Draconian Aussie Science Censorship Law Takes Effect Next Month (theconversation.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Conversation reports that beginning next month Australian scientists and engineers face 10 years imprisonment for communicating without a government permit on biotech, robotics or manufacturing. Geoffrey Roberston QC says the laws are "sloppily drafted" and threatens research with "no sensible connection to military technology". But the government is barreling ahead, despite warnings from Defence Report it will kill Australia's high-tech economy. The law is opposed by Civil Liberties Australia where scientists are petitioning against it.

Comments

Better for everyone else

[Dog-Cow]

Keep going, Australia! Committing economic suicide makes it better for everyone else. Thanks for taking one for the team!

Re:Better for everyone else

[dbIII]

With the current political masters anything other than selling houses, financial planning, selling luxury imported cars, selling dirt (why bother processing it?) and naturopathy is the work of those greasy Moorlocks and should be stamped out. That includes farming despite their almost powerless coalition partners being supposedly a party for farmers.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is not a zero sum game. If Australians were rich and sensible they would buy and use more of your products. If they did that you would buy more of their products. Everybody would be happy. Only idiots think that "take take take" will make them richer (long term) and in the same way, if Australia goes crazy it means one less place to escape to when your country goes bad.

Re: Better for everyone else

[harvey the nerd]

Idiot. Those guns are why our (un)civil serpents (wannabe masters) even slow down from imitating yours.

Drugs? Don't take them and don't hang around those that do. Castle doctrine and stand your ground even means you can shoot the criminally bad ones.you fear.

Slavery? You mean work? Well yes, maybe more than la dolce vida Aussies used to have.

The white dentists and engineers are going abroad where the women are friendly.

Re:Better for everyone else

[TapeCutter]

The recent rash of anti-science and pro-military actions of our government are a direct consequence of Abbot stacking the public service with far right loons when he became PM. Tony was Australia's Trump light, he was (and still is) itching for us to go to war with somebody, it doesn't seem to matter who that somebody is. As with Trump, Abbot (aka the mad monk) is a private school bully boy who drove a xenophobic wedge thru his own party to gain and hold onto personal power.

Re: Better for everyone else

[TapeCutter]

Mate, I'd seriously consider buying a one way ticket for a wanker like you.

Re:Better for everyone else

[cold fjord]

We are fortunate indeed that Trump has come along, otherwise how could we understand Australian politics?

Re:Better for everyone else

[dbIII]

They are a party for their own pockets but are "supposedly a party for farmers". They are currently led by an accountant who had a history of giving water rights to a multinational cotton company by taking it away from local food producers.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the USA is big into "local government" - typically, police, fire department, schools, etc are all managed and funded at the level of very small districts. For example, in Los Angeles, some of the best public schools in the USA are literally only a few miles from some of the worst public schools in the USA. And, of course, if you want to live in one of the best school districts in the USA then you're going to have to either live in a very small apartment or be very rich. So, yes, there are places in Rhode Island and Massachusetts that are very dangerous and there are places in New Mexico and Florida that are very safe.

But the broader point is that, at this point, the USA as a whole is now very ethnically and racially diverse. So any neighborhood that is good enough that the best and brightest in the USA are actively moving there will be quite ethnically and racially diverse. The only exception is old predominantly white neighborhoods that used to be very good and where all the good people haven't yet got around to moving away yet - typically these neighborhoods have mostly old people.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Archtech]

I'm thinking about jumping ship for the US.

If you are looking for actual freedom, may I suggest (controversial!) that you consider Russia? Those of a certain age (especially aficionados of Tom Clancy) may scowl at the mere suggestion of "going over to the Reds". But if you are younger and reasonably open-minded, please look at the evidence. There is actually more freedom in Russia these days than anywhere in "the West". For instance, it may soon be one of the few places where you can be sure of getting healthy GM-free food.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Archtech]

Aldous Huxley nailed this syndrome well over half a century ago. He wrote that:

"One of the many reasons for the bewildering and tragic character of human existence is the fact that social organization is at once necessary and fatal. Men are forever creating such organizations for their own convenience and forever finding themselves the victims of their home-made monsters".

So people create governments to keep them safe and provide law and order. Gradually the governments grow, until they become massive cancerous organizations concerned mostly with their own survival - and further growth. Eventually they either kill the host, or have to be overthrown in bloody wars or revolutions.

Re:Better for everyone else

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The recent rash of anti-science and pro-military actions of our government.

It sounds like you are an Australian . . . did you get a government permit to post your comment . . . ?

Otherwise, it's off to prison with you, we'll all see you back here in 10 years.

Re: Better for everyone else

[gweihir]

I seriously cannot tell whether you are really this extremely stupid or whether your posting is satiric.

Re:Better for everyone else

[gweihir]

Yep. Because the one critical skill the human race has not mastered is keeping those with a thirst for power and control of others under control. If we could identify and them drown them at birth, this planet would be paradise.

Re:Better for everyone else

[drsmithy]

Kinda.

Australia is the country whose leaders have, for the last thirty or so years, looked to the US and UK and decided "the problem these guys have is that they're just not going hard enough".

Re:Better for everyone else

[CurryCamel]

The world is not a zero sum game. If Australians were rich and sensible they would buy and use more of your products.

