citizens that we establish a new agency to "secure the homeland", tie in a national database run by Oracle and call the whole thing a day?

  71. Government response to anti-terroism bills by galaga79 · · Score: 2

    Considering the concurrent proposals to introduce legislation to allow banning of organisations suspected of terrorist links, am I the only one suspecting Australia is about to have a whole lot less political parties?

    As scary as that possibility is fortunately it looks like is unlikely to happen, at least to the full extent of the initial bill. The anti-terrorism bill issued by Attorney-General Daryl Williams that was going to give him the ability to ban political groups/parties deemed terrorist in their actions so far has been rejected by senators. Thus forcing Williams to back down on the anti-terrorism bill.

    I am not sure how this affects the proposed changes to the Telecomunications Interception Act, because I am not sure if this one big anti-terrorism bill or a series of seperate bills. Eitherway it reflects the fact that most senators in Australia are sane and wont stand for these crazy new laws, at least in their current form.

    Now if only the government would come to their senses about the mistreatment of refugees, though that's whole other issue,

    1. Re:Government response to anti-terroism bills by bollocks · · Score: 1
      For the most part the A-G will still have similar powers under the revised proposal, but can be overruled by parliament (although since parliament is dominated by his party that's going to be pretty unlikely).

      The other major change, and probably just as important was the reversal of the burden of proof for those accused of "terrorism". Under the original proposal the assumption of innocence was reversed.

  72. Say it with me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...encryption, encryption, encryption! Sure, they can break it, but that takes time. If *ALL* email was encrypted nice and tight, "browsing" would have to be replaced with very targeted searches.

    Encryption only works if most, or better yet, all people use it. Right now it just sets a flag at the NSA for more scrutiny.

    Too bad the sheeple all use outlook and aohell male. If those two had viable encryption built in the NSA would have the keys.

    Crap, I just made the list...

  73. Re:You're a nutcase! by Arandir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the government becomes 'tyrannical' (whatever that is) then you just accept it.

    If my government ever becomes tyrannical (and it's getting pretty damn close), make sure you stay out of my way or you'll get seriously hurt.

    Don't tell me the stupid saying of "if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns" because it's really stupid.

    How will the law abiding citizens have guns if they're illegal? Won't they be outlaws instead? It may be a stupid saying, but it's true. If guns are outlawed then I will become an outlaw.

    Just because a criminal may attack you with a gun (or knife, baseball bat, etc, etc) does *NOT* give you the right of self defense.

    State forbid that I should try to protect myself. After all, my body doesn't belong to me, so it's not mine to protect. It belongs to the Almighty State, and if they don't see fit to protect it, who am I to argue?

    That's what the police are there for.

    Yeah right. The police are useful as a deterent against crime, but they do nothing to prevent a crime in progress.

    Just deal with it and talk to the police if you ever are attacked.

    Hah! If I live that is. I don't know if you've checked recently, but there's a lot of nutcases out there. Sometimes they don't let their victims live long enough to talk to the police.

    The second amendment is there to protect the government's right to bear arms.

    Go read the constitution again. The entire document, particularly the bill of rights, is a limitation on the government. The right to bear arms is an attribute of the people. Your statement is a ridiculous as saying the first ammendment is there to protect the government's right to spread propaganda.

    Private ownership of firearms is not politically correct in today's society.

    Frankly, I don't give a shit about political correctness. It's irrelevant to me. The term itself is a mantra and recognition phrase for the Worshippers of the State.

    This isn't the wild west!!

    The wild west as portrayed in Hollywood movies and cheap fiction never existed. The real "wild" west of the late 19th century was quite tame compared to the modern day big city. I would much rather live unarmed and defenseless in Dodge City circa 1888 than armed in Washington D.C. circa 2002.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  74. Lay off the crack, you idiot by BlackTriangle · · Score: 0

    Governments can dissolve for a bajillion different reasons. That doesn't mean they will.

  75. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by Arandir · · Score: 2

    If it wasn't apathy that led to the election of Bush then what the hell was it?

    It was apathy that led to Bush running against Gore to begin with. Both candidates were the most inoffensive blokes either party could find.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  76. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Australians are too stupid and untrustworthy to have firearms, they surely are too stupid and untrustworthy to have privacy.

  77. Backbenchers unhappy too . . . by Goonie · · Score: 2
    Amnesty International, as well as the EFA and some of the other civil liberties groups, has been harassing senators over this one. Consequently, it's not only the opposition narky about this bill, it's a fair number of members of the government as well.

    It's kinda nice to see that some politicians can actually be convinced to act wrt privacy and civil liberties if they're prodded hard enough.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  78. Re: House doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Residential houses do not have that requirement but apartment style buildings do and that is for fire safety reasons.

  79. Re: House doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In southern Fla they may be required to swing out. Something about helping the building survive low presure weather systems a bit better but that was in 1970 or so.

    Most houses in the midwest swing in so they can put a storm door on the outside.

