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."

Comments

Re:Big brother is watching....again.....

[AussieVamp2]

Hopefully New Zealand ain't going to copy us copying the USA?

I feel safe now

[McGiraf]

Before I wanted to go to Australia but I was scared, now i can go there feeling safe. I'm realy glad that they passed this law.

Re:I feel safe now

[phreakv6]

i think the reverse holds true for me. i _am_ scared now

Re:I feel safe now

[dotgain]

Whoosh!

Re:I feel safe now

[IAmTheDave]

oh please. if you have nothing to hide...

It Won't Apply To Me

[Elvis77]

I'm a programmer, I don't have any friends...

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[tqft]

So if OBL has one of his Aussie "B" mates posts a comment to /. then the Aus gov can snoop on you?

Anyone want to read the act and give a verdict on that?

IANAL, don't ask /. for legal advice, blah blah blah.

Most likely the act is broad enough cover that.

Don't forget Aus is friends with the big E. So yes they can trace you.

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[ozmanjusri]

Anyone want to read the act and give a verdict on that?

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:

Second, in some circumstances, the government can use the information it collects even though that information is irrelevant to the original suspect. For example, if the government uncovers incriminating information from listening to a B-Party's conversations, this can set off a chain reaction allowing the interception of the incriminated person's communications or of anyone with whom they communicate.

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.

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[flyingsquid]

Basically, this is two degrees of separation: the suspect (and I'd be willing to bet the threshhold for what qualifies as a suspected threat to national security has been lowered substantially since 9/11), anyone who's communicated with the suspect, and anyone who's communicated with anyone who's communicated the suspect could potentially have their emails read.

Figure your suspect has emailed 100 people in the past year, and then figure that each of those people has emailed 100 different people. Assuming no overlap, that would mean 10,000 different people who could have their email snooped because of this suspect. That's a pretty simplistic take on things, in reality some people might email a dozen people, many will email hundreds, some might email a thousand. What's a realistic estimate for the number of people within two degrees of separation on your average email social network, anyhow?

Hell, is it even useful to generate 10,000 different leads? I could see how maybe you could generate useful leads if a couple names kept popping up again and again in the inboxes of terrorists and their associates, but this just seems like an overly broad license to spy.

You know, I wonder, even OBL must get spam from Nigeria and penis enlargement scams, so do those guys end up on CIA watchlists?

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[Gideon Fubar]

I'm not sure where they're going to find all the people they need to READ all this email.. noone who knows how to do so can possibly pass the required security checks ;)

Seriously, though.. i'm simply not too worried about it.. the sheer volume of processing that actually putting this into practice requires will easily outstrip it's usefulness. Besides, they attempted to do it before (when it was only a grey area.. it was never illegal as such in .au, to the best of my knowledge) and it didn't work then.. i'm not too sure that they've gotten any smarter in the interim.

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[voice_of_all_reason]

Hell, is it even useful to generate 10,000 different leads?

1) Sift through email
2) Collect "criminals" (any that apply, not just ter'ists)
3) Profit

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[tqft]

"but this just seems like an overly broad license to spy."
Not that I wouldn't put it past little johnnie and friends to go "overboard".

But any closed loops may be of interest, don't forget the ip addresses and other data the wrappers are carrying.

Some said you can't read it all - agreed. But some good data mining software and a Mk1 eyeball, may find patterns - time of day, closed loops, etc that supposedly may be the justification - if any of the people do become persons of interest.

More likely it all goes into the big archive to be dredged out when thay decide to create a smear file if you rub them the wrong way.

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[ShaggyBOFH]

Anyone wanna play "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon"?

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[ozmanjusri]

i'm simply not too worried about it

If you're not worried about it, then congratulations on being a lilly-white ctiizen who only associates with lilly white friends.

In any case, it's not likely to be the individuals they're chasing, though the ability to arrest anyone they want to any time will be appealing for them. What they want is the aggregate data, same as they illegaly gained from the journos on the Tampa.

If they can check what a large number of people are saying about any issue, they can respond with water cannons or cheques, depending on the scale of the threat to their sovereignty..

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[ozmanjusri]

This act in no way suggests, anymore than is possible now, that the Australian government OR any party acting on behalf of, will have the power to intercept emails from and to a source party ....

The amendment you've seen activates parts of the anti-terrorism acts which relate to communications interceptions. There's a better explanation here: http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filen ame_num=12343

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[Gideon Fubar]

and congratulations on summing me up in a paragraph. Perhaps you'd like a job with one of our fine government institutions.. say, centrelink.. or 'today, tonight'?

for the non aussies, .

Re:It Won't Apply To Me

[Gideon Fubar]

ahem..

what a way to find out that 'Plain Old Text' still strips tags..

guess only the aussies in the audience will understand my spiteful sarcasm now.

*shrugs*

Australian Politics Gone Mad

[syousef]

Seriously these politicians have just gone plain loopy and it's all because the labour party has gone into a tailspin.

State labour in NSW (where Sydney is and the biggest state) has been unable to fix Sydney's transport problem and keeps closing roads around new tollways stuffing up public transport...not to mention they haven't been able to improve a constantly deteriorating health care system. Federal labour can't get enough votes to put up any serious opposition and the opposing party has a majority in both houses. The young labour party has recently been in the papers for calling for conscription - a total about face on their previous postion. Recently the labour party also did an about face on their position regarding forcing ISPs to filter pornography (and are now in favour of this with all of its technical problems). What's more they have personality issues within the party (nothing new in politics but this is when a party has to band together to survive).

I'm an Australian who feels I have zero representation. Not one politician here is even trying to make this country better...not even for the votes.

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[Anonymous Coward]

The Commonwealth Government which is run by the Liberal party is passing this law, not the New South Wales state Government which is run by the Labor party.

Move to Queensland if you don't like Sydney... oh hang on, no don't...

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[caitsith01]

Grandparent's extremely valid point was that the federal ALP does absolutely nothing by way of providing effective and principled opposition and as such the Liberals can do what they want with no accountability whatsoever. Reverse the parties and you have the problem at the state level.

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[syousef]

Dear annoymous QLD coward. I was having a rant about the Labour Party since once upon a time I use to vote for them and still wish they vaguely represented my beliefs. If you read the summary (not even the article) you'll notice that it states all parties banded together to pass this one.

Please enjoy the rest of your day despite having your head firmly planted where the sun don't shine. Ironic for a QLDer no?

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if those of us on the left had someone we felt comfortable voting for other than the Greens, who can be a bit loony... but as it is Beazley seems to be trying to outflank Howard on the right wing. Ten years and one month so far of covert and overt racism, blatant breaches of ministerial responsibility, and a complete lack of any decent opposition. Still, at least Australians feel can now safe wrapping themselves in the flag and bashing people of "Middle Eastern appearance", hey?

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[Dantoo]

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

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[syousef]

Dear Dantoo,

I think this link may interest you:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/43/P0144300.html

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[dangitman]

What's loony about the Greens? They have the most credible social and economic policies for the mid to long term, and Bob Brown is probably the only really honest politician on earth. How can anyone not admire Bob Brown? He's a pillar of integrity and sanity, amidst a sea of crackpot, corrupt bastards.

Re:Australian Politics Gone Mad

[shellbeach]

What's loony about the Greens? They have the most credible social and economic policies for the mid to long term

Well, their complete refusal to consider nuclear power as an alternative energy source comes to mind as a seriously loony policy ...

and Bob Brown is probably the only really honest politician on earth. How can anyone not admire Bob Brown? He's a pillar of integrity and sanity, amidst a sea of crackpot, corrupt bastards.

You're absolutely right - Bob Brown is one of the few people in the parliament with integrity and honesty. The Greens are the party the ALP used to be in the 70s, pretty much, before the party got trashed by right-wing conservative leaders ...

Typical of Australia

[caitsith01]

This is typical of the current government's attitude to privacy and telecommunications. The Telecommunications Act already allows for seizure of computers and other equipment when it is 'connected with' offences under the Spam Act, for example. There is also evidence that the government has been confiscating and destroying personal computers without a warrant when they contain 'sensitive' information.

All of this is part of a broader lack of accountability, due process and transparency that is becoming part of the culture of Australian lawmaking. There is a good article on the subject here.

For those from more sensible countries, supposedly democratic Australia currently has the following features:

1. One party entirely in control of both houses of parliament
2. No bill of rights, either legislative or constitutional
3. Legislation allowing for the arrest, detention, and interrogation without charge of persons not suspected of any offence if they may have information that is somehow relevant to a suspected terrorist offence; the onus of proof is reversed so that the person being interrogated must prove that they do NOT have any such information.
4. One of the highest rates of phone tapping in the world
5. Unelected bureacrats empowered to spy on Australians with no parliamentary oversight to speak of
6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil
7. New crimes of sedition for exercising free speech in a manner that encourages the overthrow of the government
8. Troops in Iraq despite over 80% of the population opposing our involvement before the war
At the moment we also have an extremely disturbing rise in racial and religious intolerance, which in my opinion is in no small part attributable to the federal government's policies and fearmongering on those issues. But of course, this doesn't stop us selling weapons-grade uranium to China because they weeeeally promise to use it for civilian purposes only.

Re:Typical of Australia

[keesh]

Curious that you consider some kind of bill of rights to be necessary for a democracy... In a true democracy, it's totally ok for anyone to be screwed over in every kind of way so long as the majority of voters don't dissent.

Re:Typical of Australia

[johnhoward666]

Thats true of a democracy, but we are a liberal democracy, and the liberal ideaology, traditions and conventions *should* stop that from happening. So much for a small government that is free of regulation. That said, it is true that draconian laws have been passed here (Australia) in recent years. This law also extends to SMS. And on another note, this has got me thinking what those two telecom workers were doing outside my house when I got home today.... :)

Re:Typical of Australia

[hpcanswers]

From an American in Australia: I don't see what the big deal is. The US has wire tapping, is in Iraq, has one party in control of the federal government, etc. For that matter, Britain is in Iraq too and is controlled by one party.

Where would you rather live? France, where routine protests stifle legislative progress? Or how about Germany, where making a politically unpopular statement (such as denying the Holocaust) is illegal?

The English-speaking countries are doing quite well for themselves.

