Australian ISPs Soon To Become Copyright Cops

srjh writes "In the Australian Federal Government's latest assault on the internet, draft legislation has been released that allows network operators to intercept communications to ensure that their networks are being 'appropriately used.' Such legislation is particularly important given the interference of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in a recent copyright lawsuit against iiNet, one of the largest ISPs in the country. Conroy called prominent filtering opponent iiNet's inaction over copyright infringement 'stunning,' whereas iiNet claimed that it would be illegal under current Australian law to intercept its users' downloads. While this latest legislation appears to be a concession of that point, the government is said to be watching the case closely and along with attempts to introduce a three-strikes law in Australia, it appears the law will be changed if the government dislikes the outcome of the case. The internet villain of the year just continues to earn his title."

Comments

Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

Is an incompetent, idiotic, totalitarian, vindictive, morally bankrupt cunt.

Same with Rudd. You can assume this assault on the internet is coming from the top.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[spyder-implee]

I disagree, you should have spelled it INCOMPETENT.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Therefore I am]

You are not wrong, but I doubt that your assessment will make any difference. The ballet box is the only way to get rid of these goons.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[FriendlyLurker]

From watching him in various public speeches, I begin to suspect that this Pommie wanna-be Aussie Senator Conroy actually believes he is doing the right thing and genuinely believes he is fighting for the good of the children, and that's all mate. Ignorant, naive, incompetent, complacent or actively plotting (take your pick - nobody knows but him) that the tools he is pushing for will become powerful weapons of political and corporate-profit maintaining control later on down that long track. "I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine"... If only Senator Conroy could be so wise.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Stormwatch]

ballet box

Wow! Dancing and fighting at the same time!

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's recent footage from an Australian movie about Conway. Looks like he needs a shave.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Cinnaman]

"The ballet box is the only way to get rid of these goons."

No it isn't, because Liberal will implement basically the same polcies. We don't have a viable third party so for the forseeable future we will be at the mercy of the same bunch of goons (Labour/Liberal).

Re:Stephen Conroy

[twostix]

Rudd and Conroy are secretly in love with China.

Much like how in the 1920's and 1930's the western "elites" including Churchill and Rockefeller were openly in love with the Fascists and their magical economies and tightly bound and strictly regimented states, Rudd and Co similarly see China as an amazing combination of state power and industry. They see themselves allying this country closely with the coming super power and in typical low self esteemed Australian fashion (among international political circles) will emulate the big kid as much as possible. Howard did the same thing; doing everything he could to turn Australia into a carbon copy of the US as he was embarrassed internationally by our apathy towards making this country an economic power house as he and his friends wish that it would become. Rudd's doing the same but with China which far more satisfies his idealogical leanings (a career politician certainly doesn't keep themselves fluent in Mandarin for no reason).

Stuff like this is just the beginning of the top down "re-adjustment" of Australia from a country heavily influenced by American and British political values to Asian.

Dark days ahead for Australia.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Gwala]

It's pandering to the Australian Christian Lobby, who are a bunch of self-important wankers and have far too much power for a country where 28% of the population puts down 'atheist/agnostic/no-religion/blank' on the census.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Ihmhi]

There is something kinda like that called Savate.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[X0563511]

... he did!?

Re:Stephen Conroy

[DuranDuran]

If I had moderator points etc. etc. :)

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got a saying around here: If elections could change anything, they would be prohibited.

The way governments are expanding their power all across the western "democracies", the only thing that will be able to change anything is a ballet with U.

For the time being, teaching people how to use foreign VPNs is still adequate. It's just a matter of time before shit will hit the fan, though. Oppression never ends peacefully, unfortunately.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[dotgain]

Agreed - it's the same here in New Zealand.

Except our chicks are hotter.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[dangitman]

Except our chicks are hotter.

Yes, we're well aware of your predilection for farm animals. You can keep that to yourself in future.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point was the yelling (upper case bold). In other words, merely saying the word wasn't strong enough to be accurate. (Jokes are never as good explained.)

Re:Stephen Conroy

[cujo_1111]

Chicks are baby chickens, I'm sure you mean ewes.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Paaskonijn]

Very Billy Elliot.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Therefore I am]

My typo could have been worse. "Bullet" would have sent a very poor message. I am off to iron my tutu now :)

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

But when shit really does hit the fan and VPNs end up blocked, it won't just be your average joe who goes apeshit insane, it will be businesses, then things will be interesting to watch.

Hey Ausssstraaalia, VPNs are the DEVIL of copyright infringement and child porn, best block that ASAP, for the sake of the country!

Re:Stephen Conroy

[AHuxley]

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1358912.htm
Family First: A Federal Crusade
Should give slashdot readers some ideas about the decade of work that was put into subverting both of the main Australian parties.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[twostix]

Troll?? What a waste of a mod point ya tool.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[vintagepc]

Obligatory George Orwell...

All power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If any other parties will introduce the same policies, it sounds like it might be time for a public uprising... VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

[Note: the parent post was modded troll because Savate has nothing to do with dance (it's not combined with it like how tae-bo is a combination of martial arts and aerobic excercise, for example) except that it's French. Therefore, the parent post is a subtle slur against the French.]

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

The dreaded "two-party system". So I guess the US is not the only country forced to choose between this douche or that douche. Although technically we still live in a representative democracy, the two major parties have waged an effective campaign to brainwash people and setup walls to keep anyone else out. The only difference between the parties here is their corporate sponsors. People often tell me I'm throwing away my vote by voting for a 3rd party, but I think it's the people who vote for either of the two major parties that are throwing away their vote. Most of our politicians belong in tabloids, not Congress. It's an embarrassment.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Hurricane78]

You have the Pirate Party. I voted for them in Germany because of exactly this. Even if they don't win anything, they disrupt the other parties realities strongly enough, for them to be forced to change, to not lose even more people to the Pirate Party.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a few good reasons for a politician from a culturally diverse and economically strong nation to keep himself fluent in Mandarin actually. Though that doesn't cover Australia so your right to be suspicious

Re:Stephen Conroy

[dbIII]

Actually you can assume most of it it is coming from Senator Fielding, an odd character from the "More Cash for Jesus and bugger the poor because God hates them" side of things. The government needs his vote and you can expect to see all kinds of weird censorship legislation talked about but not actually tabled until the next election. Some of the pressure groups that were previously pushing for the IMHO stupid filtering idea have woken up to the idea that it would be far better appointing the 36th policeman or even more staff to attempt to catch online pedophiles (apart from all the other tasks that small group has to do) instead of just trying to hide the whole thing. It really is depressing that far more effort i being proposed to hide online crime than actually investigate it.
Still, Conroy is far too keen on it and might actually implement something incredibly stupid instead of just muttering the appeasing words - politics is grubby and we are seeing an attempt to compromise with a lunatic by those that are prepared to cut corners until the blood flows.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[dbIII]

A note to readers outside Australia, although this group call themselves Christian they are really so far from the mainstream that they would mistake Jesuits for Communists. I am sure that Jesus would instead call them the merchants in the temple.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[schmidty-au]

There are a few important differences between the US and Australia that result in Australia's system not being quite as bad as the American system.

The most significant difference, in my view, is that we in Australia have preferential voting, as opposed to simple plurality (aka "first past the post") voting. This means that you don't "throw away" your vote if you support a minor party. You have to number every box in order of preference**, so you can give your higher preferences to minor parties and put the majors last, if you so wish. (Frankly, a lot of the minor parties are comprised of total nutjobs. Thankfully, most of the real nutjobs never get elected. Most. See Family First, below.)

** At the federal level, there is the option of voting for a party in the Senate. This is still equivalent to numbering every box. Your preferences will be allocated as directed by the party you vote for (and where those preferences go is published prior to election day). This option is available as matter of practicality, as there are often > 70 candidates (at least in my state, Victoria) for the 12 senate seats each of the 6 states holds (each of the 2 territories holds 2 senate seats).

This system means that many people do, in fact, vote for minor parties, comfortable in the knowledge that if their preferred candidate doesn't get up, their preferences will flow to their preferred major party (or perhaps another minor party).

Australia currently has 7 senators from minor parties, and 1 independent. Neither the Labor party (the [nominally] social democratic, centre-left party, which currently holds government) nor the Liberal(centre-right)-National(right) coalition (which held government from 1996 - 2007) holds a majority in the Senate. (Labor and the Libs each have 32 seats, and Nationals have 4 seats.) This means that the government cannot just force legislation through the Senate, but also means the opposition cannot just block legislation out of hand. One side or the other has to negotiate with the "cross-benchers" -- 5 Greens (Lefties), 1 Country Liberal (Right of the Liberal Party, left of the National Party), 1 Family First (right, also insane) and 1 independent.

This means that, generally speaking, there is effective control of the government.

We also have a lot less corporate influence, and far more regulated campaign process. Our national campaigns run in the order of weeks, not months or years. There are, of course, lobbyists, but you don't have corporate sponsorship of candidates, as you effectively have in the US. There have, however, been some allegations of corruption at state level in Queensland recently.