    Most businesses (above some size) require that doors swing out so paniced people don't jam the door closed (like a well known theater). Other places require the doors swing in so the doors don't open into the sidewalks.

  80. Broome might disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    has never seen a huge war or conflict on our soil. (WW2 Darwin doesn't count).

    Australia got bombed repeatedly from Broome to Townsville. The Australian Army stopped the Japanese Army 25 miles from Port Moresby, it is about 200 miles from North Queensland. The USN met the Japanese Navy at Coral Sea which is just off the Barrier Reef. There were Japanese Submarines in Sydney Harbour and a good chunk of the Australian population moved south in 1942 fearing Japanese invasion.

    The Australian Front was the Home Front in 1942-43. A good chunk of Australian air assets operated from Northern Australia striking against Timor, Java and New Guineau as well as for home defense.

    You can thank the Australian Army, USN and USMC the Japanese didnt get to New Caledonia and cut off Australia totally. WWII was very close to Australia.

    mocom--

  81. Howard government - what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the same government that tried to reverse the onus of proof for people accused of 'terrorism'.

    That didn't get through either.

  82. I was surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I moved to Australia in January and I honestly didn't know too much about the country at that time. One of my first impressions of this country was how much these peope love to tell on each other and how everything seems to be regulated. And since I've been here it's been nothing but one government scandal after another in the news. Makes me wonder if it's always been like this here. Seems the Aussies have a lot of faith in their government - and they probably welcome the suggestion of more wiretapping and such. I'm generalizing ofcourse. There are probably many that really don't like it. Now if the current government makes it past the next election they have here I'll be loosing my faith in the Australian people. Just my impressions.

    1. Re:I was surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry ... I've lived here all my life, and I'm one that really doesn't like it! Also, I lost my faith in my own people after the *last* election! I've got no idea how such a manipulative and devisive paradoy of a PM got re-elected.

      Honestly, it makes me very upset indeed.

  83. What a relief! by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 2

    Man, what a relief! Its comforting to know that we'll always have someone looking out for us. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Can they tuck me into bed and read me a story too?

  84. More debate by MagicKoala · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The key ingredient missing from Australian politics is a meaningful level of debate. Otherwise, the political system in itself tends to work quite well, all things considered.

    More and more, people seem to be focusing on those issues beloved so much by the media, such as law and order, border protection and the nebulous political hotcake known as "The Bush" (which basically boils down to the higher cost of living in rural areas). As much as I hate to say it, no one has much time for trivial issues such as civil liberties when there are so many other things to be outraged over.

    It doesn't help things that, these days, political parties like to present themselves as being totally committed to a given point of view. The effect of this is generally to silence the lower ranks, and of course to neutralise any dissent within the Government to official policies. A similar effect usually happens within the ranks of the Opposition, but currently it *is* split on several key issues, though it's disheartening to see the Government leap on this and shouting out words to the effect that the Opposition is in disarray.

    Perhaps we also need some way to mitigate the power of the media corporations. Cynics (or realists?) would argue that these are the entities that really control Australia, and that the Parliament is more or less just a formality. Unfortunately, with the Govnerment pushing to abolish the cross-media-ownership laws (which prevent someone owning both a newspaper and a TV station in the same city, *I think*) the largest media corporations could yet become even more powerful.

    Talk-back radio hosts are also quite powerful in Australia, and much to my continuing displeasure, they're mostly conservative. People like John Laws and Alan Jones, despite the "cash-for-comment" scandal recently in which both were found to have been receiving money in exchange for favourable comments towards particular organisations, still seem to be doing the thinking for a disconcertingly large proportion of the population.

    I don't think any of this is going to change any time soon. I only hope there are at least *some* sane people at the top. Hopefully they can keep things on track until we work out a way to engage the public interest in issues which affect the democracy we seem to take for granted.

  85. Voting, Not Violence by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 2
    Activisim, running for public office, and voting are the best tools for fighting for civil liberties. Violence - through members of a movement or agent provacateurs - undermine the fight for liberty. The public will galvanize against it.

    Nonviolent protest and civil disobediance should be the means for struggling against bad law, disenfranchisement, and poor government. Even Malcolm X recognized this and renounced his doctrine of by any means necessary.

    Of course the powers-that-be shut him up pretty permanently by employing violence.

  86. Re:This is NOT informative by blair1q · · Score: 2

    The point is, email is and always has been the equivalent of doing your business in a loud shout on a public streetcorner.

    The "GOVERNMENT" has always had legal access to it.

    You either knew that, and were clueful, or did not, and were not. From your paranoid reaction, I'm guessing the latter.

    And if you want to blame anyone for the need to increase the intelligence community's nearness to your stash, blame Al Quaeda, or better yet, join the Army and go kill them.

    Whining on internet message boards from the comfort of your bedroom about losing rights you mistakenly believed you had is effecting no positive result.