Re:Typical of Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

In the good ol' U S of A:

1. One party entirely in control of both houses of parliament
Check!
2. No bill of rights, either legislative or constitutional
Ok, you got us there
3. Legislation allowing for the arrest, detention, and interrogation without charge of persons not suspected of any offence if they may have information that is somehow relevant to a suspected terrorist offence; the onus of proof is reversed so that the person being interrogated must prove that they do NOT have any such information.
Pfft, legislation is for dweebs. Just ask Dubya
4. One of the highest rates of phone tapping in the world
Hmm, don't know enough to comment, sorry
5. Unelected bureacrats empowered to spy on Australians with no parliamentary oversight to speak of
Elected officials empowering agencies to spy on Americans with no oversight to speak of, check!
6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil
Check!
7. New crimes of sedition for exercising free speech in a manner that encourages the overthrow of the government
Check! But really, see #3
8. Troops in Iraq despite over 80% of the population opposing our involvement before the war
Dunno about 80%, but sure does feel way over 50...

At the moment we also have an extremely disturbing rise in racial and religious intolerance, which in my opinion is in no small part attributable to the federal government's policies and fearmongering on those issues. But of course, this doesn't stop us selling weapons-grade uranium to China because they weeeeally promise to use it for civilian purposes only.
Check!

Sadly, this looks like the state of affairs all around the world :(

Re:Typical of Australia

[Guppy06]

Number 6 is explained by number 2. Why do you think we're not hosting them domestically?

Re:Typical of Australia

[Pieroxy]

After a few weeks in France you'll really wish you didn't leave for Paris, trust me... I live there.

Re:Typical of Australia

[wiresquire]

Tell me about it.

I made a conscious decision to leave the US and return to Australia because I didn't have a lot of faith in the way things were going in the US.

You can imagine my horror over the last 18 months.
- federal 'monopoly' of both houses of parliament. WTF happened to the Democrats whose motto was 'keep the bastards honest'?
- Howard bends over and takes it deeply and willingly on copyright/patents for the US trade agreement while gaining nothing for the primary industry
- Australian Wheat Board. Fuck it. I can't stand saying anything about that.
- The media who incites racism and intolerance and then wonders why there are riots and shit.
- Australia seems to be *everyone's* bitch. Just pulling something topical off the top of my head, oh let's talk about uranium sales. Google it. I'm too pissed to do it for you.

OK, well you thought that was a rant, let's try this.
IMNSHO, Australian state govt's should be RESTRUCTURED. Yes, let's use that latest *brilliant* Industrial Relations reforms and do away with them altogether. We wouldn't have to pay any redundancy. Australia has only about 25m people - about the same as CA in the US. So you have a federal govt and stop all the bitching between the states 'Oh, but we have MORE *insert bullshit here* than that other state'. And LOCAL government.

The whole concept of 'federation' is nowadays bullshit.

Anyone want to start a party?

ws

And put me on your motherfucking Big Brother list. It can't be any more inane than the 'reality' show.

Re:Typical of Australia

[KeensMustard]

Where would you rather live? France, where routine protests stifle legislative progress?

So in France, when the people speak, the government listens? Sounds terrible.
Or how about Germany, where making a politically unpopular statement (such as denying the Holocaust) is illegal?

In Australia, you can be charged with sedition. You canbe locked up for essentially disagreeing with government policy and suggesting that those corrupt pigs should be pulled away from the trough (by force if necessary). Much better in Australia - in germany you get locked up for speaking your mind, whereas in Australia, you have to speak your mind before they lock you up.

The English-speaking countries are doing quite well for themselves.

Certainly the Australians who gave $0.5 billion in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein with the tacit blessing of the Australian government are doing quite well. After all, they aren't guilty of any wrongdoing. Whereas those Iraqi scientists we locked up and tortured for 6 months (and then released without charge) - they were guilty. Guilty as sin. How do I know? The government told me.

Re:Typical of Australia

[Captain_Chaos]

The English-speaking countries are doing quite well for themselves.

How sad is it that you really believe that. That you really think that the level of freedom in the US or Australia is about as free as it gets...

Let's check the list for my country:

1. One party entirely in control of both houses of parliament

Nope. We always have coalition governments, keeping government reasonable, accountable and away from the extremes.

2. No bill of rights, either legislative or constitutional

We have a very strong bill of rights in our constitution, guaranteeing freedom from discrimination, of speech, religion, press, etc.

3. Legislation allowing for the arrest, detention, and interrogation without charge of persons not suspected of any offence if they may have information that is somehow relevant to a suspected terrorist offence; the onus of proof is reversed so that the person being interrogated must prove that they do NOT have any such information.

We have no such draconian laws. A person can only be arrested if they are suspected of a crime and are innocent until proven guilty in all cases.

4. One of the highest rates of phone tapping in the world

No idea, but laws governing surveillance of civilians are very strict (I know, I worked for the police in exactly this area), so likely the rate is low.

5. Unelected bureacrats empowered to spy on Australians with no parliamentary oversight to speak of

We have a secret intelligence service of sorts (the AIVD). They don't amount to much though. In fact they're regularly in the news for (unintentionally) leaking information.

6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil

No American bases here!

7. New crimes of sedition for exercising free speech in a manner that encourages the overthrow of the government

Freedom of speech is one of the best guarded freedoms in this country. There's not much you're not allowed to say (and encouraging the overthrow of the government is certainly not one of those things).

8. Troops in Iraq despite over 80% of the population opposing our involvement before the war

No troops in Iraq during the war. They were there after the war though, but most people didn't oppose that because the were there to keep the peace (at which they were extremely successful) and help rebuild the country.

At the moment we also have an extremely disturbing rise in racial and religious intolerance, which in my opinion is in no small part attributable to the federal government's policies and fearmongering on those issues.

This is the only point I have to concede. This happens in my country too, unfortunately. I think it's a temporary thing though. We have a right-wing government (understand that "right-wing" is relative. In the US it would be regarded as very left-wing) at the moment, but the next one will most likely be left-wing and will hopefully reduce or even reverse this development.

But of course, this doesn't stop us selling weapons-grade uranium to China because they weeeeally promise to use it for civilian purposes only.

OK, we don't have any uranium to sell, so we can't take too much credit for not doing it... :-)

Re:Typical of Australia

[CrimsonAvenger]

We have a very strong bill of rights in our constitution, guaranteeing freedom from discrimination, of speech, religion, press, etc.

Your Bill of Rights seems to have the qualifier "This right may be restricted by Act of Parliament" (or variants thereof) in entirely too many places for it to be a "strong bill of rights".

And I wish I knew what was trnaslated into English as "without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament." meant in the original Dutch. Since that's a qualifier to many of your rights....

Re:Typical of Australia

[Rayonic]

6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil

Heh. Just thought I should point out that this is more of an issue for Australia than the U.S.

Re:Typical of Australia

[Captain_Chaos]

> We have a very strong bill of rights in our constitution, guaranteeing freedom from discrimination, of speech, religion, press, etc.

Your Bill of Rights seems to have the qualifier "This right may be restricted by Act of Parliament" (or variants thereof) in entirely too many places for it to be a "strong bill of rights".

And I wish I knew what was trnaslated into English as "without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament." meant in the original Dutch. Since that's a qualifier to many of your rights....

It would help if you would be a bit more specific. Most of the major bill of rights articles (non-discrimination, etc.) don't have that qualifier. These supercede any other article. So for instance no law, or any other article of the constitution, can ever introduce discrimination of any kind or it will be unconstitutional.

Some others articles do have qualifiers, but there the qualifiers are restricted to protecting public health, traffic safety, etc. Mostly, they're there to allow exceptions for shouting-"fire!"-in-a-crowded-theater type of situations.

Also, keep in mind that parliament == the people. It's not the government which is allowed to make those exceptions.

Re:Typical of Australia

[CrimsonAvenger]

It would help if you would be a bit more specific. Most of the major bill of rights articles (non-discrimination, etc.) don't have that qualifier. These supercede any other article. So for instance no law, or any other article of the constitution, can ever introduce discrimination of any kind or it will be unconstitutional.

Everyone shall have the right to respect for his privacy, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.

That's the first part of Article 6 of the Constitution of 1989, as translated into English by whomever. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the translation, of course. So, does "without prejudice to restrictions..." mean that your right to privacy overrides said Act of Parliament, or does it mean an Act of Parliament overrides your right to privacy?

Every Dutch national shall have an equal right to elect the members of the general representative bodies and to stand for election as a member of those bodies, subject to the limitations and exceptions prescribed by Act of Parliament.

This is Article 4 of said Constitution. What are the limits Parliament has on its ability to impose "limitations and exceptions"? If NOONE is allowed to elect members, does that meet the definition of "equal right" mentioned?

Also, keep in mind that parliament == the people. It's not the government which is allowed to make those exceptions.

So. Interesting then that your Constitution defines Parliament as the First Chamber and the Second Chamber, and talks about elections to same. Which elections can be regulated by Act of Parliament. Doesn't sound to me like Parliament is the People. The People's Representatives, perhaps, but that's true everyewhere. Do your Representatives represent you more faithfully than they do in other countries?

My big problem with rights "subject to limitations and exceptions as defined by Act of Parliament" (or by Act of Congress) is that a sufficiently motivated Parliament/Congress can strip away rights as easily as recognize them. As we've seen in the USA repeatedly over the years (Yes, Clinton did it too. And the elder Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, etc.)...

Do not make the (foolish) mistake that Americans have made repeatedly that your Legislature has your best interests at heart. They tend to have their own best interests at heart, and if your best interests coincide with their's, well GREAT!. If not, that's too bad....

Re:Typical of Australia

[tarkas]

Woo, that first link sounds like something out of Terry Gillaim's Brazil. So sorry about that computer Mr. Buttle, err Tuttle....now kindly get in this straight jacket.