Australia is a parliamentary democracy, so we don't have a discrete Executive branch like the US. The Executive is formed out of the parliament. The person who has the confidence of the House of Representatives is the Prime Minister. In other words, the leader of the party (or parties, if there is a coalition, as we had 96 - 07) that holds the majority is the PM. Members of the Executive are drawn form both houses (the House of Reps and the Senate). Minister Conroy, for example, is a Senator for Victoria.

This does mean that the Executive will almost always be held by a major party. But the Senate, and therefore the legislature as a whole, is not, usually, dominated by a major party. Between July 2005 and and November 2007 the Liberal-National coalition held the majority in both houses. This resulted (in my view) in a disgraceful lack of accountability, and the then-government pushed through some very right-wing ideological laws, which were, ultimately, its undoing.

Now we (finally) have a Labor government, which is, believe it or not, a step in the right direction on many important issues. For example, aside from being denied the right to marry, same-sex couples now have virtually full equality under the law; we have government that doesn't deny the existence of climate change (though it isn't doing a whole lot to deal with it); and w

Re:Stephen Conroy

[ozsynergy]

Are you assuming that the majority Christians back ACL / Family First Policy Ideas ?

Re:Stephen Conroy

[SkoZombie]

So the 68% [1] of Australians that do profess to be Christian should not partake in the federal elections? Nor have representation of their choosing? The 72.8% of people that profess a religious belief should stand aside and let themselves be dictated to by a minority?

Also, don't forget that your 28% (27.2% according to [1]) also includes people who didn't answer the religion question adequately (poor handwriting etc.), so the number of 68% Christians, should be considered the *minimum* percentage of society that expresses a belief that they're Christian (similarly for the other religions).

It's a democracy. Deal with it. Start your own party if you like, the AEC [2] would be glad to help you, that's what they're there for.

For the record, I'm a Christian and I don't vote for specifically Christian parties because they're all conservative and I'm liberal.I disagree with much of the policy of the Christian parties as it pertains to technology. I still fail to see how the Christian lobby is the problem. It's successive ministers from both parties who have shown, on a global stage, that they are utterly uneducated and inept in the realm of modern technology.

It's about technology and government, not religion.

[1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/bfdda1ca506d6cfaca2570de0014496e!OpenDocument
[2] http://www.aec.gov.au/

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Ihmhi]

I guess I should have explained myself a bit better, then:

Danse De Rue Savate, the Dance of the Street, is named after the question often asked to start a fight â" do you what to dance? It is aristocratic in style with back alley brutality. http://www.americanroughandtumble.com/Savate.html

When I first heard about Savate, it was described to me as "a combination of fighting and dancing... moves that look like ballet but can be very violent."

Watch this video of a Savate fight from 1934 and tell me honestly that some of those kicks don't look like ballet moves. That's what I've seen in pictures and video. But if you look at this more modern video, you can see that it much more closely resembles kickboxing or Muay Thai nowadays.

I suppose my view of Savate was greatly antiquated.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about that. The liberals lie a lot more (See John Howard Lies sites) and I kind of like this. It means the idiots get placated and the government doesn't do crazy things. Though, I guess they got ousted in the end for it.

Where as labour actually capitulates and tries to go through with these stupid ideas, instead of lying.

Please Rudd, be more like Howard and just "lie".

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you on? labor is behind this, not christian.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[noz]

... Because 51% can oppress the other 49%. This is why we need protected freedoms outside the reach of Government.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[tg123]

Is an incompetent, idiotic, totalitarian, vindictive, morally bankrupt .....

Same with Rudd. You can assume this assault on the internet is coming from the top.

why did you have put the c word in there its such a beautiful thing why couldn't you have used dick? , penis or asehole?

Re:Stephen Conroy

[Heyokat]

You have my sympathy. They took more than thirty years in the US, and that's just since they had to surface some to get the job done. These "neocons" are in Canada and elsewhere, and they are, or are owned by (depending on their level in the hierarchy) members of the old European banking and industrial families like Rothschild, or Rockefeller here. They're sociopaths to whom the rest of us are occasionally useful animals and no more. They supply both or all sides in the wars they instigate because war is simply the single most profitable enterprise there is. Read the writings of some of your own higher-ups in government. Here, Lincoln said that with armies before him and bankers behind him, he feared the banker most. FDR realized he had destroyed this country with his actions in giving in to them, and today they damned well own the Congress so that we're only allowed to vote for pre-vetted candidates for the most part, and then Democrat or Republican, they turn around once in office and do what the last batch did. SSDD (same shit different day). The fanatic Christians have been useful to them because they have an organization they're willing to mobilize in exchange for concessions the "Elites" don't care about. Somewhere around four hundred families own, personally, about 90% of the wealth of the Western World. Heyokat

Re:Stephen Conroy

[MrNemesis]

Why use the d, p, or a words when saying "cunt" is equally effective?

Re:Stephen Conroy

[zobier]

> Dancing and fighting at the same time!

See Summer Glau.

Re:Stephen Conroy

[zobier]

> Ixcipt our checks are hutter

FTFY

Re:Stephen Conroy

[dotgain]

stup making fun of my uccent

HTTPS by Default

[copiedright]

What stops more servers using HTTPS to get around this? All Internet communication should even have basic encryption.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[swilver]

It's stopped by the stupid valid certificate requirement.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[zwei2stein]

What stops government from making even basic encryption illegal?

Re:HTTPS by Default

[phyrz]

for a start, the backlash from every person and business that uses banking websites?

Re:HTTPS by Default

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the public outrage over the fact that everyone's CC#s and internet banking passwords would become fair game for Teh Evil Hax0rz.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[zwei2stein]

Banks and businesses can be "certified" to allow encrypted communication or storage. After all, goal would not be to hurt businesses, but make communication of ordinary person transparent.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[AHuxley]

Some new physical device from your bank given out with your account?
That would allow you to communicate, but allow the government to ban the evil https.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing that is the only thing that stops governments from doing anything.

Backlash of the people.

Remember when Iran blocked Facebook? How quickly they did an about face. The people were outraged. The government, when reducing liberties, has to find the ones that few people care about. Secure banking might be one of those things that can't be touched, but if a special banking clause was installed so only they could legally use HTTPS, then they might have a case, as it wouldn't affect nearly as many people.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[geckipede]

Time for me to start a bank then. Free porn and VPN with every account containing over £150.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously, how much is the monthly bank fee?

Re:HTTPS by Default

[geckipede]

No fees as such. It'll be a very low interest rate account and the VPN will have quite restrictive bandwidth rate limits. I'm sure it's possible to get a bulk discount on the porn though.

Re:HTTPS by Default

[schmidty-au]

What stops government from making even basic encryption illegal?

Elections.

Do we want the government watching us?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

When it comes to having a choice between private enterprise providing a good or service and the government providing that good or service, I tend to lean towards the choice that doesn't expand the government. I can always choose whether to use a particular company's service, but I can't choose easily to ignore the government.

Maybe that makes me out of touch with today's society, but I just don't think growing the size and powers of government is a good idea.

Which is why I think enabling ISPs to police themselves is a good idea. I would much rather ISPs who I can choose from do this monitoring than the government which I can't.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably worth reading between the lines here.

Along with trying to get ISPs to remove all pornography from the internet (laughable, yes, but if you look at the current legislation and current filtering policy, this is exactly what they want to do), the Australian government has been strongly backing copyright lawsuits against ISPs for not snooping on its users.

This isn't just "we're allowing you to monitor your own networks", it's "monitor your networks for us, or suffer the consequences".

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[mjwx]

When it comes to having a choice between private enterprise providing a good or service and the government providing that good or service,

I disagree, the government is accountable to me once every four years, a private corporation never has to ask for my consent or co-operation. In addition to this, the governement does not have a profit motive where as a corporation must not only be making a profit they must also be increasing shareholder value. So either way the money needed to run the service comes from my pocket, with the government I get a say in how well they are spending and they dont need to make increasing ammounts of profit on it.

The idea that a government is inherently inefficient is a misnomer, the same as the idea that a corporation is inherently efficient is a misnomer. Both are inherently neither. Government organisations like Medicare in Australia and our Canadian analogue provide better care and service for a lower cost then the US private health system. I pay A$500 a year for health care.

As for this bit of stupidity, it will never pass parliament as the internet filter never passed parliament, its already been voted down (thanks to the Green's), despite the fact that the trials are still ongoing (Conroy is permitted to waste taxpayer money on the trial unfortunately). The Rudd government is in a precarious position due to parliaments rejection of their Emissions Trading Scheme. The ETS may be enough to trigger a double dissolution of parliament, which at this point in time would not be entirely a bad thing.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes to having a choice between private enterprise providing a good or service and the government providing that good or service,

I disagree, the government is accountable to me once every four years, a private corporation never has to ask for my consent or co-operation. In addition to this, the governement does not have a profit motive where as a corporation must not only be making a profit they must also be increasing shareholder value. So either way the money needed to run the service comes from my pocket, with the government I get a say in how well they are spending and they dont need to make increasing ammounts of profit on it.

That's naive. You've got a say in what your government does? Where do you live and who made you believe that? Happy-fairy land? Without the sarcasm: governments are profit-driven, too. For them it's not money, it's power and votes. They optimise their fake promises and claims to increase their share of power. They also invest their power to pass laws, pass contracts to corporations, etc. to further increase their power and wealth. Governments are horribly inefficient and wasteful because it's not their money, they are not accountable for it and they benefit from spending it.