I disagree: untill we learn to mine asteroids, it sort of is a zero-sum game. Currently we seem to be quite a lot in the red, and I for one agree with GP and salute Australia's effort of turning the world to a more sustainable pace of consumption.
Your profits be damned.

Re:Better for everyone else

[loonycyborg]

It's not economic suicide. It could be academic suicide, but more like most of those scientists will be allowed to work once they paid appropriate bribes.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, this sentiment was already expressed by Thomas Jefferson around the turn of the 18th century. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots; it is a natural manure." John Adams fiercely disagreed because he believed people could solve their internal differences without bloodshed. I'd argue that they've both been right, so far, since the USA has had a civil war, but also many successful, peaceful changes of government. The folks who wrote the US Constitution were intimately familiar with the type of BS governing the Aussies are having to put up with, and put every protection in place they could think of to slow it down.

Re:Better for everyone else

[dreamchaser]

I'm not so sure that is true in today's global economy. When any country takes an economic hit it has a ripple effect.

Re: Better for everyone else

[DNS-and-BIND]

Russia stopped being red 25 years ago. Didn't you get the memo? Today the reds are all in America and doing quite well.

Re:Better for everyone else

[AmiMoJo]

Name one post-war western democracy that has either "killed its host" or been violently overthrown.

It used to be true, but we have worked out how to make democracy stable now.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

No they arent, this is a blatant lie. compare black areas to mostly white states like VT or NH. Not even high prevalence of gun ownership can counteract the sheer difference in violent crime rates.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Salgak1]

Ahem. Do you have a PERMIT on file for asking Nationality ? 20 years for that. . . . (grin)

Re:Better for everyone else

[Salgak1]

Really ? That would explain the really high violent crime rates in Utah, which is about as ethnically diverse as a loaf of Wonder Bread. Except they're about half the national average. You get high crime with large deltas in income over a small area. . .

Re: Better for everyone else

[deadweight]

The USA *had* a problem with slavery in the 19th century. WTF - Do you expect to see slaves out picking cotton in 2016?

Re:Better for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree: untill we learn to mine asteroids, it sort of is a zero-sum game.

It is a zero-sum game only on extremely short scales - i.e. high-frequency trading.

On 1-10 year scale, it is not zero-sum because we create value by turning raw materials & energy into complicated products. Eventually, most raw materials run out, but it still won't be a zero-sum game. We have a continous influx of energy from the sun, and on long timescales we have new science too. 40 years from now, we'll make products that are impossible today. Similiar to how we now have stuff that wasn't possible 40 years ago. (Such as anything 'small' with computing power inside.)

Re:Better for everyone else

[Applehu Akbar]

So Australia is in an anti-science race with the US, then?

With a little more cooperation between the two societies instead, we could both reach the Stone Age faster. The US can contribute a lot of Bible technology and has the world's most powerful set of activist lawyers who are old hands at shutting down science, while Australia can contribute the police-state methods that we have been behind in.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada here, Australian politicians seem like a bunch of crazy far right freaks to us here. Everything going on there seems to be driving Aussies into a totalitarian world of control.

AC

Re:Better for everyone else

[Anonymous Coward]

Wars don't happen over ideology or religion or tyrannical government - those are instead the excuses. War is rarely caused by power struggle alone either. The real cause is always resource conflict, and it is bound to happen over and over in any human population that grows. When growth outlasts the food supply, a class of poor & starving people emerge. then they go to war/revolt (or are led by someone power-hungry) in the hope of improving their situation. This explains almost all war & revolution in history. Without a resource shortage, any competent government can buy peace. Democracy or one-man rule doesn't matter then. Well fed people rarely revolt only for free speech. Too much to loose if the government wins.

After WWII we had a green revolution, postponing starvation for about one generation. In that timespan, contraception took over as the "stabilizing factor". This is why we have long-lasting peace and very long periods of economic growth in the west.

The green revolution was simple enough to export elsewhere - but if culture/religion/superstition keep the birthrates up, you only need one generation to overwhelm a larger food supply. Which is why some other places fail today. Calling contraceptives "a sin" and wanting 8+ kids per family is to want recurring wars - it really is that simple.

Re:Better for everyone else

[fustakrakich]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people like tyranny? How else could there be so much of it?

Re:Better for everyone else

[Nunya666]

The recent rash of anti-science and pro-military actions of our government are a direct consequence of Abbot stacking the public service with far right loons when he became PM. Tony was Australia's Trump light, he was (and still is) itching for us to go to war with somebody, it doesn't seem to matter who that somebody is. As with Trump, Abbot (aka the mad monk) is a private school bully boy who drove a xenophobic wedge thru his own party to gain and hold onto personal power.

Then this, quite frankly, serves Australians right for electing these halfwits into government.

So what will be your opinion of America after the upcoming presidential elections? Will you judge us after a moron becomes president, when our only choice was to choose from a pool of morons?

Re:Better for everyone else

[Archtech]

"The real cause is always resource conflict..."

Exactly as I said. The government keeps sweeping up more and more and more resources, until there is literally not enough left for those few people who are not part of the government or sheltered by its patronage.

Have you ever heard of a government that reduced its consumption of resources from any one year to the next? Ever?

Re:Better for everyone else

[Archtech]

The obvious (glaringly obvious, actually) example is Russia. Between 1991 and 2000, Russia as a nation was virtually annihilated. Then Putin took over and gradually began putting it back together.