The hard lesson that is frequently forgotten, is that to preserve a free society requires an interested, educated, involved citizenry that understands it's role in it's own governance. We seem to tolerate fools, if they promise to take from some 49% and give to the other 51%, to which we are assured we belong to. One good election is about all it would take to radically change things. However, getting the average sheep to educate themselves about the ramifications of issues is not an easy task. Finding sources of information that are not simply spins from the gov or from some other agendized interest group is not as easy thing. Although offered up as an alternative, the Greens couldn't be much better, they simply have a different idea of what should be made mandatory through the use of the governments monopoly on power. And, no, anarchy is not the answer. The issue is not whose hand is on the tiler, the issue is the government weilds entirely too much power over all sectors of society, persons and businesses. That power attracts those who would use it to their own benefit. "Our" guys might be in for a while and use it how we like, but come the next election, some other crowd will get in and use those same tools to thier own ends and maybe to our own ending.

If you hand even good men the tools of tyranny for a noble cause, eventually you'll have a tyranny with no recourse. Ask Germans who lived through National Socialism what choice they had.

Tarkas

http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayek.ht ml

Re:Typical of Australia

[G-funk]

1. One party entirely in control of both houses of parliament

They were voted in fair and square, sounds like democracy to me. Luckily you have the right to whinge about it. Ain't freedom grand?

2. No bill of rights, either legislative or constitutional

Gotta agree with you there, tho it's not exactly helping the american population at the moment.

3. Legislation allowing for the arrest, detention, and interrogation without charge of persons not suspected of any offence if they may have information that is somehow relevant to a suspected terrorist offence; the onus of proof is reversed so that the person being interrogated must prove that they do NOT have any such information.

Also not cool, although you're exaggerating.

4. One of the highest rates of phone tapping in the world

Prove it.

5. Unelected bureacrats empowered to spy on Australians with no parliamentary oversight to speak of

What western nation doesn't have this?

6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil

They're not secret, and only Pine Gap is a spy base.

7. New crimes of sedition for exercising free speech in a manner that encourages the overthrow of the government

Bzzzt. Those laws are only for advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Personally I believe free speech should be set in stone, but I'm not in charge. It's not however as bad as you make it out to be.

8. Troops in Iraq despite over 80% of the population opposing our involvement before the war

Bullshit. It was more like 50/50. And the point of representative democracy is that you elect people based on their opinions, and then they act on them, even against public opinion, because it's not mob rule.

At the moment we also have an extremely disturbing rise in racial and religious intolerance, which in my opinion is in no small part attributable to the federal government's policies and fearmongering on those issues. But of course, this doesn't stop us selling weapons-grade uranium to China because they weeeeally promise to use it for civilian purposes only.

Really? We're selling china weapons-grade uranium? I'm suprised I haven't heard much of the uproar about our secret enrichment plants. Must be because we have no oil. Of course, china already has a fuckton of nukes, and obviously resources for obtaining the raw materials. And they're making a big push to reduce their dependency on arabian oil, because they're not idiots. But we're selling them "weapons grade" uranium, and it's going to be in bombs.

This whole "don't use it for bombs" thing is bullshit anyway. If china is buying X tons of uranium from somebody, and using x/5 of it for nukes, and 4x/5 of it for power, they can easily buy x tons from us, put it in power, and now they have x tons for weapons. They're not idiots, they can comply with whatever we want and the result is more materials for civilan and military needs, we're the ones wih our head in the sand.

Re:Typical of Australia

[nasch]

Um, Fox News would be about the last people to make any of those claims about the US. At least from my limited understand of it - I don't actually watch Fox.

Re:Typical of Australia

[Captain_Chaos]

Everyone shall have the right to respect for his privacy, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.

That's the first part of Article 6 of the Constitution of 1989, as translated into English by whomever. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the translation, of course.

I don't know which version of which country's constitution you're looking at, but article 6 of the constitution of the Netherlands of 2002 is the freedom of religion article. It does have a qualifier which says that the law may restrict this freedom, but only outside of buildings and public places, and only so far as to protect the public health and traffic safety. Seems very reasonable to me. Basically all it says is that one individual's constitutional rights can't trespass on another individual's. Most of the qualifiers are like that.

If NOONE is allowed to elect members, does that meet the definition of "equal right" mentioned?

No. It would be against the spirit of the constitution (since it would completely negate the first paragraph of that article), and judges don't just look at the letter of the law, they have to take its apparent intent into account as well. A law which said that would be found unconstitutional.

A constitution has to allow these kinds of exceptions and amendments made by law, otherwise it would be unworkable in practice. But the law can't stray too far from the spirit of the constitution.

So. Interesting then that your Constitution defines Parliament as the First Chamber and the Second Chamber, and talks about elections to same. Which elections can be regulated by Act of Parliament. Doesn't sound to me like Parliament is the People. The People's Representatives, perhaps, but that's true everyewhere. Do your Representatives represent you more faithfully than they do in other countries?

Of course they aren't literally the people. We can't have 16 million people governing the country. And yes, I do think they represent the people more faithfully than in many other countries (especially the US), mainly because of the fact that we always have coalition governments.

My big problem with rights "subject to limitations and exceptions as defined by Act of Parliament" ... is that a sufficiently motivated Parliament ... can strip away rights as easily as recognize them.

That's the point: they can't strip away the rights that the constitution gives us.

I'm not saying our constitution or the situation here in general is ideal and that there are no problems. Far from it! I was just making the point that the situation is better than it is in the US or (apparently) Australia, while the parent seemed to be saying that the US and Australia are the epitome of freedom.

Re:Typical of Australia

[Captain_Chaos]

I make no claims as to the accuracy of the translation, of course.

Here is the official English translation from the ministry of foreign affairs.

Re:Typical of Australia

[CrimsonAvenger]

I don't know which version of which country's constitution you're looking at, but article 6 of the constitution of the Netherlands of 2002 is the freedom of religion article.

Netherlands, 1989, as I stated. However, I notice that I couldn't type when I wrote what you're responding to. That was Article 10, not Article 6.

Actually, it doesn't say that noone's rights can trespass on any others. If it said that, I wouldn't have a quibble. It says Parliament can do what it likes to your Rights, if they think they can get away with it.

The Netherlands seems to be an earthly paradise, if they have no lawyers/politicians who are willing to ignore the spirit of a law in favour of its letter when it's to their advantage to do so.

That's the point: they can't strip away the rights that the constitution gives us.

Of course they can - all it takes is a Parliament that's willing to do the deed. Or, more likely, just incrementally erode the rights away with an endless series of minor qualifiers....

I'm not saying our constitution or the situation here in general is ideal and that there are no problems. Far from it! I was just making the point that the situation is better than it is in the US or (apparently) Australia, while the parent seemed to be saying that the US and Australia are the epitome of freedom.

Umm, no. Our Bill of Rights includes absolute, inviolable rights. "Congress shall make no laws...". Of course, our Congress has more lawyers in it than your's, it sounds like, since they've been making laws in places they are forbidden to by the Constitution at least since 1933. And arguably much earlier.

I'm curious, though. Is the Netherlands one of those idiot countries that makes talking about the Nazis a crime? If so, it would seem that they're already on their way to violating the spirit of the Constitution - I seem to recall something about prior restraint of speech being unconstitutional.

Re:Typical of Australia

[CrimsonAvenger]

Thank you!

I notice that the phrase "without prejudice to the responsibility under the law" still appears. Does that restrict the right, or restrict the government's ability to make laws that restrict the right?

Note that I use the word "government" in the American sense, not the European sense - you seem to use the word "government" the way we use "executive branch", if you count the King and his Ministers as government, but the Parliamment as not-government.

Re:Typical of Australia

[Captain_Chaos]

I notice that the phrase "without prejudice to the responsibility under the law" still appears. Does that restrict the right, or restrict the government's ability to make laws that restrict the right?

It allows parliament to make laws which restrict the right (but only for the explicitly mentioned purposes, for instance to protect the public health).

Note that I use the word "government" in the American sense, not the European sense - you seem to use the word "government" the way we use "executive branch", if you count the King and his Ministers as government, but the Parliamment as not-government.

Yes, you're right, I mean what in the US would be called the executive branch. In Dutch the word is "regering" and like you said it only includes the "King" (actually we have had Queens for a long time now; note by the way that the King has very little actual power, it's mostly a ceremonial function) and the cabinet. The parliament (or really, the "staten generaal" (states general)) doesn't govern, it keeps the government in check by amending or stopping laws or sending away ministers or even the whole government.

Re:Typical of Australia

[Captain_Chaos]

Actually, it doesn't say that noone's rights can trespass on any others. If it said that, I wouldn't have a quibble. It says Parliament can do what it likes to your Rights, if they think they can get away with it.

I know it doesn't literally say that, but that is what it is meant to do. I can't bash someone's head in in the name of freedom of religion, for instance, since that would be a violation of my victim's right to inviolability of person (article 11). If that qualifier wasn't there, parliament could not make a law which prohibits me from bashing people's heads in in the name of religion.

The Netherlands seems to be an earthly paradise,

Far from it, I assure you. ;-)

if they have no lawyers/politicians who are willing to ignore the spirit of a law in favour of its letter when it's to their advantage to do so.

Of course we have those. But we also have judges, who will not allow them to do so.

Of course they can - all it takes is a Parliament that's willing to do the deed. Or, more likely, just incrementally erode the rights away with an endless series of minor qualifiers....

Not without changing the constitution they can't! Which takes a huge amount of time and effort (and requires the consent of a large majority of both the parliament itself, and of the population). I'm not saying it's not possible, just hard to do and not likely to succeed without good reasons.

Umm, no. Our Bill of Rights includes absolute, inviolable rights. "Congress shall make no laws...".

We have those too. Article 1, for instance (the anti-discrimination article, in my opinion the most important one), has no qualifiers, so no law can ever be made which allows discrimination.

It seems like our constitutions work in a reverse manner though. Ours gives rights, and then allows parliament to make exceptions, yours seems to instead restrict the laws which congress can make. Not saying one or the other is better, just pointing out something which may make them hard to compare.

Another difference I think is who it applies to. If I'm not mistaken the US constitution applies to the government only, in the sense that it restricts the laws the government can make. The Dutch constitution applies to everyone in the country. So not only is government not allowed to make laws which are discriminatory, or which allow discrimination, but private persons are also not allowed to discriminate against others.

Of course, our Congress has more lawyers in it than your's, it sounds like, since they've been making laws in places they are forbidden to by the Constitution at least since 1933. And arguably much earlier.

