Aussie Cops Want Powers To Search Any Computer

goatherder23 writes in with news that the New South Wales cabinet has proposed new powers for police to search computers anywhere under a search warrant, and adds: "The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse are invoked to explain why police need the new laws, which have yet to be introduced into Parliament. Would someone please explain to them before this happens that all computers on the Internet are "networked" and that some computers may be found outside NSW (or even Australia)?" "Police Minister David Campbell says police are currently only able to search computer hardware found on a premises named in a search warrant. He says with the changes, they will be able to go a step further and search other networked computers, regardless of where they are located. 'What we know is that there are organized crime gangs who use the Internet and other forms of technology to hide their crimes,' he said."

Comments

Ineffective

[explosivejared]

Any organized crime syndicate worth their weight is going to understand how to encrypt data and use hidden volumes. With the seven day limit, that only allows for a cursory search and not the kind of in depth forensic combing it would take to actually find actionable data. So in the end, the only people actually harmed of it are ordinary citizens who are having their rights abused by heavy handed searches.

Re:Ineffective

[Brian Gordon]

Couldn't they just low-level image it and give the drives back? Then they can comb at their leisure. Not that I'm supporting the bill- it's obviously stupid and a horrifying violation of search and seizure rights. Any intelligent australian will be full-volume passphrase encrypting their drives from now on.. when the police start realizing that they can't do anything with anyone's data without their permission, they might just give up?

Re:Ineffective

[ptte]

What ordinary citizens? You do know that there are only criminals and terrorists on that thing right? "What we know is that there are organized crime gangs who use the Internet and other forms of technology to hide their crimes"

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

So in the end, the only people actually harmed of it are ordinary citizens who are having their rights abused by heavy handed searches. And you assume that this is not the actual intent. Why?

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We *want* them broken. You'd better get it straight That it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re:Ineffective

[gstoddart]

Any organized crime syndicate worth their weight is going to understand how to encrypt data and use hidden volumes.

I'm not entirely sure of that.

Are all criminals tech savvy? Do they have an IT department to take care of such things? How much does organized crime rely on computers and network technology?

Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of people running a crime family sitting around deciding if they need stronger encryption, or different protocols, or using hidden volumes. I just can't see someone involved in drug smuggling, or extortion, or human trafficking firing up their laptops to print the cover sheet for their TPS report. :-P

Maybe I'm totally wrong on this, and they're really dialed into these things. It just seems to damned bizarre to me as to almost be a sitcom.

Cheers

Re:Ineffective

[rucs_hack]

Couldn't they just low-level image it and give the drives back?

No, they will want to keep the drives in case something changes in the analysis technology, and they can extract more information. When you live in an environment which has a vested interest in suspicion, niceties rarely get much attention.

Re:Ineffective

[denis-The-menace]

Then just clone the drives and give the suspect the copy and not the original HD.

Re:Ineffective

[AJWM]

Attribution where due, please. From Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which I heartily recommend. It makes especially good reading on a long train ride.

Re:Ineffective

[Qzukk]

That would imply that the suspect has some rights and that the government doesn't strip the accused of every right they have as soon as the finger has been pointed. Don't know how Australia does it, but in the US, look at everyone who gets their gear seized either in a raid or crossing a border. Also look up "civil forfeiture" which gives the government the right to steal your property for its own profit without a crime having occurred.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Someone quoted this paragraph before while I was saying essentially the same thing as the grandparent. I recognized the quote right away from the rather unique Dr. Ferris attribution. I think this alone makes it clear that the whole thing is a quote from something. From what? Well, maybe trying to find who is Dr. Ferris will lead someone to finding who is John Galt. I left the by-line out on purpose. :)

Re:Ineffective

[c0p0n]

Couldn't they just low-level image it and give the drives back? [...]

Verbing weirds language.

Re:Ineffective

[poetmatt]

Time based encryption?

I seem to recall some dude who had encryption on his drive, notably a porn situation, where the crypto had some kind of time component where after a week the key rotated or something? Anyone have the links for it? I think that would cause some issues on this one too.

Re:Ineffective

[radarsat1]

... as long as that train doesn't go through a tunnel under a mountain.

Re:Ineffective

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

A block-level copy won't include detailed encoding data that might allow more advanced forms of data recovery.

Re:Ineffective

[Dog-Cow]

Your signature is so apt.

Re:Ineffective

[jc42]

Somehow I'm having a hard time imagining a bunch of people running a crime family sitting around deciding if they need stronger encryption, or different protocols, or using hidden volumes.

Of course this is silly. The people running a crime family are like the people running any other business. They make the high-level decisions. The mundane details are handled by the people hired to take care of such things. If you've got a few geek kids in the family, it's not hard to develop an appropriate IT operation. Your business data needs aren't really any different from any other business, and you can use the same software as everyone else.

How many CEOs have any clue about computers? Most of them never even touch a keyboard. Such things are for the hired help. It's no different with crime organizations. In fact, aside from externalities like the legality of their business, there's not really any difference to speak of.

Re:Ineffective

[Brian Gordon]

Uh, what? The data doesn't change after imaging..

Re:Ineffective

[CrimsonAvenger]

Couldn't they just low-level image it and give the drives back?

No. Realistically, Chain of Custody requirements will force them to keep the actual hard drive, NOT a copy of it.

Re:Ineffective

[Skapare]

There once was a time when that made sense. Today, the technology pushes the limits of the media itself. For example disk drive tracks no longer have gaps to derive latent data from. Encoding methods include multi-level values that would make it nearly impossible to recover any previous data. They are squeezing every possible bit out of the media, now. Writing over the old data with random bits even once will fully obscure it. And if by chance you can get data (because it has not been written over), good luck cracking the encryption.

Re:Ineffective

[gstoddart]

Of course this is silly. The people running a crime family are like the people running any other business. They make the high-level decisions. The mundane details are handled by the people hired to take care of such things.

Well, yes, obviously it's not the guys at the top doing the actual wiring and the like. But, I should think it much harder to recruit the geek-talent in that line of work. It's not like you can take out an ad, and you still need to be able to trust them not to hand you over to the cops.

At which point, you have to pull from your own resource pool to find someone who is "good enough" to mostly cobble together your needs. But, is Vinnie (sorry to anyone of Italian descent) really up to speed on the latest stuff? Just how many geeks are involved in wide-scale criminal activities?

It just seems that the practical measure of getting IT infrastructure set up and maintained for a criminal organization makes it tough, and almost improbable. And, I'm not sure WTF they'd use it for ... The Crime Net VPN so they can leverage their synergies with web 2.0 applications and increase the efficiencies and globalization of crimes???

Admittedly, my knowledge of organized crime can be summed up by the Sopranos and what we see on TV. I'm just still having a difficult time reconciling what I think happens in organized crime and any sophisticated usage of computers. I mean, at which point do you go from a "mom and pop" crime family where you have someone in house who dabbles with and, and where you need consultants and staff and the like? I'm picturing the RFP process as "don't worry about the cost of the Cisco gear, you tell us what we need and we'll make sure it falls off a truck" or something.

Except for crime which is inherently financial/cyber and lends itself to computers, I'm just skeptical about how much organized IT takes place in these things. Then again, for all I fscking know, there's some guy showing a power-point slide of how they're gonna try to expand their heroin distribution business by 5% in this quarter, or traffic 7.3% more humans into the sex trade.

Maybe I just can't even imagine the modern, tech savvy crime organization with extensive IT requirements suggested by this. I just don't quite think that, outside what would be largely white-collar crime, the underworld really has much need for an IT infrastructure. But, maybe it's a complete lack of imagination on my behalf that really allows me to think of them as structured and operating in ways that are too recognizable as paralleling how business runs.

The initial statement that the modern crime organization will know about encryption and hidden volumes and the like is still way beyond what I can directly imagine.

Cheers

Re:Ineffective

[Foerstner]

This is English. It's naturally weird.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image

3 a: to create a representation of; also : to form an image of b: to represent symbolically

Re:Ineffective

[BadBadThing]

I know this is kinda off subject, but I could really use some help. A friends cell phone is showing text messages from my cell phone that I have never sent. I have even got a copy of the cell phone bill showing outgoing text messages and phone calls from my phone. I suspect my friend of 'phreaking' or hacking my cell phone to make this happen. Is this possible? Does anyone know how this could happen?"

Re:Ineffective

[mentaldrano]

So that you can sleep the whole way.

Re:Ineffective

[Sloppy]

Are all criminals tech savvy? Do they have an IT department to take care of such things?

No, but non-criminals are the in same boat: most of them aren't tech-savvy. Thus, encryption-by-default and other common-sense security measures are requirements for all widely-deployed systems, in order to protect the innocent (whether from government, criminals, or whatever). We have fallen way behind on that, but it can't (or shouldn't, depending on how cynical you are) last forever. The mainstream needs secure IT, and when they finally get it, dumb criminals will have it too.

Re:Ineffective

[Some_Llama]

I'm just skeptical about how much organized IT takes place in these things. "

It's people who have the skills outsourcing their talents to the highest bidder (like botnet controllers who sell control time).. once you're "in" with these groups it is quite hard to get "out" unless you consider death early retirement.

Like anything it starts small (e.g. the drug trade) you have someone do small IT stuff for you, if they are up to snuff you try to get them to take on larger projects until they are deep enough into the organization that they are just as liable for the deeds or too valuable to let go...

Re:Ineffective

[tftp]

Disable SMS on your phone. It is useless anyhow, and costs 100x more than a voice call. Then if anyone claims that you sent them something, tell them to ask the phone company.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Perhaps because one must first accept the simple fact that freedom is proportional to the size of government. Did you miss an "inversely" before "proportional" in that sentence? I just want to be clear what you mean.

In a nutshell, the more complex and ambiguous the law, the more exploitable the law is for those who control the law.

Put another way, the bigger the government, the more profitable the business of government.

I would probably argue that the two statements are not equivalent, but rather the second follows from the first.

But what Dr. Ferris was talking about was not just ambiguous laws, but laws that contradict themselves. Such laws make it possible to declare everyone a criminal.

It's such a dead-obvious, simple truth, that I can *almost* understand why the vast majority of people refuse to believe it. Because the bigger the lie, the more people are inclined to believe it.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Ayn Rand psycho bullshit.

Don't you mean:

<foam at the mouth>Ayn Rand psycho bullshit.</foam at the mouth>

Re:Ineffective

[denis-The-menace]

Also look up "civil forfeiture" which gives the government the right to steal your property for its own profit without a crime having occurred. And the "DHS discount" was born.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

I think he meant, "Ayn Rand was an awful hack writer and a two bit 'philosopher,' to use the word loosely. Her philosophy is bullshit in that it it's underpinnings explain nothing, merely begging the question. It is psychotic in that it excuses and encourages selfishness, narcissism, and anti-social behavior; and denies the value of altruism, community, and cooperation."

Next I suppose you'll be telling us Mises and Rothbard are the two greatest geniuses in economics.

Re:Ineffective

[kocsonya]

> when the police start realizing that they can't do anything with anyone's
> data without their permission, they might just give up?

Nope, they stamp you as a 'terrorist' and from that on you can more or less just disappear (sedition laws by Ruddock & Friends) never to be seen again. As the above named individual pointed out sleep deprivation, for example, is not torture, sooner or later you will tell them the passphrase. Or you won't, because you can't talk any more or can't remember it any more. But they won't give up, no.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Can you name an altruist whom you would trust with your wallet?

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Why shouldn't I trust my wallet to an altruist? Who would you consider an altruist? I'll name one off the top of my head: Jimmy Carter. I would trust my life to Jimmy Carter. I wouldn't trust my dirty underwear to Ayn Rand.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

But on a less personal note, I'll agree that her writting skills never rose up to a great level. It might have something to do with the fact that she was writting in her second language. We'll never know. As for your assertion that she "denied" certain things, well she presented proofs based on assumptions. Her logic is rarely faulty (although there were certain rare occasions where I caught her being farfetched). Her assumptions might be questionable since she didn't understand love at all. But, having said that, her description of a society in which most people don't love each other (it doesn't mean they hate each other -- just honestly treat each other as strangers) is fairly accurate. I challenge you to show that she "denies" something that is unrelated to love and does so in an emotionally charged rather than rational manner.