    --Blair

  87. Re:Not just emails at stake, regular phone calls t by Dogcow · · Score: 1
    Slashdot syndrome strikes again.

    This legislation does nothing whatsoever to differentiate between "analog" and "digital". It's all to do with whether the communication between Person A and Person B is immediate and real-time (as is any normal phone call), or whether the communication is stored in any way, such as email is (the email waits on a server for someone to pick it up), such as voicemail is (the message sits on a server waiting for the recipient to pick it up), SMS (the message will sit on a server waiting until the intended recipient's mobile phone comes online). These "stored communications" are what the legislation is all about.

    Slashdot syndrome strikes again.

    When will you people ever read the legislation that these posts refer to. Every time you come up with wild discussions regarding what it does and doesn't cover, the less sense you begin to make.

    Hell, at least real journalists usually try to check their facts before writing about it. At Slashdot, facts are few and far between.

  88. Hmmmm....... by cluge · · Score: 2

    Didn't they recently disarm their population? Looks like Big Brother was written about Oz. Be afraid, be very afraid.

    cluge

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    1. Re:Hmmmm....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another idiot who beleives everything they read on the internet. Mod parent down.

    2. Re:Hmmmm....... by cluge · · Score: 2

      Oh so in 1999 Australia didn't change their firearms laws? In 2000 they didn't destroy thousands upon thousands of privately owned firearms in an effort to "fight crime"? Wasn't this in reaction to the "Mcdonalds Massacre"?

      Is this wrong? According to my competition shooting outlook, some of the firearms I compete with aren't even allowed into Australia. Did they make a mistake? (doubt it) Please point out where that mistake is and I'll be sure to have it corrected so that other competitors will be better informed.

      cluge

      --
      "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    3. Re:Hmmmm....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gun Nut Fantasy #1: Guv'ment does something bad. All of the "in the know" gun worshipers come out spontaneously and overthrow the wicked guv'ment (saving all you thankless lib'rals too). Everyone lives happily ever after.

    4. Re:Hmmmm....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh so in 1999 Australia didn't change their firearms laws? In 2000 they didn't destroy thousands upon thousands of privately owned firearms in an effort to "fight crime"? Wasn't this in reaction to the "Mcdonalds Massacre"?
      Is this wrong

      Destroying auto and semi-auto weapons != "disarming the population".

    5. Re:Hmmmm....... by cluge · · Score: 2

      Destroying auto and semi-auto weapons != "disarming the population"

      Explain that when your armed with a single shot shotgun, and the burglar-thief-rapist is armed with semi auto pistol and 15 shots. He got his piece by robbing a police officer. Already happened in the land of OZ.

      The first step to controlling the sheep is to disarm them. **oops did I say sheep, I met fellow countryman**

      cluge

      --
      "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    6. Re:Hmmmm....... by cluge · · Score: 2

      Gun nut? Please come out to the nearest range and I'll be happy, or a fellow "gun nut" will be happy to introduce you to competitive shooting. 300 meter rifle competition. You will find nothing more relaxing and demanding after pounding out hundreds of lines of code, screaming lusers and the stress of a "/. life".

      Add to that, my pistol has saved my sorry but once. My rifle saved my best friend from being run over by drunk rednecks, armed with a car (better outlaw those too).

      What you really meant was "Gun Owner Fantasy Number #1 to be left in peace"

      Ignorance begets fear, fear breeds contempt, contempt becomes hate. People fear what they are ignorant of.

      cluge

      --
      "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
  89. Political motivation. by maaaaanis · · Score: 1

    This has less to do with national security than ensuring the destruction of Unionism in the interests of Liberal/Coalition security whilst appealing to Xenophobic sentiments that they've created in Australia lately.
    The Labour Paty is the Most popular political party in Australia only defeated in the last two elections due to a coalition between the Liberal Party and the National (farmers) Party.
    There's been a concerted effort by the current Coalition Government to destroy or at least singnificantly disenfranchise the union movement in Australia which is the main power-base behind the Labour Party. The most blatant evidence of this was the "waterfront dispute" between the totally unionised Patrick Stevedores waterfront and the Farmers Federation/Coalition Goverment which was designed to remove the unions from the wharves with sercurity guards and dogs and replace them with military-trained workers sympathetic to the Farmers Fed. despite evidence at the time that the Unions had been making significant progress toward reforms on the waterfront. Latest evidence of similar tactics today: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/09/10229 82798008.html
    Last year, just before the federal election, we had the federal government use the DSD, defence signals directorate, spy on communications between the Maritime Union of Aust. and the Tampa which was involved in rescuing assylum seekers from water close to northern Australia in an attempt to gather information to demonise the Unions and therefore the Labour party during an election campain which is entirly illegal, at least for the time being.
    The relevance of this is fairly clear, if the federal government was to be endowed with these new powers entire unions such as the MUA during the waterfront dipute, which became quite violent, could be classed as terrorist organisations and effectively investigated, arrested and interrogated incommunicado without legal representation and all the Union possesions impounded effectively grinding them to a halt. The actions of the Coalition in respect to the DSD issue last year and the waterfront dispute point to this conclusion.
    Why? as the coalition pointed out recently, they are massively underfunded compared tot he Union-Funded Labour Party and require massive corporate donations in order to survive and compete.