You will no doubt object that it was the oligarchs, not the government, that nearly killed Russia in the 1990s. But they could not have done that without the active assistance of the pathetic Yeltsin government.

One day, the Russian government will no doubt start to grow too big. Because Russia is the largest nation in the world, however, and has such immense resources proportional to its population, the government has a lot of room for growth.

In the USA, the process has almost run its course. In the 1790s, the USA was sparsely populated and had immense space and resources to take up. Since then, government has consistently expanded faster than the nation and its economy. Today we have an unsustainable situation in which a tiny fraction of super-rich individuals own more property than the rest of the nation put together. Virtually all of those oligarchs are hand-in-glove with the federal, state and local governments - jsut as in Russia in the 1990s. Unluckily for Americans, there will be no Putin to come along and give them a fresh start. The American federal cancer (sorry, government) has metastasized and grown too much. It probably could not be removed without killing the patient.

Stick around a while and see, if you have a taste for blood and disaster.

Re:Better for everyone else

[AmiMoJo]

I asked for an example of a post-war western government. You picked a government east of the Iron Curtain, emerging from the cold war into a broken democracy that hasn't had the time to mature like western European ones have.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Archtech]

I think it's not so much that people like tyranny, as that we instinctively want a strong leader. We evolved from communal apes whose groups - varying in size from a single family to a clan of perhaps 200 - could only survive if they had strong, undisputed leadership. Such a leader (we might call him a "silverback", even though the phenomenon applies to chimps and many monkeys, too) may not always be right, but he must be decisive. A study of natural history programs, or books, or even a few visits to the Zoo, show that leaders often assert their authority in unfair ways. They randomly bite and strike others, apparently just to keep them apprised of who is the boss. Because when a crisis occurs, or a decision has to be made, the rest of them must wait for his call and then obey it unquestioningly.

None of this sounds very nice from a human philosophic, political science, or ethical viewpoint. But that's just the way it is. The alternative, of not having a clear-cut leader, tends to be fatal for everyone in the group.

So while clever academics (from Plato on) devise their schemes of ideal government, we remain instinctively apes with ape instincts and needs. When there is trouble, we find we want a strong leader to tell us what to do. It's not a matter of thought, it's something that leaps out of our hindbrains and takes us over - just as you pull your hand away when you tocuh a hot surface, without having any time to think about it.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Archtech]

Ironically, a very similar scheme has been evolved by armed forces through the years. When you join the army, navy or air force you undertake to obey orders unhesitatingly and unquestioningly, no matter what your personal opinion might be. Indeed, basic training usually aims to drive all personal opinion clean out of your mind. So, in a way, the armed forces recognize that when danger threatens we must return to "the way of the ape" and subordinate ourselves wholly for the good of the group.

Re:Better for everyone else

[fustakrakich]

Most people won't acknowledge how natural we really are. The brain stem is still the true master. All the surrounding gray matter is there to serve.

Re:Better for everyone else

[drinkypoo]

It used to be true, but we have worked out how to make democracy stable now.

Name a nation which is living sustainably, regardless of its government. And keep in mind that they're responsible for their commerce with other nations. Now, show us again on the map where the stable democracy is located.

If there's a nation on this planet which can be called stable, I don't know where it is. It's deck chairs all the way down.

Re:Better for everyone else

[drinkypoo]

On 1-10 year scale, it is not zero-sum because we create value by turning raw materials & energy into complicated products. Eventually, most raw materials run out, but it still won't be a zero-sum game.

On the long scale it's a negative-sum game, because we're spending natural capital that we can't replenish. For example, there is no topsoil factory.

Re: Better for everyone else

[St.Creed]

The Mafia only bothers you when you're really succesful, or when you (like Derek Sauer) control media that politicians actively dislike or want to control.
If you're unsuccessful, you just starve. It's a fine line between the two. Oh, and don't even think about migrating if you don't speak the language or are busy learning it - that goes for almost every country but Russia more than some others.

Re: Better for everyone else

[jeremyp]

Unless you are gay, or you disagree with Putin on anything.

Re:Better for everyone else

[bzipitidoo]

No, people like rules. We bathe in rules the same as frogs live in water. Lawmaking is like applying heat to the water. Nice at first, then uncomfortable. The powerful are always testing the people, seeing what outrageous rulemaking they can get away with. It's up to us to push back. There's little choice but to boil or rebel.

But there is so much to oppose that it's difficult to keep up with it all. There's the TPP and copyright extremism, the War on Drugs and high prescription drug prices (which extreme intellectual property laws empower), rackets that target automobile owners such as parking meter enforcement, speed traps, and red light cameras, telecoms monopolies on Internet service, and so on. Redflex, one of the major red light camera service providers, is Australian.

Plus, every jurisdiction has their own peculiar home grown racket. The US state of Virginia has a little extra requirement for automobiles: no cracked windshields. The excuse is safety. Healthcare is a big racket in the US. Australia has an especially weird one: cemetery lots. Yes, one of the top nations in the world for unused space claims there isn't enough room for the dead, there is no ownership of grave sites, there is only rental, and descendants must renew the leases of their dead ancestors every 50 years, or the grave sites will be reused. To add to the insult, if unpaid, the markers with the names of the dead are removed.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Enigma2175]

I'm thinking about jumping ship for the US.