Mises and Rothbard It is hard to define the "greatest" economists. Society is composed of too many contributing factors to (so far) accurately say which ones are necessarily prevelant. Certainly there come momemnts when different contributing factors contribute much more than others. At those times it seems like a certain economic theory is more accurate than another one. But it would seem silly to dismiss Mises and Rothbard. Certainly, we can agree that more people have been killed in the name of altruism than in the name of all religions taken together. So I think I'll take the people that knee-jerk away from forced altruism (and forced fraternity) to the men of free-association (ie, trade). Kindly, count to 10 if you feel any need to spew an insult since this topic does tend to be pretty emotionally charged.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Second to GWB, Carter's presidency is known for the worst handling of the economy in the known US history. I am not sure why you would pick him to handle your wallet.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Anyone who looks at his record knows the economic problems during his tenure were simply not his fault.

Re:Ineffective

[CTilluma]

Not to mention the value of an electron microscope to determine bit patterns that were written previous to the current state. A low level bit copy would give you a copy of the current state of the hard drive. The original would give you previous states as well.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

They never are... It's also not North Korea's fault that they had a famine. That's why 2 million died. Guess what? We had a famine just now. How many people died as its direct result?

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

No insults for you, your intelligent and present your points well. You deserve a decent critique. My problem with Rand is that she seems to start from a position of contempt for the weak and those who would help them, reasoning backwards to a philosophy that supports that view. I think that true enlightened self interest argues for altruism, not against it. And recent economic experiments seem to show that people value fairness and reciprocity far more than they value personal gain. We are hard wired for cooperation and altruism because those strategies work. Selfishness does not work as well.

Why should we help others? Because an individual is not truly an individual. We are the product of our societies and our experiences with other people. Helping others creates a culture of helping, and no one is so strong that they can guarantee they will never need help. Secondly, happy, prosperous people are a positive externality. Scared, desperate, angry people are a negative externality. Why should any selfish person contribute towards the costs of externalities when by definition they don't have to? Because being a free rider or being a contributor both encourage others to do likewise. This is all confirmed through recent research (google "fairness reciprocity economic research")

Finally, as I mentioned, most people are born with a drive to punish unfairness and noncooperation, and reward fairness and cooperation. For most people, being unselfish is selfish: it feels good. For the most part, only sociopaths and people too damaged to trust others fail to enjoy cooperation and fairness.

I agree that free association is the path to take, but I also think that I am free not to associate with people who are unfair, do not cooperate, and do not help shoulder the costs of externalities. I am also free not to do any sort of business with anyone who does do business with such people. Therefore, society is free to place those sorts of restrictions on members. Not through force, but through voluntary contract. In essence, we as a group are free to say, "If you want to do business with any of us, and reap any of the benefits of membership in our society, then you must do certain things, including paying taxes and helping the less fortunate."

Therefore, we can effectively isolate non-cooperators and deny them the benefits of membership in our society, and we can do it without coercion or force of any kind. I posit that this is a better basis for a society than anything Rand ever imagined.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Sorry, I think your analogy is seriously flawed, and I still consider Carter's presidency to be one of the most underrated in recent history. Are you seriously suggesting that if I asked Carter to hold onto my wallet that I wouldn't get it back, through incompetence or malice? Or are you suggesting he isn't an altruist?

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Are you seriously suggesting that if I asked Carter to hold onto my wallet that I wouldn't get it back, through incompetence or malice? If he found some "worthy" cause (shouldn't be hard for a man with his connections), I doubt you'd see your money again.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Sorry, I think your analogy is seriously flawed It's not flawed. It's imperfect. I'll admit it. But it is accurate as far as the point at hand is concerned -- those who fail never run out of excuses.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

To be more accurate, when their political philosophy fails, they blame their circumstances. If the philosophy worked, it would be a good guide to action under any but the most extreme and the most dire of circumstances. Otherwise, it's plainly dillusional. Would you care to try another altruist?

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Buddha for the win.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Doubtful. He's a man of honor, you would most certainly get your wallet back. If you give someone else's money away, you're a thief not an altruist.

Re:Ineffective

[thegrassyknowl]

At which point, you have to pull from your own resource pool to find someone who is "good enough" to mostly cobble together your needs. But, is Vinnie (sorry to anyone of Italian descent) really up to speed on the latest stuff? Just how many geeks are involved in wide-scale criminal activities?

The sorts of people running organised crime are also likely to be running a number of 'legitimate' businesses as well. This helps put up a front for the illegal activities but would also make sourcing people easier.

Get a couple of guys working in the legitimate business setting up a good IT infrastructure. Have them set up encryption to protect the legitimate business data, etc, etc. So long as your IT persons don't know the pass phrases for your encryption after it's set up then you have no problem storing in there whatever you want and they are not clued on to your side 'business'.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Afraid you'll have to do just that -- give him your wallet. That's a requirement for becoming a monk, is it not? A philosophy that insists on embracing the harshness of mother nature and not attempting to think one's way out it (but rather to think one's way into accepting it)... ok. You can have it. Not for me though. Thankfully, they don't insist on being the only one true way, so they are willing to let me be. But the effect of that philosophy on its followers seems to mellow them down and make them lose their edge. Again, not for me. As far as I am concerned it asks people to deny their humanity -- to lose their capacity (or at least willingness) to go through the synthesis/analysis/ramification chain of reasoning. But again, I doubt it's for you, either. I was angry when reading Ayn Rand at first, too. I had to figure out for myself that she had to be taken with a grain of salt because she couldn't get what love was. But now that you know that, ask yourself if you can really disagree with her reasoning (even if you dislike her conclusions). She doesn't really have a recepie for how to treat those you love (or befriend) -- just how to treat those you neither love nor hate.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Wow, your take on Buddhism is completely wrong. One does not embrace the harshness of anything. In fact, he specifically rejected austerity and self-denial. Buddha taught that everyone had to think for themselves, that no one should believe anything anyone else (including him) said, if it did not agree with that person's common sense. People use Buddhist techniques to gain, not lose effectiveness in the real world. Buddha taught that reason was vital, crucial even. A gift not to be wasted. He taught that everything was a product of an understandable chain of cause and effect, it's only like the core of the whole philosophy.

Where did you get such a vast quantity of misinformation?

Re:Ineffective

[Fireshadow]

"How much does organized crime rely on computers and network technology?"

One example comes to mind from the War on Some Drugs. On May 18, 1994, the Colombian authorities raided the offices of Jose Santacruz Londono, an associate of the Rodriguez brothers (big time Cali drug cartel guys), and confiscated an IBM AS/400 computer worth a $1 million. The AS/400 purpose was to sniff out moles within the drug cartel's organization. The cartel did this by housing a database of phone numbers of U.S. diplomats and agents based in Columbia, which was continuously correlated against the entire call log for Cali, which was leaked to the cartel by the local phone company. This setup effectively told the cartel who, when, and where anybody was using a telephone to contact drug enforcement personnel.

There was an article in Business 2.0, "The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc." by author Paul Kaihla. That's where I read about it originally. You may also find more reading online here: http://crimemagazine.com/06/calicartel,1021-6.htm

Re:Ineffective

[ChameleonDave]

Can you name an altruist whom you would trust with your wallet? You'd trust an egoist more?? You are utterly insane.

Re:Ineffective

[Shadowlore]

I'm sure of it. Despite the media portrayal of it, real world investigations of *organized crime* (not the same thing as "all criminals") over the last decade plus has shown them to be eager to adopt technology that furthers their interest.

It's no suprise really. One could even say it is eminently logical. Organized crime is the black market version of the corporation, indeed they are often "fronted" via legal corporations. If you think industrial espionage is something in the legal world, you should see what goes on in the underworld. I would suggest that most of the drive to higher technology among organized crime is to counter each other more so than to avoid government visibility. One could argue that the mafia's use of odd physical items to "send a message" is a form of message hiding.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/mafia_pr.html is one example.

The government (US and others) has been talking about this at least as far back as 1993, remember Clipper?

Do all "mobs" use encryption and/or have IT? No. But the larger more successful among them certainly do. This is increasingly so with former KGB members becoming more common in the global organized crime environment. Those guys, however, are more likely to extend their capabilities with dead drops and steganography.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

He taught that everything was a product of an understandable chain of cause and effect, it's only like the core of the whole philosophy. Sounds fascinating. I should look into it beyond the pop culture references. I was inferring what I said from the portrayed notions about lifestyles of Buddhist monks.

Re:Ineffective

[glittalogik]

This is English. It naturally weirds. Fixed =)

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Yeah, it's easy to misinterpret. And there are a wide variety of Buddhist monks. You know how Buddhism came to China? Bodhidarma left India and travelled to China. He found a group of fat, lazy Confucian monks, he told them they were fat and lazy and should listen to him. They laughed at him, so he sat outside and didn't move until they agreed maybe he had something to tech them (the legends say his gaze bored a hole into a cliff and they were impressed, but you know how legends work.) So the first thing he taught them to do was not be fat and lazy, so he developed a martial arts based exercise routine. They practiced, and became very good at martial arts. You know who those monks were? The Shaolin monks!

Here's another great anecdote, told in Buddhist circles for thousands of years. Two Buddhist monks are out traveling and they come to a river. There's a woman there who needs help crossing, so the first monk picks her up and carries her across. They travel on for a while until the second monk just can't contain himself any longer, "Brother," he says, "We are forbidden to touch women, why did you do so?" The first monk says, "Hey, I put that woman down an hour ago, why are you still carrying her around?"

The middle path of Buddhism is the path between extremes. I've heard it explained thus: the string that is too tight snaps, while the string that is too loose slips the fret.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Wow, your take on Buddhism is completely wrong. One does not embrace the harshness of anything. In fact, he specifically rejected austerity and self-denial. Buddha taught that everyone had to think for themselves, that no one should believe anything anyone else (including him) said, if it did not agree with that person's common sense. People use Buddhist techniques to gain, not lose effectiveness in the real world. Buddha taught that reason was vital, crucial even. A gift not to be wasted. He taught that everything was a product of an understandable chain of cause and effect, it's only like the core of the whole philosophy. I just remembered how much this resonates in this (it is from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged):

"...The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours. No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it. It is only with your own knowledge that you can deal. It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider. Your mind is your only judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal. Nothing but a man's mind can perform that complex, delicate, crucial process of identification which is thinking. Nothing can direct the process but his own judgment. Nothing can direct his judgment but his moral integrity..."

Integrity, btw is not uprightness (as it is used today), but rather consistency (the traditional English meaning)... derived from integral or indivisible. Other than that one word (and again only because of its modern usage), it sounds like your are embracing Buddha for the reasons John Galt would applaud.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

An honest egoist? Any day. I'll know that he personally invested in his honesty (because of his ego he is personally invested in everything he does). His personal investment in his honesty would not let him cheat me.

Re:Ineffective

[Omestes]

Your going to get modded down, but thank you for saying that, and saving me the effort and mod points. Your the official karma martyr of the sane fringe.

That said, I psychologically understand Rand, she was over reacting to her repressive communist (collectivist) upbringing by becoming an uber-individualist. Sadly she also was basically a sociopath, and lead her adherents more as a cult, than as a rational philosopher, meaning it was more about agreeing with the matron, than a rational discourse on the strong and weak points of Objectivism. I've notices that this trend still follows in the circle of Randian adherents I see (mostly here on /.).

It, like the more fundamentalist libertarians here, are completely dogmatic, and closed to any argument which would put their core-beliefs at jeopardy.

I still don't know how Rand became considered a philosopher though. In my 8 years of schooling for that subject she never came up. Nor does she in most of the texts and surveys I own, or have read.

