Slashdot Mirror


Draconian Australian Research Law Hits Scientists

An anonymous reader writes: The Australian government is pushing ahead with a draconian law placing "dual use" science (e.g. encryption, biotechnology) under the control of the Department of Defence. The Australian ACLU, Civil Liberties Australia, warns the law punishes scientists with $400,000 fines, 10 years in jail and forfeiture of their work, just for sending an "inappropriate" e-mail.

Scientists — including the academics union — warn the laws are unworkable despite attempted improvements, and will drive researchers offshore (paywalled: mirror here).

150 comments

  1. forfeiture of their work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Forfeiture of their work is worse than a death sentence! Scientists live for fame. Whoever wrote this law is an uber-genius.

  2. Does fosters beer by invictusvoyd · · Score: 0

    count as dual use technology ?

    Lame .. Never expected this from the Australians ..

    1. Re:Does fosters beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes.

      Beer/Alcohol research has always multipurpose; from basic food preservation (under similar conditions water goes bad faster than beer) to potential health benefits (red wine (in moderation) can be good for you).

    2. Re:Does fosters beer by dohzer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I take it you missed the article saying that no consumption of alcohol is good for you, and the previous studies failed to take other factors into account before announcing their findings that alcohol could be beneficial?

    3. Re:Does fosters beer by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Those studies are wrong.

    4. Re:Does fosters beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red wine, in moderation, is good for you if and only if you meet the requirements for it to be beneficial, and most of us do not. There was a story here a few months ago about that.

    5. Re:Does fosters beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you just believe whatever the latest "study" says?

    6. Re:Does fosters beer by Bengie · · Score: 1

      It seems a bit much for me to swallow that this single study is going to refute decades of many studies all at once. Who cares for everyone else is saying moderate consumption is good, they're all wrong. Soon we'll find out that fruits really aren't that good for us because they have sugar in them. The new recommendation is to never eat any fruits.

      I want to see more research on the subject.

    7. Re:Does fosters beer by dbIII · · Score: 2
      Most definitely. Fosters is a beer of revenge against Germany
      From http://www.jcu.edu.au/cgc/Beer...

      Pasteur’s anguish at the national crisis was magnified by the loss of his laboratory and the threat to his son's life. The war had jeopardised everything he cared about - Nation, Family and Science - and he was physically incapable of fighting back. This overwhelming feeling of impotence left him with an obsessive hatred of Germans and their nation and, by the end of the war, Pasteur had formulated a plan to avenge his nation’s honour.
      At the time, although Germany had become the world leader in industrial chemistry, her main export was beer. Indeed, as part of the reparations demanded of France, Germany had subsumed Alsace and Lorraine, where hops were the primary crop and much of France's own beer production had been based. German beer outsold local brews throughout most of central Europe because it tasted better and kept longer, and its continued sale in France irritated Pasteur intensely. He planned to destroy Germany’s primary export market by developing the world's best beer in France, a brew he dubbed 'the beer of revenge'.
      ...
      A brilliant young Belgian brewer, Auguste de Bavay, met Pasteur on one of his trips and adopted his methods before emigrating to Melbourne, where he was employed at the Victoria Parade Brewery. Because of the warmer temperatures in Australia, de Bavay had to adapt Pasteur's methods to top fermentation. To protect against spoilage, he added greater amounts of hops, and fermented to a higher alcohol content. The highly fertile soils and plentiful sunshine resulted in increased levels of protein in the barley, which caused clouding of the beer, so de Bavay replaced some of the barley malt with cane sugar. The resulting beer was that now characteristic of Australia: light in colour and body, but tasting strongly of bitter hops. This style, although correctly described as a 'bitter' in Australia, is usually mistaken for a lager in Britain.
      de Bavay was quickly promoted to chief brewer at Fosters, a position he held from 1894 to 1904

    8. Re:Does fosters beer by thaylin · · Score: 1

      So do you just pick and chose what studies you believe?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
  3. when I think "Australia" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think kangaroos, and draconian laws. They conservatives are the way they are because of fear. Is this because everything in Australia can kill you?

    1. Re:when I think "Australia" by sectokia · · Score: 2

      The law is expected to be passed by the left labor and green senate, it appears to have by partisan support.

    2. Re:when I think "Australia" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No surprise! Labor supported the data surveillance laws too https://newmatilda.com/2015/03/24/labor-and-journalists-have-sold-you-out-brandis-surveillance-law

      Labor and Liberals same.

    3. Re:when I think "Australia" by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Two words: Drop bears.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:when I think "Australia" by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Two words: Drop bears.

      Bears: dropped.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    5. Re:when I think "Australia" by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      There are exists to the N, E, and S. There is a bears here.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:when I think "Australia" by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they outlawed guns in Australia?

  4. The stupid is strong with these people! by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they criminalize research and communication regarding IT security, they will soon be without it. That is basically suicide in today's Internet.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:The stupid is strong with these people! by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not so much "be without it", but more like "out of the loop with researchers in the field".

      That is beyond stupid for a Five Eyes nation. One would expect measures to draw researchers into the country. Not chase them away!

    2. Re:The stupid is strong with these people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there any country in the world that's not screwing up how IT-related laws are handled? It seems like every government is just paranoid of losing control.

