Slashdot Mirror


Australian Courts Will Be Able To See Your Browsing History

An anonymous reader writes A series of slips by the nation's top cop followed by communications minister Malcolm Turnbull has made Australia's data retention bill even more of a potential horror than it seemed when it was introduced last week, writes Richard Chirgwin in an article about Australia's new legislation. "Lawyers are already gathering, telling the ABC's PM program that metadata could be demanded in family law cases and insurance cases." It continues, with the inevitable result that your internet browsing history will be used against people trying to resist demands during divorce. "What's depressing is that Australians probably won't take to the streets about this issue."

182 comments

  1. Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is that going to work with HTTPS and DuckDuckGo?

    1. Re:Technically... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If using DuckDuckGo, then maybe you'll be presumed to have had something to hide; therefore, you automatically lose the action.

      Such is the way of tyrannical systems which don't respect personal privacy...

    2. Re:Technically... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Or TOR. Of course, that makes you a terror suspect. But their arrogance and stupidity has angered me enough that I make it a point of doing part of my browsing through TOR now.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That privacy disappears once you click on a non-https link, though, right?

      Maybe I misunderstood Snowden, but I thought they kept logs for pretty much all web traffic, for a time at least.

    4. Re:Technically... by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Get a good VPN out to a another country.
      A good VPN would just show a VPN ip range as logged with your ISP.
      Ensure the VPN covers all web use and services not just basic webpage use.
      Laws could always change about how a VPN product is understood by the gov.
      That VPN could be in a country with bilateral agreements, multilateral treaties or has same banking understandings.
      The use of an Australian credit card is an issue. Track Australian credit card use to find VPN users. No local isp paperwork needed.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      A request for details about VPN use in other countries might just results in CC lists been sent back.
      Five eyes, nations friendly with the five eye nations make a VPN selection interesting.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Technically... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Your link and request would be seen as a ip range to the search engine. The startpage.com search engine has settings.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then maybe you'll be presumed to have had something to hide

      Maybe? Either there's a statutory provision which creates such a presumption or there isn't. So can you point to one? (You can't, because you're talking out of your arse obviously).

      therefore, you automatically lose the action

      Automatically?! Well that would be a pretty novel thing in law.

      Actually I think it would be very advisable to use services which obscure your browsing history, if you feel you there may have something in your browsing you don't want the various branches of government, to know about. Either that or be careful what you browse. For instance if planning to kill your wife, make sure you browse ideas for methods only from IPs that can't be associated with you.

    7. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tor traffic would belong to the Defense Signals Directorate and would be unlikely to be used against you unless you drew the ire of someone powerful.

    8. Re:Technically... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide"?

      Just today, as a result of following links from Slashdot or the BBC, or looking up or following up on things mentioned in those places, I've browsed several pages about Alessandra and Benito Mussolini, sodomy laws, some stupid anime video on YouTube of which I only watched the first 5-10 seconds (but which now shows up in my YT history just as if I'd actually looked at the whole thing), a 1990s serial killer in Washington State, nuclear proliferation, and the status of women under Islam.

      A crafty lawyer or government agent could try to turn that into... God knows what... about me. In court. Where the burden of proof is suddenly shifted on *me* to prove that I'm not a closet Neo-Fascist/homosexual/serial killer/nuclear terrorist/misogynist/anime fan.

      KGFY.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A crafty defendant would remind the judge that His Honour's child porn browsing habits can be requested by the federal police just as easily.

    10. Re: Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then the crafty defender would be charged with contempt of court and defamation. Do you like prison so much? When are you going to understand that you do not antagonize people in a position of power, ever?

    11. Re: Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually judging by the way humans are, the only deplorable part is anime fan.

    12. Re:Technically... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      And don't forget to test for DNS Leaks after you've got it setup:
      https://www.dnsleaktest.com/

    13. Re:Technically... by irq-1 · · Score: 1

      A crafty lawyer or government agent could try to turn that into... God knows what... about me. In court. Where the burden of proof is suddenly shifted on *me* to prove that I'm not a closet Neo-Fascist/homosexual/serial killer/nuclear terrorist/misogynist/anime fan.

      If the URL was illegal, the government filters should have stopped it. QED

    14. Re:Technically... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      +1 for that. That is what sets some VPN products apart from others. So many different layers can leak depending on the OS or what links, services. Thanks for that Charliemopps.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    15. Re:Technically... by torsmo · · Score: 1

      [...]unless you drew the ire of someone powerful.

      Well, that holds true for pretty much everything, doesn't it? If you've pissed someone off really badly, who wields considerable power, then they will track you down, Tor or not.

    16. Re:Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The data collected from mass surveillance greatly simplifies dealing with 'enemies of the people'. As stated in the quote attributed to Cardinal Richelieu:

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

    17. Re: Technically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really since anime = child porn

    18. Re:Technically... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, as recorded history and newer events show, if you piss of somebody powerful, they will just fake some evidence. They will also find a convenient scapegoat if they cannot identify you.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:Technically... by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      You can buy prepaid credit cards at Australia Post for about $7, which allow you to pay for the VPN without being tracked.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    20. Re:Technically... by vVF4N · · Score: 1

      DDG doesn't retain your search history, but your ISP will. Your ISP also retains other browsing history, besides just search. Using a VPN located outside Australia is probably the best solution, if you can afford it.