Then why has that been allowed? Why haven't those laws been found unconstitutional by whoever's responsible to check those things (I would guess the courts)?

I'm curious, though. Is the Netherlands one of those idiot countries that makes talking about the Nazis a crime? If so, it would seem that they're already on their way to violating the spirit of the Constitution - I seem to recall something about prior restraint of speech being unconstitutional.

No, it isn't. I'm not aware of any countries which are, actually. You're probably thinking of Germany, but they only make a few specific things illegal (denying the Holocaust, displaying the swastika, that sort of thing). Now personally I'm against any restrictions on freedom of speech, but I'm willing to cut Germany some slack in this because of their past. It's not nothing to have been responsible for two world wars and the attempted murder of an entire religious group.

Re:Typical of Australia

[CrimsonAvenger]

The parliament (or really, the "staten generaal" (states general)) doesn't govern, it keeps the government in check by amending or stopping laws or sending away ministers or even the whole government.

Do all your laws originate from the government then? Ministers propose laws, your Parliament then amends as needed and approves them? Or does your Parliament also propose laws?

It allows parliament to make laws which restrict the right (but only for the explicitly mentioned purposes, for instance to protect the public health).

Hmmm. I can accept that, in general. There are one or two places that the phrase is used without an explicitly mentioned exceptional purpose, but it looks like a pretty tight Bill of Rights.

Note that I feel there are too many qualifiers that end in "by Act of Parliament" and too few "government/Parliament shall make no laws..." for my taste.

On the other hand, if your politicians are keeping their eye on the Constitution with an intention of abiding by it (as opposed to working their way around it, as all too many of our's are), then it'll continue to work.

All the way up to the point that the politicians decide it's in their way...consider this a warning.

Re:Typical of Australia

[CrimsonAvenger]

Another difference I think is who it applies to. If I'm not mistaken the US constitution applies to the government only, in the sense that it restricts the laws the government can make. The Dutch constitution applies to everyone in the country. So not only is government not allowed to make laws which are discriminatory, or which allow discrimination, but private persons are also not allowed to discriminate against others.

Generally true. The Fourteenth Amendment has generally been contrued to mean that the protections of the Bill of Rights can't be stomped on by anyone, not just the government.

Of course, our Congress has more lawyers in it than your's, it sounds like, since they've been making laws in places they are forbidden to by the Constitution at least since 1933. And arguably much earlier.

Then why has that been allowed? Why haven't those laws been found unconstitutional by whoever's responsible to check those things (I would guess the courts)?

Long story. The short form is that back in the '30's FDR wanted to pull us out of the Great Depression. He got a friendly Congress to pass all sorts of un-Costitutional laws. When the Supreme Court (final arbiters on the Constitution here) told him his laws were un-Constitutional, he threatened to start appointing new Supreme Court judges until he got a working majority who would do what he told them. In the end, the Court wasn't packed with his toadies, but they blinked - they didn't pronounce his clearly un-Constitutional laws un-Constitutional.

Since then, the Congress has paid lip-service to the Constitution at the best of times. And ignored it when convenient.

I'm curious, though. Is the Netherlands one of those idiot countries that makes talking about the Nazis a crime? If so, it would seem that they're already on their way to violating the spirit of the Constitution - I seem to recall something about prior restraint of speech being unconstitutional.

No, it isn't. I'm not aware of any countries which are, actually. You're probably thinking of Germany, but they only make a few specific things illegal (denying the Holocaust, displaying the swastika, that sort of thing). Now personally I'm against any restrictions on freedom of speech, but I'm willing to cut Germany some slack in this because of their past. It's not nothing to have been responsible for two world wars and the attempted murder of an entire religious group.

The Germans weren't responsible for two World Wars. One of them, certainly. But World War One happened more because of Russia and railway timetables than anything Germany did. All the Germans did in WW1 was a good job of taking on France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and the USA all by their lonesome.

That, and incompetent allied generals, left the winners feeling a bit vindictive, of course. Which is why the Germans get the blame for the war...

As to countries that restrict that sort of thing. I read in the news recently about some idiot anti-semitic scholar who was jailed in Austria for denying the Holocaust. Plus Germany, as you pointed out. And didn't France have some issues with internet auctions of Nazi memorabilia a couple years back?

Links?

[vk2tds]

Not sure if anyone has looked at the links to this article, but the text to the amendment to the act cited at the end of the article was approved in 2004, and is not related at all. In fact the amendment to the act was slightly changed with an 18 month period listed instead of 12 months.

The admenment act is basically just, as far as I can tell, making some parts of the act plainer, saying that a router which buffers packets in memory is not actually storing those packets just because it needs to store them for a few milliseconds. It also clarifies that VoIP is not stored communications.

Any citations of the actual amendment?

Darryl

Re:Links?

[caitsith01]

Have a look here and here for handy details on the destruction of your civil liberties, brought to you by MiniTruth.

A few small, tiny questions...

[TheNoxx]

Why is the Australian government even doing this? Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia? Do they really think there will be one in the future? What's the point, other than crushing freedom?

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - Get court order on a spammer.
2 - Wait for spammer to email everyone in Australia.
3 - Become legally entitled to monitor all Australians at will.

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[Neo-Rio-101]

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.

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[BJH]

Did you perhaps notice that they were able to catch these "extremists" WITHOUT the draconian legislative changes they're trying to introduce?

Maybe that means they've already got all the tools they need - in which case, why do they need this?

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[BrokenHalo]

1 - Get court order on a spammer.

They wouldn't have to look very far. John Howard himself took to spamming his electorate just before the last election.

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[StrawberryFrog]

Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia?

Rightly or wrongly, the "2002 Bali bombings is percieved as such:
The largest group among those killed were holiday-makers from Australia. The Bali bombing is sometimes called "Australia's September 11" because of the large number of its citizens killed in the attack.

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[lorelorn]

Actually it was claimed the arrests had stopped an attack on Australian soil. The media duly repeated this claim without comment or question, so now it has become somehow relevant.

The fact is, a group of people from an increasingly vilified minority in Australia were arrested and are being held without formal charges being laid or evidence tendered.

They are being held under dubious new laws that extend the amount of time someone can be held without formal charges or evidence.

I expect they will be held for several months and then released without charge, trial, or comment in the media.

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[glesga_kiss]

Why is the Australian government even doing this? Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia? Do they really think there will be one in the future?

Well, they jumped gung-ho into the Iraq invasion, which didn't work out too well for the UKs "zero islamic terrorism evar!!!" record on one warm, sunny July morning in 2005.

Despite our politicians attempts to mislead us from the truth, these terrorists don't hate freedom. They hate our actions, and rightly so. And now they hate Austrailia as well. Isn't being in the firing line fun!?!

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[complete loony]

Laws that were rushed through parliment without much question so they could be detained. But it turns out, not actually required.

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[Joel from Sydney]

Not to mention the bombing of the Australian embassy in Indonesia in September 2004. Very few people died IIRC, but it was pretty clearly targeted at Australians. As for major terrorist attacks in or on Australia, effectively zero. Our government is simply using the pretense of "security" to consolidate it's power, much like in the US and the UK.

Re:A few small, tiny questions...

[idlemachine]

Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia?

Nope. Oddly enough, though, we had a threat of explosives being randomly left on the public transport system here in Brisbane the day before major rallies protesting the new IR reform. Isn't coincidence a bitch?

One Qld minister recently resigned after his travel itinerary to South America was leaked to the press, revealing it to be yet-another-junket, but not before setting off an unfettered witchhunt for the person who had put him "at risk of terrorist reprisal".

Because clearly the fucking minister for Primary fucking Industries (farms, basically) in Queensland is a HUGE target of international terrorism.

What's the point, other than crushing freedom?

Cronyism, protecting their personal interests & power, and basically fucking us over, because isn't that what positions of authority are all about?

Re:Big brother is watching....again.....

[CRCulver]

I recall now that Winston Smith's apartment in 1984 was built in such a way that part of his room was outside the glimpse of the telescreen. This allowed him to write his diary, although as anyone who has read the book knows, this small blow for freedom didn't mean much in the end.

But on the Internet, what spaces do we have that are truly private? What is our best bet for having a small amount of privacy to live as normal human beings? PGP? Or, as the previous Slashdot story tells, Freenet? On a system where all communication between two individual goes over a wire that Big Brother can watch with ease, finding a private nook is hard indeed.

What is wrong with this country?

[atomicstrawberry]

I'm increasingly feeling like Australia is caught in a rapid downward spiral. Every week it seems like they've chipped away another little bit of our privacy and liberty. To call the country a ship without a rudder is an understatement - the rudder came off years ago, we're now taking on water, the captain's roaring drunk and half the crew have lost their minds. The standard of living in Australia is generally pretty high for now, but I just can't see it continuing. The problem is, where else is there to go?

Re:What is wrong with this country?

[bug1]

I moved to NZ 3 months ago, its strange here, the PM isnt in the news ever yday, the media dont seem to ask her opinion on things

*sigh*

[phreakv6]

"the Government may be able to monitor all your conversations with family members, friends, work colleagues, your lawyer and your doctor."

..and my SPAM too. good luck with tracing the person selling me viarga for years

Re:Use PGP/GPG

[CRCulver]

In other words, the CIA have been reading all my email for years now

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.

Re:Big brother is watching....again.....

[Goth Biker Babe]

I foresee the rebirth of Fidonet except possibly using Wi-Fi.

Crazyness

[Mistakill]

Everyone will be able to be investigated, everyone in the world, as everyone emailed will become a "B-Party"

Re:Use PGP/GPG

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Chain letter

[kooshvt]

Just start a chain letter to everyone you know and make sure to CC all the politicians so they will also be subject to monitoring. Let them know they have now become a B-party. If every politician becomes a B-party to every citizen they may reconsider their actions.

Re:Chain letter

[Boronx]

They will demure from spying on anyone of consequence who might object and derail their plans. Their lists will be continually culled of the famous and the politically connected.

Re:Chain letter

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Are you sure you want to be a B-party to any of our Pollies?
Your bound to come under the very long arm of this law much sooner that way.

