Slashdot Mirror
AU Government Demands Universal Wiretapping
StonyandCher writes "The Australian government is pushing a bill to force all telecommunications providers to facilitate lawful data interception across fixed and mobile telephone systems, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Instant Messaging (IM) and chat room discussions. Sweeping reforms will make it easier than ever for law enforcement to intercept communications if amendments to the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act are agreed upon by a Senate standing committee. This follows from a story earlier this week where the Australian government is legislating to allow employers to snoop on employees' email and IM conversations."
the land of the Criminals.
Nobody...
This is why it is so important that we in the US fight for ALL of our rights, however trivial they may seem. Because once one is taken away, the rest soon follow...
"Know but never fear the consequences of your actions."
including the all of the governments of the world, whats good for the goose is good for the gander & vis/versa...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
This sounds just like the USA CALEA program.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
By employing the physical distance between two points and the limit to the speed at which information can be propagated these messages will experience a delay between the time the sender transmits the message and the recipient receives the message.
I also hereby place this patent into the public domain.
I do wish I could figure how they managed instant communications. Blasted C going and ruining my plans.
Only a 27 year old graduate of MIT with an interest in theoretical and practical teloportation could save Australians now!
Please apply somewhere in Arizona, goatee, handiness with a crowbar encouraged. Mutes are welcome to apply. Benefits may include hot woman being inexplicably attracted to you, becoming a cult figure for human and other species. Workplace hazard pay not included.
I was under the impression that Oceania was supposed to be the former UK along with some of Europe. Perhaps I've been misinformed?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
"We have always been at war with Oceania."
Have they actually had any circumstances justifying such Draconian legislation?
Or is this just a big power grab?
If any country should be aware of the dangers of somewhat-haphazardly designating a large number of people as criminal/undesirable/incorrigible, it should be Australia. A whole bunch of supposedly worthless uncivilizable "criminals" shipped to Australia as "lost causes" turned the whole thing around and built themselves a nice place to live, and now they are fucking it back up themselves. Trying to turn most of themselves back into so-called "criminals".
I do not understand.
If all that passes in the worst possible way, it is about what we have in the US now. All data from a user, given a subpoena, shall be sent to the government. It has been ruled in the US that the computer and everything running on it and through it belongs to the owner. If you get a work computer for work, they own all emails you send from it, files you store on it, and can track everything you do through the corporate Internet connection. That's all perfectly legal now in the US. So, hearing some other country could be getting closer to what the US has been for years, I bring myself to utter a apathetic "so what." (now, if I were in Australia, I might be pissed about this, but I have no idea what the state of the law is down there now for what they can and can't do, so I don't know if this is a very minor change or a huge difference to them)
Learn to love Alaska
Can someone explain how exactly are they going to snoop on encrypted VOIP conversations?
http://jesus.everdense.com/
Amen!
Very good point of view. We need to put an immediate end to allowing leadership by these short-sighted legislative drones. They are destroying a lot of good, for no apparent reason.
Don't worry aussies! some freindly type folks have been so kind as to share encryption software! And how precisely will the AU Government deal with that? If everyone there starts encrypting all their IM's Emails and VoIP calls, there is simply not enough processing power to make it valuable to tap anything in the first place. I predict significant backlash once Law Enforcement figures out that this isn't going to help them at all, but rather it is going to popularize encryption (which is in my view A Good Thing Anyway).
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
All that iocaine must be affecting their thinking.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
I guess that's why no one ever threatens to move to Australia.
We willna be fooled again!
Sometimes, I like to think that maybe, just maybe, some of these laws are going to intentionally fail, and set a precedent. I guess that's idealism for you.
Service providers can be regulated. Software cannot (at least not easily).
And remember: if governments can intercept, other parties can too. Regardless of where you fall within the fascist/anarchist spectrum, privacy is something that must be implemented by the endpoints.
It doesn't surprise me that governments are trying to do this, but their efforts ought to be in vain. From a network's or provider's PoV, VoIP and IM should just be a bunch of ciphertext.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Well, not really, but if the police (and higher up the investigation chain) aren't able to (and already do so) tap IM and video streams I'll eat my socks.
Privacy is terrorism.
Pfft, this is sad. Ambrosia's offered a Universal Binary of Wiretap Pro since last August.
I know Australia's a little behind sometimes, but seriously, this is what automatic updates are for.
@ Title: Now, I hardly think anyone's going to start an armed revolution over THIS. Armed revolutions are for when democracy fails (some might argue this has already happened, but that's another can of beans) or the government does something that is universally dispised - otherwise, the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it. If anything, having guns makes the situation worse, because it gives the illusion that people have a "nuclear option" - when really, they don't (I would imagine that the government/army would win in a fight vs the people). As an Australian, I'm glad the guns have been taken away - we have few real reasons for them (you can get gun permits for hunting), and they otherwise do more harm than good.
But good point about fighting for your rights, it's just a terrible shame so few people are passionate AND informed enough to understand the implications of potential laws and not just the PR-wrapper ("Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children").
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
It's not a big power grab, it's the influence of America and it's policies that is hurtling us down this path - rather sadly at that.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Have they actually had any circumstances justifying such Draconian legislation?
The headline is incredibly misleading.
The law, like the US CALEA, just says that law enforcement needs to be able to tap into the system upon showing a lawful warrant. It's a technical standardization measure, not a warrantless wiretap measure.
It makes it easier to abuse the system, but nothing about this law allows warrantless wiretaps. It makes it possible for law enforcement to have a standardized set of hardware used to access lawful (with warrant) wiretaps.
"Reform"
NewSpeak alert.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
It has always been legal for employers to snoop on email
in Australia. The courts had ruled that the e-mail is
the property of the business; if they had a reason to
snoop, they could snoop, no matter how slim the pretext.
Now, I guess the rule change means that they can
make the monitoring full-time, all accounts, all the time.
The Helen something, John Howards' communications minister
had 'guidelines' on workers
e-mail rights, but typical of governments, they refused
to put this code of practice into law.
Chances all this power will never be abused? 0%
Chances some of this power will be abused? 100%
Chances it's going to improve the quality of life for the average Australian? 0%
Seems like voting NO is a no-brainer here.
The AFP have been pushing hard for powers like this. As far as they're concerned, this law is a slapdown. .. That is, it doesn't give them anywhere near the powers they've been saying they 'need'.
I'm still not happy about it though.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
I'm old enough that I worry more for my grandchildren than for myself, but I am inclined to take some degree of pride and comfort in the thought that my parents' generation managed to spread some of those values widely. What I've seen from Brazil, for instance, gives me hope that there are seeds of Jefferson and Paine scattered around the world for when we forget them.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
How can they watch instant messaging? Chat room conversation? To monitor either (and especially the latter) could easily violate privacy that they have no business violating. While people in Australia will be contacting other people in Australia, what about international conversation? I, for one, have several contacts in my Buddy List who live in Australia, and the IRC channel that I regularly visit has it's fair share of Australian visitors. Does that mean that I will be monitored as well? Does that mean that what I say will go down in Australia's little black book? What right, then, would Australia have to collect information from people who don't even live in their country? What right would Australia have to monitor me, a citizen of the USA, or anyone else who is not an Australian citizen?
