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.
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.
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.
In Soviet Australia, every Party except the Sex Party wants to Fuck you.
For curbing "premature unnecessary debate", Australian Government, meet Barbara Streisand...
Can you imagine the cost of complying with 'recording all customers traffic'?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
At which point do you feel that the Australian public should be consulted for the real facts and opinions?
Just make up whatever you want it to say. What, are they going to deny that that's what it said? Didn't think so.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, the preferences system is about as fair and as democratic as it can get. The only time it seems to fail is when a party you voted for passes preferences to another party that you personally wouldn't have endorsed. The thing is, you can choose to allocate your preferences yourself, or elect the party to do it for you. Ultimately it always comes down to your choice, and if you give away your voting preference rights to someone else, you've only yourself to blame if you don't like the choices, or can't be bothered filling out the ballot forms properly. It's up to the individual to check that they filled the ballot papers out properly, and if you make a mistake, you are entitled to destroy the ballot paper you ruined and get a fresh one.
So in actual fact, passing preferences empowers the voter, and empowers the minor parties because in the case of a party, they can make deals to trade for power. For example, the Geens are really aiming to get as much control over the senate as they can. They know that they won't get the balance of power in the lower house, so they deal away their preferences with the Labour party in order to gain concessions, and to boost their profile so that in following elections, they have more publicly allocated campaign funding and a greater appeal to the public because their visibility is greater.
Where our system does fail us, is in that we have a perception that we are voting for a person to lead our country, but as recent events have shown, we are only voting in members to represent ourselves locally, and it is up to the parliament to determine who should represent it, usually decided entirely by the party in power at the time. So while many thought they had elected Kevin Rudd to lead us, they had forgotten they had only voted for their party member and by default granted that party member the right to vote on the constituents' behalf who the Prime Minister would be. For mine, I'd prefer a third form where you could list your preferences for preferred head of state. PM/President/whatever, to avoid the sort of political shenanigans that occurred so recently.
The two-party majority system that we seem to have is really the fault of the people. If you REALLY want the system to change, you need to use your vote to signal that change, not simply vote for the person you think would win anyway, or vote for the opposition simply to get the incumbents out of power. Your individual vote might not seem like much, but if everyone votes sensibly then the combination turns out to be truly powerful thing, and a responsibility that shouldn't be treated so lightly, especially when you know that there are so many places in the world without our freedoms. So you can moan as much as you like about the alleged unfairness of your system, but count yourself lucky that you actually have the right to do so, and if you want to protect that right, you need to vote to do so.
Oh, and if you think our system is so undemocratic, compare this to the system used in the USA, where only a handful of states actually wield the power to change the government because they get more "votes" than the other states, and where the individual cannot allocate a preference vote if their preferred candidate doesn't win. Yes, our last few governments have a lot to answer for, and yes, we seem to be losing our rights all the time... and yes, that is the collective fault of the public who voted the bastards in! And yet, in spite of all of that I still feel like we are the lucky country (yes, I've lived in MUCH worse), and if you really want to change things, you have the right and the individual responsibility to do so.