Private corporations aren't much better, either. I give you that. At least they usually don't have the same power for abuse as the government has.

As for this bit of stupidity, it will never pass parliament as the internet filter never passed parliament, its already been voted down

The thing with politicians is, they try until they get it through. They will not stop until they will have gotten what they want. No matter how often they have to try, no matter what shady tricks they have to use. If need be, they'll just ignore laws and do what they want. They'll get away with it because of their immunity. Three-strikes in France, censorship in Germany, databases in the UK, censorship in AU, etc. they all keep going until they get what they want, no matter how often they get turned down, they'll get it through bit by bit and there's nothing you can do about it.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[V!NCENT]

So what's next? Sueing bus companies for delivering terrorists to certain locations without being able to search all their backgrounds of all the passengers?

"Hey you transported a criminal to a certain location. IT'S YOUR FAULT HE COMMITED A CRIME! You should have played the police for us or face the consequences!

People like this, although I do not even live in Australia, makes we want to form a group of people, buy a shitload of waepons and shoot these idiotic assholes.*

*DISCLAIMER: which I am not going to do ofcourse!

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[mjwx]

It must be sad in your world AC.

You've got a say in what your government does? Where do you live and who made you believe that?

Let me tell you a story about why you are wrong, lets call it Work Choices,

Work Choices was the IR policy of the previous Fascist government (not to be confused with the current Fascist government) that stripped Australian workers of their rights, this policy was unpopular with the people who then made it clear this was the reason they were voting out the Liberal Facists. Howard, die Fuhrer zum Zeitpunkt, lost his job and Rudd, die aktuelle furher immediately scrapped Work Choices.

The Liberals will never utter those words again. They learned what it cost them. So yes, I have a say in what my government does, at the very least once every 4 years. It's called an election.

The thing with politicians is, they try until they get it through. They will not stop until they will have gotten what they want. No matter how often they have to try, no matter what shady tricks they have to use. If need be, they'll just ignore laws and do what they want. They'll get away with it because of their immunity. Three-strikes in France, censorship in Germany, databases in the UK, censorship in AU, etc. they all keep going until they get what they want, no matter how often they get turned down, they'll get it through bit by bit and there's nothing you can do about it.

Yes there is, often when an Australian politician loses an election, they are sacked. No matter how greedy a polly gets this will always, always be over-ridden by their sense of self preservation. It's the extremists who aren't greedy that are the problem but these guys will always be outnumbered by the greedy who want to survive (and they'll happily sacrifice one another to ensure it).

Not only are you an ignorant nutter with an extremely limited view of the world, you're wrong.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[WeirdJohn]

Yes, you do have a say. I contributed to the Green Paper on the Service Card, which was in danger of being owned by Motorola and Gemsmart. It was people like me, giving valid clear technically correct explanations of the failings of that "backdoor ID card" that resulted in it being a no-go. When have YOU been a part of the process - there's nothing to stop you! Have you petitioned parliament? Written to your local member? Shown up to ALP branch meetings and asked polite, informed but pointed questions? It's when everyone says "we have no power over the people we elect" that we give up our power. Fact is that if enough people go on record (by the 3 means I listed above) then politicians listen, purely out of self interest.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, a misnomer is a name which does not accurately describe the thing which it names. For example: "ladybug" is a misnomer as they may be male and are not bugs. (technical definition of "bug") Neither of your examples are misnomers.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Cimexus]

This guy has a point.

From my experience of living long term in all three of: Australia, USA and UK, there is far more actual power in the people's hands (at election time) in Australia than either of the other two.

Partly this is because Australia's population is quite low, so there's less 'layers' between the wishes of the people, and the politicians (one example: the Prime Minister of Australia happened walked right past me on the street in Sydney few weeks ago ... but in America you will almost NEVER just 'happen to see the President' when you go out to lunch). Hell the previous Prime Minister went on a walk around the suburbs every morning and waved and said hi to people. Sure he had a few bodyguards trailing him, but nothing like the 30 guards, 20 armored vehicles etc that accompany the US President around.

But a bigger reason for this is the fact that there are very very strict laws against corporate influence on politics in Australia. And there are similarly tough regulations surrounding what companies are allowed to do when it comes to advertising, donations, etc etc. Far more stringent than in America. Sure there's still lobbyists and things in Australia. But realistically, the corporate world can't do much in politics in Australia, and they know it. In America, it's all about big business and corporations when it comes to setting the political agenda. In Australia, the issues that average people care about really can decide the elections. (See: Work Choices)

A final but more minor point is that we do have third and fourth political parties that actually matter. They aren't enough to actually take power away from the big two. But due to the preferences system that we have in Australia, it means that minor parties can influence things in Parliament and aren't just there to make up the numbers. In the US however there really is no serious alternative to the Dems and the Republicans.

Americans like to point to Australia and say "ha, your democracy isn't as good as yours, you don't even directly elect your head of State!". This is true. Our head of State is technically the Queen of England, and our Prime Minister isn't voted in by the people. But in practice, the Australian system reflects the wishes of the public a lot more quickly and more closely. (The Canadian system is like this too I believe, although I haven't spent enough time in Canada to comment).

Disclaimer: I'm Australian by birth but have lived 8+ years in the US and 4+ years in the UK. I also hold dual US and Australian citizenship, and love both countries dearly. Both have their strong and weak points. But when it comes to government, I'm afraid the Australian system is just ... better.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[mjwx]

Fact is that if enough people go on record (by the 3 means I listed above) then politicians listen, purely out of self interest.

Exactly,

When push comes to shove you can always count on a polly's survival instinct. All you have to do is convince them they are about to lose their job. Most people have no say in government because they don't get involved. Become part of an interest group like the EFA or a the very least write a letter. All Western Australian's got a say in Daylight Savings changes earlier in the year, despite the fact it did not pass (I voted YES) I did get my say. There is no way you can say you cant change government, most people just say that to console themselves with the fact they never tried.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[digitalchinky]

I hope you're right mjwx, but your vote doesn't look like it ever mattered much to me. I left the Defence Signals Directorate, and subsequently Australia a decade ago because I saw from the inside just how simplistic it is for this particular agency to have new laws made, old laws modified, and more worryingly, just how much latitude they give themselves for interpretation of existing laws. I lived through a couple of royal commissions focused on the very departments I worked in, those investigations never ventured beyond the walls of the "Director DSD's" office. Farcical to say the least.

If you weren't already aware of this, the government has long been doing whatever it pleases regardless of which sock puppet is in power. No doubt the driving force behind half of these initiatives are a handful of drones from ASIO and the NCA. Politicians don't know squat about real life.

I lost the faith a long time ago, I ain't ever coming back.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Anonymous Coward]

But a bigger reason for this is the fact that there are very very strict laws against corporate influence on politics in Australia. And there are similarly tough regulations surrounding what companies are allowed to do when it comes to advertising, donations, etc etc.

Unfortunately not strict enough.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[twostix]

I like to refer to our democracy as Federalism Version 2

Our founders looked at the US, looked at Britain and took what they thought were the bits that worked and threw away the bits that didn't work from both.

They really stood on the shoulders of giants and I believe they got it pretty close to perfect.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[nicolasmendo]

Ok. I've just read your post with great interest. I'm now living in Australia, arrived very recently, and just don't understand what's the deal with the crippled Internet. Why is it that every other country internet has had unlimited internet service for years, while in Australia any plan will come with data limitations (and very expensive plans, by the way). My theory is that providers are profiting hugely by charging everyone for something that is essentialy free elsewhere, but your whole point about how Australian democracy undermines so effectively corporate power undermines my theory in a just as effective way.

I was thinking yesterday "only in the land of Rupert Murdoch would downloading be a luxury by now", am I completely wrong? What's the real reason then? Can something be done?

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you are saying that you have no choice but to give your money to a particular ISP, no matter how abhorrent you find their practices? But with the government you can decide to stop giving them money any time you don't like what they do?

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Attila Dimedici]

The big difference between Australia's responsiveness to the populace and the U.S.'s is population size. Australia has a population of about 22 million. The U.S. has a population of over 300 million. The smaller the population the more responsive a democratic government is to the will of the people. As the population gets larger the easier it is to play off people who care about one issue against people who care about other issues. Additionally, as the population gets larger the more people one needs to get riled up to change the outcome of an election.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Eskarel]

I second this actually. I was born in Australia, lived 13 years in the states, have dual citizenship and have voted in both countries. In addition to all the above points, things are also a lot easier to change here for whatever reason. The government puts something unpleasant in, they get caned in the next election and the new government takes it out, we get a few years of garbage and then it goes away. We also have a tendency down here to take great joy in taking folks who get to uppity down a peg regardless of their political party.

Stephen Conroy is an ass, and the fact that Rudd hasn't shit canned him is fairly odd. I can only assume that his situation in the senate is causing him to want to appear to be supporting the Christian loons, so he can get legislation through. I don't really think he's all that serious about it though, it doesn't really come up here all that often and the government certainly isn't making it an issue nor do they want to. The right is in disarray at the moment, and the government would like to keep it that way, giving them something unpopular to rally around(and in all reality any actually implemented three strikes law would be very unpopular in any country) would be rather silly. I don't think that anyone in the liberal party has sufficiently strong feelings about this issue not to ride it to the next election if they thought it could win them government.