    21. Re: Technically... by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      I'd bet large sums that VPN companies are being quietly tamed by the NSA. Do not trust them.

  2. Sadly, not surprising. by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's depressing is that Australians probably won't take to the streets about this issue.

    Really? I'm surprised Australians are even still allowed to take to the streets!

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason cars are still allowed. Gotta use the streets to get to your place of servitude.

    2. Re: Sadly, not surprising. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Only if their boobs make them look over 18.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      As of the 1st of September this year, Australian's in the state of Victoria have lost the right to protest.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    4. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shit, this is true. I guess gun rights is really a canary in the coalmine of individual freedoms.

    5. Re: Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Tasmania with the anti-protest laws. Soon they won't.

    6. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I used to think Australia was pretty cool. But with their seemingly ever increasing big brother government and internet restictions, I don't think it is all that great any more. I think it is acting like what American big brother advocates would like to get away with. Worse even than Britain's snoop on everyone approach.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    7. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Had to Google it to believe it:

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/victorias-new-anti-protest-bill-is-a-threat-to-our-freedom-of-assembly
      http://rightnow.org.au/topics/bill-of-rights/after-democracy-victorias-new-anti-protest-laws/

      That's sad in itself, but even more sad is how ignorant and plain stupid the general population have become. Nobody seems to show the slightest interest towards these kind of issues anymore. Even the poor efforts of modern day slacktivists make me want to cry myself to eternal sleep.

    8. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by WillKemp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Australia was pretty cool. Well, mostly - Queensland was always a rogue state. Sadly we've been going rapidly downhill for about the last 20 years. We're gradually turning into the US - but without the basic freedoms of the US constitution.

    9. Re: Sadly, not surprising. by jjbarrows · · Score: 1

      Were not.

    10. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Well, that's depressing.

    11. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Tanuki64 · · Score: 2

      We're gradually turning into the US - but without the basic freedoms of the US constitution.

      You mean a more honest US?

    12. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      No we've been going rapidly downhill since the exact moment the current government got elected. That is the sum total of how far this downhill extends: since the current Liberals got power, and proceeded to try and ram through every bit of right-wing nuttery they possibly could.

    13. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by WillKemp · · Score: 2

      No, we started going downhill when Howard was elected - 19 years ago. Things improved a bit under Labor, but didn't get anywhere near back to where they were 20 years ago.

    14. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Nobody seems to show the slightest interest towards these kind of issues anymore

      What can they do legally ... they can't protest!

    15. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We're gradually turning into the US - but without the basic freedoms of the US constitution.

      Don't feel left out, so are we. The USA PATRIOT act and NDAA already take away basic freedoms of the US constitution.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Well, hey, at least they have the 2nd amendment so they can revolt if the government gets too out of hand right?

    17. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't believe I'm saying this... I wish I was in America right now, right in the middle of Texas as well just to make sure my 2nd amendment would be permanent.

    18. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      i saw articles from last march describing the proposal, but didn't see anything specifically speaking about it passing and going into effect. can you share these? thanks

    19. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Sadly, the US has this too with "Free Speech Zones." If the President is driving down the street or a political convention is being held in your city and you want to peacefully hold up a sign protesting a policy of theirs, you are free to do so... in a specially designated zone that is actually nowhere near where they are. We wouldn't want our leaders to see opposition to their efforts, would we? Yes, we have a first Amendment, but the courts have ruled that "make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" really means that you CAN decide WHERE the people protest so long as you don't prohibit the content of their protests. So you're free to say whatever you want, so long as it is in this gated cage with an armed guard miles away from the person/people you are protesting.

      Yay, freedom!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    20. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Those "basic freedoms of the US Constitution" are frequently treated as optional suggestions by politicians. They are more than happy to abide by them unless they decide not to. And if they decide not to, they often whip the populace into a fear-induced frenzy until we beg for them to violate our basic rights.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    21. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, Australia not USA.

    22. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2nd amendment? to what exactly?

      AFAIK, the 2nd amendment refers to the power of the Commonwealth to take over pre-existing state debts to debts incurred by a state at any time. Source.

      Get outta here with your right to bear[sic] arms!

    23. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't do you any fucking good. The government has bigger guns than you can buy in Texas.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    24. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by laie_techie · · Score: 2

      Sadly, the US has this too with "Free Speech Zones." If the President is driving down the street or a political convention is being held in your city and you want to peacefully hold up a sign protesting a policy of theirs, you are free to do so... in a specially designated zone that is actually nowhere near where they are. We wouldn't want our leaders to see opposition to their efforts, would we? Yes, we have a first Amendment, but the courts have ruled that "make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" really means that you CAN decide WHERE the people protest so long as you don't prohibit the content of their protests. So you're free to say whatever you want, so long as it is in this gated cage with an armed guard miles away from the person/people you are protesting.

      I have visited Salt Lake City, Utah, during the General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I couldn't be more grateful for those Free Speech Zones. Before these zones got put into place, I was physically grabbed by protesters. I'm fine with peaceful, respectful protesters, but once my physical safety is threatened, it's time to do something.

    25. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      It's one thing if protest zones are designed to balance the protester's right to protest with the right of everyone else to go about their business. (For example, keeping anti-abortion protesters from physically accosting people going into an abortion clinic.) On the other hand, if the "balance" is to move the protesters so far away as to render them invisible ("sure you can protest this event... the protest zone is 10 miles that way") then you are effectively removing a person's ability to make a statement via protest.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    26. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in some states we're not allowed to take to the streets & protest, IIRC Tasmania has banned protesting, I forget the exact details though.