You're assuming the state would retain full control and command of the entire armed forces. If something truly devastating to the fabric of democracy happened that shook us to the very core, I'm sure the military would not be spared in being divided. So you combine that with a populous of well armed resistance fighters acting as irregular forces along with what ever military and paramilitary groups that oppose the government, and you could have a successful resistance. History is full of examples of small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare. Look what happened to the US in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan or now the US in Afghanistan/Iraq. And just on a personal level, I'd rather die in a shoot out than in front of a firing squad if those are the choices.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
I love how "freedom" and "anti-terrorism" are the new trademark things being fought for whenever the governments bolster their own power and authority. I wonder if that is the case in countries such as China and the like where the government is already insanely powerful - do you hear the Chinese ministers making announcements such as "We are going to mobilize the army and arrest these protesters because they are all threats to the freedoms of the Chinese people."
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Didn't they really only take away semi-automatics? You know, the one's that can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time? Admittedly, I was only about 8 at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, so my understanding of what took place following is a little hazy, but from what I remember, they put a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and it was made mandatory that you have a firearms license and register each firearm you own.
So, we still have guns, but in order to get them, you must be at least 18 years of age, licensed, and the weapons must be registered and kept in secure storage.
... Can someone hand me our Constitution? It's a kindness compared to what the government is doing to it.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
So how is a gun going to protect you when the goverment can bomb you from miles away or 30,000 feet?
"Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
and now they are fucking it back up themselves?
really? then why are they rolling over and doing whatever the USA tells them?
Hell we have controlled canada and the UK for decades, Oz was a easy thing to control.
Hate that comment? then rise up and force your government to work for you and not the US intrests.
If you dont, then you love US control over you.
>> Or is this just a big power grab?
more or less... except it's more an attempt at efficient legal tapping, rather than blanket civil spying.
As for all the oblig 'criminal' comments... it's quite rare for an Australian to be descended from so called 'convicts'. And even if they were, you should be careful to lump 'convicts' in with 'criminals'. Many of the 'convicts' deported to Australia in the 19th century were Irish, Scottish and other minority groups deemed undesirable in England, and were deported for minor crimes such as pinching bread to feed their families. Sure, some were deported for assault and murder, but a good portion weren't. The 'convicts' who built Australia at the urging of the empire were little more than white slaves.
By all means comment on the erosion of civil liberties, but don't call us criminals.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
If the Qaeda's dreams came true, it would have us hand it our huge telecom infrastructure so their terrorists could spy on our every move.
Why bother fighting when we're just laying down and surrendering?
--
make install -not war
Move to Adelaide, I made that mistake mid last year. Just because the weapons have been taken away doesn't mean they're not there ("Criminalise the gun and only the criminals will have guns or whatever it is") and the amount of fire power in this city is phenomenal (albeit concealed - so entirely unlike America). Taking them away didn't really solve the problem, it just prevented every dick and his dog from getting one (ok, I will concede this is a good thing)
How would we go about fighting for our rights exactly? If someone tells me that all I can do is write a letter to my local MP then I'm mildly disturbed that this would be my only option...
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
Convicted of being Irish? Sounds like a criminal to me!
Very shortly after the colony was first set up, it became obvious that very few people, especially those of any sort of professsional standing in GB, were willing to risk either the new continent, or even the journey itself.
Therefore, many people (such as Francis Greenway, architect) were selected for transportation on relatively minor charges. In short, transportation became way to get very specific, particular, skills to the new colony.
History is full of examples of small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare. Look what happened to the US in Vietnam,
Afghanistan and Iraq aside, in Vietnam the US was not significantly screwed until the NVA regulars got involved in a big way. And they had tanks.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
...the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it.
You know that yours is the only post that mentions the word "vote"? (before mine anyway) At least someone maintains a semblance of reason while all about you is losing theirs. Less than 1% is showing any objection by voting the bums out. Wake me when it reaches 51%. Then if they don't vacate the office, they can cry about not having their guns. The people have spoken, and they don't care how intrusive the government gets. In fact they seem to like it. They feel safe. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
What?
Yes, hang on to those guns, they are the sole reason that this kind of unconstitutional domestic surveillance program could never happen in the U.S.
Seriously, when they come to strip you of your rights, do you think they're actually going to ring the doorbell and say "Hi I'm from the government, I'm here for your rights", and then act really surprised when you march them off your property at gunpoint ?
You WON'T see them coming. You WON'T get to fight back.
What makes you think that the American government won't retain control of the armed forces in case of an "emergency"? What makes you think that a significant portion of potential paramilitary groups won't support the government in an "emergency"? Since when did the 'rightist faction' of Americans start admitting that America does make mistakes? I didn't see any large scale protests (involving people from across the political spectrum) against the 'Patriot' act or the Bush's totalitarian policies such as the use of unlawful wiretrapping/torture/war mongering?
All your examples are largely irrelevant, they all involve a nation being invaded/occupied by an external power. That's no where near the same thing as a successful resistance against your own government. And lets not forget that South Vietnamese received enormous support from their brothers up north/the USSR.
I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power. African regimes with constant rebellions and other chaos don't count. Now you might say that this kind of stuff always happens in countries were personal firearms are banned, but that's just an excuse. We both know that if your government allows you to bear arms, chances are your democratic institutions are sufficiently developed for a rebellion not to occur in the first place.
The idea of firearms being a last resort for the protection of democracy is a myth. Chances are by the time you get to the point where you have to use the last resort, you won't have your firearms. Traditions/norms/values don't change overnight, you can't go from a relatively well functioning democracy to a totalitarian state in one night, not without external influences that render your last resort argument meaningless (fighting an external enemy is a whole different story).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the use of personal firearms. I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff, but in principle I am fine with people having licensed pistols for self protection and licensed rifles for hunting. I would never by a gun myself, but if you are into this kind of stuff it's your choice. What I do oppose is the promotion of the myth that democracy can be protected with firearms. It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
I was hoping that after Little Johnny was kicked out that sort of policy would stop.
Meet the new lizard, same as the old lizard.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Of course! Don't you know your history? The government tried to intern a lot of Japanese-Americans in WW2, but it didn't work because all of those law-abiding gun owners stopped them!
And don't forget the Patriot Act! I remember well the NRA marching against that particular piece of legislation!
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You make a very good point about gun-owners being likely to side with government. Take out the ultra-patriotic and your remaining gun owners are probably mostly criminals or whackos.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Idiot. Nobody "took guns away" - nobody over here had them in the first place. Besides, what good are guns when the government has better guns, many more troops, tanks, aircraft, bombs, missiles, and god knows what else?
Guns only seem to be something to care about in the US...
