Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Rejects Data Retention Law After Report
mask.of.sanity writes "The Australian Government has shelved its plans to proactively store communications data of every citizen ostensibly to assist with law enforcement and intelligence efforts. The shelving (video) comes after a scathing report by Australian parliamentarians who investigated the Government's plans, and three months ahead of a federal election in which the Government is expected to lose office."
"A Senate committee has slammed Australia's proposed data retention scheme, recommending it only be considered if it only collected metadata, avoided capture of browser histories and contained rigorous privacy controls and oversight." - Basically, we want the American system and not a bit more.
Edward snowed in, autralian for hero
Thank goodness there's a pacific Ocean between Aus and the USA. Or this subversive thinking might infect us.
Have gnu, will travel.
In other countries, occationally orwellian laws are blocked by elected officials.
In the US, they all shrug and try to explain away our rights.
You don't really think that the gigantic Utah Data Center was created to store a few thousand phone conversations, do you? Nope. I suspect that the NSA is storing ALL electronic communications such as phone and email from everyone in US. It might examine only a few thousand by hand, but it is all being recorded.
Ha. Voters are idiots; you just watch Nancy Pelosi get re-elected despite her stance on surveillance...
Yeah right. All they have to do is say "Think of the Children" and accuse everyone who supports the other guys of being pedophile sympathizers.
Really, do you think that doesn't work in practice?
Voters are idiots
Are you saying you don't vote, or that you are an idiot?
When the current opposition party was Government they took Australia into Vietnam and Iraq and copied the 'war on terror' mantra. While no Australian politician can be anti-American, the current opposition party are arse-lickers of American politicians.
Parent AC didn't mean "...because of this"; the current government is pulling record low numbers in the polls. They are hated and are going to be destroyed in the next election.
And it sucks, because the leader of the next government is a US-style neo-conservative religious nutter. And his party is dominated by True Believers in US-style trickle-down economics. The current government's incompetence is going to allow something much worse to take over, not only to control the lower House (and hence the executive) but likely the Senate, giving them basically a rubber stamp on anything they want to shove through.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Modal logic was discovered a long time ago, wasn't it? I'm sure you've had plenty of time to learn it.
Ezekiel 23:20
"The Australian Attorney-General Department's pig-headed push for Internet data retention were rejected by an Intelligence Oversight Committee for being vague and violating civil liberties. Greens Senator Scott Ludlam said the government needs to get the message and drop the scheme, and warned data retention could be used by PRISM. Head Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says data retention is off the agenda for now, though when the last AG made a similar promise they caught everyone off guard and passed new laws 12 days later"
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/06/24/national-security-inquiry-declines-to-endorse-data-retention
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/06/24/keane-a-debate-we-had-to-have-on-security-measures
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/465679/data_retention_needs_oversight_inquiry/
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/465152/australia_suspected_prism_data_ludlam/
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/roxon-puts-web-surveillance-plans-on-ice-20120809-23x9l.html
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/312771,senate-passes-lite-data-retention-laws.aspx
The government is expected to lose office
Yes they are, but the opposition hasn't ruled out doing the same thing.
Shhh don't wake the bogans.
At least the median income in Australia is still A$66,820*
The Chinese haven't quite sucked out the marrow yet.
It seems to me, that our elected representatives can sometimes do the right thing. It's when the executive and the faceless men do it all in secret that we have problems.
I wondered if I'd missed a meeting or two, until you said we gaol people for not voting. it's a small fine which would expire with the statute of limitations before SPAR would try to incarcerate you for it.
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
It's a $50 fine. Plus you only have to get your name crossed off.
(And it's apparently easier to get out of than jury duty. "I had to work all day", "my youngest had a stomach bug and couldn't leave the house", etc.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Not voting means REFUSING to support the (current) system. In Australia, you are forced by law to support the system, forced by law to answer intimate questions about your sex life (if 'randomly' chosen by the bureau of statistics). Any forum where outraged citizens dare to express objections are overwhelm by Stasi Australians trained to scream "shut your mouth and do as you are told". We call this COMPLIANCY TRAINING. We see similar situations happening to the members of the more 'culty' churches in the USA.
Not voting means you get sent a letter, to which you can reply with an excuse as to why you didn't vote. I have replied with, "I had to wash my dog". Sadly I wasn't imprisoned or fined, I could have done with a clean room and warm bed.