To quote my old sig: Ayn Rand is to philosophy, what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

That's why I dislike Rand's philosophy so much. She got it (in my opinion!) soooo close to right, but then she spiraled off into loony selfishness. Non-self is another key concept of Buddhism. Meaning, there is no rational distinction between self and non-self. Everything is a part of that chain of cause and effect, even the self, even the will. What is inside, once was not.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

And I posit that it this sense of community that is forced (rather than occurs naturally) that creates red tape and regulations that try to precisely define that which we entrust the government to make us feel. We pick who we love, who we become friends with and towards whom we wish to be charitable. When this choice is made for us and forced on us at the threat of violence (the only tool available to a government), we lose our humanity and lose sight of the value of that which we hoped to force on ourself -- love, friendship and family. Who one choses to do business with is an individual choice. And need not be given up to an entity established for the purposes of common protection. Therefore, such an entity may not demand it. If you want to start boycotting stores which happen to not contribute as much to charity as your community leader thinks they should, you can feel free. But when you do that, you allow your community leader to usurp your individuality and, by doing so, abandon part of your ability (or at least willingness) to reason. If you give your community the power to shut down a store owner who does not contribute what you think they should to charity, you give your government the right you yourself do not have -- the right to intrude on the property of others. By doing so you declare that you have a right to be a tyrant over your neighbor as long as enough of your other neighbors agree to share the benefits of your tyranny. This coalescence of power (and eventual rise of a hierarchy of the powerful) is how all tyrannies were established.

On a personal note, I went through 3 stages in life. I started as an overachiever. As a teenage rebellion, I turned to religion and embraced the values of living for the sake of others. And as the third stage, I decide to live for the sake of self-improvement despite the objections from others. I probably don't have to explain which of the stages was least productive and most destructive. The life for the sake of others at the sacrifice of myself was nihilistic. It made my talents irrelevant. It was an exercise in self-destruction. Such a life is a life of a tool -- not of a free-thinking individual.

As for your comment that Ayn Rand started with contempt for the weak... She was person of great intellect. She worked tirelessly and cared more to be recognized as correct by the brightest of the minds. She wrote because she wanted to improve the world. She has characters in her books who are not of great personal accomplishment who still wish to live life to the best of their potential. She admires them (a drifter who wants to continues to try to find work after his factory is out of business). She pities them when they fall prey to the talented exploiters (James Taggard's wife). Her attitude towards them is very human. She just doesn't wish to be told that all men must accept the fate of the untalented as their own. That's not contempt for the weak. It is love for virtue.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

What is inside, once was not. Perhaps, the key distinction, then, is whether what goes in and out is a choice or an inevitability. She insists that it is a choice. Often, of course, it is an inevitability. But I would think that fighting to make it a choice is the fight for life and surrendering to it being an inevitability is accepting the life of a farm animal.

Re:Ineffective

[rtb61]

That still doesn't even touch the idea of seizing any computer networked at any time to the computer the police are looking to seize. In affect a search warrant that states that they are entitled to seize each and every computer in Australia, that has been connected to the internet while the computer they are targeting with a warrant was connected to the internet. Every personal, private and government computer. So a crazily far ranging warrant.

Some body with no understanding of technology clutching at straws. The search warrant should be clearly and narrowly defined, so going crazy of the perceived crimes of transferring of digital data is just going to have to take a back seat to the concept of purely pursuing that digital data as evidence for the prosecution of the original crime.

The reality is they are going to have to adapt to the technology of memory cards, which when it comes to hiding them, requires the virtual demolition of a residence and the sifting of the rubble to find them. They can be dumped in a crack in the wall, or floor, quite readily flushed, slipped in gaps in furniture, hidden in other devices with ventilation openings, and even swallowed, gigabytes of storage in something no bigger of thicker than a thumb nail on top of that they can be encrypted and when erased they are erased http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_memory_cards just for a quick reminder of what is already available and the reality is that is just the start.

trying to create search warrants to cover the problem is crazy, so the law simply has to be adjusted to what is realistically feasible, let alone attempting to seize every computer that could possibly have been connected to the computer that is the actually target of the search warrant.

So digital photos can be legally 'naughty' but the reality is treat it like evidence and pursue the photographer with a vengeance.

This should cheer them up, how long will it be before the environmentalists demand that disposable memory storage cards be biodegradable, swallow that evidence and it will really be gone.

Re:Ineffective

[rohan972]

Helping others creates a culture of helping, and no one is so strong that they can guarantee they will never need help.

If you have assessed creating a culture of helping to be provision for your anticipated future needs, doesn't that fit in to the concept of "rational self-interest"?

For most people, being unselfish is selfish: it feels good.

ditto

Not through force, but through voluntary contract.

Eliminating the "looters" as would Ayn Rand? Would you make paying for social security, health care etc volutary?

I have only read about Ayn Rand, not read her work. Judging by your post, I'm probably closer to your views than hers. Personally, I think there are benefits to helping the poor for example, but I do not agree with compulsory taxation for social security payments. As a result, I give a portion of my income to charity, but I do not consider this giving to be altruism (selflessness) but I view it rather the way I would view an investment (although there are obvious substantial differences, I'm talking about my philisophical view of it).

Adherence to "rational self interest" does not exclude the possibility of charity.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

I just realized something that I should add to this:

By doing so you declare that you have a right to be a tyrant over your neighbor as long as enough of your other neighbors agree to share the benefits of your tyranny. This coalescence of power (and eventual rise of a hierarchy of the powerful) is how all tyrannies were established. The only way out of it is to leave your neighbor alone to do as he pleases with his own property. If you wish to serve, do so. Find a way to be useful to those who you believe need your service. But respect your neighbor's right to stare at the sky or pretty girls while you do that. Do not demand that he serves as well. The key requirement for preserving freedom is that of making no intrusion on the freedoms of others. Again, if you wish to alleviate suffering, don't expect to do it by forcing others into helping you. You may wish to do it on your own and hope that you'll end up leading by example, but if you allow yourself to exercise coercion of any kind for however great a cause, you'll permit yourself to enter the road to tyranny.

Re:Ineffective

[PhireN]

No, from my memory the person was crossing the border with their laptop in standby, and the encrypted volume containing the child porn was already unlocked.
The Border security officer examined the laptop, saw the porn and confiscated it. Somehow the laptop turned off (maybe the officer turned it off when confiscating it, or it ran out of battery) and the decryption key was cleared from memory, locking the child porn drive again.
Ah, found the article

Re:Ineffective

[Dan541]

Any organized crime syndicate worth their weight is going to understand how to encrypt data and use hidden volumes. With the seven day limit, that only allows for a cursory search and not the kind of in depth forensic combing it would take to actually find actionable data. So in the end, the only people actually harmed of it are ordinary citizens who are having their rights abused by heavy handed searches. That's the whole point!!!

Since when does Australian law enforcement go after criminals?

~Dan

Re:Ineffective

[inasity_rules]

Do you run a crime family? You sound like you do. I wish you could be modded Disturbing.

Re:Ineffective

[SharkyTech]

"To quote my old sig: Ayn Rand is to philosophy, what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion." You mean ever so slightly less bat-shit mad than the rest of them?

Re:Ineffective

[ChameleonDave]

That sentence could only make sense if you changed the meaning of some of its words to something other than what they mean in English.

Re:Ineffective

[Omestes]

I'm speechless.

Actually not, let us draw this analogy (or beat this dead horse) further; Both Rand and L. Ron don't fall into the general trappings of a founder of a "school". In religion this is generally some form of "after death things are okay", and a variation of the categorical imperative; in philosophy this is reasoned debate, and a purely logical foundation or critique. Neither Rand or L. Ron deliver.

On religion we can take these values as more subjective, since the prime purpose is to give meaning and structure to our lives, which, I suppose, it does. Philosophy, on the other hand, is to tell us something objective about the universe, or meaning, which Rand fails at. Both of them though (Scientology and Objectivism) are cults of personality foremost above their rolls in their perspective disciplines. I'll admit L. Ron was more about the money of his cult over sincerity, while Rand probably believed in her own writings. But the true comparison is that both were wholly egotistical. Rand was just over-responding to her upbringing, while L. Ron just want bad sci-fi to be religion.

Sorry for over-responding. I have some big issues with Objectivism being called philosophy, just as I have issues with "eastern" philosophy being called such. This does not remove its value, though I think the actual classification is wrong. Looking at Rand in a philosophical lens killer her, she is more the antithesis of modern sociology than having any thing in common with Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Kant, or Sartre.

I still think she is wrong though, which is a different discussion all together.

Re:Ineffective

[mpe]

Any organized crime syndicate worth their weight is going to understand how to encrypt data and use hidden volumes.

As well as logic bombs able to destroy data or publish blackmail material. There could also be syndicate members who havn't been arrested.

With the seven day limit, that only allows for a cursory search and not the kind of in depth forensic combing it would take to actually find actionable data.

Politicans would tend to interpret this as "police need more time". Thus would up it to 14-28 days. The police, being only human, would tend to leave things to the last minute... Rinse, repeat.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

No, you are just trying to assign the quality of being hypocritical to someone invested in himself. The dictionary (and real life) disagree.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Choice and inevitability are the same. You are not separate from the universe. Your will is not apart from the endless chain of cause and effect. Like everything, it is both an effect of other things, and a cause. As much as will and self are illusions, they are necessary illusions. Everyone knows the feeling of having a lot of control, and a little. We should strive not to create conditions that make people feel as if they are not in control.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Rand and I agree on one thing: rational self interest is the only good. We differ markedly on what we consider rational. For instance, I try to show how charity is in one's rational self interest. Rand looks at the weak with contempt.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

It's not coercion to refuse non-cooperators the benefits of membership in a society. If they don't want to participate, they don't have to, no one is forcing them. But you should not force me, or anyone else, to have to deal with them in any fashion. As I mentioned, helping others is in everyone's rational self interest. Happy, secure people are a positive externality, and scared, angry desperate people are a negative externality. If I and my society wish to exclude non-cooperators who do not wish to bear their share of the costs of externalities, it is our right not to help them in any way. Selfish non-cooperators can deal with other selfish non-cooperators and try to take advantage of each other all they like.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

But you should not force me, or anyone else, to have to deal with them in any fashion. Noone does.

As I mentioned, helping others is in everyone's rational self interest. Tried it. And strongly disagree.

it is our right The question becomes what happens when one of the collective you decides to change his mind and to interract with those you don't think he shouldn't interract with. Is that his choice? Or still yours? Because if anyone makes that choice for him, that's coercion.

Selfish non-cooperators can deal with other selfish non-cooperators and try to take advantage of each other all they like.

You are confusing selfish and dishonest. It is a common meme of today to say that one implies the other. But it is severely incorrect. Selfish people who are honest approach each other as traders -- negotiating exchange of value for value as they see it. A selfish person is not a crook -- he is just not willing to exchange what he values more for what he values less. In exchange, fairness is his goal -- not taking advantage.

Happy, secure people are a positive externality, and scared, angry desperate people are a negative externality.

Show me a happy-go-lucky guy and I'll show a used car salesman. Living life as an exploration requires constant scepticism. Scepticism requires doubt. Doubt breeds unease. I don't trust the happy, secure people -- they tend to be dogmatic, full of prejudices and stubborn if you look just a little bit under the surface. And they are the ones who'll get angry and destructive when the reality fails to match their expectations.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Choice and inevitability are the same. And yet if you make your choice as if it were, you have chosen to be no different than a rock laying motionless -- dead. To act as if you had a choice, to make an attempt to make that choice is to chose life. Are you so certain that as the cursor hover over "submit" and I decide whether or not I want to bother to end the nihilism which you have chosen that I will not go and get lunch instead? Is the cat dead or alive? :)

We should strive not to create conditions that make people feel as if they are not in control. The "we" is only an occassional occurance. Most of the time it is just you -- alone with your thouhgts. We should be aware of how other people feel when we pick our methods -- not when we pick our goals. Our goals must be own own guided by our own priorities... Strike that. They always are our own -- guided by our own priorities.

As much as will and self are illusions, they are necessary illusions. They are not at all.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

I made it clear, anyone can deal with non-cooperators. They just can't deal with the rest of us if they do. If someone decides to break their contract with us, we are under no obligation to continue to deal with them.

When exchange takes place, value is created. I value what you have more than what I have, and vice versa. The question is, who gets the bulk of the value created? I may value that food you have only a little more than the money I have, but I'm poor and hungry, so I part with it. You may value the money I have far more than the food you have, but you know I'm poor and hungry, so you demand a higher price knowing I have few other options, being poor and having no transportation and thus no access to wider markets. You receive the majority of the extra value created in the trade, while I am only a little better off.

