Slashdot Mirror


Australians to Increases Surveillance Powers?

Anonymous Coward writes to tell us The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that new laws being presented to parliament this week would allow police and spy agencies additional power to monitor communications of people not suspected of any crime. From the article: "Under the changes, police will be able to tap the phone calls and trace the emails and text messages of third parties to suspected crimes. Police will have 45 days to monitor a person not under suspicion in the hope it will lead them to the person or people they do suspect."

63 comments

  1. Decline of the West? by (1+-sqrt(5))*(2**-1) · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There is a sense in which the decay of organization and government issues in one selfsame behaviour: the will, at all costs, to maintain power.

    “Democracy,” too, was a catchphrase of Communist tyranny; whither our democracies appear to be degenerating.

    1. Re:Decline of the West? by omegashenron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Democracy has been dead in Australia ever since the day Gough Whitlam was sacked (1975).

      --
      Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
    2. Re:Decline of the West? by Tripman · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the Prime Minister that nearly bankrupted the country through uncontrolled spending really should be considered the model for Democracy. He was also involved in the secret plot to borrow large amounts of money from shady international loan sharks to finance the budget shortfall that his Government had created.

      I'm not denying that his Government had some good ideas. But the implementation of these ideas was sorely lacking in good judgement and morality. Gough Whitlam was removed from office not because of the destruction of democracy, but because democracy worked - he was incompetant and irresponsible in looking after the economy.

  2. My View by zaguar · · Score: 5, Informative
    This isn't unexpected. Howards government has been steadily eroding Australians powers ever since 9/11. The "Alert - But not alarmed" is the Aussie equivalent to the Orange/Red terror alerts in America. The Howard Government has been steadily increasing the fear levels in the population. They recently voted on a bill that would allow incarceration without charge for around 90 days IIRC. AFAIK it wasn't passed after human rights activists won a minor victory for freedom. But the bill was strongly supporded by the Government (Liberal Party) and they have got the majority by a long way after the Mark Latham experiment.

    To recap - This is just another assault on privacy by the Liberal Party. It may not pass now, but it will someday, and when that day comes - I'm moving across the ditch to New Zealand

    In case you can't tell - I'm an Australian resident

    --
    "Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
    1. Re:My View by Oldsmobile · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hasn't the Australian government had intern camps for non residents for years now? Barbed wire ringed camps out in the desert for concentrating illegals in the same place?

      I haven't heard of those for a few years now.

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    2. Re:My View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think I'll join you... Always wanted to see the hobbitses.

    3. Re:My View by lachlan76 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're still around...much of the country still hates the Detention Centers though (to my knowledge). You're right though, they've been a bit quiet lately...

      They keep people in there long enough that children are born in there and don't get out until they're already school-age. Not very nice, to say the least.

    4. Re:My View by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Hasn't the Australian government had intern camps for non residents for years now?

      No. "Non residents" who are in the country legally are free to move around the country as they please.

      Barbed wire ringed camps out in the desert for concentrating illegals in the same place?

      Actually it's for keeping illegal immigrants away from everyone else and making escape difficult and inadvisable.

    5. Re:My View by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      They recently voted on a bill that would allow incarceration without charge for around 90 days

      The first time I read this, I read that to be "...would allow incineration without charge..."

      You had me wondering if our U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez had moved down-under! :)
    6. Re:My View by Paraplex · · Score: 1

      Need a flatmate in NZ?

      I hear its beautiful weather down there.. oh and they're not fascists... which is nice.

    7. Re:My View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually it's for keeping illegal immigrants away from everyone else and making escape difficult and inadvisable."

      Not a bad idea to keep anyone found in the country illegally restricted 'till they can be returned to their own contry. I am supprised more contries don't do it.

    8. Re:My View by babbling · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think New Zealand will be that much better than Australia, for long.