    1. Re:Political motivation. by Captain+Sensible · · Score: 2, Informative

      Looks like its back to the Cold War and its corruption!

      In that period Australian secuirty services did not just keep watch on potential spies and traitors. Theyt regularly and willingly abused their powers to keep a conservative government in power. They were happy to destroy the careers of any dissident and to advance the careers of mediocraties they could control.

      The police and security services also used their powers to settle personal scores and corruptly obtain personal advantage. It took years to put the broom through ASIO, the Commonwealth Police and the Special Branches.

      There's every reason to believe that our allies used criminals and crooked police to carry out operations within Australia (Aussies - do a search on the Nugan Hand Bank).

      Frightening though it is, the problem is not just authoritarian governments, but how corrupt officials wil (ab)use their power.

      And for you Yanks, remember neither Australia, nor most other nations, have a Bill of Rights.

  90. Re:This is NOT informative by Reziac · · Score: 2

    You meant the NKVD ("Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs" ie. the Russian internal secret police), not the KGB (more like our CIA).

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  91. Re:This is NOT informative by symbolic · · Score: 2

    The point is, email is and always has been the equivalent of doing your business in a loud shout on a public streetcorner.The "GOVERNMENT" has always had legal access to it.

    You still don't get it. The government can seize your property, arrest you, garnish your wages, lock you up in prison, audit your tax returns (where it's guilty until proven innocent), put you under surveillance, etc., etc., provided a legal reason exists to do so. If the government has no legal justification for access to your e-mail, it has no right to be looking at it. The last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was still part of the U.S. Constitution.

    And if you want to blame anyone for the need to increase the intelligence community's nearness to your stash, blame Al Quaeda, or better yet, join the Army and go kill them.


    Al Q43da is only part of the problem. The other part is comprised of a combination of U.S. for31gn p0licy, and what could turn out to be a very real level of incompetence on the part of the government agencies charged with keeping track of t3rr0r1st activities. Heheh..my stash? LOL. I can proudly say that I do not use drugs, drink, or smoke.

    Whining on internet message boards from the comfort of your bedroom about losing rights you mistakenly believed you had is effecting no positive result.

    I see a very real difference between whining and correcting an unfortunate misconception- or at minimum, offering an alternate perspective.

  92. small-penis-man? by times · · Score: 1

    Wow, what an intelligent come back Ozjimbob. I should just insult anybody that does not agree with me like you do.

    1. Re:small-penis-man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you tried a little harder and put some actual facts into your post everyone wouldn't think you were such an ignorant dickhead.
      Your post really does border on the extreme.
      Like your momma told you, 'If you haven't got anything good to say, dont say anything at all'.
      Wise words 4 u, mister small penis man

  93. To Paul (csirac) by times · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I was not clear on what types of warrents. Physical search and arrest will not change under this bill.
    But,
    "the power to intercept email, voice mail and SMS messages without a warrant."

    So if you live in Australia, and unless you like any government agency to hear your voice mail any time they like, you see my point...

    btw, what about the potential for abuse from unscrupulous government employees?

    1. Re:To Paul (csirac) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'without a warrant' is a bit of a leap. The proposal specifies "with a search warrant", that being weaker than the warrant which applies to the current system. Actually the basis of the proposal seems to be that once a communication is received, it cannot fall under interception and would have to go through the normal search process - as it should not be permanently stored on the intervening equipment and would be difficult to get a search warrant on an intervening party.

      They then jump over to some provisions of another system which would allow these intervening companies to make disclosures. I would have to presume that this second part is something that exists and works under the current law. It's not something new so that part of it should not be affected by the new system. The main change seems to be that the contents may also be made available in situations where previously only the call information was.

      And with a little knowledge about the existing system, there would be a question of how much of the contents a carrier could possibly have. Presently the intercept system provides them with only the information; and only the legal authority gets the information plus contents. I presume this is required by current law.

      So, to put it in less dramatic terms, government agencies may be able to access the contents of data messages where previously they could only obtain call information, and the information may be accessed by lawful agents of the government investigating an offence.

      Basically the report seems to be confusing the application of a general search warrant for stored information with the use of such a warrant to force interception during transmission. That may be because the ambiguity exists in the proposed legislation in which case it should be amended or thrown out.

    2. Re:To Paul (csirac) by csirac · · Score: 1

      ,

      Yes, that does appear to be annoying, but I hardly think my local public school is going to have the teachers there reading my email (I use a friend's email server anyway).

      The "without a warrant" part implies that they needed a warrant before. "The government" - there are many, too many levels of government. We're not talking about road workers or the admin at the local hospital here.

      As for unscrupulus govt. employees, that's always going to be true - I hear in the USA there are unscrupulus police doing dodgy doings (merely out of rumor, I obviously don't know that as fact), so of course the potential is always there.