If you are looking for actual freedom, may I suggest (controversial!) that you consider Russia? Those of a certain age (especially aficionados of Tom Clancy) may scowl at the mere suggestion of "going over to the Reds". But if you are younger and reasonably open-minded, please look at the evidence. There is actually more freedom in Russia these days than anywhere in "the West". For instance, it may soon be one of the few places where you can be sure of getting healthy GM-free food.

Russia has freedom? Tell that to the members of Pussy Riot, who were jailed for protesting the Russian Orthodox Church. I'm sure they are feeling quite free.

Re:Better for everyone else

[operagost]

Today we have an unsustainable situation in which a tiny fraction of super-rich individuals own more property than the rest of the nation put together.

The federal government is the largest, richest landlord.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Tablizer]

Same applies to multinational conglomerates.

Re:Better for everyone else

[doctorfaustus]

It doesn't sound life they're leftists. They sound like far right wingnuts.... At least the ones under discussion here, who seem to have a majority

Re: Better for everyone else

[orgelspieler]

Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good plane.

Re:Better for everyone else

[orgelspieler]

We evolved from communal apes whose groups ... a leader (we might call him a "silverback")... may not always be right, but he must be decisive. ... assert their authority in unfair ways. They randomly bite and strike others, apparently just to keep them apprised of who is the boss.

Trump makes so much more sense now!!

Re:Better for everyone else

[sudon't]

Yeah, I've learned some things recently about Australia that kinda blew my mind. I had no idea it was such a conservative country. I certainly never got that impression from the Australians I've met.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Hognoxious]

The folks who wrote the US Constitution were intimately familiar with the type of BS governing the Aussies are having to put up with

Unlikely, because it didn't exist at the time.

No, by "it" I don't mean Australia - any fule kno that it's existed for nearly 6,000 years.

Re:Better for everyone else

[wyHunter]

American Democrats ARE statist rightwing fanatics.

Re:Better for everyone else

[wyHunter]

Sshh you're going against the leftist ideology that it's only the evil corporations that oppress.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Rakarra]

I'm not sure Trump is the biggest moron although definitely a contender. Cruz wants to abolish the IRS. It is a little hard to have a government without taxes.

Ugh. I can't believe I'm defending Ted Cruz. Please understand, this isn't something I do often.
Cruz never proposed a government without taxes. He did say that taxes should be entirely flat, and so simple that every person could put their earnings on a postcard and send it in. No deductions, no write-offs, no capital gains, no AMT, no inheritance tax, nothing like that. Just income which gets deducted at 10% or something like that.

There would be -some- type of department that processes those cards, but since it'd be so simple, and probably automated, it would be an extremely small one. It wouldn't be the IRS either, in Cruz's world the IRS is so corrupt and dangerous and incapable of reform that he would fire each and every one of them, and start up a totally different, incredibly small service.

I don't understand their strange obsession with Planned Parenthood either

Cruz is a hard-core evangelical, and in their world, abortion is one of the greatest evils of our time, or at least, the greatest evil that has been allowed to stay legal. They do see it as murder, and it feeds into their dystopian view of government as the evil which ends lives, crushes individuality, enforces conformity for evil ends. Even the ill-advised name Planned Parenthood feeds into their story. "Children weren't part of our plan, so it is fine to murder them. And then sell their organs for profit." Trump actually looked like the moderate (despite his wacko, wacko stances and rhetoric, he's far more moderate than the other candidates left other than Kasich) by being the only one willing to acknowledge that Planned Parenthood actually does something other than provide abortions. Cruz actually had the balls in the debate to outright challenge any assertion that they provided useful services other than abortions.

We live in crazy times.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Rakarra]

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Cruz's fixation over Planned Parenthood recently was a Super Tuesday southern strategy to court the evangelical base which doesn't feel comfortable with Trump.

Re:Better for everyone else

[vivian]

When we have a vote to boot out a govornment that they then ignore, we'll worry about that.
Meanwhile, I like not feeling like I should throw myself to the ground every time a car backfires.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Rakarra]

So you're saying that Rhode Island or Massachusetts is more dangerous than New Mexico or Florida ?

Forgive me if I find that a little hard to believe on the face of it.

Have you actually been to New Mexico? It's an absolutely fantastic place.

Re:Better for everyone else

[drsmithy]

It took a decade or so longer for the RWNJ neoliberals to really get a foothold, but now they have Australia is spiralling the same drain as the rest of the western world.

The country was doomed when Howard was elected in '96. Up until that point, we had a chance.

Re: Better for everyone else

[Rakarra]

Idiot. Those guns are why our (un)civil serpents (wannabe masters) even slow down from imitating yours.

I... what, you really think this? All it means is that the SWAT guys wear a bit more body armor. That's IT.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Rakarra]

We hear all the time in the US about how we need to "harmonize our laws" with those of other countries, usually an excuse for creating more IP law. It's a cycle we see often: another country passes a law more extreme than ours. We have to "harmonize" or else... I'm not sure why else. We look bad? We don't want to be second? I'm not sure why, but then the more extreme version of the law is put into place in the US. Rinse and repeat.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Rakarra]

No, people like rules. We bathe in rules the same as frogs live in water.

I think The Dark Knight movie is underrated in the writing department. I always liked this little speech from the Joker: "You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"

Re:Better for everyone else

[dsmatthews9379]

You didn't want to pay us for WiFi royalties anyway,

Re:Better for everyone else

[drinkypoo]

A well managed farm is a topsoil factory, actually.