      I, too, am an Australian citizen, and I can see myself leaving the fascist country that Australia is becoming within the next 5 years. Australia used to be a wonderful country until John Howard. Anyway, Canada and Sweden are looking pretty good, at the moment.

      Did you know that Australians are eligible for refugee status in countries that comply with the UN convention relating to the status of refugees since the sedition laws were passed? If voicing your political opinions could potentially see you prosecuted under the sedition laws, then you can seek refugee status.

      Until 1967, it was limited to European WWII refugees, but that constraint has been lifted.

    9. Re:My View by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

      I guess this is the kind of reasoning that let other countries in history get away with similar things.

      Not that I'd be evoking Godwin's law or anything...

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    10. Re:My View by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I guess this is the kind of reasoning that let other countries in history get away with similar things.

      Considering that a) no-one is getting killed or in forced labour (indeed, quite the opposite) and b) they're free to leave whenever they want, I fail to see what's "similar" about them.

      Which countries are you thinking of that have zero immigration controls and that don't remove illegal immigrants when they are identified ?

    11. Re:My View by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also an Australian resident, and after much consideration New Zealand is my chosen haven too - nice to see that someone else concurs with my decision ;)

      As to the day in question... I don't know if this one will be enough to make me move... I think I'm starting to get complacent in my old age.
      How do the frogs know when the water starts boiling?

      - aihtdikh

    12. Re:My View by Tripman · · Score: 1

      I can't help but notice that you made a vague reference to something that you clearly don't know much about and then when somebody provides some factual information to you, you respond with a massive generalisation. Nice flamebait.

  3. Pure evil by micpp · · Score: 4, Informative

    The thing about the Australian government as it stands today is that it's just pure evil. If a report came tomorrow that John Howard likes to kill puppies it would not suprise me at all. The only reason he's still around is due to a generally incompetent opposition.

    1. Re:Pure evil by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 1

      Much the same could be said for Tony Blair and George Bush. (I currently languish under the former, not that I voted for him; and neither did about 70% of the population, most of whom couldn't be arsed even to turn up for the last election. The Matrix has you.)

    2. Re:Pure evil by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      The thing about the Australian government as it stands today is that it's just pure evil.

      If you think the Australian Government is "evil", then you're in desperate need of some context, or the word "evil" is completely meaningless your world.

    3. Re:Pure evil by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The thing about the Australian government as it stands today is that it's just pure evil.

      And from your "blog:"

      I've been bored recently, but for some reason I'm too lazy to take the effort to do anything entertaining, like getting my PS2 plugged into my TV again.
      I'm really pathetic.


      I guess Mr. Howard -- and Messrs. Blair and Bush, for that matter -- is fortunate that they don't make Angry Young Men like they used to.

    4. Re:Pure evil by Paraplex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason he's still around is because people are trained to think in a bipartisan manner... to think of things in black or white.

      They have up or down, black or white, good or evil, left or right, liberal or conservative. Its a symptom of the maturity of our civilisation, and hopefully the next 50 years will see the population as a whole grow beyond this and eradicate the absurd bipartisan system.

      Theres not black or white. there aren't even shades of gray. There's a spectrum of colours of varying intensity, white being a haze of all the colours, and black being an absense. Left & right are just two different directions along the circumference of the same circle. The liberal party was once liberal & the labor party often wants big government. They're just set up to be "Opposition" - its insane.

      There are potentially as many different ideas as there are people, but until we all stop staring at the TV screens and start to think for ourselves, we will continue to be manipulated into this bipartisan way of thinking.

      Our democracy is one created through trial and error, and not one which stands to serve any underlying principles (ie the notion that all men & women are equal in this country and all deserve an equal opportunity to participate in government)

      Equally our "Australian way" is just a hodge podge of whatever johnny says it is at any given moment, just like bush manipulating patriotism to his own gain. This needs to be rethought so we can understand that democracy further suggests the equality of all human beings, and the logical conclusion of this is we must "live and let live" or "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" or "treat others as you wish to be treated" or "judge not lest ye be judged"

      Choose your quote, the meaning is the same & is the basic principle this country and any other country that uses the word "Democracy" should be working toward. Every single thing that's passed should be passed with the intention of upholding this principle.

