Slashdot Mirror
Australian Parliament Approves Email Snooping
brindafella writes "The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, reporting on a legislative change last week, says 'the [Australian] Government will have 12 months to access communications not only between the B-party and the suspect, but also between the B-party and anyone else. If you have unwittingly communicated with a suspect (and thereby become a B-party), the Government may be able to monitor all your conversations with family members, friends, work colleagues, your lawyer and your doctor.' The Australian Parliament's major parties combined to pass an amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1979."
In the United States, monitoring communications is the mission of the National Security Agency, not the Central Intelligence Agency, which focuses on various other fields of intelligence. For a good introduction to the NSA, what they do and (as best we know) how they do it, try James Bamford's Body of Secrets , written by the foremost public expert on the agency.
Sorry, you are of course correct. The equivalent in Australia is the DSD - "Defence Signals Directorate", although ASIO is responsible for domestic signals interceptions and indeed all domestic intelligence.
Dammit, I'm sure intelligence used to mean something else.
I've been following the progress of this and similar acts and yes, in theory at least, it will give the Australian Government the right to collect information on us Aussie Slashdotters.
From the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law:
The worst of it though, is the unseemly haste the government has used to rush this through parliament. Interested parties were given only 10 days to prepare submissions on the Bill, and the Senate Committee had only two weeks to review the submissions, hear evidence and prepare a report. They really badly want to read our private correspondence."I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Actually a cadre of extremists were arrested in both Sydney and Melbourne and were charged with a slew of new terrorsism related offenses. It was thought the arrests had effectively prevented an attack on Australian soil.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Why rant about the Labour Party? They don't even have any members in an Australian Parliament. I'm more concerned about the failing credibility of these guys: http://www.alp.org.au/ The Labor Party
Did a little searching and it looks like New Zealand may well be ahead of you. To quote from InternetNZ .
"Clause 19 introduces a new computer offence of intentionally accessing a computer system without authorisation; commonly known as "hacking" (new section 305ZFA) (the unauthorised access offence). However, the offence will not apply to everyone because clause 19 provides qualified exemptions for the following State agencies:
1)the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (the SIS) (new section 305ZFB)
2)the Government Communications Security Bureau (the GCSB) (new section 305ZFC)
3)"law enforcement agencies", such as the police (new section 305ZFD)."
Etc...Can't find if it has been passed yet though. That was in 2001. Would look more, but I'm supposed to be studying.
/. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
It's "spam", not "SPAM".
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
When? Cite a time and place where they say they want to remove personal freedom in the USA. Bush says "they hate freedom" often enough, but it doesn't make it true. Banging the freedom and liberty drum is a great way to get patriotic Americans on side, without them asking too many questions.
You're getting normal middle-easterners mixed up with the terrorists. Very sloppy. The terrorists (Islamic theocrats) have always been against democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. They've even published books saying so.
So what? Democracy is not compatible with their traditional culture. That's not why they are flying planes into buildings.
They've distributed pamphlets in Iraq listing how democracy is against sharia law.
It probably is against Sharia law, whatever, that's not the issue here. The question is; are they attacking us because of our freedom? The answer to that is no. They have stated our reasons for their hate many times, and never has it had anything to do with the fact we can gamble and watch porno. Now, when we bring those things to their world, that's what pisses them off. When we use our power to dispose of Islamic governments (e.g. Iran) or station troops to guard other corrupt dictatorships (e.g. Saudi Arabia), then we make enemies. Bin Laden iterates this in every one of the messages that you are not allowed to see.
Huh? You mean turned against them after Sept 11th? Or maybe you're complaining that we stopped interfering once we helped them drive the Soviets out.
No, the fallout with the Taliban came around the end of the 1990s. The main reason was the allocation of a key strategic oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea. In 1997, they visited the USA to discuss this deal. In the end the contract went to an Argentinian firm. Then all of a sudden "the evil Taliban" seems to get mentioned a lot. Funny that, one minute they are strategic allies and partners, the next they are supposedly the most evil regime on the planet. It's almost comical. Towards the end of end of negotiations, the phrase "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" appeared in the press.
Work on the pipeline started very soon after the Taliban was regime-changed for a more ecconically friendly govenment. US troops were used to guard the construction of the pipeline, and are still there today. I have friends who served in both Iraq and Afganistan; they spent a large ammount of time defending these "strategic institutions" and at least one resigned from the army as a result of this ("not what I signed up for").
However, the key thing to remember here is that Al Qaida != Taliban. The Taliban were just folks who hadn't expelled the terrorists from their country (most other countries had). The Taliban owed it's existance to groups like Al Qadia and could not turn their back on them. Their biggest crime, not giving up Bin Laden, was becase they asked for proof that he was involved in 9-11 (something Al Qaida still deny to this day).
The idea that it's the free world verses a globally united force is a complete fabrication. Each party has their own reasons for being involved, and my or your personal freedom here in the west has nothing to do with it.
Both the CIA and Al-Qaida have stated that they didn't work together in Afghanistan. Both say that the CIA worked with other groups in the area. The idea that the CIA named Al Qaida is as crazy as it sounds.
It does sound utterly preposterous, but it's true. The name originally comes from a database in Langley, which was later adopted by those seeking to align themselves against the west. Bin Laden originally anounced the group in 1998 as: "The Islamic World Front for the struggle against the Jews and the Crusaders" (Al-Jabhah al-Islamiyyah al-`Alamiyyah li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin).
Al Qaida is not