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)."
Having to work for you bastards, it really shouldn't be any surprise to me that you'd want to pull a dick move like this on your own citizens. I hope they vote all of your skanky asses right out of office.
They did it to stop 'premature unnecessary debate', apparently.
They don't want any facts or public opinion getting in the way of something they have already decided on and that serves nobody else but themselves.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html?rand=1279849637950
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/354283/government_stifles_debate_web_browser_history_retention/
Like they were popular enough already with the manditor filter? And comming up to an election I have to ask, WTF?
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
aka democracy.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
The only realistic vote in Australia seems to be a vote for the Australian Sex Party.
The other parties seem totally infested by moralism and corruption.
I wonder if this is one of those cases where someone can lift the text from behind the blacked out image, that would be some just irony: "just like how filtering wouldn't work, their censorship wouldn't work"
To prevent "premature unnecessary debate" --- gotta give them credit that at least they're not lying about their motivations, unlike using "national security" to keep ACTA negotiations secret.
Pesky democracy. Let us pass the bill, then you can debate it.
Please publish all of your employee's internet connections from the past 3 months. This should include all connections from their family members as well.
Once you complied, we can discuss your idea. If you don't, that plan of yours is just premature and unnecessary.
I hope they are sloppy as we are about redacting PDFs...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
If the people of Australia ever needed proof that their government now regards them as "subjects" in the most pejorative sense of the term now that they are largely unarmed and defenseless against the state, openly talking about "premature unnecessary debate" should do it.
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.
... information wants to XX XXXX.
Ceci n'est pas une
So that's what we've reduced ourselves to, huh? Let's hope everybody acts on that assumption and does their best to put a stop to this. And quit electing these assholes! Alright?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
In Soviet Australia, every Party except the Sex Party wants to Fuck you.
For curbing "premature unnecessary debate", Australian Government, meet Barbara Streisand...
Anyone notice the disclaimer?
From the document: "The paper intends only to stimulate discussion on the issues set out in it. The results of these discussions will be used to inform government consideration of these matters."
SO how does this relate to the whole prevent 'premature unnecessary debate' thingy...
Can you imagine the cost of complying with 'recording all customers traffic'?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I have trouble even comprehending "record and retain all citizens' communications traffic." To think that someone would tolerate a government spying on web traffic, I mean it's not like we're talking about cell phones here.
What possible reason is it in anyone's best interest to spend mountains of treasure to create a massive archive of every single internet transaction apart from the people who sell hard drives.
How much electricity will be needed to run this server farm? .... well, what exactly. More prosecutions? Public officials whacking off to citizens' cyber sex chat transcripts?
Exactly what evidence is there that this archive will result in
What will the start up and long term fiscal costs be?
What safeguards are there to prevent this archive by being used only in the prevention of serious crimes.
What is the audit system to be to ensure that it won't be abused?
Of course they censored it.
This falls under the realm of a threat to national security.
Us.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Is this a reboot I hadn't heard of?
We've got an election three weeks away where voters will have the opportunity to throw out Julia Gillard. Gillard is Rudd's deputy who knifed him in the back to take his job, yet was party to all his unpopular decisions. She is continuing to support the web filter (though deferred implementing it until after the election).
In the other corner is Tony Abbott, a conservative catholic who is also pro-web filter (see earlier comments in Slashdot).
These are the two major parties in Australia. Their policies are so similar it's hard to tell them apart. One of them will win. What sort of a choice is this?
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.
IF this isn't just a political stunt, and actually becomes law, it would only be a matter of time before something like this happens.
Well that certainly fills in the blanks...
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
We have a federal election less than one month away. Unfortunately, I think it's mainly the minority of geeks and nerds which fear it and understand these plans. How do we mobilise the rest of a generally apathetic nation in 3 weeks before a federal election to rally against this?
It's sad, and rather scary, that the major points of *debate* in the election so far have been immigration and carbon taxes. Perhaps the 150 randoms looking after carbon taxes can do a double shift and handle the great firewall.
At which point do you feel that the Australian public should be consulted for the real facts and opinions?
The only realistic vote in Australia seems to be a vote for the Australian Sex Party.
The other parties seem totally infested by moralism and corruption.