      This surveilance nonsense definitely doesn't fit.

    5. Re:Pure evil by DesScorp · · Score: 1
      The only reason he's still around is due to a generally incompetent opposition.


      While the Left as a whole may not be terribly adept at presenting themselves as a viable governing authority, your attitude seems to match the American Democratic Party's line: Bush is evil, the Republicans are evil, all conservatives of all stripes are evil, so elect us instead.

      And yet the Left keeps losing. Has it ever occurred to you, just for a second, that maybe most of the populations of the US, UK, and Australia don't think they're in a Tyranny, and agree with the policies of their elected officials? That you just might be in the minority on this?
      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    6. Re:Pure evil by micpp · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'm used to that. The majority of people are sheep, and I call the opposition incompetent due to their failure to influence them in any reasonable volume.

    7. Re:Pure evil by micpp · · Score: 1

      Everyone has their off days. That post happened to be written on one of mine.

    8. Re:Pure evil by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      While the Left as a whole may not be terribly adept at presenting themselves as a viable governing authority, your attitude seems to match the American Democratic Party's line:

      The Labor party isn't a left wing party - it's centrist with a number of right-wing factions. The reason they don't win elections has nothing to do with ideology, it's because they are more incompetent than the Liberals, which is an outstanding feat in itself...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    9. Re:Pure evil by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      The Labor party isn't a left wing party - it's centrist with a number of right-wing factions.


      Maybe if you're a socialist, but sorry, everyone else puts it in the left side of the political spectrum.
      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    10. Re:Pure evil by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      Maybe if you're a socialist, but sorry, everyone else puts it in the left side of the political spectrum.

      That's mostly a historical perspective. Just as the Liberal party is no longer liberal, the Labor party used to represent workers, but has long since left its roots behind. From the linked Wikipedia article:
      The left says that Labor has abandoned its traditional base and values and that its policies are indistinguishable from those of the Coalition.
      It's not only the left that says that now. Even our mainstream press takes the shift to the right pretty much for granted.
      There's a concise history here http://www.ozpolitics.info/parties/alp.htm, but to quote:
      the Labor party become a catchall party with one overriding objective: to win the next election.
      You might also like to look here http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/index.htm to see how badly our democratic institutions are percieved by voting Australians.
      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:Pure evil by Tripman · · Score: 1

      Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

    12. Re:Pure evil by micpp · · Score: 1

      Oh no! My secret is out!

  4. Sydney Morning Herald by rollonet · · Score: 0

    Hail! An Australian newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch!

    1. Re:Sydney Morning Herald by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Fairfax got rid of a whole bunch of writers, etc., recently. So, unfortunately they will be getting worse, too.

  5. Freedom? by lennart78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And another victory for Bin Laden and co. Everytime a Western government implements laws like these, he comes a step closer to achieve his goal: Undermining Western civilization, economics and politics, and that without incurring any cost, be it monetary or people.

    1. Re:Freedom? by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

      > his goal: Undermining Western civilization, economics and politics,

      If you've read any interviews with Bin Laden you'll know his only goal is to get the `infidels` out of Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, and now Afghanistan and Iraq. He has never expressed any interest in economics or politics.

    2. Re:Freedom? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Starting civil wars in every western country does help speed that along quite nicely...

    3. Re:Freedom? by babbling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has nothing to do with terrorism. "Terrorism" is just the excuse that they are using to implement these laws, in the same way that "piracy and viruses" are the excuses that Microsoft are using to take control of peoples' computers away from them.

      The US, Britain and Australia are basically just locking down the world as quickly as they can. I don't think anyone really knows why they are doing this, but the "to stop terrorism" excuse is obviously bullshit. It's unlikely these governments are naive enough to think that these measures will really stop terrorist attacks.