You have to wonder does emailing all the pollies count as an "act of spam".
Or has that democratic right been taken away here in a nice slight of hand.

What doe this mean for SPAM?

[chandip]

If most "suspects" have a normal email account they will receive SPAM.
Becuase SPAM cannout be discounted as a covert message the SPAMer will need to be monitored
So now the Spammer is the "B-party"
So now the government is monitoring millions of SPAM messages from the Spammer

Considering most people receive SPAM inclduing "suspects" any government monitoring will soon get stuck in this SPAM loop


Who ever thought of this... GOOD LUCK

Re:What doe this mean for SPAM?

[ArsenneLupin]

So now the Spammer is the "B-party"

Unfortunately, this new law doesn't state that the government must monitor all communications of the "B-party", only that it may if it deems this useful.

Same remark about the idea of sending to mail all politicians once you're suspected of a crime.

Re:What doe this mean for SPAM?

[fbjon]

It's "spam", not "SPAM".

Re:What doe this mean for SPAM?

[corsec67]

What if the SPAMmer is the person being investigated?

Then everyone would be the B-person.

That would mean that Australian police could monitor just about everyone in the country.

You WISH there was no rudder

[caitsith01]

But of course there is. No-one is drunk and out of control - they know exactly what they're doing. And that is far, far more disturbing. When you actually look at all this legislation it's very apparent that it is quite tailored to meet its objectives, which generally are not quite the objectives stated to the media and the people.

I know exactly what you mean about feeling like we're in a downward spiral here though...

Re:Use PGP/GPG

[5plicer]

Also be sure to check out their hilarious CryptoKids(TM) site.

Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[Simon Garlick]

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2

hQEMAyndGpy58lMCAQf/fyLAH++iB8hQSsAEN87ihbS8R6ZSjo nlXxSrGfiB/15J
RUN3vfTkrDDpZPQtJtXNxAlykvKJRNd+pVz5NeITD5p2janveZ /SyezJA9mvNpsH
hq2EkpTUZx7kp/bM20j9G3pJC+sh19B4iUbjV0L9s7VJ3NzZBh /k67b2gpGJ5ypf
DWZMgI+8hNzyi6ldF7Wcv1iAqKH89OTQK1mdnyEsWjM8iu9hdd V4gl5tKWl/iVE8
Z8rDxQk7N3s9dp17zsT2V9NIw1FfSpEPx4RknDbBtpPcyFNkN4 WqT2TBYEAFGofN
Pcf2EGA5nDvhKbE1Zt8oIZX/jjz2eOOqAHu7XVgJwNJTAVBE89 7A+8o+Qrj2DST4
+IuL7ibwweSJpniElDGuhsLX/fTDycXMkYAuhhazsdZcr6/YXr 3aNZTpTRcOnqlQ
uMlCAwvuuBDf9pLaLIKzZEzNUnU=
=R5l2
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[TGhostH]

Surely the Austrialian Spy Squad can get through a privacy that is only "Pretty Good"!

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[KiloByte]

Oh really?

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[speculatrix]

I tried to decode that using rot-13, but it didn't work
:-)

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[xwipeoutx]

So... I have a year to teach all my friends (and myself) to use PGP?

Yay!

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[tooth]

From your link: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIP or RIPA) is a United Kingdom law covering...

That's a completely different country.

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[KiloByte]

"United Kingdom" -- well, united with whom?

You're right that they're a different country, but not a completely different one. They also go in the very same direction as GB or USA, and I can bet you'll see a regulation of this kind pretty soon.

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[pizzaman100]

United Kingdom" -- well, united with whom?

That would be England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[LunaticTippy]

oh, you're nearly halfway there.

Decode again using rot-13 and then decode with PGP.

Simple!

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[KiloByte]

Australia:
  Queen: Elizabeth II
Canada:
  Monarch: Queen Elizabeth II
A crapload of others:
  the same ruler

Smells like the United Kingdom includes a bit more than England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Especially considering the fact that Wales and Scotland haven't been considered to be separate entities since 13th and 14th century, respectively.

Re:Mohammed Jihad Uranium Sarin Sydney Howard

[tooth]

You're confusing the United Kingdom with the Commenwealth. The Queen is Australias head of state. Many countries have ERII as their head of state.

Welcome to 1984

[Alain Williams]

Welcome to the totalitarian world.

The excuse for all of this is "the rise in global terrorism", well if that were really the reason then the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies.

The reasons are deeper than that, terrorism is an excuse that is brought out as a bogey man to try to provide justification for further infringements of civil liberites. The Tony Blair, in the UK, is now pushing an act that will allow any government minister to change almost any bit of legislation without having to bother to pursuade parliament to agree.

We will suffer for sleep walking to a state where unelected civil servants have the power to snoop on us without any real oversight. This will be abused by these civil servants for their own personal ends.

You thought that Russia 20 years ago was bad - we will have it far worse.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[pe1chl]

the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies

It has amazed me for a long time that major politicians fail to see this, or at least act as if they do so.
5 years go, all "free western country" politicians were telling you that freedom was the highest goal in life, that communism was lack of freedom and so it was bad, that totalitarian governments were evil, etc.
They were also claiming they would never negotiate with - or give in to terrorists because that would mean the end of this sacred freedom.

And now, they are taking away all freedom at will to "combat" a problem that is mostly caused by their own behaviour. Freedom suddenly is worth nothing, now "security" is the buzzword. All other priorities and values have to give way to this.

Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?
Terrorism is a byproduct of fighting wars against defenseless minority groups, and so fighting a war against terrorism is completely counter-productive.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[phreakv6]

The reasons are deeper than that, terrorism is an excuse that is brought out as a bogey man to try to provide justification for further infringements of civil liberites. The Tony Blair, in the UK, is now pushing an act that will allow any government minister to change almost any bit of legislation without having to bother to pursuade parliament to agree.

I guess the movie V for Vendetta is a reply to Tony Blair.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

We will suffer for sleep walking to a state where unelected civil servants have the power to snoop on us without any real oversight. This will be abused by these civil servants for their own personal ends.

Personally I think the situation will be less like Big Brother, and more so like Brazil (the movie). A dystopian world where bureaucracy is king, civil servants have enormous unchecked power, civil rights are non existant, but a place where people, on the whole, simply accept the situation, as it is not yet so opressive as to warrent revolution.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[glesga_kiss]

The excuse for all of this is "the rise in global terrorism", well if that were really the reason then the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies.

ARGGHHHH! Stop it, stop it, STOP IT RIGHT THERE!!

They do not hate our freedom. They don't want us to change our countries. They don't want you to lose unrestricted travel. While they might think your lifestyle is immoral, as long as you are on the other side of the world, they'll happilly let you reserve your place in the Islamic equivalent of hell.

What they do hate is the policies of our governments. They hate how we have interfered in their own governments for our own ends. They hate how we overthrow their democraticly elected governments with crackpot dictators, and then give those dictatorships/monarchies the arms and financial means to survive. They hate how we used them in Afganistan to fight the soviets, then turned on them when it suited us. Al Qaida used to be our friend; the name itself was given to them by the CIA and they adopted it themselves.

Every time someone says "the terrorists have already won", the only winner is liars such as Bush and Blair who claim it is a war on freedom. Until people start calling them out publically on these patriotic-manipulation lies, things like Austrailia's email snooping habits will be the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[Locomorto]

Nono! You got it all backwards! You see its very simple. Little Johnny (aka Mr Howard), really, really likes Mr Bush. So, Mr Johnny decided that the best way to have 'in bed with bush' and his name in the same sentence was to simply copy the US. Tis sad really, on one hand he's bad for the country, and on the other, he really looks good in the cartoons. Oh, my can of beer, what should I do?

Re:Welcome to 1984

[slavemowgli]

Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?

It would, if curbing terrorism really was the goal, but it isn't. The actual goals are (in no particular order):

• Money
• Power (including control of every aspect of people's lifes)

Terrorism is useful because it keeps the population scared. Politicians can't publicly support or endorse it, of course, but they can act in a manner that they full well know will increase terrorism. Terrorists are useless idiots at best, and paid shills doing black ops at worst.

Don't believe me? Think that people like Bush would never allow thousands of innocent people to die for his political goals? Then keep in mind that more than 2000 US soldiers (as well as, probably, a bunch of soldiers from other nations like Poland, Japan, Australia etc.) died in Iraq. Keep in mind that more than 30000 civilians died in Iraq. And keep in mind that more than 100000 people died in Afghanistan.

If politicians really cared about solving the problem, they'd take a look at how christian missionaries operate, for example. Not that I'm advocating missionary work, but you can't deny that they're successful - don't tell people that they're all a bunch of subhuman heathens, but rather set a good example; treat others as you want them to treat you, and they will do so, too. If any high-up really cared about putting an end to terrorism, they'd do this, too - and while the problem wouldn't go away immediately, it'd pretty much be history in 50 or 100 years (at least as long as people continue to respect each other).

The fact that that's not what's happening is, at the very least, evidence that what I said above is correct. Politicians aren't stupid; but if there's no possibilities outside of "stupid" and "not interested in solving the problem", then that leaves just one option.

To recap: terrorism is a useful tool. For (certain) politicians, it's like the goose that lays golden eggs - eggs of power and money. Why would they want to kill that goose?

Re:Welcome to 1984

[lbbros]

Problem caused "by their own behaviour"? Please clarify.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[replicant108]

Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?

Better for whom?

Better for us, or better for the ruling elites?

Might it not be better for the elites that we always "fighting a war"?

Re:Welcome to 1984

[dangitman]

If politicians really cared about solving the problem, they'd take a look at how christian missionaries operate, for example. Not that I'm advocating missionary work, but you can't deny that they're successful - don't tell people that they're all a bunch of subhuman heathens, but rather set a good example;

I don't think you have much idea of how Christian missions work. Most of them do not set good examples (quite the opposite) but instead focus on telling the indigenous that they are subhuman, and forcing them into virtual or outright slavery. One only needs to look at Christian missions in Australia and South America to see that. Are you unaware of the missionaries running cartels of slave labor in South America, or the "Stolen generation" of Australian Aborigines?

Re:Welcome to 1984

[TeraCo]

I've been trying to explain this to people for months now. Applause.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[Rayonic]

They do not hate our freedom.