    3. Re:The stupid is strong with these people! by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any chance we can talk about the meta data laws while there is still a chance to stop it? I know it's my submission but there is a slim chance that maybe we can do something if enough people know http://slashdot.org/firehose.p... please please let there be some hope

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:The stupid is strong with these people! by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason for the law "The DTCA is intended to simplify trade between Australia, the US and the UK" that being imports from the US and UK. So yeah, it basically kills research in Australia on purpose, to force it into import only mode, to ensure those other two countries can buy primary resources and lots of land with funny money from two countries rapidly sliding into bankruptcy. Note the same political party is looking to raise university fees to US levels and open market the education loans. Australians are only meant to be servants for the future owners of Australia (after he made sure his daughter got a scholarship from a soon to be fully funded private university and a no work job and the person who tattled, to ensure they aligned with US styled freedom of information, was prosecuted). They did fund medical research though, but want to make big cuts universal health care, the rich only will get the use of Australian tax payer funded medical research.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:The stupid is strong with these people! by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are not wrong on that. My impression is that governments are so afraid of their population, that they are willing to risk losing it all. Paranoids make the absolutely worst leaders, yet these seem to be what rises to the top.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:The stupid is strong with these people! by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      There are different levels of stupidity. And it stretches out in different directions. For example, in Germany it is complicated to have public wi-fi and they had create a law similar to the UK as a web black list to stop child porn. However, the latter was never applied, as the public outraged and they dropped it with a new law. Presently, they try to do fix the first issue too. However, media industry is very much in it, so it might take some time until it gets away.

  5. Well, I guess they don't need to do any science... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Per a spokesweasel(in TFA): "Some academic research uses proliferation-sensitive controlled goods and technologies. While the sensitive items are used for legitimate civilian research by Australian researchers, they can also be used for the proliferation of military, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. "

    Notice anything odd? The word 'military' shows up along the usual trio of "nuclear, chemical, biological". Last I checked, the boundaries of 'military weapons' were very, very, broad, running the gamut from fancy-nuclear-power aerospace widgetry to relatively crude hand-fabricated small arms more or less loosely based on designs dating back to the first half of the 20th century, if not older.

    Is there some stricter definition of 'military weapons' that makes this slightly less ridiculous, or are they in fact export-controlling basically any tech you could conceivably integrate into a weapon in some fashion, including weapons already extremely widely available, adequately functional with downright crude technology, and otherwise utterly absurd to pretend are still within the reach of counter-proliferation efforts?

  6. Let's all pray.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..for another one of them really big southern hemisphere asteroids.

  7. Wouldn't it be nice by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if there were some foundational document that codified your right to both military weapons and speech of all sorts, and prohibited the government from passing laws restricting either.

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by ultranova · · Score: 1

      if there were some foundational document that codified your right to both military weapons and speech of all sorts, and prohibited the government from passing laws restricting either.

      Even then it would obviously not cover obscenity, which is defined as "I know it when I see it". And, well, the algorithmic description of SHA-1 is pretty suggestive, don't you think?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      I can be as obscene as I want with whomever I want that's of voting age and associates with me freely of his or her own volition. In print, online, and in person. Just not over RF broadcasts.

    3. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      And more to your point, I (the collective manifestation of the citizenry) have leverage against a government that does as you suggest by keeping firearms in my possession, being proficient in their use, and advocating (through constitutionally protected peaceable means) for my right to do so. This is one of the functions of the second amendment: to act as a check on a government that overreaches. Tax-dodging nuts holed up in the mountains notwithstanding, governments need checks on their powers that have teeth in them. It's kind of like the British monarchy: on paper, the monarch is supreme. In practice, it's understood what would happen if he or she tried to assert that supremacy, so they don't.

    4. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by dryeo · · Score: 2

      And yet not once has the second amendment stopped your government from ignoring the Constitution that you referenced up the page.
      The British Monarch could assert her supremacy if she was doing it with the support of the people, eg an unpopular government that refused to call an election when their term ran out.
      The American people could assert their supremacy just by sitting down and refusing to serve the rich, not much need for guns though handy if the government sicked the troops on the strikers, which historically has failed to stop the government and the rich's hired goons.
      Back when the Constitution was written it was generally considered that a standing army led to tyranny and a militia was a better choice, so what used to be a requirement (free men owning and being proficient in arms) became a right.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of a country that has such a document, but in practice it doesn't work that well. While the part about the weapons is more or less observed, the important parts are not.

    6. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet it is your country that has school massacres, roving street gangs and militarised police forces the two former because of the second amendment, the latter because of the two former.

    7. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by Pi1grim · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hei, Russia doesn't have second amendment, explicitly bans guns and yet, for some unknown reason they too have roving street gangs, political assasinations, gangs slaughtering entire households, but I'm pretty sure that if US were to cancel the second amendment and prohibit gun ownership, then school massacres and roving street gangs would dissapear. I mean, how can you buy a gun, if you are prohibited to own it. Gangs would be forced to use baseball bats and harsh language.

      Or, perhaps, it's not about gun ownership at all and much deeper problems are in play and prohibiting gun ownership is like slapping a plaster on a leper?