      I know these things make it easier for the governments to monitor/control their people, but I don't think that is the full story. There's no reason why a government would really want this much control.

    4. Re:Freedom? by Tripman · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      I think the more likely issue here is that the Government is facing a threat that it doesn't know how to deal with. It is just trying to look like it is doing something that might prove effective. How do you deal with any enemy that isn't interested in negotiating? How do you deal with an enemy that is not embodied in the form of a single state, with definite leadership?
      Historically, Governments have dealt with Terrorists ineffectively - look at the British Government with the IRA. But at least then, they expressed demands that could be negotiated.

      But the new generation of terrorists can't be bought off. They aren't interested in money, land or independence. They just want the West to die. Western Governments don't have a solution to this insanity. Even some of their own wealthy, well-educated citizens have turned against their fellow countrymen. At the moment, Western Governments are just reacting blindly, using the same old tactics. Action - 9/11.. Reaction - invade Iraq - WTF?

  6. Security Camera Registry by omegashenron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesnt come as a surprise given the following plans.

    NSW plans new security camera regime.

    I think it is safe to say that we are all potential criminals.

    --
    Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
    1. Re:Security Camera Registry by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I think it is safe to say that we(*) are all potential criminals.

      (*) Footnote: "we" means "you" and not "us" -- The Government.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  7. Holy Grammar Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Australians to Increases Surveillance Powers"

    Well, for starters, it is the Australian Government, not "Australians" who are increasing surveillance powers. This is a Government who only go elected due to the ineptitude of all the other political parties, and by perpetrating a scare campaign on interest rates.

    Plus, I'm no grammar expert, but that headline doesn't seem to parse all that well.

  8. I've said it before ... by Kawahee · · Score: 0, Troll

    I've said it before... If you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.

    Privacy is a two way street, you can't cry foul when the government wants to listen in for a bit, find nothing and then leave you alone, and then want the government to have more power when tracking down somebody who's double crossed you.

    What do you talk about on the phone? I talk about my programming, my life, what's happening to my friends. I don't commit crimes. What's the person listening in going to think or care of me? Absolutely nothing, because he's never met me. If one of my friends committed a crime in an area I hang around in, and I talk about it over the phone, what's the person on the phone tap going to do? Interview me and get some more information, then bring my friend who beat up ol' Mrs. Jenkins across the road to justice.

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    1. Re:I've said it before ... by omegashenron · · Score: 1

      It is not about if or if not you have done anything wrong, my biggest objection to such measures is the probability of my personal information being misused. What if a particular company be it defence contractor or government sponsor were to use or personal data for marketing or some other sinister purpose? What if government employees began selling your phone conversations much the same way phone company employee sell your phone records?

      Think about the conversations you have and the things you do in private, are you really sure you don't care who is watching, when they are watching and what they are recording? What will happen to such recordings?

      The Nazi's used old census papers to track down Jews, imagine what a similar regime could do with all this pre-gathered "intelligence" if they were to ever come to power. Your trust and naivety will be your downfall.

      --
      Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
    2. Re:I've said it before ... by Narcissus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always wonder about the "jilted ex" scenarios... it's not about you doing anything wrong, it's about someone having access to all that data that decides to do something wrong.

      If we were tracking everyone, anyone with even a bit of access could decide to track down that woman that left him. Imagine he beat her and so she steals away in the middle of the night. He decides to get even and so tracks her down. Or he decides that you, her new lover, need to be taught a lesson. Or maybe her parents or her kids.

      They're the kinds of scenarios I worry about...

    3. Re:I've said it before ... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the person listening in going to think or care of me? Absolutely nothing, because he's never met me.

      Oh really? There's no possibility that you would know anybody working in the govn'ts monitoring agency? Or that they would know you (e.g. from middle or high school, if nowhere else)?

      How can you be *certain* the person listening doesn't know who you are?

