Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Controversial Cybercrime Bill Introduced In Australia

Posted by samzenpus on from the good-enough-for-me-and-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Australian government instructed a committee to investigate required changes to cybercrime legislation. Having received the report, the government decide to ignore it and give the federal police almost everything it wants on a plate. From the article: 'The Australian Greens have questioned the decision of the Government and Opposition to pass the Cybercrime Bill unchanged through the House of Representatives despite recommendations by their own members of parliament to fix serious flaws. Greens communications spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam said the Cyber Safety Committee had tabled a highly critical unanimous report on the bill, proposing a series of amendments and requests for clarification which were not addressed in the House.'"

18 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. You know you're screwed when... by Sparx139 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only sensible voice in your government is the Greens

    --
    Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    1. Re:You know you're screwed when... by Co0Ps · · Score: 2

      Because they "dare" question financial axioms like "greed is good" and infinite growth? Or because they agree with the scientific consensus that global warming exists, man has caused it and we should do something about it?

      I'd rather say that you're screwed if you're living in a state with a two party system and it's considered naive to vote on any other party.

    2. Re:You know you're screwed when... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>Because they "dare" question financial axioms like "greed is good" and infinite growth?

      More because they've caused as many environmental problems as they've solved. Australia has around a quarter of all the uranium deposits in the world, but has no nuclear power plants. Opposition is greatest from Greens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Australia#Opinion_polls), and this in a country where only 7% of energy production comes from green sources.

      Fighting for the status quo is a horrible idea when the status quo sucks.

    3. Re:You know you're screwed when... by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Australia also recently greatly expanded its Surveillance State. In combination with this new "cyberCrime" bill the game is set - This is the states power grab to control information on the internet.

      Quote from that last link "A prime aim of the growing Surveillance State":

      The emergence of entities like WikiLeaks (which single-handedly jeopardizes pervasive government and corporate secrecy) and Anonymous (which has repeatedly targeted entities that seek to impede the free flow of communication and information) underscores the way in which this conflict is a genuine "war." The U.S. Government's efforts to destroy WikiLeaks and harass its supporters have been well-documented. Meanwhile, the U.S. seeks to expand its own power to launch devastating cyber attacks: there is ample evidence suggesting its involvement in the Stuxnet attacks on Iran, as well as reason to believe that some government agency was responsible for the sophisticated cyber-attack that knocked WikiLeaks off U.S. servers (attacks the U.S. Government tellingly never condemned, let alone investigated). Yet simultaneously, the DOJ and other Western law enforcement agencies have pursued Anonymous with extreme vigor. That is the definition of a war over Internet control: the government wants the unilateral power to cyber-attack and shut down those who pose a threat ot it, while destroying those who resists those efforts.

    4. Re:You know you're screwed when... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      No, you know you're screwed when the only sensible voice is the Greens, AND you're in the US, where the Greens are less likely to be part of the government than an oil company is.

      Unfortunately, the only hypothetical part of that is the Greens being sensible, and even without that part, you're still screwed.

    5. Re:You know you're screwed when... by bug1 · · Score: 2

      Its not that the major parties are antagonistic towards technology, its that they are ignorant.

      ALP(?) did get legislation through forcing government departments to consider open source software, its just that it took democrats and greens to translate the concepts into something the major parties understood.

      ALP is driving the NBN which is the biggest technological investment in this country in generations, they deserve some credit for that.

      This probably come about because the wikileaks drama caused some ignorant politicians to think about what they stood for, one side deciding they wanted to be seen to be "doing something" about internet stuff.

      Scott Ludlam for the greens is worth following, probably more clued in about tech politics than any other representative.

    6. Re:You know you're screwed when... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

      "Right" has a different meaning outside the US. It usually goes more in the direction of fascism, in other words, MORE control of the population by the government.

