Slashdot Mirror
Australia Moves Toward New Restrictions On Technology Export and Publication
An anonymous reader writes Australia is starting a public
consultation process for new legislation that further restricts the
publication and export of technology on national security grounds. The
public consultation starts now (a few days before Christmas) and it is due
by Jan 30th while a lot of Australians are on holidays. I don't have the
legal expertise to dissect the proposed legislation, but I'd like some
more public scrutiny on it. I find particularly disturbing the phrase "The
Bill includes defences that reverse the onus of proof which limit the
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty" contained in this
document, also available on the consultation web site.
CSIRO has been responsible for a number of important technological advancements. Heard of Wi-Fi? They invented that. But don't worry, the Australian government is hard at work dismantling this subversive organization.
Are you kidding... we lost the right to be presumed innocent years ago.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?
No. Police don't conduct criminal trials.
The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax. Where's the presumption of innocence there?
What crime have they found you guilty of? They make an assessment, if you don't agree with it you challenge it.
Citizens of the USA have given away most of their constitutional rights after being duped by a government that says that those rights must be surrendered to avoid massive terror attacks and Australia (plus NZ) have becom little more than lap-dogs to the US government.
You don't seem to understand what a constitutional right is. Or that the US, AU, and NZ have three totally different constitutions.
Here in NZ, Kim Dotcom (love him or hate him) has had his assets seized and was incarcerated at the US government's whim -- even though he has not been convicted of any of the charges laid against him. Where's his right to be presumed innocent?
In the courts. Any other questions?
I'm afraid that the world in 2014 is a very sad place where most Western governments consider all their citizens to be enemies of the state unless they can prove otherwise.
The terrorists have won this war completely -- they have done what the Germans could not do in WW1 and WW2 -- they have taken our freedoms from us and we have surrendered them without a fight.
As Midnight Oil so wisely said: It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees -- what a shame our politicians don't get it.
You do realize that the lead singer of Midnight Oil became a politician?
Seriously! Let the blood back into the brain your tin foil hat it killing you!
This is EXISTING legislation. AND the proposed changes tighten the definitions in most cases. Firstly they are removing the prohibition on talking to someone about it, now you actually have to supply the documentation or the item. Another is to allow a project to have the ability to release information not just an individual.
The publishing rule is being narrowed to be publishing only in direct contravention of a restriction or if something is specifically listed.
They have narrowed the brokering offence to only part 1 of the DSGL which are military use only items and changing brokering dual use items an offence only if you do it negligently or recklessly and the items will be used for WMD.
So rather than doing a Chicken Little, how about you stop making yourself look like an idiot and read.
Then you would (or should) know that the CSIRO patent is specifically about dealing with interference caused by short-delay local multipath reflections in OFDM systems, not OFDM itself.
And you would know (or should be able to find out) when it was initially accepted into the IEEE patent pool for 802.11. Hint: it was right near the beginning, predating the parts of the standard that use the techniques by many years...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Apparently only the Ars hackjob version, or similar stories.
The Wikipedia section is a reasonable rundown, athough it's not entirely accurate - it skips over some of the early history (like the initial 1992/1993 Australian patent/update), mentions nothing about the patent's acceptance into the 802.11 patent pool, skips quite a bit between the development of 802.11a and the patent lawsuit, and slightly misrepresents the state of Radiata at the time of the lawsuits...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?