    8. Re:Wouldn't it be nice by ultranova · · Score: 1

      And more to your point, I (the collective manifestation of the citizenry) have leverage against a government that does as you suggest by keeping firearms in my possession, being proficient in their use, and advocating (through constitutionally protected peaceable means) for my right to do so. This is one of the functions of the second amendment: to act as a check on a government that overreaches. Tax-dodging nuts holed up in the mountains notwithstanding, governments need checks on their powers that have teeth in them.

      The Second Amendment doesn't have any teeth. The problem is, in a democracy the government already is the collective manifestation of the citizenry. And any single overreach only hurts a small minority of people who can usually be dressed up as unpleasant and/or deserving of their fate to the rest, so the populace ends up shooting off its own foot one toe at a time.

      Second Amendment serves exactly one purpose, and it's letting people who are too gutless to even vote for a third party to pretend they could stage an armed rebellion any time they wanted. Altough ensuring that there's a steady stream of armed criminals/cults/tax-dodging nuts acting as boogeymen might also count as an intentional purpose for particularly cynical politicians.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. Somebody in Australia wants a scientist exodus! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Australian geeks and scientists: The weather is also nice in Silicon Valley, and they pay better. Do you really need another reason to leave?

    1. Re:Somebody in Australia wants a scientist exodus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      But the U.S. government is even more retarded than its Australian counterpart.

    2. Re:Somebody in Australia wants a scientist exodus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that a joke? Why would educated aussies working in one of those fields want to go to the US?

      There are so many better options that suggesting the US is laughable. I'll stay in Aus anyday rather than go there. If I moved, there are about a dozen better options if not more.

      You keep pretending that USA is the height of humanity, burying your head in the sand and acting like an arrogant cunt works so well.

    3. Re:Somebody in Australia wants a scientist exodus! by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      In Europe we have great social security and we do not fight science (that much). Beside the Torys in the UK, we will not hunt you for your research. We have all kinds of weather and our food is much better. Ah yes, the content of your doctoral thesis belongs to you. Do you really need another reason to leave?

    4. Re:Somebody in Australia wants a scientist exodus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there are plenty of even better places in Asia.

      For example Singapore or Taiwan. Far more immune with their non-aligned histories and need for economic development through manufacturing and trade. Far less likely to be this stupid.

      Silicon Valley has been denuded of much of the industrial infrastructure required to innovate key areas like these.

    5. Re:Somebody in Australia wants a scientist exodus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the US is one of, if not the best, countries to do biomedical research in. We fund so much more research than other countries it's not even funny. I don't know about other industries, but there are a ton of European grad students in my program because there are so many options here.

  9. New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Meanwhile, the Kiwis are doing everything they can to build a prosperous biotechnology industry. The government has been heavily promoting a "knowledge-based economy" for nearly a decade. If you're working in Australia, trained in biotech, and would like to work with less tax, fear, and general oppression then why not leave the matrix and give NZ a go.

    1. Re:New Zealand? by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      Really tempting, have been considering it.

    2. Re:New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I live in Dunedin, New Zealand.

      Right now, we are faced with the closure of one of the premiere biotech facilities in the South Island, Invermay, in spite of a backlash by the farmers, scientists, and people of the region, all in the name of budget.

      The country is rapidly turning into a right-wing system, we're being pummelled with fear and hate messages from our government ("Unemployed? It's not our fault for mismanaging the economy, it's not the banks fault for ruining the world economy, it's your fault because there are no jobs in the region!") Workers rights are being removed (we've just had the first employer of many back down from the now-legal removal of all of our breaks, because it suits them) at a high pace.

      There's little money being pumped into research, all publicly owned assets are being flogged off (It's a New Zealand fire sale! Everything must go!) in spite of massive public opposition.

      It's an ideological nightmare, and things are getting worse. Educated people are leaving because the pay and conditions here are shit.

      Think twice before coming here.

    3. Re:New Zealand? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. The people are wonderful, the climate's amazing, the country is beautiful. And oh, ho ho, the sheep, the sheep! The sexiest little fluffy...WOMEN I MEANT WOMEN!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand? Are you sure?

      captcha: cohort

    5. Re:New Zealand? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Lets go to Europe.

    6. Re:New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no...poor New Zealanders and Europeans might have to actually work for their money! No breaks? Geez grow up.

    7. Re:New Zealand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "all publicly owned assets are being flogged off (It's a New Zealand fire sale! Everything must go!)"

      Please add more details about what is being sold and where. How can I get in on the deals?

  10. I must be reading it wrong by burtosis · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because it seems to criminalize a wide swath of legitimate civilian research. From TFA
    high-performance, neural, optical and fault-tolerant, computers,
    electronics,
    wavelength research (remember, wi-fi was ‘invented’ in Australia),
    heat-shielding,
    telecommunications,
    information security research,
    robotics,
    human, animal and plant pathogens, both bacterial and viral,
    fibre optics,
    cryptography.
    satellite technology.
    sensor technology.
    signal and image processing.
    composite materials, andthe list could go on and on.
    This effectively criminalizes half of all science related activity at colleges. It's not just the best and brightest it's literally asking the A ark to sail in some kind of reverse HHGTG parody.

    1. Re:I must be reading it wrong by stephanruby · · Score: 0

      wavelength research (remember, wi-fi was ‘invented’ in Australia),

      Silly me, I thought wifi was invented in 1942 by an Austrian-American woman and an American guy.