Selfish people attempt to maximize the value they receive and minimize the value others receive. But according to recent research, most people do not function this way. Most people value fairness and reciprocity far more than personal gain, and would prefer the trade to create equal extra value for both parties.

If people are dogmatic, full of prejudice, stubborn, angry, and destructive, then they are not truly happy or secure. They are putting on a middle class happy face for social reasons, and are an example of the negative externality of scared, angry desperate people I was talking about.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Choice and inevitability are the same. :) I guess this one of the more fundamental disagreements. Calvin was burnt at the stake for taking your position. Luther sparked the Reformation by insisting on mine. Rand identifies a human being's key difference from other animals as the fact that a man is a volitional being. I should take back my previous reply. You are free to disagree. There's been enough burning of heretics. I'd ask that you stop trying to form a community that will make heretics out of more people, but your mind seems pretty set. Let's just hope, then, that noone takes our words seriously enough to march to them.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Please explain how will and self are not illusion. Show me, if you can, how self or will are outside the chain of cause end effect, how will is not determined by things outside of will. If you click submit, it is because the chain of causality leads to that. When you get lunch, it is similarly because that is the effect created by the universe of cause. You are arguing for acuasality of will, saying that will is somehow special and unlike anything else we've seen in the universe, somehow separate from it.

Yes, people choose things. But those choices are determined by the entirety of the rest of the universe. The universe is like the faces/vase illusion. look at it one way, you see the faces of self. Look at it another, you see the vase of the external universe. But it is neither, it is merely light and dark shapes, and it is our mind that creates the separation, because that is what mind does, it separates things into categories.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

If someone decides to break their contract with us, we are under no obligation to continue to deal with them. So your idea of cooperation means creating a schism at the slightest of disagreements? In that case, we both agree. Since your community will disintegrate to the point where it's just you... and perhaps the "United Front of Judea" pretty darn soon. Your signature tells me you'll get the reference. So are advocating a virtual uncompromising individuality with the exception for some few individuals who agree with you 100%.

You receive the majority of the extra value created in the trade, while I am only a little better off. Only if you forget the fact that you received quite a bit more than you claim. Since you have no transportation, the food was delivered to you. That's work which has value. But even if you assume that both people are trying to take advantage of each other, then the price they agree on in the end is fair. I won't get into monopolies. I'll just say that in order to keep the market free, monopolies must discouraged and possibly split by the government. But that's a whole other topic.

Most people value fairness and reciprocity far more than personal gain Don't you see what you are saying? You are saying that people wish to be selfish for their personal satisfaction. That is that a fair life is a selfish goal -- it is thought after out personal benefit.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

No one is making heretics out of anyone. It sounds like you are advocating socialism, that I have an obligation to do business with others, even if I don't want to. What I am proposing is all built on free association and contract. There is no coercion. You are talking about forcing me to do business with people I don't like. Or restricting my ability to form contracts with others. If people don't want to limit themselves to only doing business with people who are cooperative and take responsibility for externalities, that is their right.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that this is where the free market leads, and not only to reasoned and thoughtful goals such as mine. Christians will be forming compacts not to sell to Muslims. Whites will be forming compacts not to deal with blacks. The rich will be forming free associations with each other to economically limit the choices open to the poor. All without coercion, merely with economic and social pressure.

Is it coercion to tell a man who has no food, no land, and no means of support, "You do what I say or you starve to death?" Why should I be forced to support such a man? Why shouldn't I profit from his misfortune? Why shouldn't I use my wealth to ensure that there is a steady supply of such men? Isn't that in my rational self interest?

Have you even considered these issues when forming your philosophy?

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

You keep telling yourself that my community will dissolve. Look around the world a bit. Look at Europe, or South America. I think you are wrong. I am only attempting to think through the logical consequences of a true free market, coercion free polity. Very ugly things will emerge, and groups like I'm advocating will be necessary to combat them. People will join groups like mine because they see the value to themselves.

No, I am taking everything into account. The economic concepts I write about are well understood and established principles of the field. Not all trade is fair, there is economic coercion involved in a lot of it. Not everyone walks away from a trade feeling as though they got a good value.

You seem to be saying that it is okay to make economic slaves out of people, is that really what you mean?

A fair life is a selfish goal, of course I agree. But it is more complicated than that, as the research I indicate shows. Most people prefer to live fairly and equitably, but in a system that does not reward cooperation and punish free-riders, people feel forced to act selfishly in order not to be taken advantage of. People are only really free to be themselves in a group that supports their ideals. In Africa there is an old proverb that explains the reciprocal relationship between individual freedom and group responsibility. "Only free individuals can create a strong tribe. Only a strong tribe can keep individuals free."

So, knowing that living in a fair and equitable society is a selfish goal of the majority of humans, and knowing that people do not feel free to be fair and equitable in an unfair society, and given that economic pressures are unbalanced due to the positive feedback cycle of wealth creating more opportunity for wealth creation and accumulation, don't you see that groups such as I advocate are inevitable in a truly coercion free, free market system?

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

You very conveniently interchange "I" and "we". Talking about choice (which is undestandable in the context of "I") and community (which can only exist in the context of "we") as if they were one.

What I am proposing is all built on free association and contract.

Contract is not a free association. It is a voluntary suspension of ability to associate freely (expressed as an agreement to assume responsibility for performing certain actions) in exchange for the other signatories doing the same (although, of course, the actions for which the other signatories assume respoinsibilities might be different). As with all contracts, they are only as valid as the ability to enforce them. Generally these types of contracts are kept together by the fear of retribution (ex communication, etc.) So, whether you realize it or not, you are very much looking to make heretics. How do you propose enforcing yours? A contract which has not enforcement mechanism is not a contract -- it's a pact. And pacts break up as soon as one member withdraws on a caprice. What you don't seem to realize is that the action you propose does not require a contract. It is just as easily accomplished with an individual choice (as in "he is selfish, so I am not going to go to his store").

Is it coercion to tell a man who has no food, no land, and no means of support, "You do what I say or you starve to death?"

You can't make such a statement. The only statement you can make is "I will help you not to starve to death if you do what I say." You posed your question in such a way that the premise that the starving person must accept a contract or starve. But that's not the case. He must accept the contract to prevent starvation in this particular way. He may find other means to support himself as far as the provider is concerned. It is not the provider's fault that he is able to provide. Whatever he has was created (hopefully he is an honest man and created it through his own talents or through exchange of the work of his talents for someone else's property). But the fact that someone has created something does not mean that he must share it. It means that he is free to name the price for it. If he weren't, it is likely (although definately not guaranteed) that he wouldn't bother creating it in the first place. I am sure we both can come up with examples of things people create without expecting to profit from them. But the key is that if they weren't able to profit from them, many people who do end up creating would not bother (again, not all, but many... if history is any indication, most). And what if the the man with all that bread was not free to charge for it? Well, the destitute person in your scenario would starve. Noone would offer him the employment because that's immoral. But that "cat" wouldn't bother creating a situation of ownership of bread either (what the hell for?).

Whites will be forming compacts not to deal with blacks. The rich will be forming free associations with each other to economically limit the choices open to the poor. All without coercion, merely with economic and social pressure.

"When I disagree with a man of reason, I let reality be the final arbiter." The reality is that in Brooklyn, NY, Palestinians do business with Israelis, R&B artists are welcome in all restaurants and car dealerships despite their backgrounds (sometimes not only poor, but criminal) and I live in an ethinicly-centric neighborhood the language of which I do not speak. All of this is possible because people are willing to think of themselves as traders before they are willing to think of themselves as members of a community. Trade (fueled by greed) is what makes this cooperation smooth and generally mostly flawless. Politics are put aside. People work for the same businesses despite vast political differences and religious background simply because it is the best way to profit from their talents -- not because it would benefit their communities.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Look around the world a bit. Look at Europe, or South America. May I suggest that you look at all of Europe? And that you take a very careful look at South America?

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

Contracts are created through free association. I enforce the contract by refusing to deal with those who break it. If a group of individuals all freely agree only to do business with like minded people, that is just and fair. If one of their members does business with someone else, all the members would then be beholden not to do business with that person.

It really sounds as if you want to create a society where the individual reigns supreme, but not if that individual chooses to express his desires through a group. It sounds as if you wish to limit people's ability to redress wrongs, where only the powerful have the ability to choose their course, and lesser men would not have the power to band together into groups to protect their interests. In short, a sort of neo-feudalism, which is what most Objectivists seem to desire, and why I have such a problem with the idea.

You haven't thought through the consequences of your philosophy. Let me pose some thought questions to you. First, what if one person owned all the resources in the world? In order to live, we would have to pay him, and we'd all work in his factories and stores. This would be a bad thing, right? What if it was only two people who owned everything? What if it was half the people in the world? In short, if every single person does not have access to the means to support themselves, then we do not live in a free society. A free society is not the freedom to choose between slavery and starvation.

Now, the world is already in a situation where a small minority owns the majority of the resources, and the vast majority must do what they say. This minority works together to keep the majority poor and themselves rich. They collude together, and although they do resort to force, they do not need to in order to maintain control. Or rather, they can always claim their use of force is in response to others trying to take what is rightfully theirs.

Unfortunately for your philosophy, people see themselves as members of a community first, and traders second. It's in our nature. We can only really conceptualize around 150 individuals. Everyone outside of this circle of 'real people' is an abstraction, less than human. Oh, intellectually people may agree that everyone is a person the same as them, but that is not how they really feel. A few people, through much spiritual effort, manage to transcend this limitation and feel empathy for all humans, but it is rare. People want to trade with their friends first and foremost, that is human nature.

I am not proposing any type of 'commune,' and I think that you reading things into what I am writing that I did not intend is getting in the way of any real communication. People in my system would still engage in free market trade! If they don't like the trade-off, they are free to engage in trade with others who do not make the same demands. All I propose is that anyone who wants to trade with me sign a contract saying they will a.) support a basic minimum guarantee of access to resources necessary for survival to all people, b.) only trade with people who make the same agreement. Think about it as a system of governance, including taxation and social services, that people are free to buy into or not. I really don't see how you can stay logically consistent with your beliefs and disapprove of what I'm suggesting. Sounds like some serious cognitive dissonance going on in your head.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Contracts are created through free association. I enforce the contract by refusing to deal with those who break it.

Again, that's not a contract. It's a pact. In case of a contract, there is way to punish the cheater. In case of a pact, it is the cheated that gets to carry the burden of most of the damages. Severing of association is not a punishment -- the cheater expects as much. He just waits for the moment when it becomes advantageous to break the pact and backstab. Let's just agree that we both understand the ramifications of the Prisoner's Dilemma before we debate this ad nauseam.

It sounds as if you wish to limit people's ability to redress wrongs, where only the powerful have the ability to choose their course, and lesser men would not have the power to band together into groups to protect their interests. In short, a sort of neo-feudalism, which is what most Objectivists seem to desire, and why I have such a problem with the idea.

You have yet to show how it follows from anything I say, but Ok. If we set the bar for conclusion making lower than a logical chain of reasoning, then I'll can just say, "I want nothing of the kind nor does Objectivism". And then not explain... perhaps stipulating that I am not an Objectivist.

You haven't thought through the consequences of your philosophy.

Oh? I have. Quite extensively. Both on eithical and logical grounds, through examination of previous historical examples, through considering behavioral and cognitive psychology and through dabbling in game theory. But ok, I'll keep thinking.

First, what if one person owned all the resources in the world?

I told you I didn't want to consider monopolies other than to say that I was against them. And, yet, that's where you chose to take it. It's a slightly different topic because it is a singularity condition in an otherwise mostly smooth progression. I already stipulated that I think that they must be treated differently. Now I'll state that it is precisely because they are singularity conditions that they deserve a different treatment.

Unfortunately for your philosophy, people see themselves as members of a community first, and traders second. It's in our nature. We can only really conceptualize around 150 individuals. Everyone outside of this circle of 'real people' is an abstraction, less than human.

I agree with the premise, but disagree with the conclusion. The fact that we can't imagine a group large (approximately 150) to be our community is precisely why communism and Communism fail.

All I propose is that anyone who wants to trade with me sign a contract saying they will a.) support a basic minimum guarantee of access to resources necessary for survival to all people, b.) only trade with people who make the same agreement.