A well-managed toilet is a topsoil factory. Sadly, we're short on both of those things.

Re:Better for everyone else

[gweihir]

Only for a minute or so, then they are free to reincarnate wherever they chose. And those not affected will not get controlled at all. Of course, there is no way to tell who suffers from this evil and who does not, so the whole idea is not practical.

Re:Better for everyone else

[HornWumpus]

Cruz is a genuine thumper.

You can tell: constant scowl, beady eyes.

Re:Better for everyone else

[harlequinn]

In think totalitarian control is politically left (communism). But some argue it is politically right as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I prefer this clarification of left vs right:
https://www.theobjectivestanda...

Yes, they are the politically right party in our country.

What I'm getting at is that overall, compared to the USA, our politicians (including the right) are politically very left.
A great example is how our right wing government enacted tight gun control ,reducing personal freedom, which is considered left.
Another great example is the topic at hand, the new draconian censorship laws which again reduces personal freedom, and is considered a left wing ideology.
Both parties spend heavily on social security, free health care, public schooling, etc. Again politically left.
Australian's don't enjoy protected free speech. Say something offensive and you can be charged. Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could.
Australian's don't enjoy the right to self defense. (but it is a defense to a charge of assault). Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could.
Etc. I could go on for quite a bit more.

Re:Better for everyone else

[harlequinn]

Ignoring the huge difference in sound pressure levels between a car backfiring and a gun firing, they sound very different and are easily distinguished by the human ear.

I think your perception of firearms is wrong.

Re:Better for everyone else

[dbIII]

The politically right haven't changed this even though they could.

The last guy on the right who wanted to make racist speech completely free got a call from an Israeli lobby group and reminded him of the free holiday they sent him on.
That's not being critical of the lobby group or implying that they didn't send people from across the political spectrum on study tours (annoying how I have to put disclaimers on EVERYTHING on this site now) - just pointing out that the guy pushing for change didn't think about who he would be pissing off.
Despite Australia having a very small Jewish population (due to a thing called the "White Australia Policy" decades back) there is a bit of anti-semitism in odd groups here and there. The lobby group wanted to retain some way to deal with the anti-semitism.

Re:Better for everyone else

[harlequinn]

There were clearly reasonably good choices early on who've dropped out. Frankly, American's are spoiled for choice compared to Australia.

Re:Better for everyone else

[dbIII]

In think totalitarian control is politically left

Totalitarian control is the lazy (and brutal) way out for any form of government and it's best to remember that historically monarchies have done it as well as communists. The main point of 1984 was that something akin to what Stalin was doing could happen closer to home.

Re:Better for everyone else

[mjwx]

Keep going, Australia! Committing economic suicide makes it better for everyone else. Thanks for taking one for the team!

Hi, this is what happens when ideologically driven ultra conservatives get into power. Abbott and the Coalition were elected on a platform of hate and fear of the previous guys that centred around an anti-immigration stance. Basically what Trump is doing now but with less pizzazz, money and bad hairpieces.

Remember that as you see Trump's name on any voting card. Australia is your warning.

And you're quite right about the economic side effects but that is par for the course, the Coalition has been dedicated to fucking up the Australian economy since September 2013. This is hardly the first step they've taken to make the economy worse.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Archtech]

As do many other bosses and leaders.

Re: Better for everyone else

[KGIII]

I didn't have much time yesterday and I probably won't have much today but... Err... Hmm... I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing? I own firearms that no wearable armor is even going to remotely help with. There are light armored vehicles that aren't going to deflect a round. There's no body armor they can even dream up that will stop a round from penetrating - at least not that they've come up with yet.

And, they're perfectly legal. Well, not in California. I'm pretty sure CA has a limit at .49 caliber. 'Cause that extra .01" matters. So, of course, we now have .48 and (I'm pretty sure) .49. I do not own any of those calibers except for an old-timey muzzle loader which calipers tell me is .4875 or something like that. It has its own casting equipment, it's kind of old. (Early 1800s I think.)

Anyhow, I have not just one but several .50 caliber firearms - not counting a couple of .50 that are muzzle loaders. Not that I'd ever shoot anyone with 'em or anything. It's just that armor doesn't stop as much as one might think. You can triple layer that armor. That won't even make the armor tumble. A friend of mine works in a shop that assembles (not makes, not any more) Kevlar. We've not actually found any width that stops it - and we've gone all the way up to a full inch of the thick woven stuff. It blasts right on through - from a *very* long ways away.

I like to think I'm a bit of an aficionado and not a nut. I don't expect to use firearms to overthrow my government. I'd probably not shoot an intruder. I'd certainly not shoot a mugger or a thief. I've got insurance. But, I'm the quintessential five year old and like things that go boom. So, no... Hell, I'm not even a trivia nut. Things that go vroom and things that go boom bring out the child in me. I really love putting holes in paper. If I could find a *legal* way to do both driving and shooting at the same time, I'd do that. I wouldn't dream or hurting anyone and I eat every living thing I shoot.

Well no... I don't eat the bacteria or whatnot. I've certainly probably shot an insect or two but I didn't eat those. So, aficionado, not nut. The sad thing is I feel obligated to clarify. There are a bunch of gun nuts. It is true, I'm pretty big on the 2nd Amendment, but I'm actually kind of partial to all of them.