Even the Christian loons are only really against the porn, not the piracy anyway. We don't really have much of a commercial consumer software market down here, so we don't really care about that. Australian film only exists because the government subsidizes it, aside from every actor/actress with any talent going overseas, Australian film makers love to make movies Australians don't want to watch, so they've got no real power. ARIA(our RIAA) has a little bit more authority but not all that much.

I'm not really convinced that anyone in government other than Stephen Conroy really wants this to pass, and I'm not sure even he cares about piracy. What I am convinced of is that if the government passes and enforces a three strikes law, and it proves to be unpopular(as is inevitable), at the next election they'll be out on the street again and the law will be gone. After 11 years out of power, I don't think that they're likely to risk that, they do need to look like they're doing something for the Christian right though so that they can get a senate vote from the right wing loony who got in there, and maybe the anti-gambling loony as well. To pass this shit they'd need the 5 members of the green party though, and that ain't going to happen.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Trongy]

Rupert Murdoch became a naturalised American Citizen in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Moving_into_the_United_States

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[microbox]

The Canadian system is like this too I believe, although I haven't spent enough time in Canada to comment

The Canadian system does not have preferential voting, which is really too bad. The current government was voted in with only 38% of the vote, because the NDP, Liberals and Bloc couldn't swap preferences. The politics here are also regionally divisive. Furthermore, because Canada has provinces, which aren't as powerful as states, the politics looks from Ontario and Quebec outwards.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[ubercam]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that our (Canadian) health care is any better than care provided in the US. Sure, if you don't have enough money, it's better than nothing, but if you can afford it or have insurance, the American system (when it doesn't randomly dismiss your claims) is often better in a lot of respects.

For instance, my parents took a 2 day trip down to the US last weekend for some shopping and my dad woke up at 2:30am the first night almost unable to breathe due to pulmonary embolisms. My mom, a nurse, took him into the nearest hospital and he was being treated within 10 minutes of showing up at the door. I'm not sure it would have been any different to here up to this point. Within an hour, he had a CT scan, ultrasound on his legs to determine the source of the clots (turned out to be his right ventricle) and an echo cardiogram done. My mom, who knows the wait times here very well, said an echo would have been about a 6 month wait, a CT scan at least 6 hours, probably closer to 10. He was put in a private room, basically a penthouse suite. When he was describing it to me he kept calling it a hotel by accident. It's a LOT different when you're a paying customer. Luckily they both had Blue Cross travel health through work, and between both plans and the provincial govt's portion (they pay the American hospital what they would have paid had he been in the hospital here), they should be covered 100%. We haven't heard anything yet so hopefully that's the case.

His only complaint was this social worker or something kept trying to get him to admit he was an alcoholic by asking pointed questions. First she asked if he drinks at all and if so how much. He said 1 or 2 a day usually. Then she says "Due to your excessive heavy drinking, blah blah..." and he says "Whoa, lady, who said anything about excessive heavy drinking?" and she wouldn't give up on that and they fought about it the whole time he was in there. Come to think of it, that's probably how they get claims denied in the US.. get the social worker to classify everyone as an alcoholic.

Overall, we're looking at this as a blessing in disguise. He might still be in the hospital waiting for a test or treatment if this happened here.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[deimtee]

A lot of it is to do with the pipes into the country. Most overseas content comes in over a fairly limited couple of cables. Looking up the local stuff doesn't cost them anything, but overseas content does, hence the per byte charges.
This is also why they don't particularly care about p2p traffic. If it's local, they get the high fees for practically zero expense, if it's overseas you pay the same as any other user, and they get to claim the upload on peering agreements.

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[k2r]

Howard, die Fuhrer zum Zeitpunkt, lost his job and Rudd, die aktuelle furher immediately scrapped Work Choices.

If you want to use German for your Nazi-comparison, do it right:

"Führer" is a male noun, so the right personal pronoun would be "der".
"Der Führer zu diesem Zeitpunkt" and "der aktuelle Führer"

If Howard was female it would have been "die Führerin"
The politically über-correct, gender-neutral Version would be
"der/die FührerIn"

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[anarche]

I'd like to point out that our compulsory voting helps to counteract this. As someone said (Federation 2.0) we've tossed the worst bits; optional voting being one.

Compulsory voting means that words like "Work Choices" will evoke not just angry words and letters, but actual votes from the lower and lower-middle classes; who elsewhere do not necessarily vote (since they may have to work on that Saturday...)

Just before I left Oz for a holiday though, I'm sure I heard Capt. Kevin mention the idea of a referendum to scrap compulsory voting. If this happens, I'm moving to NZ...

Re:Do we want the government watching us?

[Cimexus]

A lot of people like to think there's a huge conspiracy re the internet here. But there's not. It's simply a product of the fact that:

a) We are English speaking. We therefore source the VAST majority of our internet content from other English speaking locations (mostly the US). In the US, 90% of IP traffic is domestic and never leaves the US. In Australia, 90% of IP traffic has to be pulled all the way FROM the US.

b) We are an island with a small population, a very long way from anywhere else. There are a handful of undersea cables connecting us to the outside world. These cables are EXPENSIVE. We don't share big long land borders like the US. We don't have a big content-producing domestic population like the US.

c) Telstra is still a bit of a problem. They have a monopoly on the last-mile copper at the moment and charge through the nose for other ISPs to access it. This should hopefully change with the NBN, but that's probably good decade off being completely finished.

There's no great conspiracy. There have been ISPs that have tried to provide unmetered accounts. They have all gone bankrupt. 90% of our traffic is international and the access to those undersea cables costs too much not to meter. It is a unique situation ... in other countries they consume far more domestic content, or have land borders, or simply don't have as far to travel (EU-US distance is way way less than AU-US distance, and has more pipes that are competing on price, due to the massive population on both sides). Remember ... only 12% of the world's population live in the southern hemisphere. We are very isolated down here.

Guess what!

[thatkid_2002]

They can bite my shiny metal ass!... I mean SSL!

Re:Guess what!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look, my beta access to https://www.ipredator.se/ just arrived, what perfect timing! Sad that I need such a service -just- to know my internet is -generally- safe...

This will never happen.

[mjwx]

This will never happen.

With the Emissions Trading Scheme, being voted down yesterday the Rudd government could be on it's way to an early election. The Rudd government has not got a majority, relying preferences from the Greens to secure a parliament majority. The Greens are opposed to both the Internet Filter and the Three Strikes law. Rudd and Labour will do an about face as soon as it looks like they are losing the support of the Greens.

This is just more scare mongering reporting in preparation for the upcoming iinet/AFACT (MPIAA in disguise).

Re:This will never happen.

[srjh]

That's assuming they don't have the support of the Liberals - the traditional social conservatives in Australia. They've known all along that the Greens aren't on board, so it's the Liberals they're relying on to back the government.

Labor is much stricter on crossing the floor than the Liberals and the threat of an early election might push them into avoiding any double-dissolution triggers.

And if an early election is held? Labor likely takes the Senate and pushes through the changes anyway.

Re:This will never happen.

[thelamecamel]

The libs and greens are voting against the filter, so yes the dentist-filter plan is dead in the water. But I wouldn't be surprised if the libs supported this copyright bill, which would be more than enough to get it through.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I preferred Richard Alston, who had the international reputation of "Worlds Biggest Luddite", as IT minister. At least he was too incompetent to do much damage.

Re:This will never happen.

[kestasjk]

Please lets vote Turnbull in, enough is enough (already)

Re:This will never happen.

[mjwx]

That's assuming they don't have the support of the Liberals

The Libs wont support this on the principal that they don't support the Labour govt. It sucks just how polarised the Australian government has gotten. I think that it is an incredibly good thing that no party got a majority in the last election, we would have been screwed by ether side for sure.

Re:This will never happen.

[mjwx]

Please lets vote Turnbull in, enough is enough (already)

If a Double Dissolution happens Turnbull (or another Lib, I doubt Turnbull could run) that might just happen, so long as no-one utters the words "work choices" they should get in.

It's bad that we have to choose between two parties, one who wants to be a dictator over my home life and one who wants to be a dictator over my work life.

Re:This will never happen.

[Gwala]

>It's bad that we have to choose between two parties, one who wants to be a dictator over my home life and one who wants to be a dictator over my work life.

Except we don't have to support one of two parties. Australia's first-past-the-post prefential voting system means if you vote for a small party (such as say the Australian Democrats), you can direct your preferences if they don't get elected -- effectively, vote for the party you want first, then vote for the lesser evils further down, and your vote still goes where you want it to.

Re:This will never happen.

[grrrl]

you've described the voting system correctly in all but name - it is NOT first past the post. It IS preferential. First-past-the-post describes the one vote, winner takes all (without having the win the majority) system that is employed in the US.

Re:This will never happen.

[rtb61]

As always the opposition party is the opposition. The will always side with the general public to gain votes, gain seats and gain a higher pay packet. What voting for the Greens well and truly demonstrates is the real power of the ballot box in Australia and the ability of Australian politics to resist corporate pressure at this stage not enough but it is growing.