      Austria and Australia do sound the same, I admit.

    2. Re:I must be reading it wrong by complete+loony · · Score: 2

      CSIRO patented a few things related to Wi-Fi in the 90's. They like to claim that Wi-Fi wouldn't have existed without them.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    3. Re:I must be reading it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be fooled, CSIRO may hold a number of patents critical to implementing WiFi - but being granted and/or holding patents says nothing about you having invented anything.

    4. Re:I must be reading it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And.. well, yes they're correct. Just like Wi-Fi wouldn't exist without the foundation done by the Austrian and the American.

    5. Re:I must be reading it wrong by mcl630 · · Score: 2

      Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invented spread-spectrum communications in 1942. It's used in WiFi, but I wouldn't call that "inventing WiFi".

    6. Re:I must be reading it wrong by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate the patent system CSIRO DID create/invent critical parts of what Wi-Fi is today, would someone else have solved the problems had they not done so.... probably, but at the time it was them that solved them allowing for it to move forward.

    7. Re:I must be reading it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, did someone remember to pay the Edisons off?

    8. Re:I must be reading it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a scientist, but as a geek some of this is in geek FAQ's such as how to use PGP. Research is not just using tools or apps.
      If you do a science fair project, make a potato gun, or hack your tablet firmware, I guess to are doing a potential thought crime. Animal Husbandry is not in the list, but that is what TPP does best to Australia.

    9. Re:I must be reading it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL WiFi would exist just fine, no one is indispensable and someone else would have invented it.

    10. Re:I must be reading it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'High Performance' is defined as 1.5 TFLOPS. That is a mid/high range gaming system nowdays. It wouldn't quite catch a PS4 since it explicitly requires 64-bit floating point performance, but its in that ballpark.

    11. Re:I must be reading it wrong by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil invented spread-spectrum communications in 1942.

      That's Hedley... No, wait. It is Hedy Lamarr. Never mind.

    12. Re:I must be reading it wrong by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      show some respect, Hedy was a nerd AND a movie goddess.

      She's probably best recognised by geeks by her likeness (unauthorised) appearing on Corel software packaging.

  11. Smart politicians. by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    What this law actually does is drive any serious research out of Australia to other countries. Like say, China. Well done.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. What Next? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    Next they'll outlaw talking about, researching, or planning for climate change, evolution, genetic research, and such. The poor sods had better move to America as quickly as possible.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:What Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They already effectively did that 2 years ago.

      We no longer have a minister for science, they butchered funding (to the point of mass layoffs) at all government agencies related to climate/weather/etc (geoscience australia, csiro, beuro of meteorology) causing thousands out of their job and entire divisions (eg: the climate change division at GA) to cease to exist.

    2. Re:What Next? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "Next they'll outlaw talking about"
      One time pad encryption would {#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:What Next? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      I don't think we'll be a safe haven for that kind of stuff for long... and don't look to Europe either. The whole world is turning hard right. It'll soon be the norm for scientists, activists, soldiers, and everyday citizens to be sent to psych wards and prisons for speaking the truth.

      It's best to stay where you are, and fight where you are, because that's your country, and you might as well fight it at home because there will be no escape if all we do is run.

    4. Re:What Next? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Even our government sucks big time, we are not limited by similar rule in Germany. For example, the content of my thesis belong to me. This applies to your bachelor, masters or doctoral thesis (if you do some industrial cooperation there might be strings attached). Anyway, this might be different on this isle in the west who will reelect Cameron any day now.

    5. Re:What Next? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      I was being sarcastic here, since all of the things I listed are banned or heavily restricted in at least some US states. Most recently, the governor of Florida has prohibited state emplyees from using the phrase "climate change."

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  13. As an Australian... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    As an Australian who grew up loving my country... I am fucking glad I left more than 5 years ago.

    Australia is slowly turning to shit. :/

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:As an Australian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Australian who grew up here and is still living here, i have to say I resent being here.

      If it weren't for emotional attachments here, I would be gone in a heart beat - this country is horrible.

    2. Re:As an Australian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      False. Australia is quickly turning to shit.

      I say this as an Australian still living in Australia.

    3. Re:As an Australian... by metrix007 · · Score: 2

      Agreed. The US is bad, but not as bad as Australia, which is why I left there.

      I can deal with overly eager racist cops, lack of decent social care, lack of regulation in the market, corruption and ignorance and apathy in the general populace.

      I'd much rather deal with that then the crazy censorship and rights-stripping laws the commonwealth countries are so eager to introduce.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    4. Re:As an Australian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia is much more reasonable than the US with respect to how it handles "Controlled" items and deals with breaches of the act.

      For a start, the AU government has demonstrated that it will use education before prosecution.

      In the US, they use overly broad definitions, and prosecute even the slightest infractions. Generally the enforcement of controlled technologies in the US is so bad that now most people just stay away from them.

      So how exactly do you feel these laws, which were demanded by the US, leave us worse off as Australians compared to people in the US? Most of the people who deal within the constraints of these laws would not agree with you.

    5. Re:As an Australian... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      How can you say Australia is more reasonable? Look at the story you are commenting on. You think the penalties for sending an email as mention in the summary are reasonable? Really?