Don't count yer chickens, ace.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Yep, it's rare for people to actually have to pay the fine, however we consistently get 90+% of voters turning up to a state/federal election which is a GoodThing(TM).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
As much as I dislike the guy he is not a "US-style religious nutter", just a garden variety pious Catholic.
Squidlips did not use any modality in his statement that "Voters are idiots". Furthermore saying a form of logic was discovered is like saying someone has discovered a new number. They are constructs. Models made by human cognizance to describe what perceptibly does or does not exist (sometimes both and neither). Perhaps you should have paid more attention when studying such things.
The current government's incompetence is going to allow something much worse to take over
No, the incompetence of the Australian voter will be responsible for that. However numerous polls also show that the majority of voters would have preferred to be choosing from Rudd vs Turner. Turner leads the traditional side of conservative politics, the side that still has some principles and common respect for their ideological opponents.
The fundamental problem in Oz is that the mining unions are pulling the strings in the Labor party and the mine owners are pulling the strings in the Liberal party, and Murdoch controls 70% of the press. On many subjects the union and the bosses are in lockstep agreement, eg: the unionists ousted Rudd because of his mining tax plans, their bosses ousted Turner because of his plans to regulate carbon emissions. Neither the union leaders or mine owners want anything to get in the way of digging holes in the ground, everybody seems to have forgotten about Tony's prediction of economic Armageddon, the carbon tax was instituted a year ago and we are still one of the healthiest economies on the planet.
Disclaimer: I believe we should exploit our resources but not at the cost of our natural life support systems, for instance coal mines on cape york are potentially a threat to the great barrier reef. The reef is not only a valuable tourist attraction it is also a massive fish nursery, The shelf waters around Australia's coast are the breeding ground for much of the southern hemisphere's fisheries, the planetary food web is not something you can put a price on, it's essential natural infrastructure that (if given a chance) is so productive it allows some of us enough time to do things like dig massive holes and sell magic rocks to China.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's great to see that Snowden's actions have had a positive effect on the world already. He is a hero.
The worst thing about all this stuff is, they say they reject the data retention law now, but, no one has questioned what the government will be doing with the planned centralised "National Broadband Network", owned and run by the government.
They won't need data retention laws for ISP's nor companies such as google, the government owned infrastructure will be the isthemus of all digital communications in Australia. I just don't believe for a second that some sort of all-encompassing surveillance program isn't being planned or implemented with the NBN, yet this question is just not being investigated at all by the media.
Shhh don't wake the bogans.
At least the median income in Australia is still A$66,820*
The Chinese haven't quite sucked out the marrow yet.
I thought the AUS/CAN/US dollar were roughly on par. Does this imply a household income of > 100K (with both parents working)?
If not then the housing boom really is unsustainable!
The current government and it's immediate predecessor (of the same party) has done a brilliant job. Compare to the rest of the world. The wanna-be's keep making statements contrary to the facts, but Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart want a change, and with control of most of the media consistently push outright lies. Their media has, for example, reported the current Prime Minister would be dumped by their party EVERY WEEK for the past 130 weeks. Ain't happened yet - it is a bare-faced attempt at destabilisation.
Australia's Liberal (i.e conservative) Party - the finest politicians money can buy.
This. So many times this.
The crux of it is multiple fold:
1) Rupert Murdoch owns the biggest cable network in Australia (Foxtel). The current governments NBN plan will give up to 100Mbit (maybe even 1GBit) to just about every home in a town above 1000 homes - Australia wide. As the US has seen with streaming services, in this environment, cable tv would be obliterated. Its just a sad fact that the same guy owns most of the media - therefore he uses his influence to protect his media assets.
2) Gina gets a load of immigrant workers. The current government is looking to restrict imported workers to a lower amount that is currently happening. This means that Gina will have to pay fair wages to more of her staff. This is of course being protested by her interests in any way possible.
3) Tony Abbott is great at grinding axes, but very poor (being kind) at content. He has spearheaded the biggest sledging campaign in Australian political history. This is the guy that outright lies (which the media doesn't expose - see point #1) to the public to destabilise the current government as much as possible.
4) Tony Abbott (with the media in tow) has made a massive issue about asylum seekers arriving in Australia via boats. Forget that fact that he calls them illegal immigrants (which they aren't) and that they are the source of Australias problems (which they aren't) and he promises that he will stop the boats (which he can't) to increase our nations security. His plans have been scoffed at by the brass in the navy as unworkable - but these details get overlooked by the media (see point #1).
