Slashdot Mirror
AU Government Censors Document On Planned Web Snooping
MrPPS writes "The Australian Government plans to force ISPs to record and retain all citizens' communications traffic. The Sydney Morning Herald requested that the proposed policy documents be released under Freedom of Information laws. What they received was a document that was 90% censored, in order to prevent 'premature unnecessary debate.' More discussion on the Greyhat Security site. Here is the redacted document (PDF, 3.6 MB)."
It's a scanned document with physical blacking out, unlike the last few failed PDF censorship attempts in which there were merely added black objects obscuring the undeleted original text.
Might still be able to get some information out with image processing, but I doubt we're going to get a lot. I'm off to give it a shot.
The current Australian government is showing some startling and disturbing trends with their disapprobation for the rights to privacy. First there was Senator Conroy's (Minister for Broadband, Communications, etc) plan to retain a secretive government register, unbeknownst to the public, that would filter websites it deemed to have no classification. Child pornography was the chief motivator but like with so many other noble beginnings, it spawned into an ugly beast - a register with the capacity to capture (and did capture as we now know) websites ill-suited to blacklisting.
Now we have the Attorney-General seeking to deny privacy rights without public consultation. The very people who are affected the most by this policy are unable to comment due to a rather spurious argument that 'premature' debate might in some way affect the purpose of the policy.
There is something grossly wrong with this - if you want to snoop, spy or store data of citizens, by all means - but as a Government, you must get the consent of the population and be willing to accept rejection of said proposal. Silencing or blocking comment is in direct conflict of the notion of democracy.
Privately, I'd revile any Government where my information needs are suddenly in question. The adage 'if you don't have anything to hide, show it' fails - I should never be coerced to reveal anything about me without cause - that's privacy. Respect that.
It's more than just the politicians. Actions like these require substantial cooperation from the civil service. I often wonder just how wide and how deep the desire for censorship runs in Australia.
Could any Australian slashdotter provide the wider subtext which is altogether absent in these stories? What is the driving element of society that is pushing for this censorship and how much support do they have among most Australians? Is this part of a historical trend or a new development? How deeply are the Australian political, state, and legal systems affected by it?--Not to mention the corporations. Why does Australia seem to be pursuing these laws so zealously?
May the Maths Be with you!
That is why ISPs have 1GB bandwidth caps and support blocking most websites altogether.
Unfortunately the Labour Party (Current Federal Government) seems to be strongly influenced by people who have the attitude of "We must protect the Children" or "We know what is best for this county" or some such "Holy than thou" ideas. I would be fairly sure that the people who dream up these ideas are genuinely concerned with improving society however you cannot improve society by forcing society to adopt your point of view. This reminds me of the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Since the document in question is so heavily censored you really have to ask what is are the Government afraid off. After-all it not as if the document could be classified as top secret and with so much censorship the mind boggles.
Since I am a swinging voter I will not be voting for Labour this coming Federal election the problem is I am not to keen on the opposition either.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Depends, the Defence Signals Directorate and ASIO would do this by default, fishing for words and connecting friends of friends.
They are just very passive about it so people still feel the anonymity of the web.
State and federal task forces do log you once they get interested.
Your average Australian ISP would just pass cost on to users or request a federal grant.
No more new data caps or lower prices fro a while as they pay for cheap Narus clones.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
If this wording of the answer does not enrage the majority of Australians regardless of their position on the issue, and won't affect their vote, then they do not really deserve democracy.
It reminds me of the HST ruckus here in BC. The petition. (First step to referendum) to repeal it got widespread backing from many people of all political backgrounds, including those in favor of HST - because of the way it was pushed through.
While I was not born in Australia (Originally UK from Scottish and Irish parents) I have lived in Australia for over 40 years. Australian society is in general fairly easy going with the majority of people well educated and having a very good standard of living. As far as the structure of the Australian Government a good source is here .
There is a saying "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", well this apples to all societies but when you have politicians or lobbyists who want to shape society in a way that conforms to what they believe in and push their beliefs on society then you are going to have problems. This is not to say that these people have bad intentions however to force one's beliefs on society is IMHO very wrong.
Since the Federal Labour party came to power it has been strongly influenced by what I would call "bible bashers" or "bible thumper's" if you like who seem to want to shape society in their own image since they seem to perceive that they know best. Basically no politician in their right mind wants to be seen as forcing rapid change so they make incremental changes coupled with sayings like "Think of the children" (lets censor the internet more) or (sigh!) "Speeding kills" (lets have more speed cameras) just to name a few.