      Moreover, how do you know they are not a criminal who has not yet been caught? Suppose they are working in the monitoring agency by day, but go dumpster-diving by night, looking for credit card statements and such. They happen to find yours.

      Now, not only do they have a history of your credit transactions, but they have intimate knowledge of your personal life. If you communicate with your son or daughter over the phone or in email, they know where your child will be -- and let's suppose again that the monitoring person is a child-molestor. Then what do you do? *They* know where your child is -- but you don't know that they know this.

      At the very least man, if you're going to advocate a privacy-less society, then advocate a Transparent Society, where the watchers can be watched, along with every other citizen.

      You cannot trust the lives of you or your family to *ANYBODY* you have not met. *EVER*. For *ANY* reason, regardless of their title or position or certifications. Yet, that is precisely what your position entails.

      I maintain (and no less because of your post) that people who say "if you have nothing to hide, then what's wrong with being watched?" are idiots who haven't thought beyond step 1 and whose understanding of government and its historical abuses is severely-lacking. I have yet to find a person who is willing to map out the tree of possible causal paths that grows from a policy like this...
    4. Re:I've said it before ... by eloki · · Score: 1

      I agree with the basic premise - you can't give unlimited power to other people just because you happen not to be doing a crime today. After all, you don't know exactly how these powers will be used in practice, nor do you know what laws may be passed in future, which you may strongly disagree with and thus ignore in a civil disobedience kind of way.

      You cannot trust the lives of you or your family to *ANYBODY* you have not met. *EVER*. For *ANY* reason, regardless of their title or position or certifications.

      This, however, seems a bit over the top. I'm trusting my life every day - to the policemen, to the designers and builders of my car, to the other drivers around me, to the people who built the office I work in, the lifts, the maintenance people. Simply by living in a modern social setting you're implicitly trusting thousands of people every day.

    5. Re:I've said it before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thats why these laws have regulations and strict monitoring.. you can play the "what if" game all day.. but the net benifits for having such a system in place far outwieghs any fictional concern of paranoid people saying "what if someone i know hears me organising a trip to the pub with friends? *GASP* they might use it for sinister purposes!!! for sinister going to the pub purposes!!!!"

      listen to yourself.. jesus.. i can't beleive the level of paranoia.

      If the situation you outlined EVER happened then the evidence to track down and prosicute the person doing it would be there and easy for the police to find...

    6. Re:I've said it before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100%

      If you spent your life with the level of mistrust he was displaying you will lead a very sheltered and un-interesting life. I'm not a very recless person.. in fact i'd say i was more safty aware than most of my friends but living your life with sucha huge level of mistrust of your fellow man is bordering on a serious mental disease.

      Kids: Dad can we go on the rolercoaster
      Dad: i'm afraid not kids, one of the operators could be a psycho just waiting for someone to ride it so he can set into motion his elaborate sabotage of the safty devices killing us all in a spectacular manner... so no.. we can't do anything.. ever.. stop asking to live your life and get back inside the house.
      Kids: you haven't been taking your medication dad have you?
      Dad: no kids.. because it contains mind control robots which the goverment has put in them *puts on tin foil hat*

  9. Governments everywhere, and political terror by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1984 is creeping up on us from every corner of the planet. Australia isn't particularly special.

    In the UK, we're well on our way to being followed in our every move, our freedoms being "allowed" only if we carry the necessary papers, checked, validated and scanned in everything we do, and so on.

    What it comes down to is this: politicians everywhere are scum. They don't work towards a better and freer life for ordinary people, but purely for their own self-aggrandizement and political power. And since it seems that they can achieve nothing without creating new laws, the public is continually being imprisoned within ever thicker legal walls and shackled with ever tighter legal chains.

    "The Fight Against Terrorism" is of course used as the current excuse. In reality, the actual daily terror here is coming from the politicians and the police. Nobody worries on a daily basis about a true whacko blowing up the underground (because the likelihood is low), but everyone worries about being jumped on by a dozen police officers on the grounds of "looking suuspicious". God, that must be easy work for the police, looking for people with shifty eyes. And I really pity the poor blokes with beards, or those who look slightly middle-eastern ... clearly candidates for terrorist recruitment in the eyes of the police here.