And I've demonstrated that people who make such demands are more likely to be crooks than people who do not. I certainly would never sign such a contract and would definately demand higher price for my services (probably much higher) from any member of such a community... That's my line in the sand. No further.

I am not proposing any type of 'commune,' and I think that you reading things into what I am writing that I did not intend is getting in the way of any real communication.

Yet another property of the communists -- never taking responsibility. "you misunderstood", "you need to be educated", "we think otherwise" are all the signs. Whatever happened to "I mis-spoke", "I wasn't clear enough", "let me see how what you and I think differs". All the signs of cooperation (that come out of necessity) are absent in the men who wants to dictate.

I really don't see how you can stay logically consistent with your beliefs and disapprove of what I'm suggesting.

By realizing that what you suggest is rooted in treating life as a guarantee rather than a gift (from nature) and that y

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

First, what I am advocating is nothing like communism. The fact that you keep comparing my ideas to communism without explaining the similarities, and then blaming me for your misunderstanding is disturbing. My ideas are based on free association, anarchism in the original sense of the word. There is no coercion or force used.

Life is not a guarantee, it is a gift. Agreed. But if a system exists that guarantees the basic minimums necessary for survival, why would anyone choose to participate in a system that does not guarantee those minimums? There are no such things as natural rights, unfortunately. There are only the rights we agree to uphold for each other. Rights derive from agreements between individuals, and need not be justified though the naturalistic fallacy, nor through appeal to divine authority. A right is valid in context, when individuals agree to uphold that right. Therefore, if a group of individuals collectively agree that they will uphold the right of each member to have access to the basic necessities they need to support themselves (That is to say, at the minimum a plot of arable land including enough materials to make suitable housing and clothing.) then that becomes a right, according to that society. Take it or leave it.

When you claim that humans have choice, but stop there, as if an individual human's choice is somehow a root cause and not a part of a chain of cause and effect, you place responsibility unfairly on the shoulders of that individual, and absolve any other factors of responsibility. As a thought experiment, look at the child soldiers in Africa. Is it fair that they be held responsible for their actions, while the adults who enslaved and brainwashed them are not? Our choices impact the choices that others make. No man is an island, and nothing we decide comes entirely from within us. I say there is no clear demarcation between self and non self, and I challenge you to present one.

Re:Ineffective

[j_166]

Jesus Christ

Re:Ineffective

[j_166]

So there you go. There is a million dollar idea: Geek Squad for mafia crime families. "Our geeks are smarter than yours -- if you know what's good for ya".

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

First, what I am advocating is nothing like communism.

I am not sure if your capitalization is intentional, but while you advocate nothing like Communism, you most certainly do advocate communism.

But if a system exists that guarantees the basic minimums necessary for survival

It doesn't. It's one of those dillusions that's created by the plantitude of the surplaces of the modern society driven by self-interest. Because that system demands and creates constant increases in efficiency of production that "minimum" to which people are accustomed is constantly growing.

There are only the rights we agree to uphold for each other.

I disagree. Right exist as long as we agree not to take them away from each other. I don't need you (or anyone else) to breeth. But you can take (or attempt to take) that right from me. Anything for which I need you is a priviledge that I earn by being useful to you. I don't need you to talk to my neighbor and try to exchange my goods for his or my services for the services of your neighbor. So as far as you are concerned, this is my right. As far as your neighbor is concerned, it is my priviledge. If you try to tax my interraction with your neighbor, you take away my right.

Rights derive from agreements between individuals, and need not be justified though the naturalistic fallacy, nor through appeal to divine authority.

Again, rights do naturally exist until taken away. Apeal to an abstract divine as a tool for guaranteeing non-revokability of rights was used as a poetic license in the understanding that everyone would take it allegorically. Unfortunately, the poetic value can get chipped away with time, so I would agree that it is best not to open that door to superstitions.

collectively agree

A number of people cannot share one mind. They can simultaneously agree. But it is physically impossible for them to collectively agree. What you propose is collusion and they often (although not always) break because an opportunity comes along which makes backstabing a very advantageous proposition. Again, it's just a matter of assigning the proper weights in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

you place responsibility unfairly on the shoulders of that individual, and absolve any other factors of responsibility.

Yep. We are not victims of our circumstances. At least most of the time -- in all but the most dire of situations. We have the faculty for trying to change our circumstances. It is this faculty that allowed us to create the civilization (ie, an environment modified to suit our wants, some of which, of course, arouse from our needs). The extent to which we are victims of our circumstances rather than masters of them is the extent to which we have advanced.

Is it fair that they be held responsible for their actions, while the adults who enslaved and brainwashed them are not?

I don't see how you can suggest that anyone deems the adults who enslaved them and brainwashed them are not guilty of anything. It is fair to hold these children accountable for the murders they commit. But you are taking examples of extreme circumstances in which people have been turned into automatons to try to demonstrate the point that all people are automatons. Why not go for the kill and compare ourselves to people who have been lobotomized? Or even had their entire prefrontal cortex removed? Why only go for those who have been specifically conditioned not to consider choices that life offers? To prove that we can be driven to madness? Ok. Granted. But why should I be judged by those standards? I am talking about free-thinking individuals. How they got to that point is irrelevant. What matters is that they are there. The thing is what it is -- not what it used to be and not what it might become.

I say there is no clear demarcation between self and non self, and I challenge you to present on

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

I want to break this down logically for you. In a free market, non-coercive system, either people can use economic pressure to gain their ends, or they can't. If they can't, and a free market is truly free from any unfair influence based on monetary power, then we don't have an issue. You can use your system, and I can use mine, and nobody is oppressing anyone because it isn't possible.

You with me so far?

Now, assume that individuals or groups can use economic pressure to achieve their goals. This is either unfair coercion, or it is fair and justified. If it is fair and justified then we don't have an issue. There may be oppression going on, but it is justified. You may use your power to corner markets or deny people access to markets; you may collude with others to raise prices; you may attempt to ignore the negative externalities, or free ride on others positive externalities; you may use imbalance of information, monopoly, externalities, and other modes of market failure to gain advantage; or basically do anything in your power that doesn't directly initiate violence on another. But I and my little group can do the same.

Now, if using this kind of individual or group economic pressure to achieve goals is unjustified, then the market is not perfect and needs some kind of control structure. A government, if you will. Remember, anarchy is not about no government. It is about no rulers. Then the only issue is, what kind of government, and when is the force it uses justified? That is, when is it initiating force, and when is it retaliating to force used against its members?

It really sounds as though there is a blind spot in your thinking. You want things to be a certain way, and reason backwards to a position that supports your desired conditions. When someone uses your starting position to argue to undesired conclusions, you assume they must be wrong or illogical, not that your starting position or desired conclusion is invalid, or that the one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

I've used the logical starting point of libertarianism and objectivism to reach a very different conclusion than their supporters desire. I've done it with no logical inconsistency, nor moral ambiguity that is not present in the starting position of those philosophies. You can't refute my conclusions, yet they make you very uncomfortable and you are certain they must be wrong, though you can't point out how. Certainty is simply another name for faith. It is not a logical process, it is an emotion. Feelings of certainty are no indicator of correctness or truth.

It seems you strongly desire a world where every individual is free to do what they please, and no person or group is free to impose its will on another. That is admirable, and I desire the same thing. Please understand that. My system does not involve a person or group imposing its will on another in any way that would not already happen under a complete free market, non coercive system. If you do not like what I am proposing, that is fine, but you can't just toss out my conclusions. You have to deal with them one way or another, because in any true anarchist system, they will come up, and in much uglier forms than I am proposing.

In fact, the reason I am proposing what I do is simply to deal with that fact: a minority of people will attempt to use their power, be it political, social, or economic, to oppress others and gain further power. This constitutes a positive feedback loop, and any system which does not take this into account will self destruct as the selfish sociopathic minority gains all power.

In conclusion, I don't believe you can argue any stronger argument against my system than "I don't like it and I hope others won't either." You simply have to agree that in a free society, I would be free to attempt to set up such a system. You would be free to discourage people from participating, but you simply couldn't stop them if they wanted to participate. So if we do set up a non-coercive free market s

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

You do not have the right to breath. You have the power to do so. Unless you are trapped under water. Without other people, I have the right to swing my fist wherever I like. Does that right still exist if other people are around? In short, your arguments, which I have heard many times before, have no validity. It is based on false distinctions.

If your argument is valid, then even more problems crop up. Without other people around, I have the freedom to go anywhere, use any natural resource, and experience anything I like. Where then is the justification for private property? As in real estate, not personal property.

If I and your neighbors have an agreement that he will pay a certain amount into a pool to be used for things we vote on whenever he makes a transaction, and that if he neglects to do so the rest of us will no longer trade with him or let him co-administer the pool or derive any benefits from it, that is fair, correct? You do not have the right to overturn any other previous agreements our neighbor might have entered into. You have no right to trade with him, by your own admission, this is something that requires other people and is therefore a privilege, not a right.

We are not victims of circumstance nor masters of circumstance. We are not separate from circumstance. And you have failed utterly to define a distinction between self and non-self. Do you decide to take a breath? Really? Always? Who is breathing you when you aren't? Is it self, or non-self? Your point is so far off base it doesn't even qualify as wrong.

Re:Ineffective

[superwiz]

Fine, I'll respond again. But this has to be it. I am running of fumes as it is. This reply was nothing but a very polite ad hominem. You took the accusations which (I assume) generally fly with those you debate and decided to knee-jerk throw them at me. You state premises and then conclusions, but never explain why they follow. And when I disagree and show why different conclusions follow from your premises, you tell me that I disagree because it doesn't sit right. Ok. It doesn't. But not because of some psychological needs that you seek to assign to me. But rather because it doesn't make sense. Your system of voluntary collusion will break as soon as it reaches critical point where backstabing will provide more benefit than cooperation. I don't need to do anything about it. It will collapase on its own. Thankfully, you are trying to start small and catch on virally -- so that when it does collapse it will only take some of the most devout members with it. You can't escape Prisoner's Dilemma. We have evolved to be constantly playing it as part of our person-to-person interaction. Wolves run in a pack. A man who runs in a pack and sees a rabit that can feed him in addition to what the pack catches will often go for the rabit. That's just the nature of the beast. The wolf would never leave the pack. You might hope to pick out from the society those individuals who'd always volunterily run in the pack and will therefore stick to your cult, but it won't work. Your are nihilistic and when pressed by nihilism on large scale, individualistic humans coalesce into institutions of power to fight for safety. If you ever do collect a group to your liking and achieve even the mildest of success, expect to see Galt's Strike. For all you know, you've seen it in GWB (destroying a house in a subversive manner because the house got rotten). You will fail. But only because you want the impossible. Life has evolved to fight for life and you want to stop life -- not as your means to an end. You want cesation of life as your goal. And you are willing to play within the framework of creation as your method. The more successful you become, the more vulnurable your scheme will be. Because, after all, the end goal of nihilism is annihilation. Sooner or later you'll achieve it. And those who remain will continue on living.

Re:Ineffective

[spun]

I'm not a nihilist, but I know the goal of nihilism is not annihilation. And I know that you have not bothered to look up any of the economic research I suggested you peruse. Google "fairness reciprocity economic research" or go to wiki and look for the links on the game theory page, if I remember correctly. In short, most of your suppositions about human nature have been proven wrong.

I don't want the cessation of life as a goal, that is a straw man, and bordering on ad-hominem. I began doing that to you to try to show you how damn annoying it is when others put words in your mouth. Don't like it, do you? Stop doing it to me. I want freedom for the individual. I won't try to claim that you merely want to enslave others if you agree not to claim that I want to end all life. What insanity, does that type of debating tactic really fly in your circles?

War on Data

[Chukcha]

I expect that the "War on Data" will be as effective as the "War on Drugs", War on Terror", and "War on Poverty" have been. In other words, very successful at giving the state more control, more jobs, and more opportunities for corruption. Discuss...

Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant for

[ArsenneLupin]

The proposed laws would allow police to search computers networked to those listed on a search warrant. In a few words: Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant for all computers worldwide that happen to be on the Internet. Gosh, and you Aussies let such laws pass without torching the parliament building, and putting all heads who voted for it on a stake?

tough question

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

for domestic networks: yes. for over-seas networks: yes and no. yes for allied countries, no for hostile nations

Networked?