      My comment was more general in regards to Australia and some of the laws that have been being passed and not specific to this story.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    6. Re:As an Australian... by countach · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least we don't send people to guantanamo bay with no trial, and execute people later found innocent, spy as much on the populace as the NSA. Australia has plenty of stupidity like illustrated here, but the US shouldn't throw stones inside its glass house.

    7. Re:As an Australian... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      You could come to Europe, we ware far less fucked up (excluding the UK). We have decent health care, some market regulation, limited corruption, and demonstration going on for every this and that. We even have unions. However, we use other languages every few kilometers. So it can be also interesting to learn something new.

    8. Re:As an Australian... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Australia has it's own illegal detention centers and was more than happy to help out at gitmo, so that isn't the best example to use.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    9. Re:As an Australian... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      How easy is it to emigrate? :)

      A lot of Aussies travel freely on student/working holiday visas but those dry up once you hit 30. Unless you have a European grandmother and can thus get residency, opportunities are limited, was my impression.

  14. The DSGL list contains processors 40 MHz !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The The Defence and Strategic Goods List includea :

    " “Microprocessor microcircuits”, “microcomputer microcircuits” and microcontroller microcircuits, manufactured from a compound semiconductor and operating at a clock frequency exceeding 40 MHz;

    Note: 3A001.a.3. includes digital signal processors, digital array processors and digital coprocessors."

    See http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00051
    CATEGORY 3 — ELECTRONICS, 3A001

    I'm speechless :-(

    contains processor or

  15. And they man-in-the-middle slashdot too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See this Snowden leak, these forum spies are on Slashdot too:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131111/01080925194/gchq-used-fake-slashdot-page-to-install-malware-to-hack-internet-exchange.shtml

    They man in the middle attack Slashdot to install malware. Given their propaganda agenda, and that the domestic propaganda limit was removed from US law (and never existed in UK law), you can safely say they involve themselves in ensuring 5 eyes Prime Ministers and Presidents stay on message.

    5 eyes is becoming defacto military dictatorships driven by the surveillance.

  16. Same here in the USA by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The "Left" and the "Right" are both the "Same" - e.g. "the ruling class".
    Voters are just the "little people".

    Notice how power shifts from one to the other and they keep adding bricks, each to their own wall, but neither side takes down bits the other side has put up?

    Someday, the walls will meet and you will be on the outside...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Same here in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is no left and right in US politics, only very conservative and extremely conservative.

    2. Re:Same here in the USA by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      If you really believe there's no difference between left and right in Oz, you're simply not paying attention.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Same here in the USA by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1, Informative

      I guess you and I have different definitions of "conservative." What does conservative mean to you?

      Which of the two political parties in America want to roll back Imperial Washington?
      Which of the two political parties wants an ever larger, ever more powerful government and which one has a large percentage of people who want to go to a government with limited powers as enumerated in the US Constitution?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    4. Re:Same here in the USA by spauldo · · Score: 2

      Which of the two political parties in America want to roll back Imperial Washington?

      Neither.

      Which of the two political parties wants an ever larger, ever more powerful government and which one has a large percentage of people who want to go to a government with limited powers as enumerated in the US Constitution?

      Both parties want a larger, more powerful government, despite what the libertarians say. When was the last time anyone actually made the government smaller? The only difference is what shape the larger government will be.

      I've generally found that "smaller government" and "less regulation" pretty much equates to "let the big corps do whatever they want." People who think it means "less social safety net" are forgetting Medicare part D and the other social programs put through during the Bush II administration.

      And "limited powers as enumerated in the US Constitution?" Nobody in power wants that. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    5. Re:Same here in the USA by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The people in power and the people trying to push the country in one direction or the other are not identical. There is a party in which there are some trying to limit the size of the party who have been elected to political office.

      There is another party (including almost all of its supporters) which has contempt for limited government.

      As to making the government smaller - no it is rarely done. But what would you have done? Nothing?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    6. Re:Same here in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or there is one party that claims to try to limit the size of government to get people to go along with them, but never actually does it, and there is another party that wants government to work properly, and doesn't react in hate and fear.

      Perception, it's a complicated thing.

    7. Re:Same here in the USA by spauldo · · Score: 1

      The people in power and the people trying to push the country in one direction or the other are not identical.

      There are three groups here:
      1) People actually in power (which means able to influence the government). These include a lot of non-elected people and organizations such as government employees, lobbyists, special interest groups, media outlets (Fox, MSNBC), and large corporations. These may or may not belong to or support a particluar party. They always look out for their own best interests.

      2) People who vote and are easily swayed by sayings such as "let's make the government smaller!" or "Let's make things fair for everyone!" This is the majority of both parties. They don't have power, but are the source of power for those in office. They generally don't think too much about politics and believe what they hear on TV or from their friends. They can only influence group 1 as a group, but group 1 is pretty good at controlling them. This sounds cynical, but remember how much of a stink was raised because of who Obama's pastor was? Or that GWB tried cocaine? That's group 1 trying to control group 2. It works.

      3) People who are irrelevant. Since I'm an independant in a heavily red state, that would be me and those like me.

      The libertarian subset of the Republican party is generating a lot of votes. Those in power know this. Why give you the apple for $1 today, when they can get $1 every day for the promise of an eventual apple? The small-government people will keep voting for them, and keep seeing the government grow, because Democrats and communism and unamerican types. When the Republicans gain power again, it'll be the same old, same old - just watch and see. Why would they limit the government when they're in charge of it?