    I don't think that this is going to change any time soon. You know why? Because people are dumb, and watch too much TV, and believe the messages that the politicians and media are feeding them.

    It's sad times indeed.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Governments everywhere, and political terror by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      God, that must be easy work for the police, looking for people with shifty eyes

      Actually, it's a heck of a lot easier than you think. I'm expecting the subway to have soon have a sign at the turnstile saying "You must not be this DARK to enter."

    2. Re:Governments everywhere, and political terror by babbling · · Score: 1

      I was in London recently, and couldn't get my mind off the poor bugger they shot in the head nine times on the subway, just for running to catch his train. (and then they lied and said he jumped the turnstiles, etc, etc...)

      I'm half Indian, but more or less look middle-eastern, so I felt pretty uncomfortable around the subway and stuff. As you pointed out, I wasn't the least bit worried about being blown up by a terrorist (there's a far greater chance of being in a fatal car accident), but I was pretty worried about being assaulted by police.

    3. Re:Governments everywhere, and political terror by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And since it seems that they can achieve nothing without creating new laws, the public is continually being imprisoned within ever thicker legal walls and shackled with ever tighter legal chains.

      Agreed. The problem with the constant creation of new laws is that after a while, everything becomes illegal. This means that the execution of justice now rests not with the judges and magistrates where it belongs, but with the police, whose original function is to simply arrest law breakers and bring them before the legal system. Since everything is illegal, the police must decide who to arrest and who to ignore, so in effect, they are deciding who is guilty and who is innocent. This merges back the explicit separation of the legal and enforcement arms. A state where the police function like this is called a police state. It's not the fact that they will arrest you for breaking some obscure law (which is probably unlikely), it's the fact that they can.

      --
      "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
  10. The terrorists have won by MikeRT · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For Americans, at least, from Wikipedia:

    With respect to terrorism definitions, for example, section 802 of the Act created the new crime category of "domestic terrorism." According to this provision, which is found in the U.S. criminal code at 18 U.S.C. 2331, domestic terrorism means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

    Terrorism of all kind is about influencing the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. Rather than mass deport people from "problematic" countries like Saudi Arabia, they'd rather screw all citizens and resident aliens alike. Turks and Albanians aren't very prone to hardline Islam compared to Saudis. Most Albanians are so supposed to be quite chill about Islam. Why restrict them when it's the Wahabi Saudis who are causing the bloodshed and spread of terrorist ideas in foreign mosques?

    That's another point that needs to be considered. The Saudi-funded mosques and schools are Wahabi in doctrine. They're so hardline that they want even the Shia and Sufis exterminated. Why do we let these wild-eyed zealots who preach sedition and actively agitate for treason among our Muslims to operate openly? The best option for the US and Australia alike is systematic legislative and enforcement elimination of Wahabism from our borders. As long as they can continue to operate on our soil, they're an enemy, and their schools are akin to saying, "ok KGB, you can recruit at the Ivy League career fairs."

    1. Re:The terrorists have won by ttys00 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Saudi royal family were allowed to leave the US by air in the aftermath of 9/11, when no US citizen could even go near a plane. They also provided funding for the Carlyle Group, which is connected to both the previous and the current Bush administrations.

      If western authorities start cracking down on Wahabi preachers in general rather than specific individuals, it may make the Saudi royals look bad to the Wahabi religious leaders, and they don't want that as the religious leaders are keeping the royal family in power.

      With so much money and oil at stake, the US government will look the other way when Saudi preachers are misbehaving, and encourage their allies to do the same.

    2. Re:The terrorists have won by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      As Syriana so bluntly pointed out, what'll happen when the oil runs out in 50-100 years? Back to chopping each other's heads off and shouting "durka durka durk?"