      I wouldn't mind if it was just the Police that had these powers now but since you're implying other departments have access to everyone's email/sms/voicemail, hrmm. I don't quite believe it. I'll have to look it up. I doubt it will pass if it's just a free-for-all like you suggest.

      If non-police departments have access to this kind of personal information, I believe the government would love to use it for detecting Centrelink (welfare) and Tax fraud. They absolutely love to spend billions on these detection systems - simply because we're spending billions on people scamming the system; however there are horror stories; many of those not scamming the system have been thrown around by Centrelink by not declaring change of circumstances - my mother had to help a woman who had completely run out of food (single mum + kid) because she was too ashamed to ask for help before about her payments being cut off because centrelink found out she had moved away from her abusive husband... "change of circumstance" see, she didn't notify them, she got cut off.

      There are lots of things wrong out there, it annoys me sometimes we make even more errors rather than fix anything. Centrelink has an information/data gathering/processing system that would make NASA cry. (well not really, but you get what I mean).. The government loves to throw money at problems to make them go away. Sometimes it makes it worse (like the controversial topic of the statitiscs of Aboriginal families going through generations of welfare dependancy with no way out: what does the government do? Give them more money, instead of activly training them or SOMETHING)

      Anyway, my point is not "any government agency", surely, if so, point me to the bill number/paragraph and I'll have a look for myself.

      - Paul

  94. Potential for abuse? by times · · Score: 1



    Has any body disscussed the potential for abuse from unscrupulous government employees? I would imagin it (abuse) would happen...

  95. No Go to CA. by times · · Score: 1


    No, we would all go freeze are asses off in Canada :)

  96. I'm glad I don't live in Australia... by Tiado · · Score: 1
    BUT, I'm not saying that the Canadian Government, won't (or already hasn't) pass an equally violating, if not, worse legislation than what the Aus. Government is proposing.

    You know nowadays, just about any legislation could get passed that would not only be completely ineffective, but will threaten your freedom and/or invade your privacy, if it can be justified as part of 'fighting Terrorism'.

    But then of course, some of my opinions have been proven to be wrong, and I just hope that this above opinion will never become fact.

  97. Can't help but laugh by angle_mark · · Score: 1
    "... We may get to see for the first time in an English-speaking country the first example of the domino effect claimed by the US National Rifle Association... where banning the private possession of firearms inevitably leads to control of political speech and association ending in totalitarian democracy. ..."

    "... The only suggestions I have for Aussies if this doesn't get stopped, and if it's gotten this far, your elected officials probably no longer care what you think are:

    1. You may already have seen the very last free election in Australia in your lifetime.

    2. If you are serious about freedom, your options are:
    think of a way to fight the new regime (isn't it too bad you gave up your guns?)
    or
    leave.

    I recommend departure. If you live among a people willing to vote away their freedoms even when there is no obvious threat, I can't see any good reason to risk death and imprisonment for them. The people who tend to do best during a migration are those who get out first, they have the best chance to find jobs and housing before the hordes of refugees show up behind them.

    For those who would neither fight nor depart, don't worry. I'm sure your regime will continue to call itself a democracy and even allow the facade of "free elections" for a while. Of course, your choice will only be among the parties the government allows to continue. And the forms of free enterprise that the government approves of.

    I wish you Aussies luck. You'll need it. ..."


    Hahaha, that was a joke right? Seriously though I really think you're getting a little bit carried away there. Everyone doesn't need to own semi automatic firearms to have a democracy as you seem to imply.

    Death and imprisonment?? Death by whom? What, is the army gonna come through the cities in their tanks and blast us all into submission or something? The army is having enough trouble culling the Kangaroos that have taken over the Puckapunyal army base to worry about anything like that :-P

    Mate, (saying mate because thats the stereotypical thing one would expect from an Aussie) have you ever been here? You should come, perhaps it might clear some of those misconceptions up a bit because you are so far off the mark its almost disturbing.
  98. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People with a clue start encrypting all messages... People without a clue get arrested, and meet people with a clue when they get out of prison and start encrypting all messages...

    Government whines for key access.. People with a clue move key generation offshore, and let the geni out of the bottle...

    Something about history repeating itself comes to mind...Oh wait...

    1. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely put ...

  99. Re:Aussie Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for clearing that up. I'm tired of hearing from idiots like this that think that the Liberal party is some kind of evil, corrupt mastermind. Quite frankly, ol' Johnny has been doing a damn fine job and I highly doubt that any other party could do better. Maybe the guy who posted this message should stop reading 'The Australian' and stop listening to labor supporters and the media, both of which seem intent on slandering Howard's good name because there is no other damn news in this nation.

  100. Re:This is NOT informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The last time I checked, the 4th Amendment was still part of the U.S. Constitution.

    Funny, last time I checked, we were talking about the Australian government in this thread.

    I don't know if their constitution has a fourth amendment at all, but if it does, I'm sure it says something completely different than the American one.