Three strikes, is dead in Australia, filtering is dying, ISP spying is a no show, all that is happening is the Australian government is being pressured by the US government and the not so free trade agreement, which is basically being used as political blackmail.

It looks very likely that the greens will gain a lot of public support because the right wing abused their power not so long back and the left wing just ain't left enough. Right and left is really starting to look like minority rich (plus gullible poor) versus everybody else (middle class the survivors and working class with a brain). The internet is driving power and control back to the people and there seems to be a real fight on around seizing back that power by corporations and mass media, that had it for 30 years and they really do not want to let go.

Re:This will never happen.

[Gwala]

Actually it is, the post is 50%.

Re:This will never happen.

[twostix]

Double dissolution elections have *never* been kind to Australian governments who force them.

It starts to smell a little to much like brute force when a sitting government dissolves the whole parliament and calls an election simply because they don't want to accept the will of the Senate.

Australians place a lot of trust and faith in the Senate and where they see the Lower House as nothing more than slimy untrustworthy politicians they view the Senate as a much higher and esteemed authority - and the senators as trustworthy "protectors" of Australian democracy (more or less).

So when a government goes against the Senate it'd better be damned sure of itself...

Re:This will never happen.

[m0rm3gil]

There's considerable speculation that Rudd & Co may not care if they can't get support from independents and minor parties.

With the opposition in disarray they may use one of these failed laws as a trigger for a double dissolution election.

If that happens then they may stand to gain more seats and we'll be in the same position we were with the last term of the Howard govt where they have a majority in both houses and can push through whatever nonsense they like.

Re:This will never happen.

[ishnaf]

Please lets vote Turnbull in, enough is enough (already)

If a Double Dissolution happens Turnbull (or another Lib, I doubt Turnbull could run) that might just happen, so long as no-one utters the words "work choices" they should get in.

Last time I checked, Turnbull's popularity was at record low: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/28/2638114.htm. It's going to take more that just not uttering "Work Choices"...

Re:This will never happen.

[Mag7]

Please lets vote Turnbull in, enough is enough (already)

If a Double Dissolution happens Turnbull (or another Lib, I doubt Turnbull could run) that might just happen, so long as no-one utters the words "work choices" they should get in.

You assume the majority of voters are concerned about this single issue. Most wouldn't even know there is an issue. Others honestly think filtering and stopping "pirates" (who fund terrorism, didn't you know) is a good idea that must be done by the government (think of the children!).

Nope, unfortunately the people who understand the pitfalls of both are vastly in the minority.

Re:This will never happen.

[houghi]

And some American now think: Labour, Liberal, Green. And they can not take a decision. See that more then two parties doesn't work.
I live in a country with multiple states, languages and it DOES work, although a bit more complicated. To me it shows that it DOES work as politics should never be black or white, but instead it should be a lot of grey.

Re:This will never happen.

[dns_server]

Unfortunately I have to agree.
Who would have thought we would look back and wish we had a minister that knew nothing about his port folio and slowed down progress in the industry.

Re:This will never happen.

[dns_server]

Yarrr!!!!, time to vote in Pirate Party Australia.
it's better than the Australian sex party who just got electoral approval to run as a federal party.

Re:This will never happen.

[tg123]

This will never happen. ...... The Greens are opposed to both the Internet Filter and the Three Strikes law. Rudd and Labour will do an about face as soon as it looks like they are losing the support of the Greens.

The Greens are just like prostitutes .. you pay them for there services by protecting whales , making new parks etc.
they may even "scream your name" if you pay them enough.

Re:This will never happen.

[Heyokat]

You'll find this is the same in all of the "First World" countries - parties elected with a majority and a mandate that suddenly vote with the ones just voted out. All over the damned planet, there's just one party: Corporate. The Net is not invulnerable, either. Supposedly, the government here already has an "Internet 2" ready to go as soon as they have to shut down this one. How far that will extend I have no idea, if it's so in the first place, but a paper from the Pentagon said that they had to regard the Internet as "hostile" and figure out how to fight it; that's the logical response from a paranoid group like that. Make sure you aren't cut off if something like that goes down.

What's stunning..

[anomaly256]

is that Conroy is still in office. I'm fairly certain this guy is on crack.

Re:What's stunning..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, he's on holy water, ten times more potent than crack. As a fellow Catholic, I probably shouldn't say that, but I don't think he is on the right path (as well intentioned as it is). The Internet isn't an "immoral" thing, and it is capable of great good and change for the better. Conway's plan will curtail the good applications of the Internet (whistle blowing, fighting corruption, exposing crime, ...) along with the bad. As such it fails the test of "you can't do bad in order to do good".

Re:What's stunning..

[twostix]

Whatever he is he's a goddamned hypocrite.

His home state of Victoria of which he is an elected government representative has a law banning "altruistic surrogacy" - that is - having another woman carrying a fertilised egg to term then handing the baby over when it's born.

Disregarding any moral argument on the matter, it's criminally illegal in Senator Conroys home state. So what do he and his wife do? "Route around" the law by skipping over the border to New South Wales to have it organised WHILE STILL REPRESENTING VICTORIA IN PARLIAMENT.

So the Victorian minister Stephen Conroy doesn't think he should be subject to the laws of Victoria when he doesn't feel like it (notice he kept his seat in parliament and still lives in Victoria) and the hypocrite thinks he has the moral authority to make judgments to form controversial legislation affecting thousands?!

Convenient isn't it.

The more I learn about these Labour goons the less I like them.

Stupid law in Victoria in my opinion but, so is every law Conroy pushes regarding the Internet I wonder if he'll be understanding to anybody who ignores the federal laws that they don't like.

Re:What's stunning..

[anomaly256]

Conway's plan is even scarrier than Conroy's plan ;)

Re:What's stunning..

[Merls the Sneaky]

He is a hippocrit, but he was pushing the laws he thinks he was voted to push for. Personally I hope Rudd is just using him as a pawn tp push through certain legislation but will not actually be honoring the filter promis he made to Conroy. I really don't want libs in power again so soon.

Re:What's stunning..

[Anonymous Coward]

To anybody?

There's a quite perceivable difference between a law that prevents surrogacies and which somebody disagrees with enough to circumvent, and other laws which are protested as some violation of rights, but really the people just want to download free movies.

It may seem inconsistent, but so what? Many such hobgoblins are a matter of perception more than any factual dispute.

Not that I know anything about the particulars of this person's surrogacy or how they relate to the laws in the state of Victoria, or those that this politician has supported or opposed. Just going by what you've said here, and it just doesn't necessarily add up the way you think it does.

Re:What's stunning..

[dns_server]

while yes they did announce it leading up to the election they did leave it to a day or two before the election which is kind of sneaky.

Across the Sea

[Renraku]

Meanwhile, across the sea in the United States, the 'Land of the Free,' various employees of various music/movie/video game agencies are taking notes. They're following this with a keen eye. If it works in Australia, why can't it work here?

Pretty soon, files such as Bellsouth Sucks.txt and Comcast Blows.rtf will be blocked in the US due to 'copyright infringement.'

Re:Across the Sea

[Ricardo]

Can you repeat that please.

The words after "Pretty soon," were replaced with "{redacted for your security}"

Re:Across the Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is used as a guinea pig for US policy. You'd better believe it.

Re:Across the Sea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure I'm not following enough of this with a outsiders look it. I'm jealous of the fervor that this is generating here on this site (and there) and wish I could inspire such a spirited debate between family and friends here. I don't work for the industry. Looking at things now I shudder at the thought of ever doing that. I'm one of those who grew up here believing those things so often mocked elsewhere... Justified or not. I'm not holding you up for judgement. It seems more and more likely the day that will come when we the people (to use a oft overused quote, hopefully you will not think less of me our friends from down under and I don't mean that in a nationalistic way) unite against the corporate monsters we have given birth to and slay them with the power of the common man's will. You shall hold sway over us no more ye foul beast! I know flash mobs are passe but any one interested in a good old fashioned torches and pitchforks mob?

Hmmm....

[Antony1Kenobi]

...and people complain about having it bad in America.

Re:Hmmm....

[Lord Fury]

Yeah, so far American corporations only have the power to bankrupt you and ruin your life, not spy on you. Only the government holds that right.

Re:Hmmm....

[Antony1Kenobi]

Really? Only in America are there greedy corporations? Please get a clue. Besides, if you don't know how to manage your finances, chances are you went bankrupt and ruined your life all by yourself.

Mesh network (poll)

[Anonymous Coward]

Straw poll:

If an Australian engineer was to design a box that could you could buy/build to set up a nationwide mesh network (thereby eliminating ISPs and telco infrastructure from the loop), would you buy or build it?

What would be your preference?

a) An open source design that you build yourself.

b) An assembled and testbed box (for a price of course).

How much would you be prepared to pay for such a box (assembled and tested, ready to used)?

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[mjwx]

Straw poll: If an Australian engineer was to design a box that could you could buy/build to set up a nationwide mesh network (thereby eliminating ISPs and telco infrastructure from the loop), would you buy or build it?

What would be your preference?

a) An open source design that you build yourself.

b) An assembled and testbed box (for a price of course).

A, of course, if its an open source design then multiple 3rd party companies can build them, test them and improve the design in order to compete with one another.