[grassy_knoll]

From TFA:

The proposed laws would allow police to search computers networked to those listed on a search warrant.

So, if there's a cable modem / DSL in use when the computer is searched the entire subnet could be searched? How about the web servers of sites displayed in a browser?

How do these new regulations define "networked"?

Re:Networked?

[FST777]

If history has taught us anything about the affinity politicians have with tech, the definition will probably be: "tied to each other using one or more electrical cables, wires or tubes."

That or there will be no definition at all. Law is usually very vague in defining things, they assume that those things will be sorted out in jurisprudence.

Re:Networked?

[the eric conspiracy]

So if I have wifi I am safe?

Re:Networked?

[L4t3r4lu5]

When I download Windows Updates, or use Google, my computer connects to their computers.

Get THEM to give you access to their files!

New part of police education?

[splutty]

So. If I understand this correctly, the newest addition to the curriculum of the police school will be:

Intahwebs Hacking 101: How to break into networked computers for dummies.

I don't quite get this bill, to be honest. There is almost never a fully open continuous connection between networked computers to begin with, and I seriously doubt that any sort of crime syndicate would be so stupid as to share directories over the internet or something equally dumb.

So the only thing I can possibly think of is them trying to hack into machines that have been/are connected to the machine they have physical access to, and I'm sure that'll be protested by every privacy and civil liberty organisation in existance.

This is what you get if you let people with absolutely 0 knowledge about how things work (other than from a buzzbingo chart) make laws and or decisions about technology.

Sad, really...

Options

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you can always move to the United States.

Global Police

[notgm]

you know, the more i think about this story, the more i realize that a global police/government force is almost necessary in our times. defining an act as legal/illegal solely based on physical location is, by and large, nonsensical.

sure, there are proximity crimes, but i'm talking about something unrelated to location. theft, for instance.

we can prosecute you if you steal while standing here, but we cannot prosecute you if you steal while you are standing there.

something is broken.

Re:Global Police

[splutty]

A global police force already exists pretty much in the shape of Interpol. So really no need to go and invent one. Any sort of crime that goes beyond a country's borders pretty much ends up at Interpol, and through them at the police forces in the countries affected by the crime.

Global lawmaking however is going to be extremely hard, or even impossible, considering the many different ideas people have about freedom, censorship, crime in general (is marihuana legal yes/no), etc, etc.

Re:Global Police

[Technician]

defining an act as legal/illegal solely based on physical location is, by and large, nonsensical.

On the surface, that appears to be the case, but, some regional location based law makes lots of sense. If I am in the woods with a deer tag and a loaded deer rifle, this is fine. Doing the same thing at my local bank is not. Look beyond the obvious.

In the US, it is illegal to posess endangered sea turtle shells. In the Cayman Islands, to protect the species, they breed them. To pay the cost, the turtle farm is authorized to sell turtle products. (turtle stew is delicious). I can buy endangered turtle products, but I can't bring them into the US.

http://turtle.ky/

"Since the Farm has begun local turtle releases, the sightings of green sea turtles by divers and residents living along the coast have been common. To fully assess the re-establishment of a Cayman turtle population, the Farm, with the cooperation of the Cayman Islands Government, has initiated both aerial and ground level surveys of the beaches and waters surrounding the islands. The public has cooperated by providing information on turtle sightings and nestings. Because of observed dog and crab predation and increased public use of all beaches, reported nests are relocated to the Cayman Turtle Farm's hatchery for incubation. All hatchlings are then returned to the collection beach for release."

Here is the reference to the sale of turtle products;

"The new owners intended to operate the farm more as a non profit organization, funnelling any profits from the sale of products back into sea turtle conservation and protection projects, using the site as an international sea turtle research facility. However, export restrictions continued and sufficient revenue could not be generated to maintain the approximately 100,000 turtles on hand."

Due to the export restrictions, I only bought edible turtle products, as when I left, it would have been illegal to take the souvenirs home.
In the US they made it illegal to possess turtle parts to reduce poaching. In the caymans, they made it legal for the Turtle Farm to raise them and sell products to replenish the endangered species with great success.

Re:Global Police

[Nazlfrag]

Additionally, if both countries agree on the crime extradition is sometimes an option. The more cooperative the governments the more likely this will happen. Australia is cooperative with most western governments. I just hope the parliament comes to its senses.

Drama?

[Penguinisto]

Not 100% sure of how closely Australia tracks with US laws, but would this require a full search warrant, or a bench warrant, or ...?

(and do they have probable cause laws?)

IOW, they still have to prove their case before they can start poking about, yes?

(and now more than ever, we really need some tech-savvy law types to get their asses into judicial positions, no matter which country we're talking about...)

/P

Australia laws

[fuzzlost]

I am not familiar with Australian laws.. are investigators allowed to search any part of a drive searching for data that might be incriminating? And if they find unrelated illegal data, is it submittable in court, or possibly as a new case? For example, John Smith has his computer seized for suspicion of fraud, and they find child porn on the computer. Can he be arrested/tried for possession/distribution of child porn? And wouldn't this law allow investigators to search/seize anyone this guy has connected to in search of child porn? How big is the scope of this law?

What crime?

[muffel]

'What we know is that there are organized crime gangs who use the Internet and other forms of technology to hide their crimes,' he said."

If they can hide their crimes using the Internet, the crimes can't have been that bad in the first place?

Re:What crime?

[Hanners1979]

If they can hide their crimes using the Internet, the crimes can't have been that bad in the first place?

You'd be amazed how many dead bodies you can hide in a series of tubes.

Re:What crime?

[MrNemesis]

Is that why my dump trucks of data keep getting stuck in the tubes? It's entirely due to corpses? Brings a whole new meaning to the term "bandwidth throttling" - "use too much of the wrong data and we'll strangle you!".

N.B. I'm patenting the idea of strangling people for using the internet in the wrong way. So if you want to use it Comcast (BTW, you might want to just call it 'permanent sentience delaying' in the T's and C's) you're going to have to pay me for it.

Re:What crime?

[doc_doofus]

Now I fully understand my bandwidth problems. Someone call the interplumber!

Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[QCompson]

I count three:
1. terrorism (boogedy-boogedy!)
2. kiddie pr0n (think of the children!)
3. fraud (oh no, my precious inbox is filled with spam!)

What's number four?

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[deepershade]

4 may be Anti-Government sentiments? or Blogs?, Piracy?

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[Sabz5150]

What's number four?

SCO.

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[ExecutorElassus]

What's number four? Well, if we get all Biblical on this, the original four inflicted Strife/Persecution/Conquest, War, Famine/iniquity, and Pestilence/Death on the mortal world. So...
1. Terrorism --> War
2. kiddie pr0n --> Iniquity
3. fraud --> Pestilence

That leaves Strife/Conquest. If I could channel how the post-9/11 technology-oriented security official might see things, I would guess, um, Microsoft.
But then, we've already extended this metaphor too far.

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[adam.dorsey]

I count three:

1. terrorism (boogedy-boogedy!)

2. kiddie pr0n (think of the children!)

3. fraud (oh no, my precious inbox is filled with spam!)

What's number four? Software/music/video piracy.

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[Technician]

I count three:
1. terrorism (boogedy-boogedy!)
2. kiddie pr0n (think of the children!)
3. fraud (oh no, my precious inbox is filled with spam!)

What's number four?

4. Hacking - buffer overflow exploits, botnets.

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[kalirion]

common sense

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[Chris Mattern]

I count three:
1. terrorism (boogedy-boogedy!)
2. kiddie pr0n (think of the children!)
3. fraud (oh no, my precious inbox is filled with spam!)

What's number four?

4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[insertwackynamehere]

Strife and Conquest? But video games would never hurt us!

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[froon]

Bruce Schneier says that they are:

Terrorists

Drug dealers

Kidnappers

Child pornographers

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[be951]

Based on this quote from TFA, I would guess some kind of bicycle-related porn:

"Whether that's gang-related or fraud-related, or whether it deals with those who pedal child pornography, police will have additional powers to keep our community safer."

Emphasis added, of course.

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[TubeSteak]

4. ???
5. Profit! 4. Sell Drugs
5. Profit!

Drug dealers are 1 of the 4 Horsemen

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[Bloodoflethe]

Confirmed to be the person that knows how to use Google.

Re:Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse are generally recognised to be Drugs, Terrorism, Money Laundering and Child Pornography. Any story depicting the dangers of technology will usually feature one or more of these.

Might actually be a good thing

[gweihir]

It might cause people to finally take computer security seriously. After all, an Australien cop breaking into a, say, Swiss computer, is just a criminal hacker and needs to be repelled. Methods for this are the usual: Firewalls, NAT, AV software, intrusion detection sytems and keeping your patches up to date.

Re:Might actually be a good thing

[ArsenneLupin]

After all, an Australien cop breaking into a, say, Swiss computer, is just a criminal hacker and needs to be repelled. Hihi, in the end it will not be that big of a difference from the usual scenario of a German tax investigator breaking into a, say, Liechtenstein computer...

Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[Cathoderoytube]

I guess it's worth noting that the law was just proposed, not actually passed. You could fill up a million pages on slashdot just with all the stupid bills governments all over the world table every day. So this is just playing on our guilty pleasure of ragging on any possibility of a law that would infringe on our rights, however unlikely they'll ever get passed.

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[putaro]

If there's no outrage against it, it *will* get passed. These are the kind of laws that lazy law enforcement types love. They bring them again and again until they slip through somehow.

The US has been passing stupid laws left and right in the wake of "9-11". Australia doesn't have to be so stupid. Be upset or it will happen.

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[hyades1]

There's actually a pretty good reason for having a good, old-fashioned uproar whenever something like this is proposed. It's called a trial balloon, and the reason it's floated is so the government of the day can judge the level of outrage they'll have to deal with if they try to pass a similar law. The usual method is to propose something as ridiculous as this, then work hard to enact a less draconian alternative that still manages to undermine civil liberties in a big way. The non-thinking majority of drones then nod their heads wisely and say, "Wow, we really dodged a bullet on that one, didn't we."

Not that I disagree with you about how much fun it is to ridicule these fascist half-wits, mind you. There's no rule that says you can't do something valuable and have a huge laugh at the same time.

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[Mr. Underbridge]

You could fill up a million pages on slashdot just with all the stupid bills governments all over the world table every day.

Could?

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[PDX]

Meanwhile on the planet Mars, the computer virus planted by Mr. Vinnie "The Fink" Stoltz of New Jersey has just turned the Opportunity rover into a porn laden spam-bot. This is the first revenue generated by the planet Mars. Future data havens will be cheap and located farther away from planetary authorities. Makes you wonder what illicit activity has been happening in Alpha Centauri.

NO! Don't clone the MINDWORMS!

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[Bloodoflethe]

Yeah, the subjunctive is ill-advised here.

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[Cathoderoytube]

You make a good point. I remember they tabled the DRM bill here in Canada but then later retracted it due to people vocalizing their upsetness over it.

But at the same time I'm not sure governments particularly care about the opinions of the people that voted them in to office when they really want to pass a law. They'll just go ahead and do it. A good example is the amalgamation of Toronto. The people of the city held a referendum before hand and voted against it. But the government said it didn't matter how the citizens voted in the referendum, they were going to amalgamate regardless. Mind YOU the Toronto city council is the largest group of assfuck half-dicked corn pone morons in the entire universe. I mean bar none. They held a big convention last year to determine this, and they won by 10 000 points (it only requires 10 points to win)

Re:Open up the border... To rivers running stupid.

[hyades1]

You're preaching to the choir, my friend. I personally sent an e-mail and following letter to Harper on the bill, and I can see Toronto across the southwestern end of Lake Ontario from where I live (Stoney Creek). And if you listen to CBC Radio 1, you've heard me or my e-mails on a few call-in shows. Cheers, neighbor!

Smart crooks use encryption

[davidwr]

Dumb crooks don't.

If you want to catch crooks who use encryption, toll the statute of limitations until the technology catches up with the encryption. If Guidowski the Italian-Russian mobster encrypts his stuff using standard public-key encryption, it will be breakable with quantum computers within 10-20 years.