In a nutshell, its a sad day for me to call myself an Australian - and its a sad day for politics in Australia that people sink so low as to put themselves before their country - but that is exactly what is happening at this point in time.
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
shelved = "I'll be back"
I guess at one point in AU history, most people were probably both
You guess wrong.
For the few decades that NSW and Tasmania especially (Victoria had an early penal settlement, but only really took off with the free settlers under John Batman) took the convicts the Americas could no longer accommodate (due to that pesky revolution), there was no universal suffrage. Voting, such as it was being restricted to men of property. By 1858 when the only property requirement in NSW became a penis, it has been a decade since the arrival of the last convict ship and the number of people in prisons represented a tiny fraction of the total population. Nor was voting then compulsory.
Australia, as a political as distinct from a geographical entity, only came about on 1 January 1901, by which time those who even bore traces of transported convicts in their blood were swamped by the descendants of gold prospectors and other free settlers. At the current time, the rate of incarceration, in Australia remains far below that of the US, despite recent NSW governments are trying their hardest to catch up.
If you want to use 'criminal' in its strictest meaning, ie. someone who at one time in their life committed some kind of legal offence, I'd suggest close to 100% of voters in any democracy are criminals.
It's a $50 fine. Plus you only have to get your name crossed off.
I got fined once for failing to vote in a local council election, it was $10 back then. I tossed the fine in the bin, I mean a council election, pull the other one. That was close to a quarter of a century ago ... I'm still waiting for them to get back to me so I can mount my brilliant legal argument about local govt. not having any constitutional standing.
So now they are going have this referendum to give local govt constitutional standing?!!!! OMG, is this going to be retrospective? I'm packing it mate! ;)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Yet you still wind up with a government that's competing with the UK and USA for the Police State Award.
Do we?!
I mean the inept Australian government actually felt it necessary to go to parliament to get legislative power to do what the UK and USA Police states just went ahead and did.
In Australia we were displeased because we were informed about the government's intentions. The US and UK governments did not see fit similarly to displease their respective constituents. The Australian government has backed down in the face of both public and parliamentary opposition to the plan. Do you seriously believe the US or the UK are about dismantle their machinery? For all the articles the Guardian may publish?
Not much of a competition I would say.
Democracy ... I'm occasionally hopeful that it might work after all.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
They will have their asses handed to them in the next election.
Unless they are already in possession of their donkeys, in which case handing over won't be necessary.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
Fosters: Only for gullible tourists and export to gullible foreigners.
Ha. Voters are idiots; you just watch Nancy Pelosi get re-elected despite her stance on surveillance...
Who is this "Nancy Pelosi" of whom you speak? For which House of Parliament is she standing?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
Yep, it's rare for people to actually have to pay the fine, however we consistently get 90+% of voters turning up to a state/federal election which is a GoodThing(TM).
Not necessarily, how many donkey's are we getting per election.
Polly's viciously contest the coveted top spot on the ballot as a lot of people just go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I encourage highly apathetic people to start on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th box when they do this to try and introduce some randomness into this system. Fortunately the order on most ballot papers in Oz are randomly selected.
Aussies in general are reluctant to get involved in their own governance. I get a lot of people complaining about speed zone sign placements, many of them legit complaints (I.E. 5 changes in the space of 1 KM) but do you think one of them has even written the local council?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Voters are idiots
Are you saying you don't vote, or that you are an idiot?
In Australia, it's illegal not to vote. So you're either a voter or a criminal (I guess at one point in AU history, most people were probably both).
And by some standards, many members of Parliament still are.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
I see it another way. I see it more that we have 2 choices and they're fundamentally the same thing. It's not about Gillard and Abbott (they're figure heads, we don't have a president here, the "leader" is a mouthpiece, not a policy maker - policies are made behind closed doors and then communicated via these mouthpieces).
:-P
So I couldn't care less who the leader of either party is. When it comes to policies, though, they're both much the same thing. Both parties are so close to each other that the only real difference that comes is how the market reacts to one or the other. Yes there are minor differences - but they're minor only.
If you truly think we're going to take the country in a whole different direction by changing from Labour to The Coalition, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Of course, Australia is likely to change government in September, and then we will have the government for which dealing with constituents will be a much lower priority - right after changing the filter in the coffee machine.
Yup. Australians are absolutely rolling in money, but if you were to listen to them speak, you'd think they were all under the poverty line.
I've actually seen people defend needing government handouts at $250k a year because of the expense of putting 3 kids through an elite Sydney private school....