You can't vote for a party that has already been banned (by the Internet filters).
Electronic Frontiers Australia, which the Australian government has labeled an extremist organization, says;
We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about people having insight into the consultation.
Of course the government has excuses for its hypocrisy; if it makes more laws then there will be more criminals, and an educated criminal is a threat to society; so the goal of the government is to try to keep people ignorant. Ignorance is Strength.
This is likely nothing more than a staffer trying to answer the question "What would happen if we did this?" as posed by a politician.
That's pure speculation.
Depending on the style of printer, it may be possible to forensically recover the didacted information.
While I was unable to find any such studies in the 30 seconds I spent googling this, I have a few thoughts. If this was printed on a laser printer, then a charge was used to layer toner fluid on the paper. Then, a black marker was used to over-write the toner. The toner would have shielded the paper from the black ink. Therefore, a high resolution scan of the image should reveal that the reverse side of the paper is slightly lighter on the inside of the printing of each character where the marker was used.
Of course, we would need an original, not a digital or even a copy.
Couldn't be the "Obongo" bit, or the off-topic, incendiary nature of the post that got him that, could it? Nah, it's gotta be the raging hard-on everyone has for Obama, and not the fact that someone correctly noted that the post was not designed to spark intelligent discourse, but instead to inflame and derail.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
That is why ISPs have 1GB bandwidth caps and support blocking most websites altogether.
XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
Don't use so many caps. Itg's like yelkling.
Don't use so makny caps. Irert's like yelling.
Don'tr use so many caps. It's lire yelling.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
Don't use rso many caps. Itgrr's like yeleling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yerrelling.
Don't use sor many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's liker yelling.
Don'tr use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use sof many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so maffrny caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelfling.
This is likely nothing more than a staffer trying to answer the question "What would happen if we did this?" as posed by a politician.
That's irrelevant. FOI requests require that all working copies and notes be provided, at least when I've seen them. Working copies are covered.
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.
That obviously explains Atkinson in South Australia.
Unfortunately it's not impossible, and the cost carried over to the consumer would be negligible. Storage is cheap these days. ~$0.07 per GB and falling and if you just want to make a one time copy and dump it in a store room then the other overheads are small since it won't be 'hot' storage in a server somewhere. The cost of logging the entirety of my average monthly internet usage (average 20gb) is about $2 per month which represents the one time cost of the storage media, HDD tape etc.
But what is the point in logging encrypted (ie https) traffic? Do the policy makers even know such things exist? This will only cause more websites to switch to encryption.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I just saw this website which takes on these issues using a labour catchphrase - http://www.movingaustraliaforward.com/
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
in order to prevent 'premature unnecessary debate.' However from the document "This paper intends only to stimulate discussion on the issues set out in it." The only discussion the government seems to be stimulating is that on their censorship and the discontent of the public.
In Google we trust.
Wow, Australia takes another step toward the digital third world. I am losing hope for my country.
sustainable living
I've never liked the fact that I have to write name & address on my postal ballet envelope; who knows if they really separate the name/address envelopes from the ballot envelopes?
Also, I've never liked the so-called "preferential" voting system (in which your votes are re-used, ie, if your first choice doesn't win, supposedly in favor of your (OR your Party's) 2nd choice, 3rd choice, & so forth... until someone actually wins each seat.
Most don't want to number each & every candidate on every ballot paper (ie, use up every number, in order, from 1 to the number of candidates listed on each ballot - EVEN when there are zillions of candidates listed - like 50+ to order, from first to last; eg, if you use a number twice or skip a number, YOUR VOTE WON'T EVEN BE COUNTED!!! You can't even stop numbering when you don't want to vote for, say, some racist indepentents, left over... How to order preferences for any end-of-list near-nazi racists? They'd all stink, and it would be a mistake to vote for any of them!!!)...
so, they vote for the Party, which requires just ONE number to be written; there's no risk of having your vote not getting counter... but...
In this case, however, the Party decides who your vote goes to (ie, if their candidate can't win), and you have NO say about it at all!!!
The "preferential system" is designed to exclude smaller independent parties from elbowing into the legislature, and it should be DUMPED in favor of a more democratic system, that would let people decide for themselve who to vote for, for each seat.