  101. Not that bad...? by POds · · Score: 0, Troll

    I dont see this as anything bad. Sure people could be reading my email, and personal messages, and deep down, i prolly dont like that, but as long as the information isnt made public and is helping either catch people before commiting some sort of crime, then im all for it.

    The more bogans they catch the better!

    However, i can see why others dont like it, but tough titties i guess :)

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
  102. Re:You're a nutcase! by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2

    Pretty much right, except that the bill of rights is a limitation of federal goverenment. The right to bear arms relates to a well ordered state militia. Thus, "the right to bear arms" gives your state the right to have a national guard. If you want to claim a constitutional right to bear arms, you must join your state national guard. Other rights to bear arms are found in state laws (hence the range of differences from the Texas concealed carry, to the California almost nonexistent). Federal laws limiting the type of weapons (no fully automatic, no flamethrowers, etc...) don't conflict with the constitution as long as the National Guard is thus limited. :-)

  103. The majority aren't always right though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem is that we shouldn't idealise 'the majority'. Minorities sometimes need to be given special attention, in order to keep things fair.I'm not saying that the majority's always wrong, just that oftentimes the majority won't understand the minority's point of view (and the minority may have a legitimate claim to be heard).
    It's an interesting thought to bear in mind, a successful democracy requires a very successful education system, which presupposes the intent of the educators!
    Nothing is as black and white as it first appears.

  104. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by Zazm · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing that you are not living in Australia. As someone who does live in Australia and was born here I can tell you that you are somewhat mistaken.

    Yes we are an apathetic lot, particularly politically however I would argue that we are no less civic minded than the US. In fact, I'd argue that our political apathy is not all bad, it serves in part to protect us from populist laws and helps ensure that the masses don't ride roughshod over the (more vocal) minorities.

    As for 1 in 6 Australians being on .gov.au money I don't know where you get that figure but we are supposed to be a socialist democracy.

    I'm starting to ramble but basically my point is this, you're not (I assume) an Australian yet you are drawing broad negative conclusions about all (17 million) of us.

    For reference, most Australians who have never been to the US assume that all Americans are loud, fat, self important, obnoxious fools. I know that assumption to be incorrect now, don't make the same mistake I once did.

  105. Dystopia a long way off - but not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I hope that Her Majesty, the Queen of England, puts her foot down with this one. ;-)
    She won't, though. She's kept her paws off ever since Whitlam was sacked.
    It's a pity the CIA didn't keep their fingers out of that one (the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister in 1975). Aparently they thought he would shut down the US bases on Australian soil, which he never would have done, especially after toeing the US government line on East Timor. He would have gone anyway, so in retrospect the only thing the CIA achieved was to piss off Australians about US foreign policy now that all the documents have been released. However, all that was 25 years ago. The US could put it's foot down now if it was in it's best interest, and set Australian policy.

    Last year the resources of the Australian intelligence community and military were certainly misused for the purposes of winning election - and the deaths of all of those people in New York were also used by opportunists to win votes. Currently terrorism is being used as an excuse for a lot of things - including treatment of detained refugees, and botched decisions to buy 40 year old miltary helicopters (refurbished Sea Sprites), which won't even be ready for another four years. The judicary is being interfered with and laws are before the parliment that break international legal treaties. Most of the things that have gone wrong have been blamed on a government that was voted out seven years ago - it's certainly a childish pack that want their every wish fulfulled in control now.

    These people are not evil - some certainly have been caught doing things that would put mere citizens in jail, but I can't see these people leading us to the victorian age workhouse/wealthy divide that they may wish for - or a 1984 situation. It would simply require far more staff than they would wish to put on.

  106. Re: House doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is they want the main doors to swing outward on the exit path to avoid blockages during panics, and lesser doors to swing inward to not block the main passages.

    I hate the fire codes that require bathroom stalls to be virtually public areas, with a foot or so of free space on the bottom. Yes, I know it saves firemen time because they can find trapped, unconscious people at a glance instead of checking each door, but really, I prefer the Dutch model, where each toilet is it's own mini closet. Pure privacy and bliss! Are an inordinate number of firefighters and/or defecators dying in that country?

  107. Another flash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "News flash - your not making some new"

    You seemed so intelligent until you showed you don't understand the difference between your and you're.

    Other than that, you come across as a junior at some local liberal arts college.

    But seeing as how you lack basic english skills, I'll make you a freshman. Or woman. Or whatever.

    Time to shower and get with the real world.

  108. Re:You're a nutcase! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    civilizedINTENSITY wrote: The right to bear arms relates to a well ordered state militia.

    It does not. It allows for the private possession and bearing of firearms to facilitate the formation of a militia. (Which was only supposed to happen in time of need. The drafters of the BoR were wary of standing armies. And rightfully so, IMO.) The 2nd does not say that being a part of the militia is a requirement for such possession and bearing. Even were that not the case, keep in mind that the idea of a "militia" at the time the BoR was drafted was that it be constituted from "the whole of the people," not a professional, standing force such as the National Guard.