Despite the fact that they've specifically stated so?

They hate how we overthrow their democraticly elected governments with crackpot dictators, and then give those dictatorships/monarchies the arms and financial means to survive.

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. They've distributed pamphlets in Iraq listing how democracy is against sharia law.

They hate how we used them in Afganistan to fight the soviets, then turned on them when it suited us.

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.

Al Qaida used to be our friend; the name itself was given to them by the CIA and they adopted it themselves.

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.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[Kirth]

The excuse for all of this is "the rise in global terrorism", well if that were really the reason then the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies.

Right. The only thing I can see is a "rise in global totalitarianism" in our very countries. Australia is not alone; in just about every western country (including here in switzerland) the fascist buggers in government increase in numbers and get more and more of a problem. It's not only the usual suspects (the right wing patriots, racists and such), but also a lot of of politicians from the so-called "center" or "left", which are really fascists unscrupulously working on the abolishing of rights and the enactment of a state of total surveillance.

Re:Welcome to 1984

[pe1chl]

Terrorism is usually an act by groups that don't have the "usual" military mechanisms of destruction at their service.
Large countries with a well equipped army just send out stealth bombers and intelligent missiles, and this usually is not termed "terrorism".
Religiuous groups and small countries being invaded and suppressed by larger powers use terrorism as a method of scaring their opponents.

In the past decades we have seen one country occupying neighboring countries' terrain and getting security council resolutions against it to which they never comply and still the get moral and factual support. Another country does a similar thing and immediately a coalition force fights a war against them and proclaims that their leaders have to be captured and imprisoned.
Small wonder that the victims on both these situations decide that it is time to act against it.

The coalition / the USA should either have invaded Israel long ago and set its borders, or they should have stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then we would have much less trouble today.
(maybe there would have been a situation in Afghanistan and Iraq that we as outside observers would consider to be dictatorial, but the inhabitants of those countries might have a different viewpoint and it is not our task to give them a democracy they don't want)

Re:Welcome to 1984

[glesga_kiss]

Despite the fact that they've specifically stated so?

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

Re:Welcome to 1984

[lbbros]

While I don't agree with the "permanent war" idea that some parts of the US government seem to endorse, I personally think that "they caused terrorism" explanation is overly simplistic, and besides does not justify the deaths from both sides.

Re:Follow the leader (USA)

[Bruce Losis]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be a deported political activist (the majority of Australian transportees were Irish republicans and people displaced by the potato blight famine) than a religious freak anyday.

Stupid!

[cabinetsoft]

I mean if one receives a spam and the spammer would be charged ALL future emails of the one who received the spam are qualified as to be monitored?

In Australia...

[Bruce Losis]

they call you Russian.

Strewth

[WisC]

Thats not email snooping mate, throw some more legislation on the barbie

Re:Follow the leader (USA)

[jibjibjib]

Hrmm, that means 0.001% of Australians do have a convict background. 0.001% of 20 million makes 200, doesn't it? What a coincidence that I'm one of them.

Re:It's all history...

[jibjibjib]

This penal colony reference should be Godwin's Law of Australia.

Six degrees of separation...

[Malor]

With the six degrees of separation thing, and careful choices of 'suspects', they can probably get a 90% surveillance rate by declaring only a couple of thousand primary targets.

In other words, as far as I can see, the Australian Parliament has just decreed that the government can read all the email it likes, whenever it likes.

If I were in charge, and unscrupulous, the first person I'd declare a suspect would be the chief of the opposition party.

Re:Six degrees of separation...

[iainl]

A couple of thousand prime targets? Try one or two spammers.

Re:Six degrees of separation...

[slothman32]

That's the first think I thought of when I read that.

As for Malor's law, it's always funny how each gramm[a,e]r post has dozens of more incorrect spelling posts after it.
You should put that on Wikipedia. I seen it at least twice.

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode...

[Macondo]

Ruddock: these restrictions on human rights have prevented a terrorist attack in this country Voter: But Mr Ruddock you could argue this rock is keeping all the terrorists away Ruddock: I would like to purchase that rock. No wait it contains sensitive information on how to stop terrorists, I can have it for free

Re:Reminds me of a Simpsons episode...

[slothman32]

That's one of my favo[u]rite episodes.
Evertime I hear that anti-terrorism methods are "working" I think of the one.
Unfortunately the taxpayer end up with a useless rock in the process.

Re:Big brother is watching....again.....

[barefootgenius]

Of course not......whats an email?

I say vote Greens.

[babbling]

Considering this new bill, surely even if you're not a Greens supporter, you can at least agree that having a few more Greens politicians in parliament wouldn't be a bad idea, right?

I don't really see what you mean by "loony", though. Everything they do seems to be in the interests of the people. Yes, maybe their policies wouldn't be "the best thing for the economy", but have you ever considered that always doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?

Forget the economy. There are more important things in life than money.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Mac Degger]

I agree with you, but I'm always amazed at how the green option is supposed to be bad for the economy. That just doesn't make sense.

Say you implemented the most draconian of green laws. This would mean all these companies had to spend money to get up to code. This would mean they'd have to hire people internally to find out and implement what needs to be done, and hire externally to get it done. They might have to hike prices up a bit, but there would be many, many new jobs created.

So what exactly is the downside to the economy? You get more people employed, you get new companies fromed, all that AND you get a healthier environment (something which government should be legislating for and enforcing ANYWAY).

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Elemenope]

Say you implemented the most draconian of green laws. This would mean all these companies had to spend money to get up to code. This would mean they'd have to hire people internally to find out and implement what needs to be done, and hire externally to get it done. They might have to hike prices up a bit, but there would be many, many new jobs created.

Sane Universe with Capital Mobility Controls: Firm goes belly up, no more jobs, no more money.

The Real World: Firm flees to Mexico, no more jobs, no more money.

Now, I'm not saying this is all a bad thing, necessarily; I tend to agree that there are more important things in life than a healthy national economy...and my habitat is certainly up there on the list. I'm just saying that functional economies (which, while not the most important thing, are still very important) can only stand so much regulatory strain before they either break or become catastrophically inefficient. If capital cannot flee, prices will rise until the firm cannot compete with competitors and will become insolvent. If it can flee, it will to greener pastures. If Keynesian economics worked in all situations, we would all just sit around building pretty widgets all day, rich and happy as clams. Obviously, things are a little more complicated. ;)

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Illserve]

Yea voting Green worked so well in the US.....

Re:I say vote Greens.

[dangitman]

Yea voting Green worked so well in the US.....

Completely irrelevant. Not only are the Greens in Australia a much more credible party with more representation, Australia has a proportional representation system that gives minor parties a much more significant voice and funding. It's not a completely two-party system like the US.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Mac Degger]

So you impose an 'earth tax' (or some other catchy name) on imports have their origin in countries which don't adhere to similar conservation laws.

And please don't tell me that you can't do that in a free economy; they're allowed to regulate against asbestos but not against other polutants? Not only that, but protectionism is a fact in all first world countries already (which is why third world countries are having such a time trying to get a foor in the door). As for companies fleeing...no profit in that if you add the tarrifs.

"If capital cannot flee, prices will rise until the firm cannot compete with competitors and will become insolvent."

Please don't tell me that's what they teach in economics 101. It only works like that if competitors don't have to face the same standards. Outsourcing would stop in an instant if companies had to ensure decent working conditions (ie adhere to workplace standards or face tarrifs). The problem is lack of will to legislate that.

BTW, I think you're using Keynes in a wrong way.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[CrimsonAvenger]

So what exactly is the downside to the economy?

If I make 12000 widgets a year, and my company's expenses are $50000000 a year, I can sell my widgets for $5000 each and make a decent amount of money. If the Green Party (or any other - a tax increase does much the same thing) increases my expenses to $60000000 to meet their mandates, I need to raise my prices to $6000 each to cover my increased costs.

Now, YOU aren't going to get a 20% salary increase just because my costs went up 20% to make a widget (and if you did, then my employees would too, and my cost to make widgets would go up again). So your buying power is lower than it was.

Net effect - you pay for the Greens improvements to the environment with a lower standard of living.

This is not meant to imply that their goals aren't desirable. You can decide that for yourself, as can the other people affected. And implement their goals by voting them into power if you desire.

But never think that there aren't costs to increased regulation. The costs are frequently well hidden (from you), but they're there, and they're not going away. Ever. At least if US Government regulations are any guide (regulations are added, but they're not removed - even with "deregulation" what you get is just DIFFERENT regulations, not NO regulations).

Re:I say vote Greens.

[kfg]

Forget the economy. There are more important things in life than money.

Always remember the subtitle of Schumacher's Small is Beautiful:

Economics as if People Mattered.

Within my own lifetime I have watched American culture transform itself from jobs being something you did to support the home into homes being something you have to support your job.

It's totally bassakwards and a very sad state of affairs.

KFG

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Elemenope]

So you impose an 'earth tax' (or some other catchy name) on imports have their origin in countries which don't adhere to similar conservation laws.

Which is a great idea, until you realize how monumentally unfair that standard would be for developing nations. Nations like the United States, for example, can by virtue of messily developing early, have the luxury of cutting emissions and sinking one part of the economy in favor of another (or in this case, creating one from whole cloth, which is why I mentioned Keynes in this context). And that whole arrangement in turn assumes full labor mobility (which is absurd) and instant specialization of labor (also absurd).

BTW, I agree that first-world protectionism serves mainly to screw developing nations; I just think your idea would do pretty much the same. As you pointed out, capital moves only when conditions are not in equilibrium, but as you well know, by virtue of there being developing nations, conditions will never be in sufficient equilibrium to nullify the strong incentive that a firm feels when regulations start becoming pricey. The easiest cost to cut is usually labor in this whacked-out era of free capital mobility.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

[A]lways doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?

Francis Fukuyama apparently thinks so. Neo-Liberalism (and its more militant arm, Neo-Conservatism) agree with him. The plan is that all social structures are going to be destroyed in order to make a "society" of consumer bees who live only to buzz in a capitalist hive, while constantly watching markets to take immediate advantage of anything that passes near enough to be stung then eaten.

(Wow. I just described the classic American yuppie.)