    27. Re:Sadly, not surprising. by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      As of the 1st of September this year, Australian's in the state of Victoria have lost the right to protest.

      I don't support them but that's not a fair summary of the laws. They have made it illegal for protesters to threaten violence or create blockades. One example would be abortion protesters creating a barrier around a clinic, but this law is mostly aimed at unions who can physically stop 'scabs' entering a workplace with implied, and sometimes actual, violence.

  3. The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what the Australians get from the government they recently elected. Maybe that's what the majority wanted and they're going to get it. Might be a warning about what Americans will get after November 4, 2014.

    1. Re: The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do polls come from anyway? I don't know a single person who's ever had any say in poll results.

    2. Re: The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did once, but when I refused to answer an inane polemical poll question, the poller wasn't allowed to continue, and the rest of my opinions were stricken from consideration. So, yer right. You still don't know anyone.

    3. Re:The Australian government was elected by cheater512 · · Score: 2

      Both Labor and Liberals support this. Its going to happen no matter who you vote for.

    4. Re:The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are forced to vote, while all parties are bad in some way we pretty much have no say in anything they decide after we vote.

      For example: Want a pedestrian crossing in front of a school? make a petition and make hundreds sign it (the majority don't care). Then 18 months later it might happen but still wait for approval, discussions (petty arguments) between council and state government on who should fund it and then maybe tenders/construction.

      It's just a fuck-arse trying to do anything in Australia!

    5. Re:The Australian government was elected by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Both Labor and Liberals support this. Its going to happen no matter who you vote for.

      No it's not. Vote for the Greens!

    6. Re:The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not forced to vote. You are forced to attend a polling station. Once you have checked in and picked up your forms you can do what you like with them, including writing "You're all a bunch of f***ing drongoes" across the form. Even that is not true, you can get a postal vote and do the same.

    7. Re:The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a fuck-arse trying to do anything in Australia!

      Tell me about it. It's been fucking illegal for decades for motorocyclists to engage in Lane Splitting as well, but now they're renaming it "Lane Filtering" and trying to make it permissible in next year's road rule changes. The country's going backwards.

    8. Re: The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greens will not get in. Billions of tax payers dollars down the drain due to their allow everyone in bleeding heart boat people policy. Now we have too many muslims trying to turn Australia into the next Iran. Yes they have insisted that there are enough muslims that sharia law is required. There goes the neighbourhood. Look up Evin Prison for an idea of what Australia will be like if the Greens get in.

    9. Re:The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly true. They don't bulk open regular mail (paper letter) but open slather for emails: WTF!
      All you can to is vote by numbering every box on the voting slip, putting fringe and special interest parties first, then reverse order of the way the incumbents want you to vote. This way they keep having to do deals with the kook parties - because lets face it, they don't work for you or care about you - just the 'party'. Give then payback, show 'toughing it out' means no majority.
      I resent having to get a VPN, but they are begging the average joe blow, to max out their overpriced bandwidth quotas with random crap just to raise the ante.

    10. Re:The Australian government was elected by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Both Labor and Liberals support this. Its going to happen no matter who you vote for.

      No-one wins in a 2 party system.

    11. Re: The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PPAU - Pirate Party Australia - will try

    12. Re: The Australian government was elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TPP will happen and then we are all screwed

    13. Re:The Australian government was elected by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Who won't get a majority, so the law will still pass no matter who you vote for.

  4. Any effective opposition to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are there any politicians in the anglosphere that are effective advocates for privacy?

    Articles in El Reg are grand, but we need people in power who make this an issue and make the case for applying the basic principles of privacy to this still-new technology.

    Given a choice, most people want more privacy, and can see the 'if you're not doing anything wrong' argument for the sophistry that it is.

    But since the opposition is arguing that they're stopping criminals at home and enemies abroad, it is hard to get people to stick their necks out for privacy. I don't do it myself; posting as AC on slashdot is not a brave act.

    Which is why we need a charismatic, intelligent and well-spoken politician in one of our countries to take up the mantle. Then the rest of us can follow him or her.

    1. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the two major parties are both in on it for this, it's unlikely anything will ever change. Pretty much cannot be stopped unless both parties (labor and liberal) completely lose power from public and we start letting in other parties or independents in instead. Normally the opposition should be opposing... but not labor atm.

    2. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      +1, Insightful. If you believe something, you should lead by example--from the front. Otherwise your belief isn't worth the hot air it's made of.

    3. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have more sociopaths here in the USA then we can ever use.
      Here, Have some.

    4. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      It would be better to cover every packet in and out for daily use, maybe a clean VM with a browser out to a good VPN.
      Talking out against logging, an internet tax to pay for it, would see such views been noted by the gov as insights go public.
      Australia has a long history of tracking all people who speak out on political, anti war, environmental issues at a state and federal level.
      Once you are of interest expect your computer to get gov quality malware crafted just for that user.
      No escape, every keystroke is then fair game.
      Consumer grade heuristic and behavioural AV protection would just see another safe user installed application running.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by WillKemp · · Score: 2

      Why don't you grow some balls and take action instead of waiting for some hero to save you like a damsel in distress?

      Says the AC.

