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
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."
"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"
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.
Is the voice of the average person being ignored, or is the average person just not speaking out? I think it's the latter. The average person is not getting involved. As long as their bellies are full and they're being entertained, they don't care. Bread and circuses all over again.
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.
When they get elected?
Err, what are you saying would be different about the situation supposing that every person in Australia did have a gun?
The difference is, when the people go to the streets to protest, the government is afraid because people may have guns, meaning, if pushed, they can use force against the government.
Totally 100%. Look at Afghanistan and places like that where everyone has a gun and they totally had success resisting professional armed services with their own guns. No asymmetry between people with Apache's and mini-guns and people with normal civilian assault rifles.
This stuff has to be stopped long before they get the chance to call you a terrorist. Small arms just act as a security blanket keeping you quiet. Nukes and heavy weapons are denied from "the people" everywhere. For fairly good reasons too.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Thank you for asking; the answer to that question is undoubtedly of the utmost importance. However, I firmly believe that equipping you to answer it for yourself (assuming you're not a troll) makes much more sense.
As such, here are more than a few relevant quotes that might broaden your perspective enough for you to do so:
"A free people ought to be armed."
~George Washington
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
~Richard Henry Lee
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits... and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
~St. George Tucker
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
~James Madison
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
~George Washington
"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."
~Larry Elder
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
~Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
~Alexander Hamilton
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
~John F. Kennedy
"Any single man must judge for himself whether circumstances warrant obedience or resistance to the commands of the civil magistrate; we are all qualified, entitled, and morally obliged to evaluate the conduct of our rulers. This political judgment, moreover, is not simply or primarily a right, but like self-preservation, a duty to God. As such it is a judgment that men cannot part with according to the God of Nature. It is the first and foremost of our inalienable rights without which we can preserve no other."
~John Locke
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."
~James Burgh
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people."
~Saint George Tucker
"The right of the people to keep and bearâ¦arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."
~James Madison
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
~Thomas Jefferson
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone w
In other words, it makes him feel more manly. It does nothing to guarantee democracy, and actually does much to retard it (in both senses of the word). Having a heavily armed population just gives the government a better excuse to surveil you. None of these 2nd Amendment wackos has ever done anything to advance democracy and human rights.
It's not a surprise, and it is very, very sad.
God damn, Australia, for a nation founded by convicts, you certainly do seem to have a hard on for creating more of them.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Protests without guns that successfully toppled oppressive regimes include, but are not limited to:
* Phillipines, 1986
* A whole bunch of countries after the collapse of the USSR: Poland, 1988-9 Hungary, 1988-9 East Germany, 1989 Czechoslovakia, 1989 Bulgaria, 1989
* Serbia, 2000
* Georgia, 2003
* Ukraine, 2004
* Lebanon, 2005
* The "Arab Spring": Tunisia, 2011 Egypt, 2011
The point: You can resist a bad government with nothing but your bodies, your voices, and some semblence of organization, and have a decent chance of success. It's not a 100% chance of success, but neither is violent resistance.
I am officially gone from
Ok, but none of these are western democracies
And SOMEONE does not know their Western history! (Not surprising given the utter lack of proper history teaching in the West for the last 30 years. Thanks for that, Baby Boomers!)
By 1776 the Magna Carta had been in force in England for over 100 years. England was then, as now, a monarchic Democracy, and certainly a Western state (Actually, they were THE Western State at that point in history.) This is, of course, what led to the American revolution. The colonists felt that they were being made serfs again by lack of representation in Parliament. After years of protests and complaints and a series of political, social and police assaults by the crown on the colonies (designed to suppress dissent) the colonies banded together and revolted. The large scale presence of arms in the colonies attributed in part to the success of the revolution.
Nazi Germany was a Western Democracy prior to Nazi takeover. Hitler's election to Chancellor was by popular vote. It wasn't until after his election to Chancellor and subsequent seizing of power through political subterfuge (like having the army swear allegiance to HIM rather than to Germany or the German Constitution) that the people began to get a sense that there was a problem.
Unfortunately for them, one of the first laws that Hitler passed even BEFORE seizing full Dictatorial power was to outlaw private gun ownership. He knew that an armed populace was a dangerous and uncontrollable populace, even when doped up on the Nazi propaganda that was inescapable in Germany at the time.
So yes, Having an armed and engaged populace is antithetical to anyone that would seek to rule them by force. This includes Australia.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
The USA in 1776 wasn't a democracy, it was a colony of England. (England may have been a proto-democracy, but the colonies certainly were not.) Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy. Adolf Hitler never won a popular election. He wasn't elected as chancelor, but appointed by Hindenberg in a constitutional crisis.
Did you forget about guerilla warfare? e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. In all three the US had the machines of war, but the guerillas slowly but steadily made the uniformed forces' lives miserable until they wanted to withdraw. The latter two, of course, aren't over yet, but the example still stands.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
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.
The USA became a western democracy because the French gave the Continental Congress a helluva lot of financial and military aid. I suspect that without it, the best that could have happened for the revolutionaries would have been a long term guerrilla campaign.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So yes, Having an armed and engaged populace is antithetical to anyone that would seek to rule them by force. This includes Australia.
I admire your knowledge of history, but in your zeal to show it I think you have missed GP's point. The question of "can you name a democracy where guns have helped a protest movement" is I think an important point. When you CAN vote, when you DO have free speech, skipping to using guns is a wonderful way to be counterproductive in your movement in a current western democracy. The media will focus on how crazy and violent your movement is, giving them cover to ignore the legitimate message that the other, non-violent people are urging for.
Even simply displaying your guns is a great way to turn the conversation from whatever it is you wanted to get across to "crazy gun-toting movement." Those rallies at Obama speeches where some guy carried some type of rifle? Anyone remember what those protests were about? I sure don't: the only thing that got reported on was there was a dude standing in one with a pretty mean-looking gun.