How much would you be prepared to pay for such a box (assembled and tested, ready to used)?

This would be beyond the wage of the average Australian given the price of Unobtanium these days.

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[Anonymous Coward]

Both, of course. a) for the nerds, b) for the technically inept.

Of course, then they would be declared illegal, and would be rounded up.

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[Archon-X]

Being australian, and being part of the (very muchly mostly useless) mesh network project in AU, here's my thoughts:

#1- Australian landscape (mountains, bush, vast distances) isn't compatible with mesh networks.
#2 - You need to get the connection to the internet at some stage.

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[DuranDuran]

I think if you did a good job of (a) you would inevitably get (b).

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[SanguineV]

Both, of course. a) for the nerds, b) for the technically inept.

Of course, then they would be declared illegal, and would be rounded up.

I dream of the day when the technically inept are rounded up!

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 Not as inhospitable as you think, given the right techniques multipath and fading can be assets. If they're cheap enough, scatter them like confetti.

#2 If it's big enough, it IS the Internet.

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[jonwil]

And how do you propose to link this mesh network to other networks? Its not like you can just plug into the Southern Cross Cable or Australia-Japan Cable to get connectivity to the outside world. Nor can you just plug into fiber links between all the different isolated towns and cities that would be part of this network (and even if it was possible to string up enough wireless boxes to go from Sydney to Melbourne, the latency would be so big as to render it unusable).

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that the amount of Australians (myself included) on /. would indicate to you that Australians aren't satisfied with just Australian websites. If there were a mesh network, it would be limited to the mainland (isn't island living wonderful?) and therefore inadequate (with no space to grow). Not only that, but the connection quality would be abysmal - wireless have a far higher latency than wires, which would suck if the data had to skirt Australia (eg, Townsville to Perth, around the coast), because we can't go through the desert (so many reasons). Finally, population density simply isn't high enough in Australia - there are massive gaps between population centres that are sparsely or entirely unpopulated (and remember, those that live out in the sticks generally aren't the kind of people who can/want to live on the cutting edge of technology). Any single attempts to bridge those gaps would be shut down in minutes after half of Australia inadvertently DDoSes the link from one side (and the other half DDoSing from the other), and collaboration would probably require the forming of a company (vis-a-vis an ISP, which is subject to the laws we're trying to avoid).

Re:Mesh network (poll)

[dns_server]

There are a few groups such as http://www.air-stream.org.au/ this is a community network in Adelaide.
It is legal to setup a wide area network but if you charge for it you are classified as an isp and are hevily regulated.

Stunningly bad

[countach]

This Labor Australian government has been stunningly disappointing, and everyone I know thinks the same. There was a hope that Labor would bring a bit more enlightenment to a government that was previously seemed to be out of touch, but they have been infinitely worse. Who would have thought we would pine for the good old days?

Re:Stunningly bad

[Ricardo]

I agree.

I would not go so far as to say "infinitely worse" - remember only 3 years ago howard said global warming was not happening.

But I was expecting far better. this kowtowing to the american copyright tzars is disgusting, especially since everyone knows it will make no difference in the end (filtering WILL go the same way as DRM in the end - ie itll be dropped)

Re:Stunningly bad

[mjwx]

This Labor Australian government has been stunningly disappointing, and everyone I know thinks the same. There was a hope that Labor would bring a bit more enlightenment to a government that was previously seemed to be out of touch, but they have been infinitely worse. Who would have thought we would pine for the good old days?

I'd be happy if we could get a polly who could skull a yardie, they don't have to be a record breaker like Hawke. Now days we cant find a blue arsed fly who can finish a middy, let alone skull one. Latham wasn't too bad, in fact I consider anyone who breaks a taxi drivers arm to be doing this countries roads a favour.

Re:Stunningly bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy if we could get a polly who could skull a yardie, they don't have to be a record breaker like Hawke. Now days we cant find a blue arsed fly who can finish a middy, let alone skull one

That was the most Australian thing I have ever read in my life.

Re:Stunningly bad

[andre_pl]

I didn't understand ANY of it.

Re:Stunningly bad

[tg123]

I'd be happy if we could get a polly who could skull a yardie, they don't have to be a record breaker like Hawke. Now days we cant find a blue arsed fly who can finish a middy, let alone skull one

That was the most Australian thing I have ever read in my life.

translation : I'd be happy if we could get a polly who could "drink without stopping" a "yard glass" of beer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yard_(beer) they don't have to be an "Alcholic" like Hawke.
(a previous prime minister well known for his drinking).

Now days we cant find an "politician" who can finish a "small glass" of beer , let alone " drink with out stopping" one.

Australia, who are you?

[grrrl]

I just don't understand where this government's sentiment comes from!! I live in a country that is full of people who are easy going, enjoy life, and who are generally quite non-idealistic - we do not tend to have the passion for politics and causes and pep-talks that seems to drive a lot of US-centric life. And yet the government takes these crazy stands that are SO against the Australian way of living!!

Re:Australia, who are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

thats it. i'm defecting and voting liberal.

Re:Australia, who are you?

[Merls the Sneaky]

been considering that myself mate, yet I fear it will be the same outcome.

Re:Australia, who are you?

[martinX]

Ditto. It's not as if anyone has asked for ISP-level internet filtering, and we haven't even had some huge scandal (real or manufactured) creating outrage (real or manufactured) resulting in the masses demanding protection from teh ebil interwebs. I just don't understand where this is coming from. If I was a conspiracy nut (I'm not, honest...) it's as if The Master Puppeteers have realised that an idea like this from the Libs would be shot down by people objecting to moralising conservatives intruding in our lives, but when it comes from the ALP, people are sort of confused...

Re:Australia, who are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a country that is full of people who are easy going, enjoy life, and who are generally quite non-idealistic - we do not tend to have the passion for politics and causes and pep-talks that seems to drive a lot of US-centric life. And yet the government takes these crazy stands that are SO against the Australian way of living!!

Maybe that's the whole problem. America/Americans may get their panties in a bunch over the smallest thing, but their government isn't proposing internet filters (which is quite a feat, given how pro-corporation their society is by comparison).

Re:Australia, who are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do it because they can get away with it.

Re:Australia, who are you?

[dns_server]

if it where a conspiracy they would have started by trying to introduce a law to mandate filtering technology to block something everyone would object to, lets say for example child pornography.
then we would need some sort of legal precedent to extend the reach of the laws to not just filter things that should never exist but that which it makes commercial sense to block.
then it would be easy to point and say, hey we have a real problem, lets introduce a law to fix it.

If it where a real conspiracy this would not be restricted to australia but happening in far off places like new zeland, france, ireland, the uk, canada.

oh wait...
It's almost as if a lot of countries got together in a trade organisation like wipo and all agreed to implement a law within a few months of each other.

Re:Australia, who are you?

[cecom]

That is precisely what may be causing your problem. Easy going people who do not have passion for politics or ideals essentially leave the government do whatever it wants to...

I'm sure New Zealand is watching

[Kupfernigk]

And encouraging the Australians every step of the way. (NZ is trying to expand its IT economy, this kind of application of projectile to pedal extremity is just the kind of thing they need.)

Re:I'm sure New Zealand is watching

[Kalriath]

Not if the Department of Internal Affairs destroys NZ internet first!

Australia is the testbed.

[master_p]

If successful, then it's the UK, then the US, then the rest of the world.

By the way, if governments cared about other things as much as they care about copyright infringement, things would be so much better...

I thought Down Under is no more a colony?

[kubitus]

but it seems they are being colonialized again by the media megacorporations.

Re:I thought Down Under is no more a colony?

[anarche]

Murdoch was born Australian (Adelaide) then colonised the US...

Do you have a better suggestion?

[MacTO]

It is easy to blame the totalitarian actions of governments or the protectionist desires of industry for bad laws, yet illegal activities that are screened by the relative anonymity of the Internet are a persistent problem. Screaming about our loss of freedoms and privacy through draconian laws does not solve the problem of illegal activities, because the government and industry are not the root of the problem. Indeed, it may even make the problem worse since those who commit the crime will believe that they won't have to do the time.

Re:Do you have a better suggestion?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not much anonymity, as evidenced by all the people actually being sued. It seems the the current laws basically work; but too slowly, too expensively, and with too much bad publicity for the convenience of BigContent.

BigContent would rather put all the cost of, and bad feeling generated by, enforcing their government granted limited time monopoly on everyone else. At the same time they are trying to escape the 'limited time' end of the deal.

In the US you need court orders to do phone taps, but these jokers want to be able to monitor every byte in and out as a normal part of life. We would have to be very foolish to put in place the tools for totalitarianism just to ensure that content can be monetized by a tiny fraction of the population.

We stand at a crossroads; we can choose 'free speech' and 'reasonable privacy' or we can choose an Orwellian dystopia.

Re:Do you have a better suggestion?

[freedom_india]

yet illegal activities that are screened by the relative anonymity of the Internet are a persistent problem

Yup. Eating Bread suffocates 98% babies, Water is responsible for 100% of drownings, and kitchen knives are responsible for 80% of knife deaths. Shall we ban all these?
Quoting statistics is easy, even a fool like you can do it.
Making it relative to something else is harder.