    6. Re: Any effective opposition to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in order to make any way into politics you need money, connections, influence. All things that the ordinary citizen does not and can not have, or he wouldn't be an ordinary citizen. "Taking action" without those assets would only result in getting arrested, losing your job and be sentenced to poverty. So, whether we like it or not, we need someone from some very high place to take on those issues. Yes, I admit, it is unlikely. But that's the way of the world, sad as it may be.

    7. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes 100 grand just to even be a vible candidate fro Parliment in Australia. It takes millions for US Congress.

      Got some money I can use to get elected?

    8. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by kramulous · · Score: 1

      Whoa ... What have you been smoking?

      Not that I think what you are saying is not possible, more that it will take the Australian government (and associated agencies) more coordination, competence and unity to reach such abilities. And I've never been witness to any such of the three stated capabilities.

      --
      .
    9. Re:Any effective opposition to this? by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Re "Not that I think what you are saying is not possible, more that it will take the Australian government (and associated agencies) more coordination, competence and unity to reach such abilities. And I've never been witness to any such of the three stated capabilities."
      Whats the hard part?
      The tracking of people who speak out on political, anti war, environmental issues was seen during the anti Vietnam war efforts.
      So the police interest in any protesters is expected as it was over decades..
      The ip storage for 2 years is open to the police and courts. So the legal data logging side is in place ready for open court use.
      The gov malware side and interest in Australian computers?
      The Surveillance Devices Bill will widen the use of "data surveillance" warrants. So more legal support to install key logging devices.
      https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/...
      Australia now has the power to find an Australian ip, return the provider details months later and then seek more information from a users computer.
      "Data retention will catch pirates" (30/10/2014)
      http://www.abc.net.au/lateline...
      "Illegal downloads, piracy - sorry, cyber crimes, cyber security."

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  5. makes no sense by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Funny

    with the inevitable result that your internet browsing history will be used against people trying to resist demands during divorce.

    why would my internet history be used against others in divorce court? I don't see how that kind of evidence would be relevant.

    1. Re:makes no sense by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      Because if the defendant ever starred in some kind of sordid sex act and it ever found its way to the internet, they know it's probably in your internet history.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:makes no sense by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Because if they ever starred in some kind of sordid sex act, and the act ever found its way onto the internet, the court knows it's probably in your internet history.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    3. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He looked at porn; Evidence that he did not surrender his penis as required by feminist laws (the sharia of the occident). The consequence if found guilty is a life of servitude, poverty and humiliation.

    4. Re:makes no sense by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because if the defendant ever starred in some kind of sordid sex act and it ever found its way to the internet, they know it's probably in your internet history.

      The thing is, the Australian court doesn't give a fat rats clacker about your personal perversions in a divorce proceeding. They only care about your financial situation.

      Sure your S&M habits might have something to do with a sexual assault case, but not a divorce.

      Australians simply aren't prudes like Americans.

      However I dont expect this law to actually go anywhere (it's not implemented yet) mainly because ISPs are fighting the mandatory data retention laws.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have very much imagination if you can't think of ways for a bitter spouse to throw your browsing history in your face to make you look bad at a custody hearing.

    6. Re: makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So life as it was before the divorce then...

    7. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why would my internet history be used against others in divorce court? I don't see how that kind of evidence would be relevant.

      Your history of activity on dating sites might be relevant to accusations of adultery.

    8. Re:makes no sense by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      However I dont expect this law to actually go anywhere

      Agree but for different reasons. Abbot and his mates have turned us into the butt of every redneck joke on the world stage. However I checked outside just now and the sky still isn't falling, just the same old political horse trading and hyperbole that's surrounded this issue for the last 20+yrs. That's not to say we won't eventually extend our data retention rules to match what has been the norm in the EU for at least a decade - ie: 2yrs. The idea the information could be useful in an Aussie divorce is simply laughable. Unless of course it's kiddy porn, in which case you have much bigger legal problems than a simple divorce and you won't be seeing your kids for a long time anyway.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have very much imagination if you can't think of ways for a bitter spouse to throw your browsing history in your face to make you look bad at a custody hearing.

      There's still the question of admissibility. For a start the evidence needs to be relevant (and Australian courts are fairly strict about that). So if you have a history of browsing kiddie-porn that would get up. There will be other things too, but in general your bitter spouse will be hard-pressed to introduce your browsing history into evidence in a custody case. The other obvious use, as pointed out above, would be a history of frequenting dating/cheating sites when infidelity is being asserted.

    10. Re:makes no sense by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      20+ years? Politicians only discovered the internet 3 years ago.

    11. Re:makes no sense by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would anybody sue for divorce on the grounds of adultery nowadays? It's just more hassle and more expense and you're still divorced just the same if you do it the no cause way.

    12. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The answer is of course, 'think of the children'. The history could be used in child custody battles, to show that the party was an unfit parent and should be denied access to the kids (and therefore get a significantly lesser share of any joint property).

      "As you can see, his browsing history includes sites such as "Barely Legal Teen Poon", "Teens love their Daddies", and "Barely There - teens with less than an A-Cup", and we feel that these deviant interests make him unfit to care for a young girl."

      Never mind that 'teen' on most pornsites essentially means 'Not yet old enough for the age pension and has hair in pigtails and/or is wearing sneakers'.