Re:I say vote Greens.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

What competitors? If capital cannot flee, then the same mechanisms (or force of law) can stop the capital or product inflows that compete. Something in your logic is flawed.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

the downside is, there'd be less profit for the big, polluting, corps. so the fatcats that run them might have to wait until next year to replace their luxury yacht.

oh, and, fuel tax would be even more extortionate & they'd probably make us all wear sandels, by law.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Elemenope]

Why do all people think about economic problems in this abstract world where everyone starts from an equal original position? Some competitors have advantages over others; if an arbitrary restraint is imposed (like, say, an emissions tax or mandatory reduction), it will affect the members of that particular industry unequally. Now, (and this is the real key), if your goal is to encourage the growth of jobs tangential to the industry, then the last thing you want to do is impose a blanket restriction which will overall act to reduce the total number of competitors. It is a general (though not hard and fast) rule that two companies of equivalent product volume employ more people than one company with twice the product volume. Thus, any cause that has the effect of either driving away or driving under the competitive field hurts overall employment.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Firstly, I don't consider that you answered my question. Laws that prohibit capital flow in one direction can be used also to also prohibit capital flows in any direction. One of your other respondents said that what's different in practice is just a matter of political will, hence (I conclude) one flow tends to be regulated while another is unregulated ... producing the imbalance you identified, I suspect.

Secondly, an emissions tax is an attempt to force a company to realize what's now known as "externalities". I think the same philosophy can be applied to laws against the outrageous downsizing, offshoring and outsourcing we're seeing now. Unless you'd care to argue otherwise, businesses like individuals should pay for the things they use. When they pollute, they abuse the environment. When they move, they abuse community investment. When they underpay employees, they abuse the public welfare system. When they dictate the tax system, they abuse all concepts of citizenship.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Mac Degger]

But it aint that simple either; what about the costs which go down and improve your standard of living? Nanotech and quantum mechanics are revolutionising solar energy; 30-40% efficiency is what we can achieve right now, and higher levels are coming soon. Combine that with wind and hydro, and soon we'll have cleaner power at lower costs than oil/coal (not saying it's there yet, but give it a decade or two). Green means of agriculture (understanding of ecosystems, natural predator prey systems) can replace pesticiides entirely, in a sustainable, /cheaper/ way....your non-sprayed produce is getting cheaper.

Now I'm not a treehugging eco-nut, but there's also a knock-on effect you have to consider which counter balances the costs. Plus, higher employment mean lower crime and lower government benefits, which means lower taxes.

Re:I say vote Greens.

[Mac Degger]

"until you realize how monumentally unfair that standard would be for developing nations."

What, unlike the systems in place right now? Or it's better to let the environment go to hell and ruin the whole world for the sake of not much benefit for the third world? Wouldn't you agree that the global ecosystem is a bit more important?

"can by virtue of messily developing early, have the luxury of cutting emissions"

Yup...you HAVE to be realistic about these things. Fair doesn't come into it, survival does.

"sinking one part of the economy in favor of another"

Huh? It's not a zero-sum game; did banning asbestos sink the construction industry?

"or in this case, creating one from whole cloth, which is why I mentioned Keynes in this context"

It's not a non-existing industry...you'd be growing an already existing one. Plus, you're using not oft used and long discredited parts of Keynes' theories here, which is why I think you don't have a good understanding of Keynes' theories.

"I agree that first-world protectionism serves mainly to screw developing nations"

So why do you use that first sentence if you acknowledge it's something I've dealt with already?

"As you pointed out, capital moves only when conditions are not in equilibrium [...] conditions will never be in sufficient equilibrium to nullify the strong incentive that a firm feels when regulations start becoming pricey"

What? Now you're just being odd. I did not point that out. And the second part of your statement is even stranger and unqualified: what 'conditions'? Nullify (?) what 'incentives'? If you say that capital only moves when 'conditions' are not in equilibrium, why do they have to be in equilibrium to nullify incentives? And why would one want to nullify inmcetives in the first place? Aren't incentives there to PROMOTE behaviour?

"The easiest cost to cut is usually labor"

Yeah...I talked about that, didn't I.

Man, that last paragraph is one of the most confusing I've ever read. And I've read Oppenheim's Signals and Systems :)

Re:I say vote Greens.

[CrimsonAvenger]

But it aint that simple either; what about the costs which go down and improve your standard of living?

Quite possible. On the other hand, it hasn't happened yet. Alternative energy sources are more expensive than fossil fuels, even with their subsidies. "organic" produce is more expensive than the "normal" variety, not less.

Sure, it's possible that the Greens could LOWER costs. But frankly, farming is so marginal a business that I'd expect farmers to be grasping at any straws to lower their costs (Actually, my uncle is a farmer, and they squeeze every dime to make sure cost of production is as low as it's possible to make it) - if "organic" were a subsatantial savings, farmers would be doing it now. They're not.

Re:Use PGP/GPG

[5plicer]

whoops! I meant to reply to CRCulver's comment... sorry.

Redneck agenda....

[MickDownUnder]

This does not surprise me, as an Australian I can say that I've definitely noticed a slide into a very right wing agenda here. The current government is right wing and has an absolute majority in our parliament, meaning they can pretty much pass any law or any bill they want without the chance it might be vetoed by opposition parties.

I've been out of Australia for quite some time, I've found there to be quite a contrast to the Australia I left more than a year ago. I arrived back here just a couple of days before the Cronulla Race Riots. Since then our leaders have been spouting racist generalisations. There has been a large police crack down, the muslim community have made many claims that they are being unfairly targeted, I can personally verify this as on two occasions I've personally witnessed police unfairly targeting muslim men. I've also noticed since the riots (where our flag was used as a symbol of racial hatred), many police cars have had Australian flags mounted to their cars. I can't help thinking this is a sign of solidarity with the rascist mob.

I really don't even know how these riots could have occurred without police complicity. We have Racial Villification Laws here in Australia, that if they were applied that day could have been used to arrest most of the mob that day before any violence even began.

And with all this, in the background we have our detention camps in which whole families including children have been kept in detention. There have been cases where children have basically grown up in detention.

Unless there's a big turn around here I think the future for Australia could be something straight out of Huxely's Brave New World or 1984.

Re:Big brother is watching....again.....

[barefootgenius]

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.

Re:The Americans of the South Pacific

[titzandkunt]

"...The most surprising aspect is the sheer admiration that the 'Strayan people hold for the U.S. and their collective willingness to become a subservient client state to U.S. interests..."

But do the Australian people maintain a meaningful admiration for the US? It seems more likely that, as with some other western "liberal" democracies (eg. UK), they are in the thrall of a political elite which seeks power for its own sake or for their own ends and which flatters itself that kowtowing to shrub's every rump-grunt is sensible realpolitik and mature statesmanship.

It seems that the rise of professional politician has weakened democracy - now that the sole realistic choice that the voting public have is between two (or three, if you're lucky) careerists who have identical attitudes and policies, there's no choice at all. The only people to whom the politicians (as a class, rather than as mildly differing parties) are answerable to is each other and their more powerful overseas bretheren.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[mk_is_here]

How about your nickname on slashdot, Mr. AC?

PGP

[smash]

Right, PGP email for me from now on :)

smash (aussie)

Re:PGP

[failure-man]

"Only troublemakers with something to hide encrypt their communications! Take his computer! Return it in six months with a cracked motherboard and no hard drive! That'll teach him a lesson . . . . ."

"Should we get a warrant?"

"Fuck no! Do you want to do all that paperwork?"

And so, the smartass nerd loses to the corrupt bureaucrats. This has been another episode of Postmodern Democracy. Tune in next week when a cleared suspect gets beaten and detained for reporting a crime! (Oh wait, that was last week . . . )

The same reason it is everywhere else

[Opportunist]

Control of your population. That's in democracies even more important than in dictatorships where you got easier means to make sure everyone stays in line.

Given the choice, I'd prefer the danger of a bomb on my head to the golden cage. Unfortunately, we don't get the choice.

Now the crackdown on Spam makes sense!

[Opportunist]

Who'd want to wade through a ton of junk mail when snooping in someone's private communication?

Mailing lists

[the_doctor_23]

So if the suspect sent a single mail to a huge mailing list, every subscriber of it would be a target now?
Great idea...

Solution to racism

[babbling]

I think the solution to racism is to legalise and regulate it.

There should be a department that operates a bit like match.com and matches together two people who want to kill each other. Then you put them in a room together and let one of the idiots kill the other idiot. This way it is off the streets and racists can eliminate each other in a way that does not affect reasonable people.

Re:Solution to racism

[Gideon Fubar]

problem with this is that it requires the two idiots to also be reasonable enough to comply.

besides, you're talking about individual instances, the OP was talking about racism on a national scale.

Re:Solution to racism

[dangitman]

Most racists are too gutless to actually back up their threats. Instead, they would just rather the police lock them away, or have them live as an underclass. It's not really the hardcore, overt racists who are the real problem - they are obvious enough to ignore. It's the people who don't think they are racist "...but" who are the cancer on society.

A few glib answers

[TapeCutter]

"Why is the Australian government even doing this?"

It is in our constitution that what the USA does our government must try to go "one better". It used to be about having cattle stations bigger than a Texan ranch (maybe even bigger than Texas?). Nowadys its all about who can find the most terrorists.

"Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia?"

No, Aussies have been targeted in three major Indonesian attacks over the last few years. We have had some "minor" attacks in the past from neo-nazi groups, organised crime and a few solo mental cases. Oh, we also had the Alan Jones riots in Sydney last year. ( His single-handed incitement of the riots was very poorly covered in the media. Politicians continue to give this guy clout by lining up to be on his breakfast show ).

"Do they really think there will be one in the future?"

Of course, the western governments are building an massive industry around it. We are also locking up some new scapegoats, the most recent is known as Jihad Jack who was locked up for 5yrs just a few days ago.

"What's the point, other than crushing freedom?"

Defining, monitoring and dismantling "social networks", preferably before they can form a political movement. Besides our PM has always dreamed of dragging us back to the 1950's.

woohoo!

[A3gis]

I love this politically fucked up country!!