Re:Better for everyone else

[KGIII]

Hmm... You didn't serve in the military, did you?

Re:Better for everyone else

[KGIII]

I've not got much time again today (busy, long story) but it's also important to note the differences between the US law and Australian law.

I am not a lawyer in either jurisdiction and I suspect you can explain this better than I. But, I noticed nobody mentioned this so I scrolled back up.

Hmm... How to communicate with an Aussie, lesson one...

It don't mean bugger all, mate. Them poli cunts can write all the laws they want to. When I get down to the court, down there, it's up to the judge to decide my fate and if he can't be stuffed to enforce it then it sets precedent. It doesn't even need to go to the upper-courts, just a bloke down at the local gets to interpret it.

Now in English...

It's not that important. The politicians can make up any laws they want. However, unlike the US, even a lower-court judge gets to decide how it's enforced or even if it is enforced at all. Once that's done, there's usually a precedent set. There's usually no need for the higher/supreme courts to get involved and they often don't.

Rhyming slang not included.

Re: Better for everyone else

[BurningFeetMan]

There is nothing sustainable about what we do here. Just look at how developers have been cutting down the forests of our beloved Koala bear... Sums up the entire country.

Re:Better for everyone else

[Rakarra]

Cruz is a genuine thumper.

You can tell: constant scowl, beady eyes.

Don't forget the "punchable face!" (Thank you, SNL...)

Re:Better for everyone else

[eric_harris_76]

Actually, that's not how trade works. But I suppose that wasn't an entirely serious comment.

Re:Better for everyone else

[lucien86]

A law sending scientists to jail for 10 years for speaking without government permission? That's Kim Jong Un NK territory.

What if...

[vikingpower]

...this nightmare had unintended and unforeseen positive side-effects, with researchers setting off in entirely new fields ? Granted, this is just a desperate attempt at seeing at least some positivity in something very, very disheartening.

Re:What if...

[Syberz]

From what I understood, the law is so poorly written that even "entirely new fields" would fall under it's umbrella and the scientists would still be boned.

I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[DiSKiLLeR]

I left Australia more than 6 years ago... best decision I ever made, never going back.

Keep running the country into the ground, you're doing a great job.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[serbanp]

If you think that Scandinavia is really good (for immigrants), I can tell that you're not well informed. You may be white, with freckles and blond hair, and well educated, and still you'll be perceived as second class, as chauvinism and dissonance are on the rise in the former Utopialand. The recent influx of refugees is also hastening the process.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[Sax Russell 5449D29A]

And this is based on what? My personal experience is quite the contrary.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

... get ranked as best / most-livable in the world.

Except Sydney which ranks among London and NYC as the least-livable.

... funding and regulation of scientific research ...

Yes, what was one of Australia's jewels, is being gutted by the conservative government.

... treatment of refugees ...

Australia has a small population and can't afford to subsidize the 30,000 plus refugees who pay smugglers to bring them to Australia. Settled refugees flock to the big cities, causing a massive increase in the cost of living. Worse, certain foreigners refuse to assimilate, creating an isolated community with a decreasing standard of living and increasing crime. Australia has just recovered from the damage caused by refugees settled here in the 1980s. A lot of people don't want to approach that hot potato again.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[spyfrog]

According to Wikipedia, you have an population of 21 million people. Sweden has 9.5 million and managed to have 100.000 immigrants in 2014 and was overwhelmed with over 170.000 in 2015. So I am quite sure you could manage 30.000 without problem.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[drsmithy]

Australia has a small population and can't afford to subsidize the 30,000 plus refugees who pay smugglers to bring them to Australia. Settled refugees flock to the big cities, causing a massive increase in the cost of living. Worse, certain foreigners refuse to assimilate, creating an isolated community with a decreasing standard of living and increasing crime. Australia has just recovered from the damage caused by refugees settled here in the 1980s. A lot of people don't want to approach that hot potato again.

This is complete bullshit. Refugees are a rounding error in Australia's immigrant intake over any meaningful timeframe.

They do, however, provide a convenient scapegoat for the people's quite reasonable concern over the extremely high immigration rate and tragic underinvestment in infrastructure.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[drsmithy]

The major cities in Australia often get ranked as best / most-livable in the world.

Because those liveability lists are largely based on surveying highly paid expatriates.

For normal people, they're basically useless.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[harlequinn]

There are 24 million people in Australia. We take over 200,000 migrants (net) a year.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats...

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[mjwx]

There are 24 million people in Australia. We take over 200,000 migrants (net) a year.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats...

It should be noted that the largest single entrant type was Australian Citizen (I.E. ex-pats returning back to Oz on a permanent basis) being 16% of all arrivals... Humanitarian visas make up only 1.2% of arrivals and 2.5% of net migration. It should also be noted that 52% of net migration are temporary visas, So over 120,000 are expected to leave Australia. This brings that number down quite a bit. The largest subgroup of permanent visas by net migration are still Kiwi's (New Zealanders) with subclass 444 taking up 17.6% of net migration. In terms of raw people that is 41,000 staying in Oz. The majority of permanent migration in Australia is skilled or family. This certainly puts the fear mongering over immigration into perspective. Australia is to be destroyed by 5,000 people? If that were remotely true, we'd deserve it for being that weak.

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[brantondaveperson]

Australia has just recovered from the damage caused by refugees settled here in the 1980s.