    13. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell this to my former brother-in-law in Brisbane, who spent years getting his son back from the nutjob ex-wife who threw him out, claiming spousal abuse... The mere allegation, despite not having a shred of supporting "evidence" other than a few pages in his browser cache relating to the Fathers' Rights Movement, tied up the case in court for ages while she and her several boyfriends sat round the house drinking, doing dope, and watching porn in front of the kid, who's just about straightened out now, thanks to a strong character, his father's strong character, and some good counselling.

    14. Re:makes no sense by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Because often a part of divorce proceedings is child custody. The way to get the children is to convince the court that your partner would be a poor parent. If you can make them look like a weirdo or a pervert, that's a significent advantage. While looking at internet pornography is very common, it's also something socially condemned, and revealing it in court could tip the balance.

    15. Re:makes no sense by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No cause means both partners are equal. The money gets split evenly, and they share joint custody of children. With adultery you've a chance to get a larger portion of the assets and a means to prevent the ex having custody of children.

    16. Re:makes no sense by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You do realise that in some countries adultery is a crime that carries the death penalty, right?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    17. Re:makes no sense by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      The thing is, the Australian court doesn't give a fat rats clacker about your personal perversions in a divorce proceeding. They only care about your financial situation.

      Perfect. There's no way the soon to be ex will visit off shore banking and brokerage websites from your PC for 6 months while planning to divorce you, then claim you've hid money in court to get their half and yours. Nope, that'd never happen again.

      They certainly wouldn't try to frame you for child porn to make the custody battle a slam dunk either. Everyone is always reasonable in a divorce. It's a bit like giving government bureaucrats unlimited spying powers. It's just never abused and always ends well. Just ask them.

    18. Re:makes no sense by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      it's browsing history held in the ISP, not on your PC... that means anything accessed from your IP address will be available... the only way to do any private browsing now will be via a proxy or using a wifi access point away from your house. and what's the bets that use of a proxy is deemed to be suspicious?

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    19. Re:makes no sense by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      In Australia?

    20. Re:makes no sense by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Not in Australia, which is where we're talking about.

    21. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can be relevant to custody issues involved in the divorce.
      It can be relevant to the cause of the divorce and so the financial burden (partner cheating so less/no financial support after divorce).

    22. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because divorce law is still written in many countries in a way where you cannot divorce someone on a whim - it can't be 'I don't love them' any longer, you need to show some fault (adultery, abandonment, abuse etc).

      Australia does have no-fault divorce but only after a 12 month separation, so you can divorce faster if you can show fault.

    23. Re:makes no sense by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Australians simply aren't prudes like Americans.

      You're like us in every other way, I'm sure you'll come into conformance soon enough.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re: makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had discovered it 20 years ago there wouldn't be any internet now.

    25. Re:makes no sense by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Sure your S&M habits might have something to do with a sexual assault case, but not a divorce.

      Of course it affects a divorce case!

      Hell, good S&M dungeons are expensive. Where did you think the savings account went? To the Caimans? Au contraire, it was spent on the dungeon....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re: makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia has no fault divorce - why you are splitting doesn't matter.

      You also don't pay support to your spouse unless you have children.
      Assets are split upon a "reasonable" basis (normally 50/50, however neither party would be expected to split assets possessed before the relationship) at the time of the divorce.
      American style alimony doesn't happen here.

      Source: Australian divorced dad of 3.

    27. Re: makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the moment. When Australia becomes a shit caliphate like Europe is going to be, adultery will be a capital offence under shari'a law.

    28. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that is how you put all responsibility for the children onto the other part: Make sure there is adultery before the breakup!

      As for money - you can trivially loose the money on gambling before the breakup. If they tap into your future wages - it is easy enough not to earn any. The unbearable lighness of being . . .

    29. Re:makes no sense by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      Or you could blame the kids or the wife.

    30. Re:makes no sense by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No idea. I'm not Australian.

    31. Re:makes no sense by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Well we were talking about Australia and i'm pretty sure the answer's "no".

  6. Taking to the streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's depressing is that Australians probably won't take to the streets about this issue.

    This just adds insult to injury, because it's so true.

    It's very difficult to get most of us (Australians) to take to the streets. That's one thing I envy about citizens of many other regions (Europe, South America, Asia): they manifest their anger as physical demonstrations. Aussies just whine. I don't know why we're so lazy when it comes to defending our political rights.

    1. Re:Taking to the streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you "take to the streets"? What do white people have to complain about?? Especially a bunch of snooty Brits living in the tropics who still stand for the Queen?! Toughen the fuck up, you whiney bitch!

      I mean that in the nicest possible way. You know that, right? Now, get the fuck away from me, you stupid git!

      *ditto* mutter mutter.. goddamn people...

    2. Re:Taking to the streets by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      An Australian version of COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... would just find every charming, photogenic person speaking in public about logs and an internet tax.
      It would be like the Vietnam war protests all over again.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Taking to the streets by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Be careful what you wish for. I for one certainly don't want Melbourne to copy Athens just because the current government are a pack of "one term" cunts. Besides there are plenty of large political protests in Melbourne on all sorts of issues. Those people just don't attach the same priority to this issue as you do. If you want to know what gets Melbourne "out on the streets" then have a look at the tag cloud in thislist of Melbourne protests covering several recent years, privacy, the internet, and ASIO don't even rate a tag.