    If you don't believe me on these issues, I invite you to research any number of exhaustive studies conducted by noted scholars on these subjects. The vast majority of which have come to the above conclusions. Even scholars that are card-carrying members of the American (Some) Civil Liberties Union ;).

  109. Qeensland by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    Isn't Queensland the only state in Australia (if not in the world) where it's a criminal offense to lick a toad?

    Not that they look very appealing, but apparently they are quite hallucinogenic...

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:Qeensland by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Yes, as far as I'm concerned, what I do with my toads is my own business. :) Victimless crime and all that...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  110. Less is more? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2
    ~Australia is about to have a whole lot less political parties?"
    I suspect there will be fewer Australian political parties, not less.

    From Dictionary.com (with my emphasis):

    Usage Note: The traditional rule holds that fewer should be used for things that can be counted (fewer than four players), while less should be used with mass terms for things of measurable extent (less paper; less than a gallon of paint).

    --
    Yeah, right.
  111. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    I agree with you about Australians being apathetic: so apathetic we can't be bothered taking guns to school, can't be bothered with massacres, serial killers, hate crimes and crack whores.

    Sydney has had more than its fair share of non-sober prostitutes, serial killers, hate crimes (e.g. by the police). There was a massacre in tasmania also. I've not been to the schools there but I would guess that also applies. Also note that australia generally supports the US whenever there is a UN resolution against pollution of some kind that needs to be scuppered (Australia has an influential mining industry).

    So while australia is a fantastic place to live, don't think that whatever happens in the US doesn't happen there; it does, just slightly less often.

    I even saw a homeless person there once.

  112. gah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    instead of "combating terrorism" (or whatever you wish to call it) by invading privacy, i would much rather the govt screw around with telstra to abolish its monopoly. some competition in the telecommunications industry here would be absolutely wonderful.

    its hard to believe, but in this relatively backward country no-one can upgrade the phone exchange in the TWO YEAR OLD estate i live in (i'm on pair gain!!)

    *curses and spits*

    /strafe (strafe(at)iinet.net.au)

  113. Re:You're a nutcase! by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

    In two parallel worlds, this guy's idiocy would cause him to quickly evolve out of society.

    Passive resistance worked for Ghandi, who, being English educated, knew the inherent justice in their system. The same would not have worked for Nazi Germany.

    Such a passive system would, in the absence of English-type restraints, actually breed or call into existance an overlord class, after decades of general local thuggery.

    Anyway, not only do you have the right to defend yourself, you are under no moral obligation to take the "nicest" path to do so, especially should some of the "nicer" paths be less likely to succeed.

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  114. Re:You're a nutcase! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    The right to bear arms relates to a well ordered state militia.

    Well, no. "Rights" belong to individuals. "Powers" belong to governments. So a "right to bear arms" cannot reside in the state governments.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  115. Great Idea But... by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 2

    As long as people are watching TV I'd be afraid of the Tyranny of the Majority.

  116. Mates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think Aussies always call one another "Mates"? It's short for "Inmates".

  117. Crying and rationalizing why... by BlackTriangle · · Score: 0

    Funny, we kicked our own anti-terrorism bills in the trash right where they belonged. What did you guys do? That's right, went crying home to Ashcroft.

  118. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 1

    Although I can empathize with those Gore supporters who feel angry and ripped off (and also realize that had it been the other way, Bush supporters would feel the same way, along with a feeling that recounts were rigged) we sould realize that Gore is arguably stupider (worse grades at a worse school, and how horrible it is to wonder which candidate is stupider) and even more power hungry than Bush. Don't think his positions (e.g. environmentalism) come from some deep and wise understanding. People whisper in his ear and away he goes.

    --
    "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
  119. Where are the gun nuts when you need 'em? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Yah, no one would pass oppressive laws if there were guns everywhere, right? Funny how obnoxious laws get passed here even though we have scads of gun worshipers. Aren't you guys supposed to rise up and save us? Isn't that the gun nut dream scenario? You guys won't even fight a parking ticket. Come on, the FBI is monitoring our email, grab your shoot'n irons boys! Yeeehaw!

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  120. Re: House doors by gorilla · · Score: 2

    You can get hinges where the pins aren't removable when the doors are closed, allowing the door to fit to swing outward. My parents had this done so that my mother could get her in while in her wheelchair, as it was cheaper to do that than have major rebuilding.

  121. Re:You're a nutcase! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

  122. Japanese takeover? by detect · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much better off Australia would now be if Japan had managed to takeover Australia in the war.

    Imagine being the primary exporter in the Asia-Pacific region.. hmm.

    --
    // The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
  123. Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they really weant to get a hold of is all your PORN & junk email, this way they get to go investigate, kelly's dorm. Just in case there is terrorist activity going on. It may just take HOURS to fully see what she is up too, who is that tall dark stranger, hes got a BOMB, wait wait wait nope a dildo. but it was a close call either way.. Quick Click the save button for latter analysis...