Screaming about our loss of freedoms and privacy through draconian laws does not solve the problem of illegal activities, because the government and industry are not the root of the problem.

Oh... and you say the laws are magically drafted and magically passed by fairies masquerading as MPs?

Re:Do you have a better suggestion?

[cpghost]

Perfectly natural activities (like file copying) are only illegal, because some guys in a building called Parliament have decided that it should be that way. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the copyright law that criminalizes a large portion of the Internet population? How about reforming that law, or at least adapting it to the 21st century? Like, you know, legalizing private non-commercial copying, as the various Pirate Parties in other countries are already asking for?

Re:Do you have a better suggestion?

[schmidty-au]

Maybe, just maybe, the problem is the copyright law that criminalizes a large portion of the Internet population? How about reforming that law, or at least adapting it to the 21st century? Like, you know, legalizing private non-commercial copying, as the various Pirate Parties in other countries are already asking for?

A large portion of the population also commits theft*. Doesn't mean it should be legalised.

I'm not going to sit here and deny that I have downloaded or shared movies (though I admit to nothing). But how can you justify a push to make copyright infringement legal, merely because it's done for non-commercial purposes? I mean, sure, infringement for commercial purposes is a bigger problem, because it happens on a larger scale. But copyright exists to encourage people to innovate and create.

Why would I invest days/weeks/months/years of my time, and hundreds/thousands/millions of dollars in creating something to sell to people who can make good use of it (as opposed to spending that time working for a salary, and simply holding on to my money) if you have a right to just use it without paying me?

Yes, I am aware of the open-source arguments, and yes, I have contributed to OS projects. But I have also taken time off work to try to create something new. I had to forego three months' salary, to do it. I simply could not afford to give it away for free, because, strangely enough, I couldn't find a landlord who'd give me her house for free, or a supermarket that would donate food to the cause.

OS software works because it's easy for many people to collaborate, and the equipment required to develop software is relatively cheap. The same does not apply to all software, and certainly not to something like music or film, which, at a professional level, simply can't be done without paying for access to specialised, expensive equipment, and specialist people to operate that equipment.

Your position would mean that if I produce something that's useful for commerce, then I deserve to be paid, but if I produce something for personal use (such as a music album or a film), I have to do it out of charity.

As it happens, I do compose music and write lyrics, I do record that music, and I choose to make it available online for free. But that's a choice I made, and a choice I want to have.

There are a lot of problems with copyright law in its current state. Big corporations have certainly tipped the balance in their favour, with longer copyright periods, etc. When copyright was first conceived, individuals created intellectual property. Copyright periods generally ran for some period of time following the creator's death. Corporations, however, are not natural persons, so they cannot die.

There's also the matter of US courts, specifically, awarding outrageously high exemplary damages, which, in turn, means that people agree to higher settlements. In Australia we don't have this problem. Australian courts are far more realistic in awarding damages, and also tend to punish plaintiffs that bring actions over very small matters. There's a reason why we haven't had many filesharing lawsuits in Australia. I believe that if a multi-billion dollar corporation went to the Federal Court to sue a teenager for downloading 300 songs, the Court would, likely as not, find in favour of the corporation (its copyright has, indeed, been infringed), but award only nominal damages.

The problem with your position is that it's just as bad as that of the corporations. There's a middle ground. You're both trying to tip the scales grossly in your favour. Right now the corporations are winning that particular tug of war. By all means, let's bring balance back in, but don't make the same mistakes in the other direction.

* I mean theft, not copyright infringement. You cannot steal intellectual property under Australian law. Copyright is a chose in action (intangible property). Theft is dishonestly appropriating property belonging to

Re:Do you have a better suggestion?

[cpghost]

Yes, I am aware of the open-source arguments, and yes, I have contributed to OS projects. But I have also taken time off work to try to create something new. I had to forego three months' salary, to do it. I simply could not afford to give it away for free, because, strangely enough, I couldn't find a landlord who'd give me her house for free, or a supermarket that would donate food to the cause.

That's indeed a very good argument. As a published book author, I know how much time it takes to write, review and polish the final version, time you -- of course -- don't get paid for. My personal preference would be for copyright to exist for a reasonable period of time, like, say, 5 or 10 years at most. After that, the copyrighted works have already been out of print, forgotten, or, if you're very lucky, have become part of the public culture: in all cases, they should enter the public domain by then.

However, granting copyright for N years would mean repeating history. N will start low, but will be extended again and again, until it reached perpetuity. That's why as content creator, I'd still reluctantly prefer that copyright be abolished altogether, or as a compromise, only exist to deter competing commercial entrepreneurs from leeching. Some law in the spirit of CC-BY-NC (or CC-BY-NC-ND) would seem fair. Harshly punishing the little file sharer as if she were a dishonest competitor hell-bent on destroying your only way of income, seems way out of proportion. There has to be a better way.

Do your research please

[jamei]

Firstly, Conroy is a Senator at the *Federal* level. This law was a *State* laws, meaning Conroy would not directly be able to introduce legislation to change these laws.

Secondly, crossing the state border to get around state laws is not hypocritical unless he actually supported those same laws. Nor is it Illegal.

But most importantly, despite being a Federal Senator, Conroy prompted a review of surrogacy laws which led to those laws being changed for the better.

So while Conroy may be a fool (Internet filtering, Copyright Cops etc.), he is not a hypocrite.

Re:Do your research please

[Anonymous Coward]

he is not a hypocrite

Yes, in my opinion he is. As an elected government official - specifically one involved in legislative matters (doesn't matter where) - he should lead by example. Leading by example does not include leaving your own state in order to dodge its laws. It's as hypocritical as it can be for a person in his position. No ifs or buts. Having pushed for better laws is good, but breaking the existing ones isn't.

Note: I specifically think that politicians are to be held to a higher standard.

It'll happen

[enter to exit]

Anybody who cant see this happening world-wide must be living on another planet. What reason does any government have for not supporting this? Do you donate to election campaigns and political parties as much as the "entertainment" industry and celebrities?

sure the average slashdotter and a few loud-mouth civil-libertarians don't want it, but most people are apathetic and the general public have a short memory. A few weeks after it become enforced it'll transform itself into "the natural order of things" and we'll move onto complaining about politician travel expenses again.

Governments don't make laws for you. They make laws for the elite. If it happens to benefit you, they say they did it for you. The leader of the opposition and the PM are both multi-millionaires and have done well in buiness (nothing wrong with that) but one has to ask: What are they doing in politics? Do they give a damn about the "average joe"? Are they just "hobby positions" for the too-rich-to-work?

This will get through and everybody will say: "Isn't Kevin Rudd nice? He gave me $900 stimulus money and said sorry to the Aborigines. A true blue!"

Self Correction

[mjwx]

Australian elections are every 3 years, not 4.

It's late, its Friday, its time for a beer.

An observation

[BhaKi]

I can't help but notice one thing. If the same happened with Iran, N. Korea, China or any other political enemies of US, the media would be promoting more hatred towards those countries... would have tagged "tyranny" or "dictatorship", would have edited wikipedia pages about those countries to display false facts, would have created stories about "hackers" from those countries "stealing sensitive information from internet" (as if sensitive information is put on internet. oh wait! i'm sorry, i forgot. creating such stories is CIA's job. not media's.) The question is: does any one notice the amount of influence of US government (or its agencies) on media?

What the fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fucking outraged.

Why the hell do we vote for these idiots? Labor does something shitty, so we all vote Liberal, Liberal does the same thing but calls it something different, so we all vote Labor. We just switch back and forth from one incompetent to another. The only party who has a clue about anything seems to be the Greens, but they don't get a look in.

[/rant]

Re:What the fuck

[Merls the Sneaky]

I have a simple rule in Australian politics. Never vote the last guy in again. Keep the bastards on their toes.

Re:What the fuck

[timmarhy]

the greens? rofl fuck no they are even MORE clueless. they would have us all living in bush shacks and wiping our arses with sea sponges out of the belief the environment needs it.

australia doesn't have a single glimmer of hope on the political front, at both a state and federal level. that about sums it up.

The liberals wouldnt be any better

[jonwil]

I guarantee you that the Liberals (under Howard, Turnbul or anyone else who has a snowballs chance of being Liberal leader) would have supported this kind of "ISP as copyright cop" legislation had they won government instead of Rudd.

The big push for this stuff is comming from the commercial TV networks (7, 9 and 10), the Pay TV operators (i.e. Foxtel and all the various owners of the various channels) and the movie studios. All of these parties have been arguing that without some kind of "ISP as copyright cop" enforcement to stop piracy (why the same copyright legislation and court system that has served this nation for over 100 years is not suitable for this I fail to see), it will become more and more un-viable to continue to produce content in this country.

bleh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Australian.

this is disgusting.

public libraries, download warez, sneakernet it to all my damn friends.

move to any other country asap.

Draconian

[Anonymous Coward]

This clown is an anal retentive, pico-minded, obtuse, over-reaching, wrong-headed, intellectually-stunted bureaucrat with little knowledge of how this technology works, a power-hungry mentality, and an amazing ability to make really poor, uninformed, short-sighted decisions. His simple-minded world view hampers his country, and the wider world. I thought Ted "Tubes" Stevens and Orrin "All your base belong to my paid backers, the **AA" Hatch were living in 1430, but no, poor decision making can travel to Australia too.