  11. Terrorists are winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the goal of terrorism? It is a tool to wage
    warfare against a population directly, rather than
    hitting their military head on. Most competent
    groups that wage warfare use this as a tool.

    Given that, what do you call it when a few people
    hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings? When
    you cost your enemy Trillions of dollars, a significant
    percentage of their GDP reacting to the cries of the
    general population, and you didn't even pay for the
    airplanes? This is called success.

    When you can get your enemy to change their society,
    make people less happy with the government, make that
    government waste time and money reacting to what they
    think you might do next (even if it is nothing), this
    is also success.

    I know this is trite, but so far the US is losing the
    war against terrorism.

  12. I'm not worried... by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

    If they do it as dodgely as they do the rest of their law enforcement, she'll be right mate!
    For example, your doing something dodgy in your car. Do you a) stick a GPS transponder to it b) follow them 2 cars back in a recently made australian car and match every lane change. While all the while sitting the there with a box on your dash and the both of you wearing suits in the middle of summer?

    This is the same as for the internet a) sliding in a rootkit (maybe the could get some help from Sony) b) Continually ping the box with ICMP Echo requests to make sure its there. While outside you somehow notice that your cable modem cord has been diverted through a van with a big:
    All
    Flowers
    Pronto

    written in capitals. Seriously though, if I use a decent Operating System and End to End encryption, what have I got to worry about?

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
  13. Power Grab by Paraplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I posted this elsewhere:

    For the love of god, someone get these politicians a hobby. They have far too much time and money at their disposal.

    I'd like to see Blair, Bush, Howard & Bin Laden settle this over a good old game of marbles and leave us out of it.

    Who the hell are these twirps? Never met them, never heard a SINGLE intelligent thing come out of any of their mouths and day after day they affect my life. They sit there in these strange black outfits with these weird nooses around their necks arguing about things which are obviously issues of semantics, breaking every rule of intelligent debate & rationalisation and prompting the media beast to artificially inflate these "issues" so that the bored apathetic masses get up in arms and keep them voted in.

    We're throwing away our freedoms so the media can make you pay for & drink sugar water.

    The extreme views speak in loud, inflamatory soundbytes that serve to sell advertising to gullible viewers: "X is EVIL" "ALL Y DESERVE TO DIE" while the moderate, intelligent, rational view is obscured and diffused by its truthful verbosity and its inherent "unmarketability"

    Sometimes I just bang my head against the wall at the complete insanity of it all.

  14. It's about what they do here by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    If you look on Google, you can find information on Wahabi preaching in the US... almost all of it being funded by the Saudi royalty. CAIR is a group that has reportedly been connected to Hamas, and is a leading "Muslim civil rights group" modeled on the NAACP. These groups preach sedition and agitate for treason in our Muslim populations. Eliminating Wahabism from our countries is the only way we can even attempt to integrate our Muslims peacefully and safely.

  15. Grenades, not marbles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see Blair, Bush, Howard & Bin Laden settle this over a good old game of marbles and leave us out of it.

    God, not marbles. It should be settled with them all in a small room, using hand grenades.

    Unfortunately, that would be quite unfair to them, as those four leaders don't have any unique claim to working against their people. It's a general problem with politicians worldwide, and the real difficulty is knowing whom to exclude from this "solutions room".

    Is there a single politician in power anywhere who genuinely works to preserve the freedoms of his or her people, and not just as a pretext while enslaving them more each day?

    I can't think of even one. The chains around our freedom become thicker with each new item of legislation, and these legal prisons are inescapable.

    1. Re:Grenades, not marbles by babbling · · Score: 1

      I can. Bob Brown of the Greens in Australia.

  16. Bad spelling by Shishberg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Surely the title should be "Australians to Increases Surveillances Powers".

    Not sure about "tos".

    1. Re:Bad spelling by Tripman · · Score: 1

      That was amusing. Shame the mods didn't think so.