Australian society is not any different to any other democratic society but like any democracy, people need to be aware of issues which could in the long run affect their freedoms and vote accordingly. At least we do have that right at the moment..
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Australians have a very different attitude to government than Americans, and perhaps to some extent many other countries.
By and large, they see the government as a service provider. It provides their health care, education (right through from elementary school through to university), postal service, once upon a time even the telephone network and power and water services. Basically, any exigent need that an Australian citizen feels is immediately reflected in their mind to the government as the first port of call as to who should fill it. The government is accutely attuned to this and doesn't hesitate to jump in and try to first exaggerate the need for and then propose some (usually token but sufficient to win votes) solution to the "problem". This, combined with the fact that Australia has been a peaceful democracy since inception (if you ignore Aborigines, but that is what Aussies do) has lead to an implicit trust of government that simply doesn't exist in the US.
Now, don't get me wrong - Aussies hate the government - they are full of cynicism and basically assume that every politician is corrupt and every bureaucrat is incompetent. But they don't think they are evil. They would never even imagine that their government might persecute them or become their enemy in a war, etc. Even if they did, the government is so institutionalized in normal people's lives that it is basically pointless to worry about it. The American viewpoint seems a little bit ludicrous to most Australians - really, you want to hold onto your guns and absolute rights to free speech just in case you want to overthrow your entire government one day - like that is actually going to happen? You, with your pop gun are going to take on your nuclear armed government?
So when the government says they want to censor or monitor the internet, most people see it no differently to if your ISP announced that as a new extra feature to protect them. You pay for virus checkers and filters on your home computer, now the government is going to do that for free - awesome! It sounds like a good idea (catch more criminals, protect children etc) and due to implicit trust they have they don't really pursue it to question whether evil things might be done as a result, and even if they do it seems like a very theoretical, abstract concept.
Parent is a fantastic post - someone please mod him up (I have points, but already posted in this thread).
I'm a dual Australian and American citizen and it's completely accurate. Australians see the American mistrust of government as incredibly paranoid, verging on delusional. By and large the Australian Government, despite the odd bungle and scandal, does a pretty good job in providing the services that it does and keeping Australia's quality of life and economy the best in the developed world (only G20 nation not to go into recession due to the 'global financial crisis'). They are on our side in the end, even if some of their ideas are a bit misguided from time to time.
OTOH though, I've seen the other side of the fence now that I live in America and have married into an American. Americans have a much better understanding of human nature when it comes to how governments can abuse their power and become 'evil', I think. Mostly as the parent says, due to their more turbulent and violent history. But I think some degree of mistrust and suspicion is a healthy thing, and the Australian people could do well to be a bit more like the Americans in that respect. Australians are incredibly apathetic about politics. Most simply don't follow politics or care one way or the other. America seems to have a higher proportion of people who are politically-interested and opinionated. Some are a bit extreme though - irrationally HATING some idea just because it has SOME degree of Government control or influence.
Also, to remain a bit more on topic - the document referred to in TFA is an internal discussion paper. Not a law. Not a Bill. Not a draft Bill. Not even a formal proposal of any kind. Slashdot always likes to beat stuff up and make it seem much more ominous than it actually is (see also: Internet filter proposals that have zero chance of actually being enacted in their current form - politically impossible given the current and likely future Senate makeup and massive public unpopularity - it may eventually get through as an opt-in or opt-out filter, which is fine).
Could any Australian slashdotter provide the wider subtext which is altogether absent in these stories
I've read the other responses here, and there's a more specific background a lot of Australians aren't familiar with.
As everyone is well aware, the religious right have gained some significant traction in Australian politics over the last several years. But additionally, and possibly more importantly, the religious right has to some extent become aligned with the corporate and independently wealthy right wing businesses / people. This is because various businesses in Australia are losing profits and see the cause as the internet, which may or may not be true, but there's agreement between the various right wing lobby groups that policing of internet 'crime' (ie. offshore gambling, illegal pornography, importation of goods without duty, content piracy etc.) is a good thing.
Now with the Australian federal government being practically co-opted by the various labour unions without democratic process and with the utilization of a figurehead prime minister for the purposes of garnering the female votes from those people whom don't follow nor care about politics (ie. the majority), we're seeing the shaping of a political environment which in a very real sense is conflicted with itself.
This document illustrates how the left wing of Australian government must now shake hands with the right wing lobbyists and the requirement for censorship illustrates how little the left wing voter base would agree with this alliance and with the up-and-coming election ... the labour party is trying to be cautious. All in all, the incumbent government's situation is tenuous at best and any serious mis-step could see a media storm of dissent whip up the indifferent voters to swing away from the incumbents.