Speaking as an Australian, it didn't make that much difference when most guns were banned following the Port Arthur shootings. Semi-automatics & shotguns were generally banned, and it was mainly people in rural areas (farmers etc) who had these for pest control. Gun violence in Australia makes the news in a big way because it's so uncommon - more often than not it's between underworld figures/biker gangs etc than against civilians.
So please don't try to use something as important as proposed universal wiretapping to push a pro-gun agenda on the other side of the world, because over here one is an important fight for civil liberties and the other is ancient history that was supported by most Australians.
Having said that, please do fight for your rights over in the US, because most Australian politicians seem to have a monkey see, monkey do approach to policy and if Americans stand up against wiretapping etc, then there might be less chance of legislation allowing it being enacted here.
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
Roll on Android phones, assuming that it will let you encrypt the speech data stream...
:v)
Vik
Not to be pedantic, but none of your examples were military defeats. They were all political decisions. And while Vietnam and the Soviet defeat are borderline when it comes to illustrating your point (mainly due to the large human loses incurred by the major powers), using the current Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns as an example is just ludicrous.
Human beings are what they are; a certain percentage would look upon this ability as a way to prevent anyone from mounting any kind of opposition to their continuing domination of the country. It's just a matter of time until one of these kind of misfits finds their way into power and then they'll make the country regret the day they allowed this to happen...
Seriously, I can see that you obviously have no military experience, but that comment is pretty ignorant even for a run-of-the-mill civilian. Give your head a shake. The airforce may be able to destroy shit in a spectacular fashion, but only men with guns can actually hold ground. You can't occupy a piece of land from 30,000 feet, no matter how many bombs you have.
Just because the right to bear arms is written into the US constitution and heralded as a fundamental right by American conservatives does not mean that conservatives worldwide agree with that notion.
In fact it was "the most right wing prime minister that Australia has ever had" (Paul Keating - the most left wing Prime Minster Australia ever had - said this) who implemented the tough gun control laws here in this country.
I personally am a Liberal voter. Before you scream at me for being a leftist, realise that in Australia the Liberal party are the conservatives, the Labor party are the populist leftists and the green party are most closely associated with the far left. I despise the shallow populism of the current centre-left party (which is currently brilliantly demonstrating how to impose doublethink upon the masses), but in no way do we need or are even considering a violent coup in our country.
In fact, despite - or maybe because of our cultural history as a bunch of criminals, there is a very conservative culture in this country when it comes to trusting those in power. In fact the previous conservative government was kicked out of power despite all of the statistics saying that real wages (after inflation) had grown, governmental debt had been paid off, personal wealth was the highest that it had been in Australia's history and unemployment was the lowest that it had been since the Menzies era (a conservative PM who held office for 18 years - 16 of those in a row). We are skeptical of our leadership in this country and are not afraid of kicking out a government when necessary. But above all, we are one of the longest lived democracies and will continue to be that without the need for private gun ownership.
As an Australian you seem to be pretty misinformed.
In 1992 pro and anti gun groups estimated betwen 2 and 10 million guns in the country.
700,000 were bought back in the gun buy back scheme. So only a small percentage of guns have been removed from the community.
You're deluding yourself if you think the gun laws of 1996 have made you safer, so says the Australian Institute Of Criminology...
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/homicideRate2.png
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/77/rpp77.pdf
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/13/gr_guns_narrowweb__300x362,0.jpg
And no you can't just get hunting permits willy nilly, you have to own a farm and show a need to remove pests. Also, by getting a gun license now you give the government power of entry into your home at all times with no warrant.
Regarding the ability of our government to prevent a full blown revolution...You have got to be kidding. There's ~40,000 people in the Army here, provided you could even get half of them to go to war against their own countrymen, we're a country of 20 million, vs 20,000. If 100,000 thousand people will turn out to protest the iraq war, I reckon I could find at least 50,000 to take up arms and march down Commonwealth Ave in Canberra if the government ran away with itself.
The cynics among us do tend to see a correlation between the man who drove the pre-written gun laws through on the back of a national tragedy in 1996, admitting on many occasions that he knew didn't believe they would reduce gun crime. As the same man who tried to tear the foundations of this country apart and rebuild it in an image that *he* prefered whether the we liked it or not. The same man sho shut and locked down the CBD of the biggest city in the country, surrounded it with barbed wire fences and 5000 armed agents so that the rich and powerful could rub shoulders without having to worry about seeing or hearing the rabble. He was a little emperor and thank $diety, our system of governance worked extremely well and never allowed him to fully project his narrow idea of what this country should be onto everyone else.
That said I do agree with you, democracy and liberty in general is better protected by robust debate, citizen involvement and under our (Australian) system a strong *diverse* senate. If the only reason the governing power isn't authoritarian is because it fears out an out revolution...then the country is already lost.
well, I think the theory goes that airforce pilots aren't going to bomb their own people. Of course, if they've been brainwashed well enough, then the theory breaks down. Ideally, the armed forces should recognise that they exist to protect the country from external enemies only, and refuse to deploy inside their own borders unless the country has been invaded, but experience shows that they probably won't so that's a bit moot.
Precisely. Because gun ownership in the USA has prevented unconstitutional laws, illegal wiretapping and government-mandated human rights abuses.
Gun laws are now being tightened in Australia (thankfully), with farmers being required to justify ownership of handguns. And it's about time.
The civilian ownership of guns in the USA is a false sense of power and security. Should anything happen, in response to which the use of guns would be appropriate, your army of (1) Go-it-alone Rambos; (2) idiots who don't know which end of the gun to hold; (3) patriots who will side with the government, no matter what they say or do; and (4) wack-jobs who will use it as an excuse to carry out personal vendettas will be entirely ineffective against the large amount of the military and police-force who will do as they are told.
The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is an apt comparison because the forces that we are trying to defeat there have persisted despite the best effort of the greatest military power on Earth. They are using the same kinds of tactics and equipment that can be found or improvised for in the US, and their numbers are actually much fewer than would be found in a type of citizen revolt in the United States following a catastrophic loss of confidence in, or outright betrayal by the government. The people fighting us in Iraq will continue to fight, using the proven tactics of guerrilla warfare until we leave. That's another advantage, they actually don't have to defeat us to be victorious, they just have to hang on long enough until we no longer have the political will to carry on the fight--that IS a victory for them.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Chances some of this power will be abused? 100% Which says the same thing, and amounts to "no system is perfect, there's always the possibility for abuse". If you followed through on that we'd have no power strucures at all, only anarchy. Chances it's going to improve the quality of life for the average Australian? 0% Quite. It's not like wiretaps are doing anyone any good and they should be banned outright. Wait, are they part of making law enforcement work and making a civilized society under the rule of law? Nope, no benefit there. Seems like voting NO is a no-brainer here. Maybe it is, but I didn't see it. I saw two knee-jerk reactions and a general conclusion you can use against pretty much anything.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And fuck off they don't do this already. An Australian guy posted on 4chan saying he was going to shoot up a mall in America (obviously bullshit). Someone, we managed to figure out who this guy was. How? Obviously 4chan is Anonymous. I seriously doubt they handed over his IP, because I seriously doubt they had it (highest turnover I've ever seen, thread would've died before the authorities did shit). Which leaves what? Data logging. Maybe not here, almost definitely there, but to me it's fucking scary that they tracked this guy down and tried to fine him a shitload ($20, 000 I recall), just because he was talking shit on some website.