      Even in the US, it means that in certain contexts. The right in the US tends to be both pro-law-enforcement and anti-regulation. Those two things aren't necessarily compatible, but that has never stopped a political party from trying. :)

      The strongest anti-regulation voices in the party are market deregulation, lower taxes, and the gun lobby (both manufacturers and owners). Party members generally don't trust the government to do things right, but they also want to government to punish criminals and have the power to throw criminals away and generally don't care about criminals. They just don't want the government to regulate THEM, because of course they will never be a criminal, and neither will anyone they care about. :)

      Of course, these are generalizations, and the real party is quite a mix of interests.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    7. Re:You know you're screwed when... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      In a nutshell, at least that's what I noticed, the "right" position is to give corporations as much leeway as possible while caging in the people as much as possible without causing an outright rebellion.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Just shows how things really are by acehole · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a minority government with Labor depending on a couple of independents and a green to have the numbers in the lower house. When things like this come up, Labor and the Coalition (Liberals + Nationals) hold hands like old chums to make sure what they want gets through. Australia has pretty much the same problem as the US in the political system. Team Blue and Team Red. Anyone else that is voted for is just a token effort.

    Labor and the Coalition might have different ideals but they're both members of the same "old boys" club and be damned if anyone is going to threaten that.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
  3. Australia - more backwards than the US by metrix007 · · Score: 2

    Second only to the UK. It's so fucked up that shit like this happen and that the general populace don't care, or worse when they are informed support it because its only to stop bad people. Don't be fuckin stupid mate, its only gonna affect criminals! Sigh. No wonder I left.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:Australia - more backwards than the US by janrinok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, the 3 strikes law.... I am currently living in France (and have for quite a few years now) and have not heard of anyone being prosecuted under that law (HADOPI), nor am I aware of anyone having had their internet connection withdrawn. I'm sure it must have happened, but it is not the doom and gloom that others seem to think that it is. I do know lots of people who regularly download films, music and pornography but none have experienced any trouble nor do they show the slightest concern for that particular law. It seems to me that the HADOPI law has put more fear into people who don't live here than it has in those who do...

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    2. Re:Australia - more backwards than the US by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      Hold on there ... while I agree with your sentiment, this is far from being a done deal. It still has to get through the Senate, which in its current form it isn't likely to do.

      We often see overreaction on Slashdot (some guy proposes something bad, and people talk about it on here like it's already a law). Conroy's internet filter springs to mind - it never had a hope of getting through Parliament and being enacted, but people on Slashdot talked about it like it was definitely going to happen (and some still seem to think that it DID happen). Slashdot headlines are always designed to be sensationalist, remember.

      Introducing, or even passing, a Bill through one chamber of Parliament does not equal an enacted law. And the same applies here.

      TFA provides some hope: "The Attorney General said today he was considering the report before the debate in the Senate. The Australian Greens look forward to working with both parties to fix this fundamentally flawed bill in the Senate, but we are greatly troubled by the fact that both the Labor Party and Coalition gave no indication in the House that they believed any of the flaws needed fixing. On the contrary, they had nothing but praise for the bill.

    3. Re:Australia - more backwards than the US by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      I agree that identification is obviously required and that a country has every right to search you or do anything they want, if you are seeking to cross their borders. No arguments there.

      The difference is a cultural one. To Americans, the difference between presenting a passport and presenting your fingerprints is "just semantics", as you say. In fact Americans use fingerprints as an identifier in many contexts, and they don't give it a second thought. It's just the way it's done there.

      BUT I think they don't understand that in most other countries, taking fingerprints is seen as something only ever done to criminals and is NOT used as a form of identification in any circumstances. As such, it carries a very different connotation. I'd submit to any amount of searching and identification through other means, and that would still 'feel' less invasive to me than taking my fingerprints. To you that may seem ridiculous, but if you grew up in a country where the only time you've ever heard of fingerprinting is in the context of someone being convicted and put in jail, you would understand.

      A passport should be enough (especially with the modern electronic/RFID passports they have these days in most developed countries). Having said that, even though I don't like the fingerprinting, it's still within the US' right to require that. It's their border, as you say. Doesn't mean I have to like it though (and I can genuinely say a LOT of people here avoid travelling to the US and spending their tourist dollars there because of this very reason).

