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)."

Comments

Keep it classy, Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Keep it classy, Australia

[wildtux]

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.

The problem is both Australian major parties are up themselves and won't know rights (only obligations) even if it bit them on the arse or hit them in the pocket! Only solution is to back the Greens in Senate in the hope of hindering such crap laws and loss of rights. We all can thank the up-themselves government types in the USA that push same agendas across treaties and the like.

Re:Keep it classy, Australia

[rtb61]

So what. Both major parties will rarely agree on any issue and with that the balance of power get's given to the 'currently' minor parties. Want to disrupt the two party duopoly carefully nurtured and coerced by corporate interests, than vote for the other parties.

I was concerned about the near exact nature of both parties with regard to censoring and clamping down on the free exchange of information between adults. So I actually joined the Green Party, paid my membership dues (first time ever for any party) and that is how you shake things up. Reality is, if you want a safe internet for children, than you need to create a completely separate one for them, just like any other activity, in fact all other activities where child and adult stranger participation is completely separated.

Rather than the fringe view the right put on the Australian Greens, I take the viewpoint that they are by far the most conservative party in Australia, careful and cautious about any decision they make, their focus is about conserving Australian families and the environment they live in. It is pretty obvious some care and caution needs to be implemented when it comes to exploiting the environment and the resources it contains, failure really can turn around and not only bite this generation on the arse but future generations as well.

To stop 'premature unnecessary debate'

[kaptink]

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?

Re:To stop 'premature unnecessary debate'

[donaldm]

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.

Re:To stop 'premature unnecessary debate'

[microbox]

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 think the labour party is doing this because of the rise of the christian right in Australia. Labour will never will votes from family first, and pandering to moral authoritarianism (a conservative platform) will alienate the labour base.

I'm just going to consume pop-corn and laugh.

'premature unnecessary debate.

[MRe_nl]

aka democracy.

The ASP

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

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.

Re:The ASP

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The other parties seem totally infested by moralism and corruption.

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?

Re:The ASP

[Frogbert]

There are two major parties in Australia, the Labor party and a coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party.

Both are pretty much the same, Labor is perhaps centre left, and the other two are Centre Right. Though in American terms they would all probably be classed as far left.

The balance of power at the moment is pretty much 45% Labor, 45% Coalition, 10% smaller parties.

The smaller parties are Independants (Generally Centre Right), Greens (Left wing), and the Family First party (Ultra right wing).

Essentially for any government to get anything done they need to get the Family First party onboard, and in general, Christian votes. The Family First party is pretty much a church group, all their candidates are former Pastors etc.

So basically:
- Christians (in South Australia) hold the swing vote.
- Most Australians think this shit is bullshit.
- Our opinion doesn't count.

Re:The ASP

[AHuxley]

http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/no_internet_censorship/ seem to have had a clear policy from day one.
Not many of the other parties have had such a clear policy.

Re:The ASP

[donaldm]

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..

Re:The ASP

[zuperduperman]

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.

Re:The ASP

[Cimexus]

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).

Well, at least it's not for national security, eh?

[Mathinker]

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.

Well, there you have it

[MikeRT]

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.

Scanned document

[Mathinker]

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.

AILARTSUA

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Australia, every Party except the Sex Party wants to Fuck you.

And as always with censorship...

[owlnation]

For curbing "premature unnecessary debate", Australian Government, meet Barbara Streisand...

Storage vendors are jumping up and down with glee

[nurb432]

Can you imagine the cost of complying with 'recording all customers traffic'?

Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee

[CuteSteveJobs]

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?

Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee

[heathen_01]

Insightful? There are more than 2 choices.

Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee

[Joakal]

You have your choice in the upcoming election with a choice of up to 25 parties for Senate and House of Representatives (Upper and Lower house respectively).

There's websites like my website ShockSeat's Federal parties list that'll give you some basic information about parties. Or you can try Wiki's list of Political parties in Australia. Or simply look up the party names, almost all of them have websites and see what they have to say.

My last comment for those who feel demoralised at 'duopoly' of major parties and considered not voting; if you don't vote, then Australia would still continue to be represented by voters. Don't complain that you're not represented for the next 4 years.

Aust Government showing worrying trend

[omnibit]

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.

Re:Did you read the document? (What was left of it

[martin-boundary]

A single staffer is in no position to weigh the pros and cons of technical measures to retain data, and the social and economic impact of doing so. A politician whose knowledge on the matter consists of a document cobbled together by a staffer is in no position to weigh the pros and cons of technical measures to retain data, and the social and economic impact of doing so. A parliament full of politicians whose knowledge on the matter consist of documents cobbled together by staffers are in no position to weigh the pros and cons of technical measures to retain data, and the social and economic impact of doing so.

At which point do you feel that the Australian public should be consulted for the real facts and opinions?

Re:Black Jesus

[twidarkling]

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.