Aussies in general are reluctant to get involved in their own governance.
This is what is going to cause Australia to follow the rest of the world into economic, social and environmental disaster. Many people (Australians) I speak to feel that we need to change the government, but when you ask them why they have little to no idea what the government actually does or how it works. The government we have now has not done a great job, but they have done extremely well considering the global issues going on - but many Australians tend to care nothing about the rest of the world unless it's broadcast in prime time in a sitcom format.
The only reason he isn't a "US-style religious nutter" is he doesn't have the charisma or personality to carry it off. He wants to be. Look at the speeches he manages to get out without tripping over his own tongue and he is very much striving to be this. I can't imagine how bad things will get when this ideology, combined with his frequent confusion when taken off-script or dealing with foreign governments, gets into power. Ask me again in 12 months and I am afraid we will all have an answer.
I agree the country won't change too much, but the quality of life for the average Australian will. Look at what is happening in Queensland and Victoria; leasing of National Parks, decimation of the Public Service directly impacting services (wait times at a lot of public services is up over 200%), corporations given exclusions to local planning regulations...
All of these sort of things make a regular impact on the day to day life of people living at or below the median wage.
Of course, the NBN plans alone are a good enough reason to resist a change of government.
Aussies in general are reluctant to get involved in their own governance.
This is what is going to cause Australia to follow the rest of the world into economic, social and environmental disaster. Many people (Australians) I speak to feel that we need to change the government, but when you ask them why they have little to no idea what the government actually does or how it works. The government we have now has not done a great job, but they have done extremely well considering the global issues going on - but many Australians tend to care nothing about the rest of the world unless it's broadcast in prime time in a sitcom format.
This,
The Labor government hasn't done a terribly good job, but it was passable. However the Murdoch run press wants to paint it as the end of the world.
Really, I view the Murdoch press as a greater threat to Australia than all the politicians put together... Murdoch ultimately does not have to answer to the constituents.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I've seen her on TV. I think she stars in some kind of "Judge Judy" style sitcom/reality show.
It doesn't seem very funny, but then again I've never really got American humour.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
You do realise that the government has (with the blessing of ASIO) introduced secret mandatory internet filter via IP blacklisting and deliberately did not tell the public or other arms of the government not once but TWICE, right?
They have only admitted to doing it AFTER being found out afterwards, and they did it in such a way that it would be concealed from the home user - the blacklisted sites just timed out.
I have no disillusions regarding changing the government, either; Liberal will be just as bad as Labor in this regard.
I work as an election official on election day. Posting as an AC to protect anonymity.
Legally, you are incorrect. Under the Electoral Act, it is your duty to vote, and an offence not to. Practically, of course, you are correct. Because voting is secret, nobody can tell if you voted... unless you admit it on Slashdot.
What I wanted to say is that I have one request, and one request only, on behalf of election officials everywhere: Please take the ballot papers that have been issued to you and put them in the ballot box. Fill them out or don't. Write a slogan on them. I don't care, do anything you want... just put them into the ballot box in one piece.
There have been some very close elections around the world recently, including Australia. What makes Australia different is that there has been no question of electoral fraud.
We don't often stop to consider just how remarkable this is. Look at the mess of the 2000 presidential elections in the US, or the previous elections resulting in a hung parliament in the UK, or Italy (just Italy; I don't think I need to expand on that). We may not know how to run a country, but we know how to run an election. We do it bloody well, and this is something you can be proud of.
One of the tenets of security is that you analyse known threats and look for patterns, and one of the mechanisms that is commonly used to rig elections around the world is to selectively remove ballot papers from being considered in the count. There are various methods to do this, from stealing and destroying them, to changing the rules of formality post facto (hanging chads, anyone?).
It's an unbelievably huge deal if ballot papers go missing. Removing ballot papers from the polling centre does not send any message to your politicians, nor does it help change the system. All it does is causes a major headache for already-exhausted casual employees. (Don't forget, we've been at the polling centre since an hour before it opened, and have to stay there until counting finishes. It's a very long day.)
Whatever you think about compulsory voting, or the state of the political system and the major parties, it is not the fault of the Australian Electoral Commission or their casual staff. So... yeah, please put the damn papers in the damn box.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Your friendly election official
Abbott is what Santorum (who comes from the same Catholic faction) would look like if he had to run in a country like Australia.
However, I meant "US-style neo-con" and "religious nutter". Not "US-style religious nutter". For the latter, you need Steve Fielding's party.