I wonder if the records of everyone's conversations will be made available under the freedom of information act, I sure hope so. I'd love to know what the P.M. is having for dinner tonight.
Pansy. I will be sure to wave bye-bye as they take you away.
The gun is not for attacking the plane or the bomb. It is appropriate for must softer targets.
Battle of Athens
You got it half right. You're right that they don't have to defeat us to be victorious - IF you define victory for them as us leaving. What you fail to understand is that the people fighting "us" are in fact members of numerous factions, all engaged not only in fighting us but also in fighting each other, and fighting the legitimate local governments and militias. Victory for them isn't as simple as making us leave - victory for them is making us leave AND defeating the other competing factions, AND overthrowing the current government, AND establishing control over the nation.
As such, all we need to do in order to deny them victory is to establish a political entity with a military force capable of controlling Iraq. Then we can leave without having lost, while the insurgents lose without being defeated by us.
This is exactly why no small insurgency could survive in the US - any intelligent president would treat it as a law-enforcement matter, and would have the individual states take care of the problem, while providing federal resources on request. ANG units would supplement local police forces where necessary, while the FBI provided inter-state intelligence. For an insurgency to have any chance of success in the US it would have to enjoy MASSIVE support from the people, and would have to politically "take over" a number of states before it became a serious threat to the nation. Even then the US military could be used to crush the resistance, so this theoretical insurgency would also need support at various levels within the military itself. All in all, such an event is so improbable as to not be worth seriously considering.
Um, voters? People? Police?
Licensing guns is precisely to stop people like you who think violence is the only way to get what you want.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
they just say it
but
never do it
becoz they can't handle it
that leads to undernet.....not web2.0 or web3.0
it's web nx
hahahaha
bbs or ham on the go
America has significant influence over Australia, that's for sure. In this case, however, it's more of a response to conservative values within Australia. There's been a big growth in public awareness of the darker sides of the internet and communications in general. There was a big program whereby people could gain access to a variety of free client-side net filters, for example. Generally, Australia has grown more conservative (possibly indirectly from US influence), and this policy is the result.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
All your percentages are out. These powers may not last long enough for them to be abused in any significant way. Also, keeping crime low does improve quality of life, with less chance of the average Australian being a victim, plus making for slightly more stable and efficient economies, which improves quality of life slowly but surely, etc, etc.
It seems like your calculations were all no-brainers as well.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I find it funny how so many people think that the anti-gun laws were a real turning point for Australia.
I also find it funny that the rate of armed robberies & assaults which involved guns spiked years after these laws were implemented.
Furthermore, the majority of crimes committed with guns in Australia's past were done so with illegally obtained & unregistered weapons...and this has not changed at all since they applied the bandaid for the Port Arthur victims.
This was nothing but a weak gesture by John Howard to woo the people during a time of despair. Politicians prey on weakness. You were the gazelle that got its arse chomped.
I guess I could be a lot happier if I was one with the rest of the herd.
And for the record, I don't like guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony
in fact, North America was a dumping ground for scum for 150 years, versus only 75 for Australia. Explains a lot really.
Hear,hear! And if the NRA loggyists turn up again they will get the same reception.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
For that matter, how would they snoop on Google chat conversations, which happen over the encrypted Jabber network. Will there need to be AU-only versions of popular applications to support non-cryption? Or will these simply be out of use in Austrailia?
The ______ Agenda
"Chances some of this power will be abused? 100%"
Chances this will make absofuckingloutely NO difference to the status quo? - Near certainty.
There are no 'extra' powers other than making it compulsory for telecoms to have wiretapping capabilities for various types of digital and analog comms. AFAIK they have all had that capability for quite some time. We don't have a bill of rights AND we don't have warrantless searches, go figure.
As for the "what's the deal" question in the title the answer is "J. Howard kissing GWB's butt". That all changed late last year, apparently K. Rudd prefers the taste and texture of Chinese butt.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Governments are led by human beings. A sniper only needs a rifle and one bullet to kill a tyrant. Surely, another can take his place, but he too is mortal.
the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.
This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.
You think Bush would be such a prick if he knew one of his generals might off and shoot him for pulling some of the bullshit he does?
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
I'd add that in Iraq and Afghanistan firearms where readily available to the citizens whilst under control of Saddam and the Taliban and neither of those peoples managed to overthrow their government without "assistance" (in quotes cause lots have probably had second thoughts about it by now, considering how poorly it was done) from outsiders.
The Taliban, is a notable example.
It was required for a foreign power (the US) to come in and unseat them, (although this isn't a great example, because the Taliban were stooges of the Pakistani ISI to begin with - Pakistan just lost control.)
And even now, with the US over there, the Taliban remains in effective control over large portions of the country. (though, I suspect that had the US not engineered Haq's demise, he could have unified the Northern Alliance into a workable government that would probably have been successful).
wait wasn't rudd supposed to be the fix for everything?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"I personally am a Liberal voter"
Well that explains why you'd want to post anonymously!
(That just might have worked better if I had a Slashdot account)
This "asymetric warfare" argument is interesting - why do people think that the government would play fair? As soon as they realised that the shit had truly hit the fan and it was likely that they'd be over-run and strung up from trees, I don't see why they wouldn't just pull out all the stops and start nuking the more "troublesome" cities. They have nothing to lose. This is different to Iraq/Afghanistan, because we have to follow rules there.
"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second."
... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"
- (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
- Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
- (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
- (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- (Thomas Jefferson)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
- (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence
- (George Washington)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
The president is said to have his finger on "the button" and he literally does have something called the nuclear "football" a few steps away from him at all times, but to actually launch a missile requires more than just him. When it comes down to it, those two guys in the bunker somewhere would have to agree to launch a nuclear missile on an American city.
Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan, huh?
You do now that this shit has been going on longer than WWII, right? And we won decisively on both fronts that time around.
Lets be clear here, I own firearms, not weapons.
A weapon is anything that one human uses to harm another (such as a rock) and my firearms are not and will never be weapons.
Yes, all semi auto's were moved into license brackets that the general public are not able to apply for, right down to semi auto 22's.
The only flaw I see in the current firearms legislation is that the pump action shotgun is considered a class C or D (restricted to farmers and restricted to professional shooters respectively) depending on the capacity of the shell tube.
This is stupid, the pump action shotgun is one of the cheapest, most useful and least dangerous hunting guns in existence due to it's low effective range, reduced chance of ricochet and spread pattern.
But whoever wrote the draft legislation after the Port Arthur Massacre had obviously seen Terminator once too often, because they obviously believed the pump action to be roughly on par with an 7.62 SKS.
Appologies for my fervour, this is one of my hobby horses.