Australia never recovered from the refugees that settled there in the mid 1800's. Before that, the place was perfectly fine.

Re: I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[brantondaveperson]

Welcome to Australia....

Re:I left Australia more than 6 years ago...

[harlequinn]

Australian Citizens were also the single largest exit type, with more leaving than arriving - a net loss of 2.6% (in that particular year).

All things considered Australia is not doing too badly, ranking 19th in the world for resettlement of refugees in 2012.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org....

Clowns in office

[hengist]

This is just another example of how clueless the current Australian government is. It explains why there are now more New Zealanders moving from Australia to New Zealand, than from New Zealand to Australia. That hasn't been the case for decades!

I left four years ago, and haven't been back. If I were still there, I could be prosecuted for publishing in any of my research topics. Ridiculous.

Re:Clowns in office

[Anonymous Coward]

He said "clowns in office" and "current Australian government". Neither of those is denigrating the office.

The best and brightest will never work there anyway because politics is not organized in a way that allows them to, and hasn't been for at least 50 years, anywhere in the world. That's why everyone lacks respect for people working there. Causation goes backwards to how you imagine this.

Re:Clowns in office

[jonwil]

I didn't vote for these bastards last time and I have no intention of voting for them again. Unfortunatly as long as people continue to believe the propaganda and FUD spread across the front page of the Murdoch papers, people will continue to elect the Lieberal party and we will continue to get garbage laws.

Re:Clowns in office

[HornWumpus]

There is no nation in the world where the 'best and brightest' are in government. It's always where the brown noses land.

Re:Clowns in office

[brantondaveperson]

Australia is basically uninhabitable. It's too hot, too dry, quite often on fire, and full of poisonous insects. The fact that the government appears to consist of strange right-wing fools is just another reason for sensible people to leave.

I know politicions are stupid but...

[aduxorth]

I know politicians are stupid but this is getting ridiculous.
This country is seriously going down the gurgler fast :(

Re: The usual right wing idiocy

[cyber-vandal]

Yeah no one from the entertainment industry could ever be president.

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[cyber-vandal]

Legal gun ownership is why South Africa it's such a safe place to live.

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[michelcolman]

I hope you're right, but I wouldn't say the US is "too smart" to vote for Trump. After all, they elected George W Bush not once but twice!

scienceparty.org.au

[ChunderDownunder]

With the Greens stitching up a deal with our government to marginalise Ricky and friends, democracy is at a low ebb. I hope Di Natale realises that seats held by the likes of Day, Muir, Leyonhjelm, Madigan and former PUPs might well flow directly back to elect a 3rd liberal/national stooge in every state.

Check out the website above, I'll give serious consideration to putting a plucky kid like Dr Jansson first in senate voting.

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[Oligonicella]

Much like the subsequent mistake.

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[goose-incarnated]

Legal gun ownership is why South Africa it's such a safe place to live.

South Africa has the amongst the lowest gun ownership numbers in the world, but amongst the highest homicide rates. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here -South Africa displayed that taking guns away from the population correlated with an increase in crime, not a decrease.

Logically...

[Archtech]

I suppose this means that people should simply stop doing science in Australia. After all, bearing in mind the possibility of retrospective criminalization, anything that scientists normally do could fall within this legislation. It's really not worth the risk.

Australian scientists and engineers should either emigrate to more tolerant and enlightened countries, or change career path.

The first rule of Aussie Science Club is...

[wonkey_monkey]

...you do not talk about Aussie Science Club.

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[Archtech]

The way the US electoral system is set up, it doesn't matter how smart or dumb the voters are. They still only get to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, which are basically the two hands of the man behind the curtain. He's smiling broadly, although the curtain hides his face.

In the USA a smart person has essentially two choices.

1. Join the rich swindlers - if you have the swindling talent, the brass neck, and no conscience.

2. Emigrate.

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[gweihir]

Please do not all flee to Europe when that happens, we need some time do deal with the last wave of refugees.

Exemption for public domain information

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the law. Excluded from control is everything already in the public domain.

THIS MEANS DUMP ALL YOUR INFORMATION BEFORE APRIL 2 TO THE INTERNET AND IT WILL BE EXEMPT FROM THE NEW LAW.

This is journalism??

[Sibko]

This is one of the most biased headlines I've seen around recently. This isn't journalism, the headline is literally telling you what to think of the law instead of just stating the facts of it.

Re:This is journalism??

[dywolf]

That's not biased, nor does it tell you what to think about it.
The law IS draconian.
It IS taking effect soon.
The headline IS purely factual.

Re:This is journalism??

[DNS-and-BIND]

You are simply stating that you agree. Journalism didn't used to tell everyone what to think, it used to report facts. The GP poster is probably an older fellow who still perceives that this should be the case today, which it is not. Journalists today freely bias their stories, as we saw in the Israel/Waze article earlier today.

Re:This is journalism??

[Xyrus]

This is one of the most biased headlines I've seen around recently. This isn't journalism, the headline is literally telling you what to think of the law instead of just stating the facts of it.

The headline correctly describes the law. It IS draconian.

Re:This is journalism??

[shutdown -p now]

It's not biased, it's truthful.

You sound like one of those "balance in the media" pundits, for whom "balance" means that "both sides get an equal say", even if one of those sides is some morons like flat earthers or creationists.

Re:This is journalism??