      By world standards Aussies have an active and peaceful protest culture and I would like it to stay that way. Just because masses of people are not smashing shop windows and burning cars while protesting about what personally upsets you today doesn't mean everyone is complacent about politics in general. The fact you can't perceive that makes me think that you're the one who isn't paying attention to the local political climate. If you are really serious then get out on the street yourself and tell others why you are there, with social media and the like it's never been easier and cheaper to organise a protest about your pet issue.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Taking to the streets by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Toughen the fuck up, you whiney bitch!

      I mean that in the nicest possible way. You know that, right?

      You sure you're not an Aussie?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Taking to the streets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't seem to be working. Maybe you should break some shop windows.

    6. Re:Taking to the streets by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Works for me, maybe you should move to Athens.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  7. makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't see how AshleyMadison.com might be relevant to a divorce case?

  8. Australians aren't prudes by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2

    And now the sheep can use your internet history to prove it.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Australians aren't prudes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still prefer Australian sheep to American fat cows.

    2. Re:Australians aren't prudes by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      i thought it was the kiwis who were sheep pervs

    3. Re:Australians aren't prudes by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      i thought it was the kiwis who were sheep pervs

      As Scottish comedian Billy Connolly once said, "If you're going to shag a sheep, do it at the edge of a cliff so they push back harder."

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:Australians aren't prudes by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

      We are; after a sheep is all used up we butcher it and send the meat to Australia; pre-marinaded.....old Kiwi reply to lame sheep jokes.

      --
      @Random_Adam

      Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
    5. Re:Australians aren't prudes by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      ew. that's pretty gross.

  9. Any effective opposition to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Which is why we need a charismatic, intelligent and well-spoken politician in one of our countries to take up the mantle. Then the rest of us can follow him or her."

    Why don't you grow some balls and take action instead of waiting for some hero to save you like a damsel in distress?

  10. great... except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from the fact that browsing history isn't part of the meta data they want to store.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-introduces-legislation-for-metadata-retention-scheme-20141030-11e101.html

    "The bill does not explain exactly what constitutes metadata, but it will not include the content of calls or emails, web browsing history or website addresses (URLs)."

    1. Re:great... except by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I can see that potentially being twisted as lawyer speak for not including the "content of [...] web browsing history" meaning they won't store the actual page, just the URL for reference later.

    2. Re:great... except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The bill does not explain exactly what constitutes metadata"

      So it doesn't explain what metadata is but will not include certain things - yeah right...

    3. Re:great... except by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The Attorney General (Brandis) specifically ruled it out in a press conference. Sure he's a lying arsehole and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, but that's why we have independent courts that won't let him change his mind now without more legislation specifically enabling it.

      We all know that Brandis has no clue what 'metadata' data means, there's plenty of clips on YT attesting to his ignorance. Turnbull and Brandis are ideological 'enemies' within the same party, both are strong candidates for the current PM's job (who is in the same ideological camp as Brandis). My guess is that Turnbull has convinced him to announce those things won't be included. Turnbull is an "old fashioned" conservative who wants to lead the party back toward the center after it's violent lurch to the "bogan right" at the last election. He's a previous party leader and he has sunk more than one of these proposals in the past from the inside, I'm fairly confident he will do the same again this time around, assuming the announcement by Brandis hasn't already done that.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:great... except by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "The bill does not explain exactly what constitutes metadata" - yet. It will do so before it becomes law since all sides have publicly stated it will be defined.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  11. Community Networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does not apply to community networks which are independent and not ISPs.
    Join one!

    http://www.melbournewireless.o...
    http://www.air-stream.org/
    http://www.wacan.asn.au/

    The law will become outdated when people bend around it with things like this.
    Just like DRM this will only hurt consumers not the ones actually doing harm.

    HAMs also use digital technologies and packet radio, I'm sure if terrorists *ahem* people wanted they could use CB or some other frequencies and encryption to plot terror stuffs. This is about terrorism still right?

    1. Re:Community Networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ham doesn't need to be capitalized. It doesn't mean Highly Antiquated Morse, Hyman-Almy-Murray, Home Amateur Mechanic, Hertz-Armstrong-Marconi, High Altitude Muckery, Highly Alien Marbles, Half Assed Monsoons, Heavily Altered Marsupials, et al.. You get the picture?

      Other than that, yeah, the law is ridiculous.

      This is about terrorism still right?

      And obvious troll is obvious.

    2. Re:Community Networks by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      That would be an interesting thought experiment for two local film students.
      Film the buyiny the hardware to connect. Set up and log in.
      The two film students could then chat about complex movie ideas without been on a traditional ISP.
      Then just chat about history in very interesting ways with out mentioning a script and plot every few lines.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re: Community Networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold And Modify. Now hand over your geek card and we'll give you back several months of lunch money.

  12. Sadly, not surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The right to assembly, right to associate, right to protest are not protected in Australia. Various states offer differing protections, with some of these rights being outlawed decades ago. This why the federal government must not have the power to ignore the courts, which is trying to give itself the power to do just that; for national security, of course.

  13. Tnx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Klavyemce www.klavyemce.com

  14. Well of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's depressing is that Australians probably won't take to the streets about this issue

    As if anyone would bother anymore. It's been clearly shown that protesting, for the most part, doesn't do jack shit. The Government ignores the protests anyway, so there's nothing to be gained from it apart from some weird looks from bystanders. That, and honestly we have it pretty good compared to many other countries. People are reluctant to rock the boat as it were.