[Hey, secular Americans, our ultraconservative evangelical movement had to create a third party, which got about 2% in the last election. (7% in even the most conservative state.) Livin' the dream baby.]
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
And it sucks, because the leader of the next government is a US-style neo-conservative religious nutter. And his party is dominated by True Believers in US-style trickle-down economics.
I've been watching Tony's political career for longer than most (he buttonholed me outside the Fisher Library in 1978 I think it was). He was a certifiable nutter then* and many of my cohort of students from that degree have been living in fear these past 35 years that one day we would be facing the prospect of his leading an Australian government. [*To be to fair to Mr Abbott in the '70s, he was in this more than outbalanced by members of the "loony Left." We tend to forget that the rejection of material reality which now forms the central plank of the neo-con/Tea Party ideology, was once the province of the more radical sects of the Left. For instance the ideologically motivated denial of Climate Science is an echo of the denial of Plate Tectonics which was at one time held to be inconsistent with Marxist dialectical-materialism! A position which would no doubt have perplexed even Dr Marx.]
However, it appears to me that, like most of us, Tony has mellowed with age. I find his opportunistic "blood pledge" to repeal a market based solution for addressing carbon usage with an ironically more "socialist" orientated Direct Action approach to be highly reprehensible (and one hopes unsuccessful). Similarly, once in government, one hopes they will recognise the folly of their ways in regard to the NBN rollout. In general, however, I don't think we should be overly concerned about the radicalism of his current political position. His adherence to "trickle-down economics," for example, is I think is vastly overstated, my feeling is that his personal economic position has developed from the kind of Catholic corporatism preached by his mentor B.A. Santamaria. But here too he has become less ideological. Moreover his views in regard to the academy (and pure research) are far more enlightened than anything we've witnessed in Australia's recent anti-intellectual history. To the point that some of use working in the sector (traditionally part of the natural constituency of the centre left) dare to hope for some small moves to correct the wrecking of Australia's university system which began with the Dawkins "Reforms."
However, not only has Tony's ideology been mollified by age, his ambition too has overtaken his principles. Remember this is the guy who, we are to believe, when bargaining for government at the start of this hung parliament, told an independent either that he would "sell his arse," or do "anything but sell his arse," to become P.M.
It's not what Tony believes that you need to worry about. It is the editorial policy of the company which publishes the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun is that will once again determine the policy direction of the country. Witness now what happens to any government that dares not tow the line! Abbott's ambition will preclude him from making the same mistake.
The current government's incompetence ...
A case in point. While this has perhaps not been the most stellar government in Australia's history, the fact that even you have been sold the idea of the government's supposed "incompetence" is a the real concern. True, there have been political mistakes made. Most recently Ms Gillard's raising of the "abortion" issue. An crude attack on Mr Abbott's catholic faith, and an issue on which Tony, his ambition taking the driver's seat, has taken a leaf out of Pilate's book. Made all the more inept by the fact that the coded term "reproductive rights" would have satisfied the present audience just as well. Or allowing the Carbon "Tax" (which is actually a trading scheme with only a temporary lead-in tax like structure) to be known as a TAX (booword!).
However, putting aside emotive public discourse for a moment ... any dispassionate assessment of the current gover
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
However numerous polls also show that the majority of voters would have preferred to be choosing from Rudd vs Turner.
Assuming you meant Turnbull, then no. He was about as popular a Gillard. [I do not understand the popularity of Rudd.]
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
...with some irreverant comedy rap : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnMPQmIPibE
Check out other stuff by these guys... they're great.
Yeah I'm not sold. I recon the govt will change in September and life won't be any better or worse than it would have been under the existing one (of course, this can never be verified).
We basically have a cyclic 2 party system in Australia and although it's ludicrously inefficient, it basically works. We actually need to change the government every decade or so. We need Labour to spend money on big infrastructure and we need Liberal to earn the money to spend - a spend and save cycle. If we had one or the other for too long, we'd wind up in too much debt (and we're almost there now) or we'd wind up to run down on the public infrastructure. If you leave Labour in charge for too long, the middle class winds up bearing endless tax increases and benefit cuts and eventually, they begin to crack financially, which slows the entire economy, which means less money for NBNs or other things you care about. If you leave the Libs in for too long, then the disadvantaged suffer over time and public services start to get over sold or run down, which means things cost more for the average person, which means they have less money and the economy slows down, which means less money for NBN's etc.
