Slashdot Mirror
Australian Gov't Seeks To Record Citizens' Web Histories
An anonymous reader writes "If you thought the Australian Government's Internet filter project was bad, think again. They have a new project — they are examining a policy that would require all Internet service providers to log users' web browsing history and email data such as who all emails were sent to and from. And that's just the start. Telephone calls, mobile phone calls, even Internet telephony. It's all in there. Looks like 1984 was a pretty prophetic book." Several readers also point to ZDNet's coverage.
than pedophiles and terrorists.
How long before the Australian government realize that they need to pass a bill to ban encryption?
Trivially easy to circumvent once again. Google already offers SSL encryption for web searches and for Gmail and I don't even need to mention all the privacy tools available.
I think you're taking this too lightly, just a couple o' thoughts:
* just because _you_ have a way around it doesn't meen the general public does and it also doesn't mean it will not impact you in some way. /feeling/ of being monitored, your freedom of speech is already seriously impaired.
* encryption is only part of the solution (see other posts)
* email can still be scanned, only transport between you and your mailserver is encrypted, the gov't could still pressure gmail into delivering the data (even easier, less mail providers)
* international mail can (is!?!) still be scanned by officials
* psychological effect: Joe Schmoe will think: "I better not look at teen porn on the web or else I might get suspected". Once you get just the
nobody who is devout, or even remotely religious, should be allowed into government.
Australian here- It's pretty simple really. (Disclaimer: I've posted this before, but it bears repeating)
We have a political system where, instead of directly voting for a prime minister, we instead vote for our local representative; the party with the most seats gets to elect the prime minister. Essentially.
The problem comes when the two main political parties own almost equal seats, but many seats are "safe" seats. Think Texas. Is a Democrat ever going to be elected in a landslide in Texas? Nah. Is a Republican going to take San Fransisco in a landslide? Nah.
So, politicians focus on the marginal seats. Think Florida, which could go either way.
It just so happens a number of those seats are, currently, in and around Adelaide; a highly religious, conservative city known as "The City of Churches". So, politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are metaphorically sucking our version of the Bible Belt's dick in order to get those precious one or two seats, which means they can keep/gain government respectively.
Which means our current administration is pushing through knee-jerk think-of-the-children legislation while the opposition is basically screaming "US TOO BUT BIGGER, BETTER, MORE KNEE-JERKY."
It's pure horseshit and doesn't represent the will of the Australian people at all.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
I have a feeling that I got my message garbled....
The point I am trying to say is: If you try to "circumvent a law" (in this case the law would be being able for the Gov. to record you email activity or web browsing activity) then you are against the law and you face consequences.
Hiding behind "I am encrypted" saves you nothing. To the eye of a judge you are "not cooperating with the law and... probably guilty"
You state that banning encryption is impossible, Gov. obviously ban encryption for "unlawful" use, it is then your duty to prove that you where using for lawful use.
I just have the feeling that people that advocates encryption as a solution to privacy and tracking are just attempting to wrestle with the Gov. over "I am stronger than you", you cannot catch me. This is a false and dangerous starting point.
Gov. can always catch you, either dead or alive, you may be a small fish and can wiggle out of the net (unless the infringement process is automatic) but your hope of "breaking the law" indefenetly is just plaing unreasonable, unless, of course you try to "disappear", but then, what kind of life is it ?
So, after this long chatting, the point is:
If you and I think that an orwell society is wrong (I think so) we should say it clearly and loudly and not think "oh well, it does not matter since there is encryption"