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."

99 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. 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 O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Only if their boobs make them look over 18.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. 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?
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

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

      Were not.

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

      Well, that's depressing.

    9. 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?

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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!

    13. 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.'"
    14. 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?

    15. 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

    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.

    20. 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.
    21. 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.

  2. 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 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:makes no sense by WillKemp · · Score: 1

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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'.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. Re:makes no sense by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      In Australia?

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

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

    16. 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.'"
    17. 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"
    18. Re:makes no sense by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

      Or you could blame the kids or the wife.

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

      No idea. I'm not Australian.

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

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

  3. 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...

  4. 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.
  5. 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 Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      i thought it was the kiwis who were sheep pervs

    2. 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. . . .
    3. 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!!
    4. Re:Australians aren't prudes by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      ew. that's pretty gross.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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"
  10. 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"
  11. 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.

  12. 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"
  13. 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"
  14. 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 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.

  15. 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"
  16. 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!

  17. 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.

  18. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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 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.

  28. 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 torsmo · · Score: 2

      And be headed!

      Where? To some saner place, surely?

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

    --
    .
  31. 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?

  32. To get up to date check out this rap by Tagged_84 · · Score: 1
  33. 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.)

  34. 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/

  35. 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

  36. 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.

  37. 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"
  38. 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"
  39. 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.

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

    ...always a penal colony.

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

    that this will inevitably lead to kangaroo courts?

  42. 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.
  43. 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.

  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.

  48. 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.