On the other hand, if he has access to quantum encryption, you probably have bigger worries than a few bodies in cement boots.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, for that is the real goal. What you are seeing are individual battles in the war on limits of government power. Every government, once formed, takes on a life of its own and seeks to increase authority, power and influence at the expense of personal liberty. Sadly, it is the natural order of things and the history books are rich with examples.
Government power is like acid. It will eat away at the vessel that contains (no matter how well constructed, see the American Constitution for example) it until it escapes. It will destroy those in its path.

I'm only an amateur student of history, but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force.

Now, where did I put that crime?

[Red Flayer]

'What we know is that there are organized crime gangs who use the Internet and other forms of technology to hide their crimes

Yes, because when I (and my legitimate businessmen associates) want to hide my crimes, the first thing I do is post information about them on the internet. Because, of all places I could put my crimes in the hope of hiding them, the Internet is the best choice. It's not like law enforcement has the time to monitor all the tubes, after all, and even if they did, they can't check all the trucks.

I know that quote was cherry-picked from the article because it's so ridiculous, but really... people should make certain that the person publically commenting on programs knows what they are talking about and can express their FUD in a way that makes sense to both Joe Oilcan and the techies.

Is it's their responsibility to ask...

[Thanshin]

...And their government to deny?

Or is it wrong that the police even asks.

I don't think they should be made responsible of analyzing the full ramifications of what they see as a chance to apply the law. Let them ask and politely deny the obviously idiotic proposition.

In other poice state news...

[Telecommando]

Criminals also use roads and sidewalks, therefore when searching a property for criminal activity all properties connected by roads or sidewalks to the suspect property should be searched as well.

Re:In other poice state news...

[Leibel]

What makes you think they don't search around the suspect's property? It's just that they don't need a warrant to look around public places.

Re:In other poice state news...

[jibjibjib]

Read the post you're replying to.

Errrr...

[zaunuz]

right to search networked computers, not only the computers found on site.. in 99.9% of the cases these computers are connected to the intertubes, thus making the computers they'd be allowed to search spread pretty much over the entire world. And speaking of intertubes, i wouldn't be surprised if US States Senator Ted Stevens agreed with it. O.o

Re:Errrr...

[Dan541]

That's a good point if they can search my computer they can also search any coputer in the world thats connected to the Internet.

There is a solution

[Swizec]

The only solution to all these jurisdiction problems related to the internets everyone seems to be having is to introduce an all new international authority that only deals with the internets and has jurisdiction online and only online. It would make sure everyone is kept safe and it would not answer to any one government.

You know, sort of like Haag, but for the internet. What d' you think?

LOL

[Jaysyn]

I always thought that the US had cornered the stupid politician market, but I see that Australia & the UK are not to be outdone by our lawmaker's base ineptitude.

Re:LOL

[Goffee71]

Politicians aside, it will be up to cops to enact this...

... Aussie cops.

Cop - "G'day mate, I'm here for your hard disk, got a warrant and everything."

User - "No worries, have a tinny before you start though."


Cop - (3 hours later) "... bye then mate, shouldn't I be taking something from here, oh yehr, another beer! nice one mate, take it easy"

Policing how it should be done.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Brian Gordon]

You'd expect that from a prison colony wouldn't you? :)

And next...

[kabdib]

The proposed legislation giving us X-ray Mind-Reading Super Powers will permit us to find out when people are thinking Bad Thoughts, anywhere! Criminals should give themselves up now!

Cop: "Yer unner arrest."

Perp: "What for? I haven't done anything."

Cop: "Dis machine here says you wuz gonna."

Perp: "You got me. It's a fair cop."

Re:And next...

[doc_doofus]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/06/0435226 Guess you haven't gotten to this one yet?
"Brain Scanner Can Tell What You're Looking At"

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[HTH NE1]

Before today you would have thought "Government Seeks Warrant to Search the Internet" was a headline from The Onion.

RTFS

[SanityInAnarchy]

...the New South Wales cabinet has proposed new powers for police to search computers anywhere under a search warrant, and adds: "The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse are invoked to explain why police need the new laws, which have yet to be introduced into Parliament...."

Read The Fucking Summary. Thank you.

Or, if you still don't get it: The laws have been proposed, not passed. There's still the chance that parliament will figure out the implications and reject the law, in favor of sanity.

Re:RTFS

[ArsenneLupin]

The laws have been proposed, not passed. Oops, you're right. I was a little bit fast, sorry for that. Ok, so I'll just wait the necessary 2 or 3 weeks, and post it again when the law is passed.

There's still the chance that parliament will figure out the implications and reject the law, in favor of sanity. Well, let's hope so, but given the Aussies' past performance on all matters Internet, I somehow doubt this... Unless the Australian people raise enough of a stink against this beforehand...

Re:RTFS

[Robber Baron]

Or, if you still don't get it: The laws have been proposed, not passed. There's still the chance that parliament will figure out the implications and reject the law, in favor of sanity. Oh you mean like how the Australian parliament figured out the implications of the new draconian gun laws and rejected them in favour of sanity?

You chide him for not reading the summary? You clearly don't know who your real enemy is or what he's capable of.

Re:RTFS

[rohan972]

Oh you mean like how the Australian parliament figured out the implications of the and rejected them in favour of sanity?

You don't understand, those laws are great! I mean sure, people still get murdered, but it's more likely to be with a knife that a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. Wouldn't you feel much better to have yourself or a family member killed by a knife instead of a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. (Sorry, I have to shriek whenever that word is mentioned, it's the law)

Just how pathetic is it here? The QLD Police recommend screaming as one of the most effective self defense methods. If you can't run away that is. Its shameful.

It would be easier to buy firearms illegally than legally here, and even if you have a firearm legally, self defence is an illegal use of that firearm and would likely result in you being charged and loosing your license, even if it was against an armed intruder.

Note to USians: make adoption of the Bill of Rights a condition of US/Australia free trade agreements. Please. Or include much more liberal immigration agreements with us, make it easier for us to escape to freedom.

Re:RTFS

[mpe]

You don't understand, those laws are great! I mean sure, people still get murdered, but it's more likely to be with a knife that a GUN *shrieks hysterically*. Wouldn't you feel much better to have yourself or a family member killed by a knife instead of a GUN *shrieks hysterically*.

Except that it appears to be the case that "banning" guns actually increases murders with guns.

Re:RTFS

[rohan972]

Except that it appears to be the case that "banning" guns actually increases murders with guns.

It appears so. My point though, is that it is irrelevant even if they did decrease murders with guns, because people still murder. And there have been plenty of murders done with machetes, many in the Rwandan genocide, murders by Laskar Jihad and a number of multiple murders that have hit the news over the years.

The anti-gun crowd haven't tried to ban machetes though, leading me to the conclusion that they consider murder to be ok, as long as it's not done with a gun.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[oliverthered]

but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force.
Gandhi? of course you all know the reason they teach about Gandhi, it's to show you that there's another way except force that worked well once, so there's no need for you to get up in arms against the government if Gandhi didn't have to.

iwantapony

[davidwr]

To whoever tagged this article "iwantapony": Sheer genius, sheer genius.

Re:How is this even feasible?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

sounds like fun if the relevant cop can be identified - that's begging for arrest-at-the-airport if they go on holiday to the US having hacked into a computer there.

i'm torn

[emagery]

I have difficulty with this because one is forced to between two evils... or, one ever-present evil, and one potential and deadly evil... namely, crime vs. oppression. If you bind the bonds of law enforcement too tightly, then crime will be able to run circles around 'em ... but with power comes temptation, and we've all seen a lot of abuses of power lately (not to mention, historically.) It should go without saying that with authority and power comes greater responsibility and accountability. Except, it doesn't seem to go without saying, does it?

I guess I would say, perhaps in accordance with the concept of FISA court, do what you have to do... but then submit yourself for judgement when all is said and done. Be the penalty upon you for abuse of power be greater than the penalty upon he who who you would use it to persue. It's an idea.

Not Safe

[famebait]

some computers may be found outside NSW

I think you missed a consonant there. "outside not safe work" doesn't even make any sense.

Re:Not Safe

[notorious ninja]

New South Wales :)

Here's what *I* know

[aztektum]

Police are lazy and want cases to solve themselves. Politicians are crooked and want to keep their "jobs" so they'll pull all kinds of shady shit and sell it to the sheep as "protecting them" so they can go about buying iPods and spending more than they make.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Technician]

Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant for all computers worldwide that happen to be on the Internet.

Not a problem. They are free to search any internet connected computer on the internet now. Most will display public web pages and login pages. Going beyond the internet connected public space and trying to intercept encrypted content will be a problem with any and all protected content servers such as any e-commerce, and DRM content site.

Think iTunes will let them in? how about Amazon, .gov sites, thepiratebay, or MSN Hotmail? This isn't going very far. It attempts to reach globally outside their jurisdiction which is where it falls apart.

This law won't last long if passed

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

All it takes is one police officer seizing the hard drive of a politician whom he thinks is guilty of a crime because "it was networked with this other suspect's computer via the Internet" and threatening to seize other politicians' hard drives because they were networked with the first politician's computer.

That's one reason I'm surprised so many politicians here in the US support George Bush's warrantless wiretapping -- what exactly do they believe prevents him from ordering the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. to wiretap them (and throw anyone who divulges the wiretapping into Guantanamo forever) or the next President from doing the same?

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[amplt1337]

One begins to wonder what, exactly, would happen with all of the information that they gather from distant computers. Do the cops in question even have jurisdiction? Do the courts? Would Australian rules of evidence make any of this admissible?

It seems like the law would serve more to justify blackmail and harassment than to generate legitimate evidence. Unless, you know, they're looking for terrorists or something.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Sapphon]

and you Aussies let such laws pass without torching the parliament building

The NSW Parliament hasn't passed anything. The laws haven't even been introduced into Parliament yet! They're thinking about suggesting this law, and even tabling it is still far away from passing it (or do you imagine the Parliament exists only to rubber-stamp legislation?)

I know it's unfashionable to read articles here, but you could at least read the whole summary (or even simply the text you quoted) instead of every second word.

Onion-esque

[mosch]

Government Requests More Power.

Today the (insert country) government has introduced a bill that would greatly expand it's power. It claims that this to fight (evil thing), but realists note that it wouldn't be of significant use for the claimed utility.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Some of my favorite quotes that seem to apply

[Grelfod]

The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.

We need a better legal system that doesn't bind the minds and souls of men with ropes of fear.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

no shit, I'd like that power too . . .

[rev_sanchez]

Then I'd be like the computer kid on Heroes. Hey Australians, Heroes isn't real. Mexicans don't make black goo come out of your eyes and kill you either.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[xouumalperxe]

Just because the warrant says they can search any computer networked with one on the premises doesn't mean they have to search every computer that falls under that category. They don't have to test the warrant against anything they know beforehand will screw them. They can just use their discretionary power to reach however far they want.

One billion dollars

[BigJClark]

Well I want a million bucks, and that ain't gonna happen either.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[Chris Mattern]

Nope, sorry. Gandhi did an amazing job of forcing the British to hand over the reins of the Indian government to the Indians...but he didn't make the Indian government give up any powers. The government retained all the powers it had under British rule and even added some more.

"You've got to be kidding", part 85667365:

[Duncan Blackthorne]

They obviously haven't thought through what they're asking to do. They can legislate something like this all they want to, but it's just words on a page as soon as a network cable leaves Australian territory; no other country is obligated to allow them to barge in and search or seize computers. On top of that, I seriously doubt that Australian authorities would agree to authorities from other countries searching and seizing computers within Australia. I'm tempted to say that there's something else going on here.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I'm only an amateur student of history, but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force.

Here you go.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[jc42]

Before today you would have thought "Government Seeks Warrant to Search the Internet" was a headline from The Onion.

It just illustrates a common complain from satirists: It's a difficult job, because no matter how outrageous you exaggerate, the real world keeps trumping your satire with something real that's more extreme than anything you'd dare to publish.

Actually, I'd start by asking them why they don't just use google. It's funny how much private stuff can be found by just googling it. We've even seen a number of reports recently of identity thieves using google to collect the data they're looking for. I'd wonder how much of the information that various government spy agencies want about their own citizens could be found with a simple google search.