  4. "Cybercrimes" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Cybercrimes"? Is it a bill against software patents?

  5. That's not what happened by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Australia doesn't have the infrastructure to process nuclear fuel and run nuclear power plants. The billions and decade or two required makes governments of all colours dodge the issue whenever they have the authority to implement it. In Australian politics nuclear power is nothing but a handy issue to bring up and divide the party in opposition.
    Whether it's a good or bad idea doesn't matter in this context - either way it's an idea that upsets enough people to have immediate political costs and the benefits are so far away in the future that the current decision makers are not going to get the credit for it. Governments worldwide are not going to start up an entirely new nuclear industry for purely civilian purposes so civilian nuclear power has to wait until it is commercially attractive and private enterprise can do it unassisted.

    Blaming or even crediting the Greens for just about anything shows either ignorance or an agenda - they've never had much in the way of political power and they really don't have much now despite their numbers. They will do anything to stop the "conservative" coalition from getting into power and Labour know it and know that they can always depend on the green vote. They'll get a bone thrown to them every now and again but nothing important that Labour doesn't already want.

    1. Re:That's not what happened by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately for Australians, the government has really got the old boys club rocking, and now have a very pliable populace that they can tax, control and herd into where they want them.

      I remember when I grew up as a kid in North Queensland, most kids knew what a rifle was, had at least squeezed off a few rounds, and knew it was a tool to be used only in appropriate circumstances. Then good old Martin Bryant came and shot up 50 people in Port Arthur. The governments response? Put him in jail, and *Ahem* ban semi automatic weapons. But they went futher than advertised of course, and made it extremely difficult to have either a pistol or a rifle. To own a .22 target pistol, you need to spend about $5000 in total. Not for the pistol, no, that's cheap, but for the gun safe, the club membership etc etc etc. It's all about making things hard at first so it leaves the culture, then they'll ban it entirely. Don't believe me? Try and purchase a .50 or .44 these days. You'll be told you can't own anything over a .375. How do I know? I was lucky enough to shoot a friends father's DE .50 before he had to hand it in for destruction.

      There are many many more examples I could cite about reduction of liberties etc, but I chose to cite this one, as I would like people in Australia to truly stop and think. Do you think it's wrong to have a rifle in the house? My very point is that back when I grew up, ALMOST EVERYONE had one. Do you see what they did there?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  6. You can check out but you can never leave... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We've been getting a lot of news here in Canada about American's living in Canada but never renounced their citizenship and who are now facing some pretty draconian tax issues.

    I met one former American who spent $5000 to renounce and has 6 more years ( out of ten) where he can't spend more than 30 days a year in the U.S.. No wonder most never bother to renounce.

    The U.S. is forcing Canadian banks ( through threats to specially tax their American subsidiaries ) to report on Americans. So just saying to hell with it is no longer an option. Oh, and all those years of failing to file a separate form reporting your non-U.S. account - big penalty - potentially huge penalty.. plus interest... yikes.

    The funny part... America was founded by people who voted with their feet.

    Are you really free if you can't actually leave.. not that you would ever want to... but isn't the threat of leaving part of keeping things honest even if you don't ?

    another treat... the IRS pays tax snitches... so good luck getting help with tax issues after the fact - you've got a bounty on your head! Are "they" watching to see who downloads the voluntary disclosure forms from the IRS? Thanks to the internet you may not even be able to help yourself.

    It's a slippery slope to mental illness. Can't you tell I've been dealing with some tax issues lately...

  7. Re:Clearly Biased Article by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    AC did you read http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscc/cybercrime_bill/report/additional_comments.pdf ?
    ASIO (Australia's national security service ~MI5) gets more power.
    Your ISP will preserve traffic data for a ***foreign country*** in response to a mutual assistance request. (A 24/7 tap thats .au legal, NSA is in from the cold)
    Traffic may be stored for up to 180 days
    Domestic investigation data is shared without request to any country Australia likes.
    No independent oversight.
    Not clear on 'telecommunications data' - what can they collect?
    No dual criminality test for mutual assistance - if your ip is found anywhere in the world on any forum...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"