      There is another party (including almost all of its supporters) which has contempt for limited government.

      It's a valid viewpoint. Some things are done most efficiently from the top, and it's easier to have standardized laws for things that aren't location specific. You obviously don't agree, but that's a valid viewpoint too.

      Both viewpoints are largely irrelevant, however. The government isn't going to get any smaller. You're better off thinking about what you want the larger government to be like. Don't like social programs? Vote based on that. Want more military spending? Vote based on that. Want to limit the power of the government? Not going to happen.

      But what would you have done? Nothing?

      That's all I can do, since I'm in the third group. But even if my vote did actually count, I wouldn't buy the limited government line. It's never going to happen.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    8. Re:Same here in the USA by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      But even if my vote did actually count, I wouldn't buy the limited government line. It's never going to happen.

      The government was much more limited (comparatively so) 20 years ago. While I don't think we'll ever get to a government as promoted by von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard or Samuelson it doesn't mean that I should not promote the concept of individual freedom and actively promote those factions within the 2 parties that would help push the country in that general direction.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    9. Re:Same here in the USA by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 2

      and in great danger when crossing the road

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  17. The corporate hegemony known as the TPP ... by smoothnorman · · Score: 1

    ... is a factor here. If you can constrain your academics for "defense", then you can more easily constrain them for "IP" reasons as well. And there's no bigger business than defense.

  18. Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone go into science these days?

    http://philip.greenspun.com/ca...

    Never mind the women part, just read the whole thing.

    1. Re:Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A steady supply of young impressionable nubile students?

    2. Re:Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might think this was a joke, but a friend of mine, a uni professor, married two of them :-)
      Both way younger than he is.

    3. Re:Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is our intern, Amy Wong. She's an engineering student of mine. I like having her around because she's the same blood type as me."

    4. Re:Why would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A steady supply of young impressionable nubile students?

      Touch one of them and she cries rape, now defined as regretting having sex in US colleges, and it's bye-bye career.

    5. Re:Why would by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Bigamy is legal?

  19. Re:The DSGL list contains processors 40 MHz !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think that's funny, look at this, seems they forgot about inflation.

    United States Bill of Rights (1791)
    Article the ninth .. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

  20. If you are not sure you just have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just an update to existing laws, right?

    So the following is relevant:

    "The Minister may, in writing, approve a person publishing or otherwise disseminating specified DSGL technology to the public or to a specified section of the public. The Minister may give an approval only if the Minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so."

    Now if the minister starts getting a huge number of requests for publication permission that is the ministers problem to manage, at the government's expense.

    There is no need to go all feral about the legislation, as if it is so totally new and unreasonable law without any pragmatic "work arounds" available to scientists with legitimate reasons to share knowledge.

  21. Ideology and Belief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Scientists — including the academics union — warn the laws are unworkable despite attempted improvements, and will drive researchers offshore"

    What they apparently don't understand is that this is exactly what the people making these laws want. Science and innovation are waning notions in the current government and ideology and belief are rising.

  22. Your analogy is slightly flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Berlin wall was not built to keep people on the outside.

    1. Re:Your analogy is slightly flawed by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      The Berlin wall was not built to keep people on the outside.

      And that is why it failed...

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:Your analogy is slightly flawed by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Well in its defense, communism fails faster if you can't keep people from leaving.

    3. Re:Your analogy is slightly flawed by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      So does capitalism.

      --
      That is all.
    4. Re:Your analogy is slightly flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America must be communist then, because it's done it's damnedest to keep its citizens around. One of only two countries that charges its citizens taxes anywhere in the world, charging thousands of dollars to denounce citizenship, extradition treaties with almost any country that isn't basically an enemy (and some that are), half the rate of passport holders as most of Europe, a majority of Americans never even travel outside the country in their lives.

    5. Re:Your analogy is slightly flawed by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make any sense. Nobody is trying to escape capitalist countries to get to communist ones (unless they're some kind of wanted felon or something.) It always has been the other way around, which is why communist countries have to forbid their citizenry from leaving, and was the entire purpose of the Berlin Wall.

  23. What a great feel-good article! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad to hear that someone is trying to out-stupid *my* country.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:What a great feel-good article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US is number 1. We won't let any country out stupid us, no matter how hard they may try.

  24. Read the title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is in Australia

  25. Moving on out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could always move to Russia!!! just saying, another great forward thinking policy to protect the entrenched privileged..

    1. Re:Moving on out.. by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      They could move to Europe.

  26. Australian Gov = Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists are poor, and it take a poor government to rape good people of what little hard earned money they had.

    1. Re:Australian Gov = Joke by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      The law is even stupid. What happens when the person leaves the country? Will they arrest scientists for leaving the country? This would mean that everyone in science working on security issues will now make plans for departing Australia. Especially, foreigners will think twice to stay there. And it sucks, if you cannot publish. If you cannot publish you cease to exist.

  27. Or it's a recipie for selective enforcement by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whisteblowers have been sent to Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiaries under the odious Espionage Act at a higher rate under Obama than all previous presidents combined.

    But Petraeus, who casually flashed Specially Compartmented Information - a much higher classification than any of the Top Secret information released by Manning to Wikilieaks - just to impress his mistress, will only face probation.