The problem comes in when one party has their turn and doesn't do their part. I think the other problem is that many things are becoming too expensive for either side to maintain, yet we still require them (i.e. healthcare).
This. A thousand times this.
I despise people who say "They're both the same". The only time they are the same is when people are watching, when parliament is divided. As soon as people stop watching, you see their true colours. (Such as when Howard's government got control of both houses. And the same thing will happen with Abbott after the next election.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Turns out it was both unfeasible (i mean, it was obvious even to people who weren't going to have to implement it) to monitor everything and not everyone here is a complete idiot. Lucky for us, i guess.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis%2Fnsl2012%2Freport.htm
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
Wish i could mod you up.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
They are hated by the major media conglomerates and are going to be destroyed in the next election by the media.
FTFY.
All the alleged hate towards the Labor Party is spin by Murdoch/Fairfax.
No reasonably intelligent person I have met, has indicated that they'd prefer Abbott over Gillard.
The Opposition / media have resorted to bully tactics, since they have no substantial basis on which to attack Labor/Gillard.
I've never understood why some people are so concerned about big government but then give monopolies to big businesses.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
To be fair, those people were lawyers and politicians.
But yes, GP... it is about as bad as the AC claims. People here appear to be encouraged to have no frame of reference.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
By definition a constituent is a voter; but I agree the perception from the likely future government of what a constituent is is very different to the dictionary definition.
Selling government owned assets is fantastic. You make a heap of money, get to ensure that all future profits go to those who had enough money and warning to buy up the asset (either in total or shares) and in 10 years time when the profit from the sale is gone and you no longer have the profit from the asset, you aren't in power any more and don't have to care that the country can no longer afford stupid things like health care and infrastructure.
Sorry, someone must be spraying sarcasm around here.
I think you meant John Pascoe Fawkner.
(Yes, I know, generations of Victorian schoolkids like the idea of living in a city founded by Bruce Wayne's alter ego.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Not sure why this got modded down, it makes good solid sense to me.
Thanks for posting.
Thank you.
Very well summed up. I wish Australia would see these comments, and even if they didn't take them at face value, at least think about them. At no point in history do I remember being exposed to such a massive fraud being perpetuated on the public by the media elite. I saw Tony Abbott speak once and he was a complete disaster, couldn't string two sentences together clearly, unable to answer questions that weren't phrased to permit a bottled answer, unwilling to look at or even recognize the existence of people who disagreed with him.
Total media coverage of this disaster... ZERO? Never made it to the news at all that I saw or heard. However Gillard was to do something as harmless as a spoonerism, there would be multiple articles talking about her incompetence.
I am also worried that come September, I will for the first time in my life, be ashamed to be an Australian.
Thank you for reading. After putting this much effort into a post, this far down the thread, it's always gratifying to know that at least one set of eyes has seen it. :)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
On security and data retention, Senator Scott Ludlam of the greens is asking the right questions in the right places, though.
I agree. While the Greens hearts often seem (to those of us thus inclined) to be in the right place, I fear their the quality of their parliamentarians is often wanting. Ludlam, however not only has his heart in place, he is right across his portfolio (not only as it regards security and data rentention). His knowledge and understanding is at least the equal of the minister- and shadow minister-'s. IMO by far the Greens most impressive member. Not bad for a BA!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
No mate.
The problem comes from people assuming that this system is somehow immutable, and that one party is just as good as another at the end of the day.
As soon as the kind of partisan politics that has been seen in the US became a thing that was valid in Australia, the system was fucked. Both parties now leave deliberately poor policies lying around just so they can spring traps on the new government when they're no longer in power. We've got one fairly competent ex-union lawyer who seems to actually be doing a good job on the policy front (yeah, maybe she's actually too good to be PM) and a Jesuit educated career politician who has secretly been in trouble with the law a dozen times (mostly for assault of political opponents, i shit you not) but still manages to look like the right kind of businessguy for the rightwing powerbrokers.
Imagine Hillary vs. Dubya. Our only saving grace is our lack of a large military.
Why store data when the Americans are already storing it for you?
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
Not to disagree with most of your points, but managing a hostile media is exactly the skill that is needed by any government.
As a contrasting example, the Libs did not fight criticism from the ABC by coddling them. They viciously attacked and undermined their reputation. They actively complained about every story on the ABC networks (TV/Radio) that didn't support their spin, as if it was wildly biased. They spun the idea of the "unfair, far left, biased" ABC as if it were a scientific fact. They did the same thing to Fairfax. Hell, even The Oz at one point.