Poor Australia

[flyneye]

When I was young I thought Australia was cool.
Later I saw the U.N. trick them out of their guns.
Now,their privacy disappears.
Here are two rights citizens of the several states enjoy.
If these disappeared for us,we would consider ourselves slaves.
Would we still rebel? Would we bend over,grease down and take it
like an Australian?
tsk........

Re:Poor Australia

[Profound]

>> Later I saw the U.N. trick them out of their guns.

WTF? The Australian government (not the UN) banned auto and semi-auto assault rifles (outside of gun clubs) after a mass slaying in Tasmania where someone killed 13 people in 17 seconds.

Since then, gun deaths have gone down.

Australia uses votes not guns to change our government. We separated from the UK peacefully in 1901 with votes, not a war. The trouble down here is everyone knows the current govt sucks, it's just we have a pretty comfortable life and the other lot are bad for different reasons, so nobody is concerned enough to vote for change, let alone violent revolution.

Re:Poor Australia

[Taleya]

....um, wha?

I'm sorry, do you have ANY idea what Australian laws were like BEFORE the Port Arthur massacre?

Gun ownership is NOT widespread down here. It is NOT a right, and even before you can claim any nonsense about the "UN pressuring us" it has almost always been very very hard to get your hands on one legally - and best of all, most Australians don't even bloody want one. We've had restrictive gun ownership laws for decades. It has been this way all my life, and I'm 27. So no, it's not a new UN pressured law.

After Port Arthur the main legislation was to completely ban Semi automatic weapons, (expanded to include any rapid fire weaponry) which NO civilian has ANY need for whatsoever, and shotguns (save special circumstances...and boy do they exist. Ever seen a feral pig?)

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Gideon Fubar]

indeed.. posting using a real name with such a faux pas.. that just wouldn't do. P1> if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.. P2> the OP has hidden his name.. C> anyone see where this is headed? Sometimes, it's just not a matter of pride.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[ColorOfGreen]

Would it really matter?

Heh

[keyne9]

In Soviet Australia, Government monitors YOU.

...oh, wait.

Attention whores destroy this world...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we should have kept watching TV...

Now, since the attention whores (politicans) figured that Internet is more interesting than they are and that people don't watch them on TV anymore, they're trying to get our attention back by fucking with _our_ Internet.

Come and say "G'day"!

[sgant]

I'm waiting for them to just sever all the Internet connections into and out of the country. I mean, it sounds like the country is run by a bunch of techno-scared religious people...ones that think if a 12 year old kid sees a naked boob they'll be scared for life or that everyone in the country is a potential criminal that emails they're master plan about.

I don't know, but I think if I were up-to-no-good, I'd encrypt all my emails. Oh wait, got an idea: Hey Australia, maybe you should now ban encrypted emails! Also ban "vague" emails, because it's harder to understand exactly what it's about if you don't spell it out to the poor official that has to sift through it all. If you have a plot or a crime in the works, make sure you explain everything in detail using correct terms so we can pick that up easier. No more "We need to talk about the thing last night with our friend".

I Think We Should

[u16084]

I think Australia deserves its own Slashdot ICON. Maybe add them to Gates Borg. Privacy is futile.

Spammers?

[Alchemar]

So, anytime you need to check on someone you investigate a spammer, then have open season.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Aranth Brainfire]

Considering s/he's posting about how nobody honest needs privacy, it's kind of funny s/he posts as AC...

Something to hide, probably.

It's a 100% coverage of all the population

[Maljin Jolt]

If you have unwittingly communicated with a suspect (and thereby become a B-party), the Government may be able to monitor all your conversations

Technically, they can force some "suspect" just to communicate with you to be able to monitor you. From then, they declare you suspect...

Liberal wants its own Partiot Act

[Cinnaman]

Don't they have an original thought in their head? What next, more statements about Iran?

Re:Follow the leader (USA)

[dsmatthews]

:-) it's about time that was pointed out! I'm sick of the "racist" comments from the Americans that suggest that Australians are the genetically defective descendants of criminals.

I'm a (very) proud descendant of James O'Malley Walshe, who as a free settler helped to create the Australia we have today. I don't feel as if I have less freedom when I'm home in Australia and I feel a lot safer than I did in L.A.!!

get a clue, we got boobs on tv 24/7

[cheekyboy]

Yeah yeah, at least we dont crack a shit when we show tits on TV, the holly grail of
stupid MOFO relegion MOFOs. We show tits, pussy, dicks, say FUCK everything on FTA tv. And no one cares.

Every corner in every street magazine store/711 you can find porn and buy it. Whats your problem?

At least if they snoop emails, they will catch the dodgy politicians and evil corporates.

Real crims wont use email, they will either talk in person at a nude steam bath , or bar.

Besides, how easy is it to setup your own encrpyted SLL email/crypted stored mail boxes on HD, so only the readers can read it.

https://your.damn.pc.localhost.ml.net/email/

Re:get a clue, we got boobs on tv 24/7

[sgant]

They have 7/11's in Australia? Then perhaps this country isn't in bad shape after all!

Aussie cops are nicer than USA cops

[cheekyboy]

At least aussie copes wont beat you up or be asses most of the time.

They usually are nicer, ie if they find 2g of pot, they go, oh well, no bother, too much paper work, we'll just
throw it away. No need to record it. USA cops will give you 2years extra.

But none of this is new, they could get email info on you from HDs in 1991 easily. But today its a bit more difficult if you store it in Gmail or some chineese SSL webmail service.

Re:Aussie cops are nicer than USA cops

[heinousjay]

Congratulations on a fantastic strawman. You've lived up to everything I expect from Slashdot.

Re:Big brother is watching....again.....

[cayenne8]

There's another way to do this. Set yourself up some accounts with Nym Servers ...this way all your incoming and outgoing email are encrypted multiple times...and the person on the other end doesn't even have to have encryption...YOU are protected. If you're really paranoid, have the email's final hop back to you be posted to a USENET group, and you just grab your encrypted messages there...

Takes a bit of study and all, but, this is a pretty secure method of email...multiple hops with the messages encrypted on each leg of the way...and if enough hops, very difficult to trace origin and destination.

Another nice tutorial for this is HERE too.

village mail servers

[rhettibus]

it would appear the only personal immunization from this "hand over the email and no one gets hurt" epidemic is to stop using any mail server whose operator you don't explicitly know (and i mean just short of knowing in the biblical sense.) the logical end point, then, is that everyone in the world will need to deliver their encrypted messages through "village" mail servers, run by and for trusted friends/family.

of course, the american government (and possibly others) would simply pursue the admins of these systems making examples of any who did not roll-over in the same fashion as your typical profit-driven corporation. i personally would go to jail before handing over the files from my village's server, and i would guess other admins should feel the same way if they elect to operate such a system.

emailing is being turned into trafficking, just words instead of drugs, thus the rule has become: don't engage with strangers unless you want to eventually meet a cop. hell, your friend might be a narc...

what's next? i would guess EVERYTHING.

What if your email was spoofed?

[eyrieowl]

Does the government have to *prove* that you *actually* sent the suspect an email? Or is it simply enough that the suspect has an email bearing your email address? After reading TFA, I really doubt this bill was well thought out enough to address those sorts of issues. Without that sort of protection, it seems it would be possible for an unethical law enforcement official to obtain a warrant for someone they'd like to be monitoring but have no legal grounds for doing so by emaililng some random existing suspect a spoofed email from their target. I would say that it amazes me that people would try to use a completely unreliable method of communication, like email, as the legal basis for a massive invasion of privacy...unfortunately, governments' proclivity for trying to spy on people and treat them prima facie as criminals has long since ceased to amaze me....

Re:Use PGP/GPG

[kwandar]

I thought the link was a joke ... and then I looked ... ok, well, I guess maybe it is a joke after all?

Sure, why not?

[nurb432]

Everyone is a criminal anyway, right?

Yet another excuse to invade our privacy. Id say thankfully i dont live there, but it will be like that here soon anyway.

Very Convenient ...

[darkonc]

Start an investigation against a big spammer, and you tap into the email of anybody in australia.

Re:Bad, baad governemt ...

[Squigley]

Ok, first I'll mention that I don't vote.

It's compulsory to enroll, and to vote here, but I don't, I have never enrolled.

This usually results in the statement "then you have no right to complain about the government". I disagree, I still do have a right to complain, only I can't complain about who is in power, because I didn't vote, or not vote, for them.

So, with that out of the way, there is no possibility of voting for a less bad government. Usually, rather than voting for the politician you like (since there is usually no such thing), you vote for the one you least dislike, however, even this is not a possibility.

All the politicians are as useless as each other, they do whatever suits them, and when it comes to policies regarding technology, they are completely illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated, making ridiculous decisions.

As far as I'm concerned, until the whole damn lot of them are thrown out, and the system started again, without corrupt, out of touch old farts running it, then I won't be enrolling to vote, because it's just a waste of my time.

Your doctor?

[Trejkaz]

Good luck finding a doctor who will let you call them by phone, let alone one you can contact via email. Australian doctors are extremely backwards in this regard, all in the name of "privacy."

Not that anyone will see this

[bobkoure]

But you only have part of the answer. Yes the US has been a particularly bad actor on the international scene, and yes, terrorisim is about the only option a far-weaker opponent has (well, other than passive resistance, which worked in India against the Brits - but your opponent has to have some morals, and we (the US), apparently do not - again in the international area). If this was the only reason, we'd have terrorists galore in South and Latin America.

So why terrorists from the Middle East?

One additional part of the answer is Wahibism and other extreme forms of Islam. It's not just fundamentalisam, but the imams teach that "jihad" is a religious duty - lile pilgramage. They also teach that infidels are unworthy of life - and have redefined places like Europe from "places of truce" to "places of war". Islam in general does not have a tradition of individual dissent (not just protestantism, but the notion that a worshiper can disagree with a priest over the meaning of something in the holy writings), so Islamists are poorly equipped to disagree with the above imam's teachings. IMHO, it'd be a bit different with individual voices speaking out. And Wahibism (once considered to be an odd, deviant sect confined to Suadi Arabia) has been spread worldwide - the Saudis have spent millions on mosques all over the world, and the imams there are teaching, yup - Wahibism. I'm sure there are other parts of the answer...