    Or the cable operator who was sentenced to years in jail for carrying a Hezbollah tv channel, because it's on a State Department list of terror groups, while at the same time prominent politicians from both parties openly accepted large amounts of money from MEK to lobby on the group's behalf. A group also....on the State Departments list of terror groups.

    So we could see the same thing in Australia. Defense contractors will be free to skirt the law and sell to any shifty customer. People who annoy the state, though, will feel the full force of the law.

  28. Whining scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Scientists — including the academics union — warn the laws are unworkable despite attempted improvements, and will drive researchers offshore ...

    One thing that I can't stand is those whiners, especially those who call themselves Scientists but still prefer to non-stop whining rather than DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

    So they threaten that the law will drive researchers offshore ... but to where? To New Zealand? To Samoa? To Indonesia?

    Australian scientists aren't exactly famous for their ingenuity ... I mean, what kind of cool inventions have come out of Australia lately?

    Of course the Auzzie gumen knows that, and that's why they are not afraid of their researchers going offshore because NOBODY WANTS THEM !!

    1. Re: Whining scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one, you can thank Aussie scientists for discovering a key component used in Wi-Fi communications so you can sit on your couch and write Slashdot comments without needing a blue cable stuck in your device.

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi#Histor
      The Australian radio-astronomer John O'Sullivan developed a key patent used in Wi-Fi as a by-product of a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) research project, "a failed experiment to detect exploding mini black holes the size of an atomic particle".[7] In 1992 and 1996, CSIRO obtained patents[8] for a method later used in Wi-Fi to "unsmear" the signal.[9].

    2. Re:Whining scientists by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      One thing that I can't stand is those whiners, especially those who call themselves Scientists but still prefer to non-stop whining rather than DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

      They sat already at the table with the defense guys. That law is the best they could haggle out. In democracy, you only can fix such things if you are able to alert the public to the topic. Scientist tried, but failed on that. So what they are now stating it the obvious. People who do not like that law will leave.

      So they threaten that the law will drive researchers offshore ... but to where? To New Zealand? To Samoa? To Indonesia?

      What about the EU? Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, France, Italy? There are a couple of countries who look for talented scientist.

  29. An army runs on its stomach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Food / agricultural research is also dual use.

  30. Outraged x2 by countach · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm outraged by this law, sure.

    But I'm doubly outraged that I had to read on slashdot that this just passed the senate and there has been ZERO coverage of this in the mainstream media. Shame on you Fairfax, News Ltd and ABC. You went to sleep and betrayed us.

    1. Re:Outraged x2 by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      You cannot rely on TV directly controlled by the government and even less on private news corporations. The first say what the leading party says and latter indoctrinate you in the ideas of the owners. Anyway, I am sorry for you and your country to be governed by such mean people.

  31. Re:5 eyes becoming a military dictator alliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "5 eyes becoming a military dictator alliance"

    Don't like your feminist police states?
    Violently overthrow them and torture your enemies to death.
    That or shut up.

  32. Meh by DMJC · · Score: 1

    I would be outraged, except Australia really hasn't got a tech industry. Try naming a CPU developed here since 1995....Good luck. same with Applications. I can't name a single top ten application that was written in Australia and I can barely list some games that were developed here. Australia's high tech industry is essentially dead. We do some minor solar research, never fund it enough and barely make anything any more. Hell we can't even make cars after 2017. We're the tourism/mining/agriculture country. Just waiting for a giant housing crash to wipe out all the savings now. We're more over leveraged than the US was before the GFC.

    1. Re:Meh by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      They had great pride in active missile decoy work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... and over-the-horizon radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
      Now it will be all about tracking online comments and finding who in Australia posted a dual use paragraph.

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

      OpenSSL was made in Australia under the name SSLeay.

    3. Re:Meh by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Desktop applications, like games and office tools, and enterprise applications used in businesses are not the only applications. Many more are developed for embedded systems in cars, trains, planes, machinery, houses, control systems of all sorts. In German economy the relationship between enterprise and embedded systems 8 to 20 mrd. Euro. Normally, you do not hear anything about those software systems. Anyway, this new law may cause severe damage to the scientific community in Australia. Looks like a really stupid idea. Well, you may want to visit Europe if this too much already.

    4. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *That's* the one! OT: I've been racking my brain for the name of that thing -- Jindalee -- for a while. Look at the coverage map of the radar and then look at the plotted routes of MH370 ... if this f*cking thing worked, we should know *exactly* where the remains of that plane are.

  33. From the mouths of the Acedemics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=14713

    1. Re:From the mouths of the Acedemics by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      What would you say, when they hold a "gun" to your head? They have been in a bipartisan board where one side are military guys and the government and on the other side are scientists entangled with universities and the government spending in that area. The alternative would have been total containment. That's how such things run. On one side human rights and on the other side "security" and power. In the end you have to compromise. And human rights are restricted.

  34. The peopelhanded over there guns to the goverment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like that worked out GREAT!

  35. All modern law is a recipe for selective enforceme by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    If the cops aren't required to arrest everyone who commits any arrestable defense, then by definition you have selective enforcement. Our entire system of law is actually designed for it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  36. Yes, right from inception -"beer of revenge" by dbIII · · Score: 1

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
    http://www.themalthouse.co.nz/blog/125-the-beer-of-revenge

    Louis Pasteur's beer is the basis of Fosters.