Labor MPs believe as you do (and I do) about the Murdock press and yet they believe they could somehow win them over, play nice. It is stupid and naive.
Similarly, it was obvious that Rudd screwed the party with his behaviour during the leadership challenge, creating a bad smell for Gillard, and gifting Libs/Murdock with a year of free kicks. It should also be obvious (it was to me anyway) that when Gillard didn't get a "honeymoon" bounce in the polls, that Rudd would white-ant her from the back bench (as Beazley did with his rivals, Howard with his.) The obvious thing to do is run a long term smear campaign against Rudd, chip away at his affable "nice guy" public persona (and there is, apparently, plenty of material which could be used) before he recovered enough party-room support to go along with his public support. Instead, nothing.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Actually the UK govt DID get approval - RIPA contains permission for GCHQ to perform the monitoring they have performed Apparently noone eralised this permission was there, however.
It is relevant to a discussion on comparison of transparency of governments.
Polly's viciously contest the coveted top spot on the ballot ... Fortunately the order on most ballot papers in Oz are randomly selected.
Correct Our "representatives" don't actually get a say in their ballot position.
Aussies in general are reluctant to get involved in their own governance.
Historically yes, particularly when compared to how politically active citizens are in other countries. In some European & South American countries, you KNOW when an election is around the corner; mass rallies, demonstrations, strikes, etc.
However I believe this is very gradually changing in Australia, in part due to technology. For example just as negative Twitter comments sometimes force large companies to actually sit-up and pay attention to unhappy customers, the same tools are being used to force the hands of politicians. I've personally had some small success in this area.
Having said that, I don't know the veracity of the following statement, but I keep hearing that politicians will pay more attention to hand-written letters than they do to electronic communications.
At least the median income in Australia is still A$66,820*
Were you implying that $66k is high?
If so, what good is a high median income when life is ridiculously expensive? Australia is one of the most expensive friggin countries in which to live.
Have you not read any of the many articles on this subject? Here are 2:
The Economist
SMH
Because big business doesn't have the power of laws to impose their will on you, unlike government. A big business, no matter how big it is, can't kidnap you and put you into jail if you don't want to associate with them. Good luck not associating with government without being kidnapped and put in jail.
However, you could argue that currently the fact that we have a powerful/overreaching government allows big-business to meddle in peoples' lives by getting business-favorable legislation passed.
That's not how the polls are shaping up. Greens have lost votes. The swing against Labor is going directly to the Liberal primary vote. I suspect the Greens and the current independents will lose their lower house seats.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Just be careful what you draw, or Rudd might be back.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not sure why this got modded down, it makes good solid sense to me.
Moderators are voters, and voters ... (see above, way above).
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Because big business doesn't have the power of laws to impose their will on you, unlike government. A big business, no matter how big it is, can't kidnap you and put you into jail if you don't want to associate with them.
Bullshit. before the EPA, Monsanto had the Darth vader-like power to choke you from a distance. Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers have the power to brainwash simple-minded people like you. Sony had the power to vandalize my computer when I wasn't their customer, my daughter was when she bought a CD from the record store she worked in. I have no say whatever what a corporation does or does not do no matter how it impacts me. To say that a company can only affect me if I use its services and give it money is blindly ignorant.
I have no power whatever over my gas company. Without the gas company I freeze to death in the winter. However, I do have power over my electric company, because the city owns it. If the rates go up too much or service drops too badly, the Mayor loses his job. Odd that we have teh lowest rates, the best uptime, and the best customer service in the state! CWLP HAS TO. Amerin does not.
I don't have the power to affect big business at all. None. I do have power to affect government, and have done so in the past -- and I'm just a serf. And you're just Koch's tool, fool.
I don't have the power to affect big business at all. None. I do have power to affect government, and have done so in the past -- and I'm just a serf. And you're just Koch's tool, fool.
Lol, go ahead and keep thinking you have power over government. And you call me the fool. Funny statist AC is being funny.
The only reason they were able to publicly attack the ABC was because they had almost every other media outlet bending over backwards to help them. The LNP have already stated their plans to privatize the ABC, which will almost certainly bundle it with the existing media. After which, the government not supported by the owners of big media will not be able to get their message out at all. How do you distribute a dissenting attitude when the media is refusing to report truth?