It will turn out to be something thrown together in an afternoon by a very junior staff member just so that it can be said to pressure groups that there is a plan. It will be full of holes, inconsistancies and possibly completly defy common sense but that won't matter since it's not designed to be read, just designed to tick a box to get the "wowser" vote from weird Pentacostals or whatever.
It's disgusting that we have bullshit like this to get those that firmly believe in censorship to vote for the government instead of their being some sort of effort to convince them that censorship is not the solution they think it is. However there's no point pretending this thing is a real policy .
But what is the point in logging encrypted (ie https) traffic? Do the policy makers even know such things exist?
Don't explain it to them or they'll simply require all e-commerce transactions to be carried out over plain, unencrypted HTTP. That would be even worse.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
The ALP tactic at the moment seems to be to take the same policies as the opposition but promise to implement them as if they were sane adults that have actually worked for one or more days in their life - a keen edge over the Liberal party. It backfires when you have very bad policies like Howard's token effort at a filter being taken up by Conroy as if he really was going to implement it.
The only way this is going to go away is after the pressure groups give up on trying to push censorship - child porn is the excuse but that's not really why they want it.
Tony is so "conservative" that he got thrown out of a seminary for being a very bad boy and has been before the magistrate twice, once for sexual assualt - he's only really Catholic on Sundays on the Church steps in front of the cameras. He was called the "mad monk" more for screwing anything in a skirt (like Rasputin) than anything else.
That was my point. It used to be that Australia ended 100 miles west of Adelaide. The line appears to have moved east.
I started my own premature but very necessary debate over on the corporate blocking of the Sex Party story where I mentioned that the SMH article is, in fact, very misleading, and the "premature and unnecessary debate" quote was taken completely out of context. Basically, the document was censored because it was exempt from the FOI act, and it was exempt because:
a) It's some internal discussion amongst the party that's not even at the proposal stage. That is, it doesn't affect the public, and it's far from finalised, and
b) In its current form, there's no guarantee that any actual proposal that comes from this will reflect the document at all. That is, actually releasing it would be misleading.
Basically, this document didn't need to be released at all, and in certain parts, it's against the public interest to actually release it.
I also realise that my comment I linked to above was modded down, but I'm hoping that this time around Slashdotters take their own advice, and refrain from censoring dissenting opinions.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I'm not an Australian, but from my observation of Government, I'd bet that AU's Gov't has made the decision to try and pass this policy. I find it very ominous that the document had even basic definitions blacked out. There's no reasonable explanation for that, other than to obstrifucate what they intend to do. They don't say how extensive their data requisition would be. In the U.S. to do home surveillance AFAIK a pretty hefty warrant is required, and there has to be evidence to show it is necessary. Probing an ISP's user data seems like an invasion of privacy, and essentially warrantless home surveillance. I Know, you're all going to say that, I should be railing against web data mining, and consumer tracking, but that's technically illegal too without disclosure. Plus, you can take measures to protect your anonymity. With the ISP handing over all data to the Government, it essentially becomes a "thought police" type of system.
Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
> Can anyone offer real insight into why people vote this way?
It's a good question. Voters whine about the lack of choice, but always vote for the two majors. Often we hear of a protest vote, but the voters cower out at the last minute. It happened in Britain with the LDP. It will probably happen in Oz with the greens.
My theory is that most voters are uninformed, cowering simps who don't have the brains or the balls to pick the best candidate. Most of them vote for party X for the same reason they follow football team Y; because they always have, or their dad did and their mates do.
Try talking politics with someone. They'll tell you immediately who they like, but pry deeper and you'll find their reasoning ill-thought out. Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with your average voter." Try it. Not to try and convert them to your cause, but just to see how shallow they are.
Gillard and Abbot are the most pathetic line up in living memory, yet one of them will win.
The insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are winning. Do you see them using tanks, choppers and nukes?
No, they rely on small explosives and small arms.
What means "unnecessary debate"?
I am interested to see what exactly needed to be redacted from the definition of BRAS (page 12).
How is a definition anything less than public knowledge? I already find it suspicious that a government organisation is obviously imposing bias on a 'definition' in a request for comments document.