Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Censors Draft Snooping Laws
coolstoryhansel writes "Stating that release of the draft legislation is not in the public interest [PDF] because it would prejudice decision making processes already in train, the Attorney General's Department has denied the release of the draft laws that would see wide-scale dragnet surveillance implemented along with an expansion of law enforcement powers for the purposes of 'national security'. Serkowski, speaking for the Pirate Party who lodged the FOI request labelled the Department response as 'disgraceful and troubling' saying the decision is 'completely trashing any semblance or notion of transparency or participative democratic process of policy development.'"
Releasing the final bill as-passed by the legislature will probably not be "in the public interest" either.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
then we could download the draft off some obscure chinese website by now. Hmpf.
j/k
Sadly, how is any of this a surprise?
What is even worse is that most people would say it is morally wrong to withhold this information - but the voice of the average person is ignored these days...
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
Aussies, now you know why you were disarmed.
Labor & Liberal yet again **voting together** to preserve and extend a _privatised_ police state in Australia, extend surveillance of Australian citizens without any oversight.
for example:
Flawed cybercrime Bill dodges national security inquiry
20 Aug 2012 | Scott Ludlam
Broadband, Communications & the Digital Economy
The Australian Government is pursuing a draconian cybercrime law scheduled for debate in the Senate tonight despite warnings from its own MPs and before an inquiry into national security legislation has taken evidence or reported, the Greens said today.
The Greens communications spokesperson, Senator for Western Australia Scott Ludlam, said Labor's cybercrime legislation would open the door to Australians' private data being shared with agencies overseas.
"This proposed law goes well beyond the already controversial European convention on which it is based, and no explanation has been provided as to why. The European Treaty doesn't require ongoing collection and retention of communications, but the Australian Bill does. It also leaves the door open for Australia to assist in prosecutions which could lead to the death penalty overseas. These flaws must be addressed before the Bill proceeds."
Senator Ludlam said the Government had addressed only one of a range of problems identified by a unanimous Parliamentary committee on the legislation.
"The Government ignored a series of recommendations from MPs on all sides of Parliament, and fixed one embarrassing drafting flaw that would have prevented accession to the European Convention and invalidated the whole point of the Bill.
"The Attorney General's Department did the bare minimum they thought necessary to acknowledge the existence of the critical and unanimous committee report. The Government was urged by its own MPs to fix this legislation but chose to leave it as is. The national security legislation review - which will be looking at a highly controversial data retention proposal - has barely begun, yet the Government has now brought a key piece of enabling legislation forward.
"We have recommended a number of improvements to the bill including fixing these flaws and clarifying the Ombudsman's powers to inspect and audit compliance with the preservation regime."
To every right and freedom you think you had.
At what point does a government forget that it works for the people of its nation?
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
It sounds troubling, but it's hardly even a Government proposal for legislation, never mind a Bill being laid before parliament. And the decision to withhold the draft may still be appealed.
This seems to be an early draft (a bit like the ACTA negotiations, perhaps) since the grounds for withholding are:
So the Department concerned is probably committed to something like the draft, and they are trying to work out what is feasible, but the rest of the government has not yet had a chance to comment.
The appropriate response at this stage is probably (1) appeal, (2) contact representatives in government and opposition who may oppose any provisions that threaten civil liberties, and (3) use the media (and slashdot) to raise awareness that something is coming in the future.
But it is not normal to release early drafts (that have not yet been thought through properly) to the public - at that stage you could not possibly have a workable policy, and people may get very worked up about errors that the government themselves will address. Surely the time for public scrutiny is when concrete proposals are made?
Though crowdsourcing of bills might be interesting... it worked for the constitution in Iceland, didn't it?
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
I wonder if they will even post it after its law. I would think that would make it very convenient for the state. State: Sir your under arrest for violation of a law you've never heard of or seen. Guy: Um, ok. Can I see the law now? State: No. Guy: How am I going to have a trail? State: Heh, No, no, you still don't understand, go directly to jail, do not pass go, and pay us $200 along your way. This seems like a very slippy slope.
Oh, Kafka was way ahead of you: The Trial. Charged, convicted, and executed on secret evidence the protagonist was never allowed to see.