    On a serious not doesnt the Mighty USA, already have listening posts all around the world that scan every piece of internet traffic for key words ???

  124. Re:This is NOT informative by blair1q · · Score: 2

    There are specific prohibitions on misusing those other means of gathering intelligence.

    Your email, as mentioned before, is publicly broadcast, just as the noise you make at a ballgame. It's not even as secure as a postcard, which remains in the custody of the USPS from posting to delivery.

    Your email goes through several servers that may be secured but only by private entities with no governmental authority, over whom there are no constitutional or legislated restrictions as to the security of your email. If one of those servers happens to be an innocuous node owned and run by the FBI in the basement of UUNET, then all your email are belong to them, and the 4th Amendment don't enter into it, because, as I keep saying, there's no presumption of privacy in email.

    --Blair
    "Unless something's been passed that I don't know about."

  125. Re:You're a nutcase! by jakew · · Score: 1

    Militia:

    1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
    2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
    3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

    Sure?

  126. Americans are too busy *working* to vote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and that's the truth. The trouble with Australia is they don't have the guts to make people work.

  127. Re:Americans are too busy *EATING* to vote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol, yeah right! Americans are too busy breaking the law, telling others what to do, and stuffing their fat arses with fast food to be voting.

    And that's the truth!

  128. To clarify... by kubrick · · Score: 2

    It's not about non-whites. It's about *illegal* immigrants.

    British backpackers overstay their visas: about 60,000 in the country at the latest count. Why aren't they in the camps next to the Afghanis and Iraqis? They're here *illegally*, after all.

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
    1. Re:To clarify... by HKTiger · · Score: 1
      Yup, very well said. There are *far* more "illegals" overstaying expired visas than there are asylum seekers. And when the UN says we're abusing human rights, and Johnny Jackboot wails "No, we're not!" while loudly accusing other countries of doing same, I get kind of sickened. Add to that the fact that we're not even taking as many as we *said* we'd take out of the asylum seekers, warranted or not, and the fact that they're all locked up like animals while some bureaucrat loses the paperwork, and I just wanna hit someone...

      BTW, Adelaide? Ditto (cue eerie music)...

  129. Re:Australia has gotten the government it deserves by HKTiger · · Score: 1
    Astonishing. You have exactly one example of people screwing the system, and you extrapolate that to everyone. Congratulations. I expect you'll get on to world peace and the end of hunger next.

    Are you aware that, for the purposes of government statistics, you are *not* considered unemployed if you work for one or more hours per week. Yep, that's *one*. Would *you* consider that to be real employment? I sure don't.

    And save your whining about how unemployed people are screwing the workers of their hard-earned dosh. I've been unemployed, and have known a lot of others, and it's a pretty shitty life for most. The dole is a piss-poor income, it's demoralising, there are no jobs but the government still forces everyone to pretend they've applied for 10 jobs a fortnight or they'll cut the benefits, and on top of that there's a whole lot of self-righteous bastards like yourself calling names.

    Please, think before you write. *Think*. Don't just emote.

  130. Re:This is NOT informative by symbolic · · Score: 2

    The article is about the Australian government, but there was a generalization made in the previos post suggesting that it was well within a government agency's right to collect information on citizens based on their actions in public, or in places where there is allegedly no expectation of privacy. The 'no expectation of privacy' mantra has been trumpeted repeatedly as a matter of principle, geographic location notwithstanding. Because U.S. citizens face the same potential for abuse (with the passing of the P4tr10t 4ct), and being a U.S. citizen myself, the 4th Amendment quite naturally comes into play.

  131. Re:This is NOT informative by symbolic · · Score: 2

    Ok, but I'm drawing a distinction between information that his public, and the following: - who is collecting it - what information is collected - why it's being collected

    It is my opinion that the mere presence of public information, or the fact that it might pass through a public conduit (several servers, in your example), doesn't convey an automatic right to access. Funny thing is, the internet has often been described as the information superhighway. Yet, on a real highway (which is also a public conduit), it is entirely illegal for a government agent to conduct a search without cause.

  132. spaces in links by jhantin · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, it's to prevent any very long string of text with no spaces from being inserted into a message, to make page-widening crapflooders have to think harder... it'd be too easy if you just had to insert <pre>lotsOfCrapCharsWithNoSpaces</pre> to make the entire known world have to scroll horizontally to read every comment.

    --
    ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
  133. Yup by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    Yes, as far as I'm concerned, what I do with my toads is my own business.

    And I'm sure those ugly little buggers actually like to be licked

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:Yup by kubrick · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure those ugly little buggers actually like to be licked

      Hey, if you're a toad, you take your thrills where you can get them. :) (Fast cars spring to mind, jumping mental tracks...)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  134. Re:You're a nutcase! by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    For those interested, the case is Riss vs. City of New York:

    http://www.heartland.org/perspectives/911.htm

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.