    Believe me it's got very depressing knowing that virtually none of the mainstream media was highlighting the disgusting actions this Government has been taking so far and the backwards policies they're pushing. After a while you learn to appreciate the fact that this is just a consequence of westerners having it far too good for too long and not recognizing when things are (potentially) going in the wrong direction.

    In any event, this will probably be something that sounds bad but will have little (if any) practical effect when implemented.

    1. Re: Well of course by DMJC · · Score: 1

      Actually this is the start of the end. Next will be the anti Muslim pogroms and finally the oppression of political dissidents. Actually considering moving to the USA for gun access. Once the housing market pops, things are going to get nasty.

    2. Re: Well of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Actually considering moving to the USA for gun access.

      To quote the comedian Jim Jefferies: "You've got guns. They've got drones. You're bringing guns to a drone fight."

    3. Re: Well of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you kill the drone operators, who will pilot the drones? You have lost in Afghanistan, you have lost in Iraq, you will lose against the IS. Drones are toys. War is not about toys.

  15. Just what's needed by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is exactly what is needed -- how long will it be before a prominent politician is sued and his browsing history is demanded by the party that is suing?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re: Just what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so naive: one law for nobility, one law for the rabble.

    2. Re:Just what's needed by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      As we speak, there's an election campaign in the state of Victoria.

      A pornography ring has been discovered, allegedly, in the Premier's office (same party as the PM).

      Justice moves slowly, so any investigation won't conclude until after the campaign.

    3. Re:Just what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't work like that. Political people are free from the laws that govern the lower classes. They can afford the lawyers that know the proper way to call bullshit on things that only affect the lower classes.

    4. Re:Just what's needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIS history needs to remain secret for national security reasons. We all decide rights on a case-by-case basis now, depending on your influence.

  16. Colour the evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you need a warrant to view a browser history, then "relevant" comes into it, because you have to justify the search. If you can get the history freely, then you can use post-hoc justification, tuning your claim to fit the evidence you obtained.

    She wants custody of the child?, you allege child abuse, find some porn surfing that says 'naughty teens', bingo good enough. A common tactic.
    She claims spousal abuse, find some website you've visited showing some news about horrific crime, conflate you and the crime.
    She wants more maintenance, pull links of articles of yachts and imply hidden wealth.
    Facebook links, gold mine! Potential looking for GF's, plotted the breakdown of the marriage, spousal abuse.
    Links to violent games, "he's violent your honor, don't let him have access to the kids".
    Links to horror videos, see above.
    Read an NRA article, imply he's a gun nut that would shoot her.

    You see how that works?

  17. Lama babies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cute lama baby
    cuddly lama babies
    how to summon satan
    lama babies cute

  18. Not So Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know of gutless men who cheat on child support who have the nerve to tell judges that they can not afford their child support. Their expenses at the strip clubs are substantial. Their beer budgets are offensive and on top of that they smoke cigarettes. Imagine a court room where all of their money was tracked and then let the judge decide what is fair for their children's support.

    1. Re:Not So Bad by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Imagine a court room where all of their money was tracked and then let the judge decide what is fair for their children's support.

      Imagine a court room with the power to subpoena Dad's financial records if there's reason to suspect he's being substantially less than honest...

      (...wait for it...)

      ...which the court already has.

      But thanks for playing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  19. Get a VPN with bitcoin by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    A number of VPN services allow you to pay with bitcoin to make it harder to tie it to an individual.

    1. Re:Get a VPN with bitcoin by astro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I do (for different reasons than stated, basically I want USA prices on online purchases, and no censorship restrictions on game purchases in particular):

      1. Rent a $30/mo VPS in the USA. Some people will say even that is on the pricey side, but it is with reliable folks that I know and trust, and they're a legit green business, running "carbon-negative".
      2. Sell (very) cheap web hosting and support services to a handful of US clients, which makes the VPS purchase totally legit, if anyone were to ask why I have this.
      3. Run OpenVPN on my own VPS. My VPN traffic to my own server that I have for legit reasons looks the same as my legit support traffic via SSH to my VPS.

      I actually make pocket-change level profit doing this, instead of paying for a commercial VPN.

      Note, though, that I am replying to parent - this would do me no good in the problem presented in the OP here - as I do not obscure my local browser history at all, were the German cops to come and take my computers.

    2. Re:Get a VPN with bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you get those bitcoin?

    3. Re:Get a VPN with bitcoin by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 2

      1. Rent a $30/mo VPS in the USA. Some people will say even that is on the pricey side, but it is with reliable folks that I know and trust, and they're a legit green business, running "carbon-negative".

      Only trouble here is you need a credit card to purchase hosting with most places in the US.

      2. Sell (very) cheap web hosting and support services to a handful of US clients, which makes the VPS purchase totally legit, if anyone were to ask why I have this.

      Don't need to sell anything to make it legit. I run AWS for backend for my Second Life scripts. Perfectly legit.

      But that all said, why should anyone in this world have to look over their shoulder doing these things all under the cloud of 'is this legit, or at least looks legit?' That is the truly disturbing aspect of this all. Presumption of guilt.

    4. Re:Get a VPN with bitcoin by astro · · Score: 1

      Only trouble here is you need a credit card to purchase hosting with most places in the US.

      I pay with PayPal. As much as I have had things against PayPal in the past, it has turned out to be the best way for my USA clients to pay me, and for me in turn to pay for services either in the USA or here. It is a German PayPal account in €, so I did have to jump through a few hoops once I had received a certain threshold of money, but having done that it is also easy to transfer funds to my German bank account. I do still maintain a tiny USA bank account but it sits largely unused.