No, the administrators and civil servants and settlers sent there built the place up to what it is today. Certainly the criminal classes and their descendants played an important and formative role in Australia's history, but attributing Australia's civilisation to them is disingenuous -- Australia is a former British colony, and its infrastructure and governance were built up in the same boring but reliable way that was used in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc.
Actually it matters not. Its up to the army weather it decides that such an order is legal and weather or not to follow it. Even with all the guns that the US citizenry have it doesn't mean shit when faced with a trained and better equipped army unless a large part of that army has decided to fight on the other side. When talking about rebellion and revolution in a modern nation if armed, the army decides the winner.
In Australia it is more likely that the entire nation will just stop working if the government goes too far, our government is still afraid of its people unlike the US govt, this is a side effect of this fear. All the political power means nothing no-one is willing to follow you, in AU the police and army have closer ties to their family and friends than their political party so few police and military officers would actually follow an illegal or immoral political order.
As for the lack of Guns, this has just reduced the amount of deaths from guns in Australia and there have dramatic increase in crime. Crime rates have followed both historical and international trends, its as if the ban had no effect what so ever but the number of accidental and deliberate gun deaths have more than halved and we still have a far lower rate of crime and prison population than the US. Gun related murders have always made up for less than 1% of crimes in Australia (seems even with guns we are able to sort out our problems without them) so its no surprise that it had a negligible effect on crime (but not on gun deaths which have decreased dramatically).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Contrary to popular US opinion we don't have a total ban on firearms but we do have restrictions, restrictions on automatic rifles and caliber sizes (yes you can get
Easy, I used to own guns (purely for amusement, nothing wrong with that but I have never felt I need one fore safety) but sold them years ago (studying, so I could t afford to keep paying range fee's and didn't have time to use them) since then I haven't felt the need to get new ones (do go to the range every now and then and hire one).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I don't know if this was quite what you were looking for, but does the Battle of Athens count in any way?
Athy, athier, athiest.
Isn't having other people fight for our rights elsewhere just a little bit iffy?
Athy, athier, athiest.
Umm..how about:
All your digeridoo are belong to us?
I, for one, welcome our new communications-intercepting, vegemite-eating, penal-colony overlords?
But will it run Paul Hogan?
Feel free to contribute!
Or not...
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Not to be pedantic but occupation isn't the only option. Denying the use of that "piece of land" to the other side from 30,000 feet is possible with enough bombs. There's more on the table than plain old occupation for a given piece of dirt.
lol... ...your government already reads our e-mail for them. As I understand it, we are good enough to return the favoUr.
They are asking for permission to do what they already do with impunity. If they aren't, then someone else is. If you aren't encrypting it, you should expect it to be read.
I like that you have a dysfunctional healthcare system, a dysfunctional educational system, a dysfunctional welfare system & all you're worried about is loosing your gun.
Actually that's probably sensible if you're surrounded by ignorant starving bleeding voters.
thx e
Crikey, If the Aussie's are being spied upon, like all other nations.. its because you deserve it!
Thunderbird Mail->Plugins->Enigmamail
Pidgin->Plugins->OffTheRecord
Wake the fuck up!
The solution will be a gradual shift in package design. All new programs really, really need point to point encryption built in by default. As in, I want to program a new {whatever}: In program design I first decide how to secure the connection and encrypt the data. Second, I decide *what* I'm going to transfer, then the interface.
Post cards eventually led to folded paper with a wax seal to the letter inside a sealed envelope. Where is the same standard of privacy in Internet Clients I expect when I mail something as simple as a greeting card?
Once Point to Point Encryption becomes the standard in all package design if the government wants to intercept and read my communications they'll have to do what the law says they have to do... Get a warrant. Right now all they have to do is stand close enough to eavesdrop on a public communication that's out in the open. There's a reason all Internet use should be considered public. We're all shouting at the top of our lungs.
-[d]-
While you are at it, check out the Easter Rising in Ireland.
We are a nation whose founding was precipitated by armed rebellion in response to excessive taxation and the abusive behaviour of the government agents involved in collection. What has become of us that our people boast of our disarmament?
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"And don't forget the Patriot Act! I remember well the NRA marching against that particular piece of legislation!"
And don't forget about what NRA members and supporters did following Clinton's 1994 gun ban! Of the people who voted for that particular travesty AND sought reelection, 33 were defeated in 1994, and another 6 went down in 1996. The NRA has enough of a battle trying to protect the Right to keep and bear arms without being the sole defender of The Constitution.
If the armed forces were seriously trained in defensive occupation alone, there would be no need to use or even threaten with bombs.
What of course would be best, would be to set aside an area to release bombs from both sides, that way people can get out of the way of the cock fight.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Like all those who voted anonymously prior to the last election!!
When Howard got in for a third term, I thought maybe he'd made it happy hour in all pubs from 10 'til 6 on poll day.
I think that here, Australians generally believe freedom to be social normality. Anything considered outside normality is not valued under our principles of freedom. That is why we basically are swayed into more police powers because we all think "I'm normal, I've got nothing to hide"
The difference between being a pedophile or just someone who parodies authority in the extreme, or someone who takes a philosphical stance on information and its interpretations and value of truth is close to nil.
There never really was a feeling of defense of those outside the norm who do no harm to others as a principle of freedom in Australia.
If you understand this principle of fear overriding freedom principles, you too can work for current affairs programs.
VOTE LDP http://www.ldp.org/ Shake those Liberal/Labour/Greens up! Let them know that they are not the only choice out there!
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Thanks. But there should be some way of fighting a tyrannical oppressive system without resorting to guns. Isn't that why we have democracy?
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
When privacy is gone, demcoracy has failed.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is already owned by the company, so i dont see a big deal there.
But for you private citizens, its time to encrypt everything. Even 'can you get a case of beer on your way home' type of messages. Make it universal.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The right to bear arms only works when you and the average infantry soldier have parity in arms. I'm not saying that private citizens should be allowed to own tanks, but if a group of citizens bands together to form a militia and they have broken no laws, I really can't see why they shouldn't, collectively, be allowed to own a tank or jet fighters, or things like that.
What's the government afraid of? That their ass will get bounced for being corrupt hypocrites?
'scuse me, have to go watch American Idol on the DVR...
Listen buddy, I come from the land down under, and I'll have you know that it's actually a place where women glow and men plunder.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
you can't go from a relatively well functioning democracy to a totalitarian state in one night
I see no incompatibility between democracy and totalitarianism. In fact, history is beginning to show that democracy is just as likely to result in totalitarianism as any other political process. After all, the promise of democracy has given us the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire in human history. The one that, in an instant, murdered over 200,000 human beings with the only use of nuclear weapons this world has ever seen. The one that's been involved in some war, somewhere around the world, for every single year of the past 100 years. The one whose business is worth trillions of dollars per year. The one whose empire is now falling under it's own weight.
The truth is, it doesn't matter what the process or classification of government is -- it matters what the outcome is, measured in freedom. Given the choice between relative freedom under rule of monarchy, or oppression under rule of democracy, what would you take?
If you said "democracy", I dare say you've gone insane.
There never really was a feeling of defense of those outside the norm who do no harm to others as a principle of freedom in Australia. Well said. Perceptive even! I tried to say that in a previous post but didn't have the words.
I wonder how that 'social pressure' began? In the 60's, the social temperament was very lax and inviting. Bonfires on the beach, cracker night, pig shooting in Pilliga, shouts of beer, sheilas
And now? We seem to be voluntarily turning into 'upright citizens' whatever that means!
Fortunately I remember those times, but the current XYZ gen have no idea.
If you start thinking of how restricted Australian life has become because we're 'told what to do and how to behave', it is worrying.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Ireland?
That's not totalitarian behavior. That may be militaristic and overly-aggressive, but you don't say anything about how that government treats its own citizens.
Real democracy could BY DEFINITION not occur in a totalitarian state because the people would be exercising control over the government, rather than the other way around.
I bet you're surprised at all the replies eh? :)
- As said it's about defending liberty
- You are correct that guns against todays US government would do little should we the people choose to uprise.
- You are incorrect in your conclusion: the answer is not that guns are too weak, but that the government is too strong. We need to significantly reduce taxes and our military. Focus spending on basic social needs (education, basic health, whatever) instead of creating yet another policing agency (DHS, FBI, SS, etc.).
So, breaking down your claim above: If A, then B.
A = you get to the point where you have to use the last resort
B = you do not have your firearms
Not B = you DO have your firearms
Not A = you DO NOT get to the point where you have to use the last resort Chances are if you DO have your firearms, you WILL NOT get to the point where you have to use the last resort. Which is exactly the point. Whether guns are the canary whose death heralds totalitarianism or the cornered badger that fights back as a last resort, they can be equally said to "protect democracy."
Absolutely, but seeing as tech policy seems to be heavily influenced by that in the US, it's certainly a help if American's tell their legislators to GTFO.
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
But you do agree that the overwhelming majority of NRA members disagreed with the Patriot Act, right?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
It's more subtle than the headline or TFA makes out:
Lies, Damned Lies, and National Security
Intercepting Communications - now and then
That second link is a Senator's blog, by the way.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
Which of our political liberties was not gained by force of arms?
The Magna Carta, giving habeas corpus. Democracy itself by the English civil war, which also, along with the protestant reformation (backed by force of arms) paved the way for religious freedom. As Chairman Mao said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
The right to bear arms does not (in my mind) have armed conflict as the goal. The potential for armed conflict is the incentive to bring a tyrant to the negotiating table. Without that incentive, the tyrant will oppress. Ghandi would have been killed by the Russians or Chinese. It took much preparation by armed men over the centuries to prepare a political environment that would yield to non-violence. Once britain was no longer in power, Ghandi was shot. Now India has nukes. Pacifism doesn't work.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Fucking awesome. I had NO idea. :-)
That was one of the most inspiring stories I've ever read about. Support our troops!!
firearm
-noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.
Moron.
Thanks.
My intent was to express the difference in intended usage, but I'm glad you've taken the time to call me a moron.
Coward.
My girlfriend's Irish, so I think that's a great idea :)
Wow, what I did just waste my time clicking on that link? Seriously, are you really stupid enough to base your argument on something like this? Time to wake up captain 'I haven't crossed the state borders since the summer of 1932.' The world does not exist in a bubble.
Meh, I'd rather not get the point where I have to call a bunch of guns 'true friends'. I don't really like violence and shooting stuff, so I am planning take active measures to stop my government from becoming totalitarian in the first place.
I don't see how my original post has anything to do with liberty. Like I said, if having a gun turns you on, be my guest. The point is you need to get a license and take test to determine whether you can handle something like a firearm. Do like it? Tough! As far as I am concerned, I want the cost of the externalities involved in personal firearm use to be as small as possible and I don't care if that means that some 'gun fan' needs to deal with more red tape because of that.
And don't give me any of this liberty bullshit, this whole issue has nothing to do with liberty. When Americans talk about liberty they usually mean liberty to engage in certain actions that tend to be culturally/nationally ingrained into the collective American consciousness.
Let me give you an example:
When it's about having rocket launchers for 'self protection', it's all about liberty. But when it's about homosexual people getting married, liberty kind of takes a step back because you know we have to make 'exceptions' to liberty. After all, there is this collection of fairy tales compiled by some morons (objectively speaking, by modern standards, they are retarded) that suggests that exceptions to liberty are okay. Never mind that not everyone 'believes' in this fairy tales compilation.
I can go on and on with such examples if you want...
You asked for a specific modern example.
I actually think Switzerland during World War 2 is more significant but the Battle of Athens is closer to home.
As you point out of course "Chances are by the time you get to the point where you have to use the last resort, you won't have your firearms." which I agree with but that just means you have to fight while you are still able to effectively resist. Examples of resistance taking place too late to be effective abound of course.
Another one of those American myths...
Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.
So what? Since when did the the people behind the creation of the US become sort unobjectionable guardians of liberty? The were only human, they achieved a lot, but they were still constrained by their cultural backgrounds. Times change, this is a different world (I wonder if you want to bring back some other stuff that the 'founding fathers' implemented such as slavery or the inability to create modern style corporations?).
This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.
Rapid resistance! You've been watching too many action movies. You wouldn't stand a chance against your own government because most people are biologically wired to conform. Biologically it does not make sense to die for an idea. The government isn't afraid of you for shit, they know most people would just follow the "America is Great! (no matter what)" mantra. If they can get away with starting a 800 to 3000 billion illegitimate war, they'll have no troubles convincing most people that "America is Great!"
I find it funny how easy it is to manipulate the American public. You know how people blindly follow the welfare is evil mantra yet they don't really have much against pointless wars that end up costing trillions.
BTW, you last comment is full of shit, I am assuming you're exaggerating to make a point.
I am not impressed.
I don't really care what they had to say. They lived in a different era when things were different. The very fact that they put so much emphasis on open resistance shows how disconnected their views (at least with regards to the issue at hand) are from reality. Of course, they are going to say all this shit, it allowed them to beat the British after all. What, did you expect them to say something along the lines of:
"umm, well we recognize that bearing arms is useful in the near to medium term future, but considering the exponential nature of cultural/technological development we have insufficient information to judge the usefulness of the 'arms bearing institution' with regards to protecting liberties/opposing tyrannical governments.
You don't organize an open resistance to defeat a modern government, that's not going to work. You use asymmetric warefare.
Well remember now that we're a nation of 50 states. There's plenty of issues that split the states. If there were one that was so heinous and so large that it resulted in actual armed rebellion, it's not hard to imagine that a revolutionary group could attain the support at the highest levels of a single state, and then gain sympathies from states with a similar political demographic. It happened once before in American "Civil War" (somewhat jokingly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" by some of us southerners), it could happen again with the right (admittedly huge) spark.
And aliens can come to earth and modify our DNA so we have a biological collective consciousness which would allow us to feel empathy at the highest level which would solve our problems (and make guns redundant). How is is that for a bed time story? Your still clinging to old notions of warfare and revolutions and revolts and stuff, on a global scale this kind of shit is in the past.
Your theory makes no sense as there are no incentives for people to get things to a situation where you have an open revolt. Can you imagine the impact of something like that on the global economy? Do you even understand how many influential people are going to everything they can to avoid this kind of shit.
The whole notion of bearing arms=protection from a nasty government is outdated because we are at a stage in our development where it simply does not make sense for the government to engage in activities that would result in an open revolt. When it comes to protecting liberties, guns are only relevant in the sense that they underline how the government should tell us what to do. They are not a useful method to keep the government honest in the modern world. On the contrary, it is dangerous to delude yourself in stupid fantasies such as "Aarh, my shotgun is gonna protect me from the guberment!".
Don't get me wrong. We are on the same side here. I don't mind you having pistols for self defense as long you pass the relevant tests. I am not here to tell you what you can and cannot do. I am here to tell you that the notion that guns = protection from the government is a foolish, delusional idea. You are only harming yourself by propagating this myth.
?? Daily? And even more often when the "leftist faction" is in power of one or more branches of the government, such as it is right now with the Democrats controlling the Congress. And the exact inverse is true with the "rightist faction" is in control over one or more branches of the government, such as it is right now with the executive branch...I could go on.
I was referring to the American population at large, in particular the tendency of right-leaning, gun-bearing Americans to subscribe to the notion that "America can do no wrong." Although this argument is largely irrelevant in face of structural issues that make your theoretical revolt against the government a delusional fantasy.
LOL, the whole idea that your guns will help you against the government is ridiculous. Most Americans don't even care about things like warrantless wiretrapping programs and you trying to tell me that if the government is in a situation where it is afraid of an open revolt you will still have your guns?
I think you'll be the one who'll wake up in prison crying "Mommy, where is my shotgun? I wana be Rambo and fight the guberment!" because you deluded yourself into thinking that having a gun somehow magically protects democracy/freedoms. Just think of Bush's wiretrapping programs, you think if the government is worried about an open revolt they are not going to make a list of people of with guns (even though chances are such people are much more likely to blindly follow the government)?
And yet even a well functioning democracy enforces its laws using, among other measures, police and gaols. Your idyllic violence free democracy does not exist. Let's talk about the real world now.
I never said it's possible to have a society without violence. I do believe that violence tends to have a lot of negative side effects like undermining people's freedoms and distorting market outcomes, so I support institutions that attempt to limit violent outcomes through compromise. I never said anything about not having violence in society? What's your point? Your Arnold Schwarzenegger style one line (real world blah) sounds kind of cool I guess, but it does make you sound pretty stupid/ignorant.
Again I am not here to take your guns away. Marry your gun, take it out to dinner for Valentines Day, hell try copulating with it, I don't care. What I do care about is discrediting people who think they can protect our fundamental freedoms by joining Rocky and Santa Claus in the local paramilitary organization.
And it's people like you that make the possibility of an armed revolution remote. How can you even think of fighting against a modern military in an infantry battle without having the same or better weapons that they do?
LOL, armed revolution. Have you been reading Tom Clancy lately?
You're pathetic. You're so convinced about the legitimacy of your ideals that your willing to engage in mindless fantasies that are on the same level as teenage sex fantasies. Actually no, teenage sexual fantasies make more sense since they revolve around sex while you're just masturbating to guns.
Let's start with a clean plate. Are you actually suggesting that people should invest into tanks/jets in order to protect themselves? Do you know how much those things cost? Do you know how much it costs to maintain military equipment? You do realize that flying a jetplane isn't like driving a car and that you need at least semi regular training to maintain combat flying skills? Who the fuck is stupid enough to waste their money on this kind of bullshit? People have better things to do then pitch in a million each to collectively own a fighter plane. Have you heard of the concept of ROI? Well let me tell you the ROI on owning a tank 'just in case' is not very good.
Why am I even wasting my time on you. Keep watching your American Idol, maybe one of the contestant might turn into a tank or something.
Are you American? How many times have you been outside North America? You sound pretty ignorant, I am pretty sure you don't really know what totalitarianism means.
The answer is that the world has changed and the whole idea of guns as solution to government oppression is based on 18/19 century ideals that have become outdated in todays world. The whole notion of an open revolt is unrealistic and stupid. In today's world, Darwin award nominees get involved in open revolts. If you wan to target a government and/or a society, you get engaged in asymmetric warfare. It requires a lot less resources, it can cause much more damage and it's impossible to defeat in a military manner.
You should release a book called "How boolean logic and guns will save America."
Let's bring in C into the equation (yeah I know it doesn't fit into your model, but that's not the point)
C = You're society is developed to the point where 18/19 century logic about how to protects one from the government doesn't work anymore. You know, cause the world became a little bit more interconnected since then and the American government particular expanded it scope by a tiny amount. You know, nothing drastic, just a little expansion here and there.
We make a new rule saying that "If C" then getting to A is not dependent upon B or Not B. End of story.
I like your approach to solving problems, do you know what kind of fallacy it would be qualified as? I guess appeal to authority would qualify. Though I really think the in-depth nature of your analysis and your exceptional attitude towards avoiding simplifications warrants a new entry to our list of logical fallacies. The irony...
I think I am going to write a book called "Seeing through bullshit."
Well, I was implicitly suggesting that examples should be relevant. I mean the whole point of an example is to prove your point, no? How does this 'Battle' of Athens of demonstrate how a population can successfully initiate an armed revolt against a relatively powerful, well organized government?
What about Switzerland during WW2? How does Switzerland's status during WW2 have anything to do what we are talking about? Remember I said relevant examples!
I don't buy the 'too late' excuse. Again what evidence do you have that bearing arms as an institution is a viable solution from stopping the government getting to the point where you are at the lost resort? What stops them from developing sophisticated data mining techniques to identify potential rebellion leaders beforehand? What makes you think that the current structure of our society doesn't allow us eliminate the firearms factor? If anything, stability factors point against an open rebellion (why would anyone in the USA even want get to the point where you have an open rebellion when you can make money and rebellions and stuff tend to be looked down upon in Wall Street?).
All you need is some stupid Terrorism/Protect the children legislation.
The governor of Tennessee mobilized the State national guard in preparation to support the town sheriff put down what was essentially a small scale rebellion but held off actually ordering them in because for among other reasons worries that at least some of the national guard would side with the Ex-GIs. Would not the national guard of Tennessee count as an overwhelming force compared to considerably fewer than 3000 GIs in open rebellion against the lawful local government?
Switzerland's successful deterrence against Nazi invasion (Their third and final invasion plan was interrupted by D-Day.) was based on mining the railroad tunnels connecting Germany with Italy, preemptively adopting a national command structure that could not surrender, and primarily arming the militia to make any invasion as costly as possible. The Swiss regular army was moved after the start of the war into the mountains where it could not defend against an invasion but instead best survive and inflict damage as a coherent force.
The American Revolutionary War would be an even better example but I am not used to suggesting it. England was the superpower of the time with the growing industry and sea power to match and a bunch of colonists with some French assistance made a war too costly even for them. Even better, the war started with the attempted confiscation of firearms of which the anniversary was just a few days ago. If they had been successful and the colonies disarmed, I would have expected the outcome to be very different not only because of the additional difficulty in mounting a resistance but because of the indicated character of the colonists.
You could be right about changing times having made the militia obsolete as a deterrence to tyranny however repeatedly since the invention of the rifle military tacticians and others have declared it obsolete in the face of some new technology but it has remained decisive. As I pointed out in a different post, only a fool attacks a tank or bomber or nuclear weapon with a rifle.
The following passage pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject:
A women is confronted by a big, strong, stranger. She does not know what he is planning, and she is cautious. Getting away from him is not possible. They are in a room and he is standing in front of the only way out, or she is in a wheelchair - whatever. Leaving the area is not an option.
So now he starts to do things she does not like. He asks her for money. She can try to talk him out of it, just like we argue for lower taxes, and maybe it will work. If it does not, and she gets outvoted, she will probably choose to give in to him instead of getting into a fight to the death over ten dollars. You would probably choose to pay your taxes rather then have police arrive to throw you in jail.
Maybe this big man demands some other things, other minor assaults on this woman's dignity. When should she claw at his eyes or shove her ballpoint pen in his throat? When he tries to force her to kiss him? Tries to force her to let him touch her? Tries to force her to have sex with him?
Those are questions that each woman has to answer for herself. There is one situation, though, where I tell the women to fight to the death. That is when the man pulls out a pair of handcuffs and says, "Come on, I promise I won't hurt you, this is just so you won't flail around and hurt either of us by accident. Come on, I just want to talk, get in the van and let me handcuff you to this eyebolt here, and I promise I won't touch you. I'm not asking you to put on a gag or anything, and since you can still scream for h
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Yet historically accurate. The English civil war, the American revolution, the Easter rising leading to the Irish War if Independence, the Eureka stockade, the Battle of Athens. People using guns against their governments being fairly successful at acheiving their aims.
How is any of this stuff relevant to todays world? How does take in account increased economic interdependence which severely limits the incentives to get to a situation where you have an open revolt in the world largest economy? People at some point used guns to overthrow governments? So what? People at some point believed the world is flat. How are your examples relevant to todays world? Seriously, Battle of Athens? Cmon that just undermines your argument.
Like the NICS system you mean? Introduced by the Democrats, remember? Trying to turn the threat of tyrannical government into a "Republican vs Democrat" issue is to completely miss the point.
I don't really care about Democrats vs Republicans. For all practical purposes they are simply two wings of the same party. My reference to rightist factions was misleading. I didn't mean to polarize this issue into Dems vs Republicans.
Really? In your previous post [slashdot.org] you said: "I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff". You say that resistance to government couldn't be successful, but you are in favor of banning the very weapons that would enable it to be successful. You admit that a tyrannical government would confiscate guns before it became too late, and announce your approval of bans on military weapons now. You seem to have clearly stated that your goals regarding guns and the goals of a tyrannical government regarding guns are pretty much identical.
Okay since you seem to believe that banning M16s and requiring tests is the same thing as banning all firearms. I also said that I favor compromise, therefore I think it's okay for you to have to have a pistol for self defence and/or a rifle for hunting as long as you pass the relevant tests. I am telling you that owning guns has nothing to do with protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, so far you have failed to give any evidence to the contrary. Picking random confrontations from the history books is not the same thing as finding a relevant example. Are you seriously suggesting that events in the English Civil war have anything to with a possible modern 'government vs the people' confrontation.
It is obvious that you have abandonded reasoned debate at this point. I see no further benefit in discussing this with you unless you confine yourself to presenting reasonable arguements.
Not really, I was simply making fun of your democracy without violence statement. You were trying to portray yourself as knowing something about the 'real world' by underlines your macho knowledge about the how violence is a fundamental aspect of society. If you didn't engage in this kind of stupid BS, I wouldn't make fun of you. I never said anything about the lack violence in society, I only implied that violence needs to be reduced to achieve more optimum outcomes.
What real world are you talking about? How many times you been outside North America? Have you ever lived for a relatively long time (more than month) in another country? Do you even understand that our experience in USA is not the 'real world'? You and the rest of America lives in its own bubble and hey don't understand shit about how the world functions. "Mehrh, founding fathers, right to bear arms, bla bla bla..." You need to realize how culturally ingrained certain 'facts' about American society are, maybe then you can get a taste of the real world. If guns were such a crucial aspect of protecting democracy, why are American in particular anal about this kind of stuff? Have you considered the possibility that your love affair with guns is simply a product of American cultural predispositions.
If you had not mentioned Rocky and Santa Claus, perhaps you could have retained some credibility
And you are one of the many people who consider themselves experts on the American way when you have never, NEVER, not even ONCE, read the Declaration of Independence.
Get an education, then rebuff me.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
We never budged on our right to bear arms. We never had that right, and most of us down here are glad. So, since this isn't a slippery slope of rights violations, the only conclusion I can draw from your comment is that you believe the right to own a gun, in itself, would somehow stop this. I'd hate to live in your world.
Yes indeed. As are your personal attacks, mockery and demands that we provide evidence for a historically accurate position, while you make baseless assertions that firearms are ineffective against governments without providing any rationale whatsoever. That is to say, your entire arguement.
Which is quite different to having a militia armed for combat. My point stands.
History is on my side. It is your assertion that requires evidence. There has always been incentive to not have civil war. If there is more incentive because of globalisation, that's a good thing. That doesn't mean it can't happen. An armed citizenry would hopefully be seen in the same light, as a disincentive to provocation of a civil war. It's a good thing.
In your post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=526456&cid=23112548
you state: "It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence."
Wow, you did say something about it. You explicitly stated that the purpose of democracy is to "enable solution without the use of violence" while ignoring that every solution enabled by democracy is backed by the threat of violence ie: police force and imprisonment.
Yes.
The USA is not the 'real world'. What a .. uh .. fascinating idea. So, tell me, what imaginary world does the USA exist in.
Yet somehow, despite this lack of understanding, the USA has become the most popular immigration destination and hugely financially successful. Maybe if other countries could somehow emulate the lack of understanding about how the world functions, their citizens would want to stay there.
Having lived the first 35 years of my life outside the USA, I can confidently state that this is not the case.
Well, when the US government wants to fight another government, among other things they do, they send in men with rifles. I suspect there is some reason for that. Of course, you assert that the USA is not the 'real world', but I haven't found any country that doesn't equip the armed forces with rifles. What do you think? Are they just trying to trick us, or are rifles an effective weapon? Use your brain!
Certainly not people like you. In any case, I don't want to fight the government. I don't think we're even close to the point that requires such a measure. I just want the citizenry to have the capacity, and for the government to know that. As is the case
http://marriedmansexlife.com/