There was a funny news story back in the 70s, about a US government grant to a couple of college profs to study what could be learned about US military installations from public sources. It seems that when they submitted the report, with all the data taken from publicly-available sources, it was immediately classified top secret. I'd bet that such a study would be much easier today.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of a little too bureaucratic when they can't even use Google without a warrant...

Re:... On a Computer!

[UncleTogie]

Need a warrant to get FedEx to say if they shipped any filing boxes to Outer Elbonia? - well, get a warrant for the ISP to tell you if there's been any file transfers to Outer Elbonian addresses.

...and hope the "bad guys" have never heard of SSH...

without a crime having occurred a crime must occur

[absolutspl]

Title 18 United States Code - Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I - Crimes Chapter 46 - Forfeiture Section 981 - Civil Forfeiture (a)(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States: (A) Any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation of section 1956, 1957 or 1960 of this title, or any property traceable to such property. (B) Any property, real or personal, within the jurisdiction of the United States, constituting, derived from, or traceable to, any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from an offense against a foreign nation, or any property used to facilitate such an offense, if the offense-- (i) involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance (as that term is defined for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act), or any other conduct described in section 1956(c)(7)(B); (ii) would be punishable within the jurisdiction of the foreign nation by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; and (iii) would be punishable under the laws of the United States by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, if the act or activity constituting the offense had occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Wow...

[Arancaytar]

And I thought we had it bad here in Germany! At least our government only wants to spy on the computers of its own citizens, not the rest of the world...

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[kabocox]

Before today you would have thought "Government Seeks Warrant to Search the Internet" was a headline from The Onion.

Well, it gets better. Wait until they go after MS and Google and request/require them to use those desktop search apps to search for things on your desktop.

Ultimate file-sharing

[Simonetta]

This concept means that the police will be going away from fighting crime and more into information brokering. If information has value (and EVERY Slashdaughter believes that it does) then what the police find on the computers that they search is going to be worth a lot more than what it pays to be a policeman. You just have to know what it is worth when you find it.

    And policemen, being young and usually deeply into popular culture, will certainly copy for their own use any MP3 file or piece of media about their own favorite pop group. Then we might get to see the RIAA sueing the police to stop 'info-cop' piracy. A lot of individual officers will be fired. And they will mostly all become information brokers between the people who want what is found in all these searched hard-drives and the remaining police who are doing the searching (but don't know the value of what they find).

    In the meantime, all really sensitive information will be encrypted and hidden in international corporate websites or secret Geocities-like storage sites.

And the response...

[Tetsujin]

Aussie Cops were disappointed when the response to their request was that searching computers was "not my bag, baby!" - so unfortunately for them the whole plan is scrapped.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[PPH]

The USA has had the power to search its citizens' bank and brokerage accounts anywhere in the world for decades now. Get used to the new wrld order.

it seems so obvious now

[RHSC]

Orwell was off by 24 years

you only need to be charged of a crime

[Mister Whirly]

But the confiscation occurs at the time you are charged with a crime (or sometimes when you are arrested), not convicted. Why is this aspect of the law seem to be "guilty until proven innocent" when our very justice system is supposed to be based on the opposite?

Re:you only need to be charged of a crime

[voice_of_all_reason]

Why is this aspect of the law seem to be "guilty until proven innocent"

Because what are you going to do about it?

Re:you only need to be charged of a crime

[Mister Whirly]

Not get caught apparently. Or walk everywhere, or take a bus if planning on doing anything illegal. Shouldn't be a problem as I mostly bus everywhere already.

Re:without a crime having occurred a crime must oc

[Cervantes]

That'd be nice if it was the case that he's referring to, but he's not.

In regards to the section you quoted, that's how local police take your property without you having been convicted... they can just say you used your house/car/lawnmower to make drugs, and seize it. And if you want it back, you've got to post a huge bond of something like 50% of the value, and then slog through a few years of court to eventually get it back. Which usually isn't an option when they've seized your bank account...

The GP was referring to something else that is not Civil Asset Forfeiture, and the exact name escapes me right now. But, here's the jist of it. If the gov't (at any level) decides that your land would be put to better use doing something else, they can just take it. The trend started a few years ago, when a block of houses were wanted for a mall development, and the homeowners were holding out for a large amount of money from the developers (or just didn't want to sell, I can't recall). The developers went to the city, and the city decided that it was better for the town if they forced the homeowners out, because they'd get more taxes from the mall than they did from the homeowners. So they gave them appraised value for their houses, evicted them, and gave it to the developers. This set off a new trend in seizing property, where all the gov't has to do is decide it's better to do X than let you keep your home, and they kick you out. This has had a secondary effect too. Before, you could hold out for a large amount of money, and the developers would have to pay up if they needed your land. Now, they can just run to the city, and you get only the appraised value.

Yet more ways your government is working for you...

Re:without a crime having occurred a crime must oc

[allawalla]

eminent domain...

iwantaponytoo

[Anonymous Coward]

God, I love /. tags.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Technician]

They can just use their discretionary power to reach however far they want.

Reaching cross borders and through firewalls may be a problem. They don't have the keys and the locals may resist the intrusion.

Obligatory Simpsons

[LM741N]

Wow, Australia really is like that Simpsons episode. (remember the one which starts out with a Kuala bear climbing a power pole. It turns to look at them and is fried)

Voting for "change"

[BeanThere]

This is what happens when people vote for "change", to get the old guy out even when things are actually running alright ... Rudd's seat is barely warm yet and we already have (a) government apologising to aboriginals on behalf of people who didn't actually perpetrate any wrong, (b) government wanting to install a 'great firewall' and blocking Internet porn for every citizen/subject by default unless they ask for special permission for it, and (c) now this, trying to get ridiculous expanded surveillance powers.

Seriously, sometimes things really just aren't as broken as voters tend to think they are. I'm wary of people who want to vote for "change".

Re:Voting for "change"

[MavEtJu]

This is New South Wales, not federal Australia. Thanks for playing, come again!

Re:Voting for "change"

[BeanThere]

Gee, I didn't know states existed in complete vacuums, but thanks for filling me in and throwing in stupid childish arrogant insults that feed your own ego, grow up.

Re:Voting for "change"

[dbIII]

It seemed like the above poster used a relatively polite way to point out that you are writing about something unrelated to the subject. There was the possibility you are in a different country and have the state and federal systems mixed up. Either way it looked completely irrelevant, offtopic and misleading since the state branches of the Labour party are fiercely independant.

Full disk encryption

[nurb432]

And forget the password due to the 'stress of being investigated for something i haven't done', unless they have something that resembles our 5th amendment here in the states.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[mrbah]

Has it?

Re:War on What, exactly?

[Chris Burke]

Here's another.

Three times in the past fifty years the military in Turkey has overthrown the government through force (and once without), only to subsequently relinquish power and restore democracy.

While the idea of a military who considers the stewardship of secular democracy to be their solemn duty is fascinating, I think the particular circumstances that lead to this being effective are fairly unique so in general I don't think it can work. Most coups don't work out that well for the people (which isn't to say that these coups didn't result in their fair share of violence and suffering).

Emminent Domain

[crovira]

I think you're referring to "eminent domain" which has I believe has been used here in New Jersey to get rid of, uh, obstructionists and other undesirables who were standing in the path of progress, "Truth, Justice and the American Way (TM)"

Basically, if you own anything, the gummint is supposed to pay "fair market value" before they kick you off of your land.

Of course, what's fair and when is it fair (the value of land fluctuates doesn't it,) seems to be up to the gummint. (And you can bet that you'll get the value prior to the, uh, "improvements{ of the new owners.)

Re:Emminent Domain

[Cervantes]

Yup, that's it. :)

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[artichokesquid]

Americans increasingly understand our need to subpoena the Internet We have been exposed to hundreds of peer-to-peer networks by the genome-- Sequences that are not yet known-- We have revealed several popular nightmares We have downloaded over 650 million base pairs without accounting for the mouse We have withheld providing significant information Danger waits for us, like the unveiling of a public hearing. Citizen spokesmen may still unmask the terminally ill Chief Executive Officers may invoke the plug to boost sales Olfactory receptors may announce the outbreak and issue a $500 fine We must maintain a diverse portfolio, like an ancestor of the dogs, before the fruit fly holds a private concert that focuses on what they believe.

logical argument

[rajafarian]

I consider the biggest problem in the world to be people that can't follow a logical argument but still vote. The analysis you are asking is too much for the average person. I bet the average person doesn't understand why the following is not logically correct:

Stones are heavy, man is heavy, therefore man is a stone.

LOL

Re:without a crime having occurred a crime must oc

[Anonymous Coward]

When was that part of the code added?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n4_v25/ai_14171968/pg_3

Forfeiture laws make it remarkably easy to take people's property. (See "United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms," May 1990.) In a civil forfeiture case, the owner need not be convicted or even charged with a crime. Under federal law, police may seize property when they have "probable cause" to believe that it was purchased with the proceeds of a drug crime (everything from jewelry to a house) or that it was or would have been used to commit a drug crime (a car with pot in the glove compartment or cash intended for a cocaine buy). Unless the owner challenges the seizure within 30 days, posting a "cost bond" equal to 10 percent of the property's value, the government automatically keeps the asset.

Aussie Cops Want powers to search computers

[Guitronics]

The first order of business should be:Arrest all the Elected Government officials, including prosecutors,and lastly the police....they can lock themselves in the prisons.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[ScrewMaster]

Before today you would have thought "Government Seeks Warrant to Search the Internet" was a headline from The Onion.

Really, someone should tell these people about Google.

Re:War on What, exactly?

[dbIII]

but I am not aware of any instance where a government, once empowered, has relinquished those powers without force

It happens all the time when what is widely seen as a corrupt government is voted out and replaced by another.

"It's supposed to be about defiling people!"

[HTH NE1]

Kind of a little too bureaucratic when they can't even use Google without a warrant... LaBarbara: But something changed when my man turned pro.
Hermes: I was sortin' but I wasn't smilin'.
LaBarbara: He forgot that it's not about badges and ranks.
Hermes: [punning] It's supposed to be about da filin'! People!

I Want A Pony?

[Dracophile]

I'm thinking that whoever tagged that is either engaging in wishful thinking or doesn't have a proper appreciation of the cretinous nature of the NSW legislature at the moment. I would not be entirely surprised if this bill got at least a serious look-in, and possibly even passed. This is the sort of thing that both the major players in NSW state politics love to do; each successive state election becomes more and more a law-and-order auction, to the point that we often talk about a mythical voter called Laura Norder.

Definitions definitions definitions

[fabs64]

So has anyone here actually SEEN the definition for "networked" that they intend to use in the bill?
Because, y'know, that's pretty much where ALL the detail is.
Maybe they'll define "networked" as "foreign computer having an active SMB session with local computer at time of inspection".

So maybe we oughta get off the righteous indignation horses while we clearly have no idea what the law is going to entail eh?

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[deniable]

A couple of months back there was a murder in New South Wales or Victoria, I can't remember which. The cops got on TV and said they would be checking Google Earth for suspicious vehicles in the area. I don't think getting a warrant for "The Internet" would be beyond these people.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the USA?

Transportation to North America happened for a much longer time than it ever did to Australia.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, and you Aussies let such laws pass without torching the parliament building, and putting all heads who voted for it on a stake? I guarantee that if this law was passed in the USA, there'd be no buildings torched and no heads on stakes either. In fact, you'd be lucky if you even knew it had been passed, as it'd be a rider on a "save the cute kittens" bill.

Also, this bill hasn't actually passed yet.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

The law HASN'T been passed, and i'm willing to bet it won't be passed.

our Police are the most ignorant of our entire population and
our Parliament has a fair bit more common sense than the USA govt...
they do pass some stupid laws, just not nearly as many...

Re:War on What, exactly?

[Nazlfrag]

It happens all the time when what is widely seen as a corrupt government is voted out and replaced by another. ...who then renege on all their promises and further the corruption to their own ends.

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[Nazlfrag]

So, you're saying the War on Drugs is failing?

Re:Get a warrant for one computer, get a warrant f

[xouumalperxe]

Reaching cross borders and through firewalls may be a problem. They don't have the keys and the locals may resist the intrusion.

I'll quote myself on that:

They don't have to test the warrant against anything they know beforehand will screw them.