  20. browsing history? by pbjones · · Score: 0

    easier to ask google and Facebook for that info.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  21. MY browsing history? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Australian Courts Will Be Able To See Your Browsing History

    How are they going to get their mitts on my browsing history? Are you sure you didn't mean Australians' browsing histories?

    Furthermore, the article says might, not will.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:MY browsing history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think sell this information to YOUR government in order to circumvent the laws of YOUR land?

      Captcha: funders

  22. Wow they are really trying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia seems to reslly be trying hard at this. I am amazed that there are not more protesters in the street actually.

  23. Oh really? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Firefox:

    History -> Clear Recent History

    And just for good measure clear down the .mozilla directory manually.

    Unless they plan on forcing ISPs to store every single URL that every single person in australia accesses 24/7/365.

    1. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read the news of forcing ISPes to store data for up to two years?

    2. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they plan on forcing ISPs to store every single URL that every single person in australia accesses 24/7/365.

      Bingo! THIS is what the government is introducing.

    3. Re: Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you apparently have missed the news for the past 2-3 years

    4. Re:Oh really? by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Unless they plan on forcing ISPs to store every single URL that every single person in australia accesses 24/7/365.

      Don't give them ideas. Actually, they probably just need to call the US's NSA if they wanted it anyways.

    5. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Unless they plan on forcing ISPs to store every single URL that every single person in australia accesses 24/7/365.

      That is exactly what they are proposing. The big Telcos are right there with their hands out because the Government are also proposing to give the Telcos tax payers' money to pay for the data retention costs. Moar profits hooray.

      Australia is entering a dark period at the moment.

  24. YOU MUST BE A CRUSADER !!! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... and the status of women under Islam ...

    In some Islamic countries if you dare to search for the above you will automatically be tagged by the authority as A CRUSADER !!

    So be forewarned !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: YOU MUST BE A CRUSADER !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And be headed!

    2. Re: YOU MUST BE A CRUSADER !!! by torsmo · · Score: 2

      And be headed!

      Where? To some saner place, surely?

  25. Welcome to terrorism by DMJC · · Score: 2

    Just remember guys, if you read Linuxjournal.de the NSA considers you to be an "extremist". Because Linuxjournal is an extremist forum. So they are going to be watching the Linux community quite closely. Which makes sense considering that technology hackers are the largest threat to the established powers. Especially now with sub $1500 metal 3d printers starting to come online. As home manufacturing grows the Open Source community will only become a larger threat to bad/wasteful governments. Seriously though, we should all be angry. Angry that our money, is being used for this shit, instead of fixing real problems, building real hospitals/roads/fibre internet/healthy environment/industries/helping people. We should all be angry that this is being done and noone voted for it.

  26. To get up to date check out this rap by Tagged_84 · · Score: 1
  27. Women vote ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Women vote, compulsorily in Oz. Politicians know this well and tailor their policies to cater to womens' interests carefully. These are not only the WomensLib equality laws, but moreso woman-friendly laws/procedures for family courts (which are important for more women).

    As a result, expect browsing history to be [un]fair game -- more men browse pr0n than women (who prefer romance novels.)

  28. DON'T LIE , no really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they can't see mine , im in fucking caanda you retards...haha

    OH and all id do is keep two browsers one that wont spy on me and one this will

    then they can get fucked

  29. Once a penal colony... by 2fuf · · Score: 1

    ...always a penal colony.

  30. Are they not concerned... by opine · · Score: 1

    that this will inevitably lead to kangaroo courts?

  31. Australia confirmed for shit-hole ghetto country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to work for a company here in the U.S. that was bought out by Australian assholes. The job ended with me in the emergency room after having a complete mental breakdown, and PTSD. Australia and it's bullshit can go fuck itself.

  32. I can see that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Defense: "And I present Exibit A, which contains the browsing history of my client..."
    Client:"I'd rather just confess the murder..."

  33. And Internet history can't be deleted ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... oh, wait.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  34. Spousal Attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your now lesser significant other just has to send the kids browsing cheater websites at the right time. You lose.

  35. Take to the streets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take to the airport. I'll be taking my EE/CS type degree with me. Enjoy your brain drain you Facist shitholes. Not like there's any jobs here anymore because you dickheads didn't invest any of that mining boom money into teching up our dying manufacturing sector into something the Chinese can't clone. I suggest others do the same. If you grew up here you'll know as I do, that intellectual types aren't wanted anyway.

  36. Can we do the opposite and flood it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I’m having an inkling of an idea, perhaps others more tech savvy could refine/expand/adapt it, but why not do the opposite and flood the logs, make them so large to the point where they no longer have any value and become impractical?

    For example: say if I was thinking on designing an open source google search replacement and that I had to learn how to index pages etc and do to that I had to link-crawl lots (and lots and lots) of webpages and say if I put that up on github (or like) so that other Aussies could download and help out and say if the Aussie development community really got behind it and 100's (1000's? 10,000's!!!) got behind the development and or testing of it?

    I know, a few "ifs" and disk space, PC power etc is increasing all the time and it would take an almighty effort - therefore the idea might just be unrealistic - but this is /.

  37. Re:Australia confirmed for shit-hole ghetto countr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using this doll, show the court where the koala touched you...