This has led to revolution elsewhere in the world, but Australia is currently to lazy to care. Bread and circuses. (or beer and football)
The current government is doing what it can, but all you need to do is read the speeches and policies posted on the web, and then compare it to the media coverage of the same. The media is lying, sometimes outright, sometimes just through omission; but that is the only exposure to information that 90% of Australians are getting. Unless we want our government to attempt to seize control of the media, then this next election will be purchased by people like Murdoch. It's a shame, it's disgusting, it's happening.
Just keep reading that statement until you figure out just how wrong it is.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I agree with you regarding public infrastructure. You can't increase functional efficiency (that is, the pipes and wires) on a natural monopoly easily without providing an inferior service (i.e. reduced maintenance).
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
Yeah, uh...
I think your second paragraph is kind of a given. Your first paragraph is actually only ideally true anyway... i'm sure you've seen examples of corporations dictating the status quo, and sometimes that does extend to legal matters.
for example (after a cursory goog, so i'm not all that sure about the credibility...): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/jeff-olson-california-banks_n_3499177.html?1372199922&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
Not to disagree with most of your points, but managing a hostile media is exactly the skill that is needed by any government.
I do not completely disagree with you. I've often bemoaned the poor work of the current Labor propaganda department. They took a straight talker like Julia and made her sprout goobledygook like her predecessor, promised us the "Real Julia" and gave us more goobledygook. The approach to embedding advertising-like catch phrases into speeches exposes speakers to ridicule, especially in these days of easy mash-ups. Compare this the Abbott's effective 3 point "Stop The ..." mantra, or the clever dog-whistle "A bad tax based on a LIE," where the 'lie,' of course, means to various audiences either the broken election promise or the Science itself. Abbott has, for the most part, been a supremely effective opposition leader (I think his blood pledge was dangerous and unnecessary over-extension, he did not need to lock himself potentially into calling a double dissolution, but we'll see how that pans out), and I can but admire his skill. He is a formidable politician, and anyone who convinces themselves he is "an idiot" is perhaps engaging too much in projection.
However I've come to the view that it is not entirely fair, in part because the gatekeepers are so effective that the performance of ALP politicians is largely irrelevant. Any good performances are effectively kept from public view. I'll give an example below.
To return to media "management" per se.
As a contrasting example, the Libs did not fight criticism from the ABC by coddling them. They viciously attacked and undermined their reputation.
Good as a general principle, but it is the particulars the define the reality. Among the salient differences here are: a) The ABC does not enjoy 80% domination of any branch of the media, quite the opposite. b) The ABC is by their charter not permitted from fighting back, ie. they (with the exception apparently of Shaun Micallef who gets the jester's wild card) cannot adopt a partisan political position. And despite the general perception among non-viewers and non-listeners (ie. most of the population) that they have a "left-wing bias" review after review finds that not to be the case.
It's one thing to attack a media fly-weight with both hands legislatively tied behind its back, quite another to get into a bare-knuckle fight with Mike Tyson. Look what happened when Conroy did try to fight back. He ends up with his head posted over Stalin's body and surrounded by images of histories most notorious dictators in the nation's most widely read paper, while News Ltd's print monopoly rights are trumpeted as fundamental to Western freedoms
Short of actually acting like Stalin and sending in the tanks, (no we really don't want that) what is the Australian govt to do. Especially a minority government. Nor is this even an ALP vs LNP issue.
Now it can be argued that I'm overstating the influence of the print media and that the high correlation between having Murdoch's backing and obtaining government (pro-Whitlam 1972, anti-Whitlam 1975, pro-Hawke 1987 and so on). is mere coincidence. Arguably Keating's "sweetest victory" (won via an extremely effective GST scare campaign) and the current hung parliament are the two exceptions to News getting their man across the line. Which recent embarrassment perhaps accounts for the gloves coming off completely ... this really has been the most vicious campaign since 1975. [Visit the archives and satisfy yourself by studying the tabloid press a month before each election ... I did something similar for a semi-quantitative analysis of crime reporting and and law & order policies in NSW over several decades, it's actually very enlightening]. But I really do feel that the print media still enjoys perhaps a surprising amount of influence. Perhaps it's the greater authority afforded to the printed word especially by
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
You're essentially asking me to argue with myself? lol, that's a new low...
[Just a note to let you know I did read and appreciate your considered response.]
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Thanks. And for the avoidance of doubt I meant to write: The nations most widely circulated paper informs it's readership that the Australian government is now the ENEMY.
Anyway, events have rather overtaken us ...
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke