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
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.
I would argue that you are comparing apples to oranges good sir.
A company handing over data about what happens on their network is VASTLY different from the government being able to spy on what a user does in their personal time at home.
You should always assume you have no privacy in a corporate environment, because a company is paying for YOUR time. Therefore if you do anything other than work on that connection/resources, you are just being stupid.
That is like complaining that you work at 7:11 and there's a camera monitoring you, so if the government puts cameras in your home, it's the exact same thing.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
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..."
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.
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
IP phones can and do support TLS encryption over the SRTP media protocol. Not all of them use or support this feature, but TLS/SRTP calls happen.
I work at a VoIP-related company, and trust me, we deal heavily with TLS/SRTP calls.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
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.
I don't know if you've been keeping up, but CPUs are getting pretty fast. Network latency will dwarf encryption overhead by several orders of magnitude.
If they are legislating that the networks will be required to have security holes, the question becomes: who really cares if everyone can listen to all of your phone calls?
If I were a thief, I would be very interested in exactly when you are expecting a package. Narrowing my target would save me some time and risk.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
They are nuts, so it's hard to say exactly what "their dreams" really are.
But if the way they ran Afghanistan was any example, or their slightly less nuts/fanatical/medieval fellow Salafists the Saud family tells us anything, then they would of course love total control of national snooping infrastructure.
But of course I'm not saying that some Qaeda jerkoffs are in a cave somewhere plotting to do stuff like that. They barely hijacked some planes, after years of planning, fanatical (if sometimes inconsistently virtuous) supporters, $millions in budget, and a completely compliant US "defense" leaving the gates wide open. They're not up to doing more than signing up each other in their cellphone friends plan.
What I am saying is that these Qaeda enemies are most certainly happy when our governments crack down on our liberty on the pretext of fighting the Qaeda. Because they know it makes us less safe when we distrust our governments, when our governments are preoccupied spying on us instead of catching and killing them.
Now, you want to see some Qaeda plans? OK, look at how the Qaeda has planned since 2003 not to attack the US directly, but to pressure our allies (like Australia) to drive everyone against our governments. Stunts like this one in Australia are part of how our governments play right into Qaeda hands by working against them.
That's their plan to eradicate us. By using our own stupid reactions to their small, asymmetrical tipping point pressures against us.
And if you don't think stimulating Big Brother into taking away our liberties is part of those reactions, that it doesn't please them because they're winning by it, then you're part of how they're beating us, too. I don't think you are. So try to take in this bigger picture with a little more perspective.
--
make install -not war
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.