Re:Draconian

[Merls the Sneaky]

I just call him Senator Conjob, it's shorter.

I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do you propose to link this mesh network to other networks....

Run it through the sewers using a small RC Submarine?

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/03/0411224/RC-Submarine-Lays-Fiber-Through-Sewers-In-Italy

Re:I have an idea

[jonwil]

Thats great but I dont think there are sewers or pipes running to America :)

This law helps network administrators do their job

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a maintenance amendment to the Telecommunications (Intercept and Access) Act that clarifies that it is not illegal to capture packets on your own network. One reading of the current act would require all network administrators to get a wiretapping warrant before opening wireshark.

While the Government may not have considered the consequences of this amendment with regards to ISP networks, I really doubt that this is a law aimed at copyright infringers.

Re:This law helps network administrators do their

[Arkem Beta]

EFA opposes the construction of 'appropriately used' in s 6AAA of the exposure draft. We submit that the definition in s 6AAA ought to be amended to reflect that operators are only entitled to intercept and monitor communications where those communications pose a threat to the security of the network itself.

Personally, I'd want the ammendment to be clear that it applies to network troubleshooting as well as network security so that network administrators can definitely use tools like Wireshark to fix their network.

Oh, sweet

[X.25]

I guess this could mean that GSM operators can snoop on conversations made over their network.

Or fixed phone operators can listen to conversations made over their network.

What's the voter turnout in Aus?

[phorm]

I'm a Canadian who would strongly consider Aus if I were ever to relocate. About 4-5 years ago I went down there to visit some close friends, and found most things about the country wonderful. In terms of politics it seems that Australians were MUCH more in touch with political issues that might otherwise be ignored in Canada/USA. I'm not sure if the voter turnout is better, but I'm hoping that more-informed=more likely to vote (in an intelligent manner).

Sadly, Canada's system has gone downhill in that manner. While you can catch interesting pieces on CBC, general media on politics has little to do with political reality and plenty more to do with mudslinging and semi-slander.
It used to be ads were more about "what I can do for you" than "my opponent eats kittens and evicts little old ladies", which I had viewed as a more American thing, but we've certainly moved more towards the latter in the last 1-2 decades. Aus seems to be a bit more clean-cut and clued-in, so hopefully they'll stay that way.

Re:What's the voter turnout in Aus?

[Merls the Sneaky]

Voting is required by law so the turnout is always good.

Piracy in Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't all of australia hosted off a 1.5/512kbit dsl line?

With those speeds, I'm not sure why they're putting so much effort into stopping piracy...

Re:Piracy in Australia?

[Merls the Sneaky]

No, you can get decent speeds in Australia if you live in a metropolitan area or the burbs, it's the rural areas that have the 1.5/512kbit dsl line.

What happened to you Australia...

[thenewguy001]

you used to be cool.

Appropriate

[amoeba1911]

One would think that me sharing my movies that I bought with my own money would be considered appropriate use of my internet connection that I am paying for with my own money.

Re:Appropriate

[anarche]

One would think that me sharing my movies that I bought with my own money would be considered appropriate use of my internet connection that I am paying for with my own money.

Um. Seriously? And so the people who you share with, who bought....um...with your money... um.. hang on, would be an appropriate use of... um... no hang on

You've never created anything you wish to profit from have you?

Re:Appropriate

[schmidty-au]

my movies.

Here is the flaw in your argument.

They're not your movies. The medium on which the movie is stored belongs to you. The intellectual property in the movie does not. You merely purchased a restricted licence. You had the choice to purchase or not.

Now, I'm not about to say that I don't download movies (I neither confirm or deny that I do). I'm not going to run around and say you shouldn't do it, because I might, hypothetically, do it too.

But it's not like you have an inherent right to consume a work that someone else created, just as I don't have an inherent right to consume a work you have created. You may not produce films, or software, or music, but you own lots of (probably worthless) intellectual property in letters you write, notes you right, lies you think up, etc. I don't have in inherent right to read your letters. You don't have an inherent right to use the software I write, or to listen to the music I compose.

Setted by convicts

[anw]

Foreigners, especially Americans, make this joke a lot, but they don't really think through what it means. Actually it provides some really good insights into the Australian character. IANACSP ( I am not a cultural studies professor ) but I was born and raised here, have lived here for the best part of forty years, and have travelled a fair bit overseas for comparison purposes :)

Firstly, stop thinking about criminals and start thinking about inmates.

caveat americanus When yankees think about prison, they probably think about race and drugs. Don't. There are serious issues with racism in Australia, but they have an entirely different character to in America. Instead, imagine a prison full of loyal Mafia dudes who have taken a fall for their Capos and are serving their time, and have no real grief with each other or how they got there.

What do these inmates do? They look out for each other, and try and get through a shitty situation with as much humour and enjoyment as they can. They don't think the guards or the wardens are any better than they are, and largely they just try to stay on their good side and otherwise ignore them. They break the rules (which they don't take very seriously) - smuggle stuff, pinch stuff, do what they aren't supposed to - as much as they can get away with, but if someone gets caught, that's just the breaks. They love their sport, and grow a little weed and brew some beer in a shed out the back while a 'decent bloke' guard looks the other way.

They don't try and rock the boat. If someone stands up and starts yelling about prisoner's rights, or the unfairness of the guards, they are more likely to make fun of them and give them a swift kick in the backside than to start a riot.

And they have an amazingly high tolerance for invasive government. That's just part of the deal. You expect the warden to make stupid rules (this week everyone must piss sitting down!) : you ignore them if you can, and make jokes about them if you can't. You cheer the guy who breaks them and gets away with it, and laugh at the guy who gets caught.

This is the real nature of the Australian laid-back approach to politics : fundamentally, Australians with this character (which is about half) don't see the rules governing their situation as subject to fundamental change. You can get better and worse wardens and guards, but you're still going to be in the nick. An inmate may feel real affection for his particular prison - and get very patriotic when there is inter-prison football games! - but they don't see it as something that belongs to them, something under their control.

Democracy didn't change this very much : it just means we get to elect the guards and the warden! But we will pick the guy who promises to be a good natured guard, not the guy who wants to tear the walls down. And when the warden asks us if we want to change something ( constitutional referendums in Australia are only initiated by the government ) we virtually always so NO, largely just to stick it to him.

But thats only half the story.

Secondly : whenever you have inmates, you have guards and plantation owners (we call them the 'squatocracy') whose wealth depends on the labour of the prisoners. And largely those are the ones who set the character of our government and our institutions.

This is the other half of the Australian character. These people think that all the rest are lazy, and stupid, and venal, and need to be controlled and governed as much as possible. Pick up any Australian newspaper, or listen to any talk radio, and you will see and hear dozens of articles and letters and callers ranting about the need to punish people more, and pass more laws. I don't think Australian parliaments even know how to revoke laws - they just ratchet them up with more and more details, more and more control, more and more punishment.

Law and order sells even better in Australia then in Am

Encrypt

[nurb432]

Problem solved. ( at least the mechanics, sounds like a revolution is needed to get to root of the problem )

Stupid Senator Conroy

[mcfar45]

This is such a stupid idea...I don't want my internet records being perused by anyone let alone the government...I posted on my blog about this so read my post here

Re:Three strikes is dead?

[ibsteve2u]

So much for my grand plan to blast Australia back to snail mail by spamming the entire country with the first 64KB of Microsoft Word.

You understand - as revenge for inflicting Rupert Murdoch upon America?

but average people just dont get it.....

[anticharisma]

People power in australia is said to be the thing thats gonna stop the pollies taking away our human rights ie internet privacy and freedom on the basis that politicians are greedy and self preservation keeps them loyal to the people.....Yeh but average joe is an uninformed idiot. All he cares about or knows about when it comes to the internet is that the government is gonna stop terrorists for him and protect his kids from online pedophiles. Protect the kids! Do it all for the safety of the kids!! Thats the notion chief in the minds of joe and jane public and that means that huge abuse of privacy at a governmental legislation level is about to happen here in australia before joe and jane public in say 10 years time begin to realise why we need our internet rights protected from fucktard assclowns like Conroy...

also

[anticharisma]

and by the way Conroy was the only one to make a supportive comment for that victorian politician recently investigated for rape...I reckon this to be yet another insight into Conroys bizarre set of principles

p2p is just alright with me

[cavebison]

It seems to me, as long as traditional P2P remains the scapegoat and focus of attention for these kinds of regulations, governments can appear to be doing something (cue Yes Minister music), however people will still be able to use any other method of file sharing; newsgroups, file hosting services, etc. till they go blue in the face. New methodologies may already be in the works which further muddy the waters and keep our friendly legislators guessing (ie. posturing and looking busy).

Hopefully, voters won't allow universal censoring of the web. But some protocol or other needs to take the heat. Or perhaps "draw the heat" would be a better way of putting it.

assault on the internet?

[javert]

If the technology exists for this to work perfectly, with no risk to privacy or performance, and all it did was prevented copyright infringement and access to illegal material, I wonder how many of us would still be against it regardless.

Would this still be classed as an "assault on the internet"? Or is this really an "assault on my access to pirated music/software/movies/porn/etc" at heart?