There can be no democracy if institutions act in secret.
I remember thinking when Bush was elected that I had to get out of the states before my freedoms were systematically ripped away. I didn't realize when I came to Australia just how much farther the process had already gotten here. They've effectively stifled protest and dissention and now the people are more or less owned by the government. When people started giving up their rights in the interest of protecting everyone, the personal choices taken away from them have increased manifold. I'd like to take my bicycle to the store without wearing a helmet. That's $100.00 fine. Ownership is control. Even when you own something here, the government controls it. All that being said, I would much rather deal with an Australian policeman than a US policeman. It's unlikely you'll be unfairly charged, or treated badly. I guess the nanny approach is nicer than the militant approach. The results though are insidious, however they are implemented.
The real reason for censoring such proposed laws would be if they were offensive. Do you guys feel offended by all this yet?
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
So they don't want to tell the public about the laws they are looking to pass, because the public won't like them?
They sure have balls to say that. Now I hope they're exposed enough for someone over there to kick them, nice and hard.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Thank you, that was amazing! I have copied it and will add to my copy whenever I come across relevant quotes.
I think the chief problem is that fear rules over reason in the minds of so many. And I don't know how to solve that, other than a worldview focused on eternity, not on this world. And people must make that decision on their own.
"Eternal vigilence..."
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
"release of the draft legislation... would prejudice decision making processes already in train"
Uh, pardon me good Sir, but isn't this practically the entire goal and description of participatory democracy?
I bet foreign powers get to see this bill, even if the public never does! Can I remind you also of Clean IT. The EU similar spying, monitoring, censorship law. Which follows the same pattern of secrecy:
http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2012/09/its-coming-leaked-document-on-eu.html
To sum up:
1. It calls for widespread monitoring and censorship of the internet, and end to privacy and anonymity.
2. It is largely agreed, with only some sections are marked for discussions.
3. The discussion document is secret, those sections marked for discussion will never be discussed in public.
4. The police forces and LEAs and governments will 'Commit' to this, i.e. they won't follow the law as agreed, they'll follow this document.
5. Having committed to this, the document requires governments implement EU FD 2002, and EU FD 2008. So to remind you, they don't follow the laws as they stand, they commit to this document, then change laws to to suit this document later, as part of their commitment.
6. Having committed to this, they will discuss how to fix the EU privacy laws to make it legal.
Read the document on what they want, massive censorship, no anonymous cowards, everyone identified, everyone monitored, easy access to private data, privacy laws changed (eliminated) to permit this.
If discussing a proposed law is "not in the public interest", well, that is just another way of saying that it is not needed. Passing such a law would definitely not be in the public interest.
We had them
We let a lot of idiots scare us for fifty years with Communists and now Terrorists
The idiots promised that we would be 'safe' of they tool away the rights
We lost them
It's a shame, that's what it is. A crying shame.
Oh well. Who's up for a TSA cavity search and having your internet access taken away? Yay!
Australians are too rich and comfortable to worry about these things at the moment. The country cares more about big-screen TVs and investment properties than big ideas.
until everyone is signed up for the National Broadband Network - then we'll tell you what we've done.
Can't get decent software to scan job applications but software to scan internet use will work perfectly.
In the late-1980s, early 1990s, at events with costuming the issue of weapons as part of costumes blew up due to some people being stupid. The policy most events have settled on is one of "peace bonding" (zip tie on weapon, securing it in sheath). One event went for no weapons period and has maintained it to this day. Back when these policies went in, they were concerned about swords and guns. Most recently, one of the people behind the event declared a 1/2lb rubber mallet was "clearly a weapon". I suspect most people thought it a common tool (a type of hammer). I fear policies and laws that restrict weapons are pretty well guaranteed to creep.
'completely trashing any semblance or notion of transparency or participative democratic process of policy development.'
This behaviour s common practice for Australian governments. Most particularly the one we have now despite the Prime Ministerial promise to "let the sunshine in".
Worst Australian government in my lifetime (40 years) - probably ever.
Another reason for not releasing it is because at present it looks like this:
List of things to do: Write draft for snooping laws.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)