  37. Re:The DSGL list contains processors 40 MHz !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that effectively bans the arduino DUE running at 84Mhz
    Lets see if I can find another common sense fail during my lunchbreak ...
    Bingo:
    9A012 “Unmanned aerial vehicles” (“UAVs”), associated systems, equipment and components, as follows:
    a. “UAVs” having any of the following:
    1. An autonomous flight control and navigation capability (e.g., an autopilot with an Inertial Navigation System); or
    2. Capability of controlledflight out of the direct vision range involving a human operator (e.g., televisual remote control);
    9B010 Equipment specially designed for the production of “UAVs” and associated systems, equipment and components, specified in 9A012.

    No FPV-drone racing for australia

  38. The USA already did that, hence RSA by dbIII · · Score: 2

    The USA already did that for a while, hence RSA having to do their work offshore for many years due to utterly insane export restrictions.

  39. I very strongly disagree by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I very strongly disagree - it's quickly turning to shit. Full steam ahead into the cliff and nothing slow about it.
    Cutting everything other than quarrying when the mining boom is over is onion skin eating insane.

  40. Dear australian scientists by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    if your live is in jeopardy in Australia, you might consider coming to western Europe. We do not have wild animals with bags running through the outback. However, we have a real diverse set of climates and the best of it, we are not already that rotten that we have such laws. (Please note: It might be different in the UK).

  41. Re:Well, I guess they don't need to do any science by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Someone should show time MacGyver. They will limit access to toilet paper, knifes etc.

  42. Re:Well, I guess they don't need to do any science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some old story about regular motherboard parts having a dual use with certain missile control systems comes to mind...

    Use a computer? You could theoretically be covered by the law. Seems like a clusterfuck to me...

  43. Immoral law by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Instead of making their homework politicians try to control knowledge. Beside the fact that this ever backfired in history, it is also stupid in terms of the economy. Europe will rather sooner then later reduce its demand on coal and China is also doing it. Other natural resources are also limited and will not support the country for ever. You could see what happens to a country which has a ideological closed view of the world if you look at Venezuela. While it is important to give the poor schools and food, they messed it up, as they are totally oil dependent. In Australia this could go the same way, if the scientific community is frightened and leaves the country. By the way what do they think they can do about those Chinese studying in Australia, are their no longer allowed to take their heads with them?

    I've heard those people in charge in AUS are Christians. Well recently, a British cleric stated that it is immoral to reject the gift of knowledge http://www.theguardian.com/env... and that is exactly that what they are doing.

  44. Weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if they all had weapons to threaten their politicians with, then they would truely be more free.

  45. CSIRO by tepples · · Score: 1

    I mean, what kind of cool inventions have come out of Australia lately?

    An anonymous comment mentioned Wi-Fi. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is responsible for at least a dozen other inventions.

  46. Satellite and cellular Internet by tepples · · Score: 1

    Just not over RF broadcasts.

    Then all the bad guys have to do to deny you freedom of speech is deny you wired Internet. This means you have to transmit your Internet connection over RF.

    1. Re:Satellite and cellular Internet by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      Literalism is such an unpleasant thing. By RF broadcasts I am specifically referring to the thing that the FCC asserts authority over: high power transmissions from large centrally located antennas operating in a one-to-many mode. While the FCC regulates siting, frequency allocation, and power levels over point-to-point and telephone transmitters, it has never asserted authority over the content of the transmissions and wouldn't dare try.

  47. Re:All modern law is a recipe for selective enforc by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then the problems are that 1. too many offenses are arrestable, and 2. too many people arrested for whistleblowing are given prison terms.

  48. Re:All modern law is a recipe for selective enforc by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    If the cops aren't required to arrest everyone who commits any arrestable defense, then by definition you have selective enforcement.

    Cops and prosecutors don't have unlimited resources, so by definition they have to pick and chose which laws to enforce. Ideally, this means they threaten the 19 year old who gets it on with her 16 year old boyfriend with probation rather than having to register as a sex offender for the next 30 years, and instead focus on the deputy mayor who got caught slapping his wife around. It doesn't mean sending Kirkarou to prison for three years for revealing some of the CIA's torture, and then giving Petreaus a slap on the wrist for using beyond-top-secret information to impress his mistress.

    Our entire system of law is actually designed for it.

    That's sounding a little Randian. The solution to corrupt actors within the state isn't to get rid of the state, but the corrupt actors.

  49. Re:All modern law is a recipe for selective enforc by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Cops and prosecutors don't have unlimited resources, so by definition they have to pick and chose which laws to enforce.

    The state doesn't have unlimited resources, so by definition it should not make laws it can't or shouldn't reasonably enforce.

    Ideally, this means they threaten the 19 year old who gets it on with her 16 year old boyfriend with probation rather than having to register as a sex offender for the next 30 years, and instead focus on the deputy mayor who got caught slapping his wife around.

    Alas, we know that's not how it works.

    That's sounding a little Randian.

    Only if you have poor reading comprehension skills.

    The solution to corrupt actors within the state isn't to get rid of the state, but the corrupt actors.

    Nobody suggested abolishing the state.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"