[Gob Gob]

This is one of the most biased headlines I've seen around recently. This isn't journalism, the headline is literally telling you what to think of the law instead of just stating the facts of it.

Well they couldn't put facts of their research in it our they would be arrested

Re: The usual right wing idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but we need to sort the mass of immigrants we're dealing with right now. As soon as we've sorted them into "workers" and "to be disinfected" and actually carried out the relevant processes, we may talk about the next ones.

Re: Bigger defence spending as well

[AHuxley]

AC thats about all it is about. A mil and gov version of the US style Ag gag laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to stop public comment on mil spending and shield no bid mil contractors from press comment.

The mentioned list is:
Epidemiology, the almost total lack of advance medical containment for patients per state and reduction in agricultural inspections thanks free trade deals.
Biotechnology: quarantine laws are been removed to allow more international trade deals. No talk in the press, no reports of new outbreaks due to policy changes so the policy is good if no reports are made.
The quantum computer aspect, quantum computers, signal processing is trying to secure dual use mil and civilian communications networks. Every mil base is basically connected to wide open civilian communications networks built by random global contractors. The hope is quantum computers will allow for effortless secure mil communications over the same public and international networks. A huge risk for any military to have to trust civilian communications networks rather than its own networks. A lot of domestic spending on quantum computers will try to solve the lack of any telco network design.
Defence to invest over AU$5b in cyber and IT to rectify under-investment (February 25, 2016)
http://www.zdnet.com/article/d...
Satellite sharing and a lack of secure satellite systems is another long term issue that should have been fixed but never was. Some vital mil satellite systems are shared with a few other nations, their govs, mil and contractors :)
Fault-tolerant systems dont exist and never got designed in. The less the wider public and press knows about that the better for the political class. No real fuel reserve policy, a very basic communications backup system.
Australia nearly completely dependent on imported fuel (24 February 2014)
http://www.abc.net.au/radionat... Image processing is basically what generations of staff learned from the "NRO" during staff trips. A huge amount of skilled staff could spot Soviet 1960-80's equipment thanks to US sharing :) A new generation of staff are trying to learn more eg Torus multi-beam antenna, infrared systems.
The Pine Gap project
http://nautilus.org/briefing-b...
Robotics is basically drone work and AI for drones. Nothing unique that any other advanced nation can work on given the same levels of funding.

Surprised as a resident

[freedom_surfer]

I hadn't read anything on this in the local press or seen anything on the news. I guess its time for me to do some reading! It wouldn't surprise me though since its big fine illegal to own an old out dated slot machine in my state. Just imagine if one of those one armed bandits were to get in the hands of the wrong people! (or scientists and engineers)

New template law

[MrKaos]

If you are all familiar with the current "War on sanity" you will all recognise that encryption is the next thing that is being targetted by power. You've seen Apple vs FBI and the rest of the bullshit attacks on encryption, well here comes the law.

I read DTCA when it was proposed and what concerned me most was it allows government to take control of your inventions and patents whilst turning encryption into a controlled munition. Therefore if you show someone how to use encryption you are an arms dealer in the eyes of the law.

It's a sloppy way to close all doors on using encryption in Australia, invented by the hamfisted Abbot government that Australia deserved. I would not be surprised to see a similar attempt in the US/Canada and UK through other legal avenues.

Re:New template law

[Plus1Entropy]

I would not be surprised to see a similar attempt in the US/Canada and UK through other legal avenues.

There already are some export limitations on any technology utilizing 256bit AES encryption in the US, and I believe in Canada as well. Not sure about the UK.

Re:New template law

[fustakrakich]

I read DTCA when it was proposed and what concerned me most was it allows government to take control of your inventions and patents whilst turning encryption into a controlled munition.

Old news

200+ Cryptographers are protesting it too

[Anonymous Coward]

International Association for Cryptologic Research : https://www.iacr.org/petitions...

" We are deeply concerned about Australia's Defence Trade Controls Act (DTCA). The act prohibits the "intangible supply" of encryption technologies, and hence subjects many ordinary teaching and research activities to unclear, potentially severe, export controls. As an international organization of cryptographic researchers and educators, we are concerned that the DTCA criminalizes the very essence of our association: to advance the theory and practice of cryptography in the service of public welfare.

We affirm that the public welfare of Australians — and society in general — is best served by open research and education in cryptography and cybersecurity. Open, international scientific collaboration is responsible for the encryption technologies that are now vital to individuals, businesses, and world governments alike. The current legislation cuts off Australia from the international cryptographic research community and jeopardizes the supply of qualified workforce in Australia's growing cybersecurity sector.

We call on Australia to amend their export control laws to include clear exemptions for scientific research and for education."

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[goose-incarnated]

"South Africa has the amongst the lowest gun ownership numbers in the world"

Of course you're completely wrong/lying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

South Africa ranks 48 out of 175. Hardly "amongst the lowest".

The maximum is 112, the minimum is 0.1, SA has 12.7 - it certainly disproves the parent posters point about number of guns and crime levels.

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[Plus1Entropy]

Hillary for Prison!

Sure! Right after Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld... I'm all for it! Torture >>>> Private Email Server.

Laugh

[koan]

So many laws like this coming out in Australia, it's quite amusing.

They took their guns, locked down their Internet, now apparently crippled their scientist, what a joke of a nation.
Every news story about a "law" out of Australia is "draconian".

They also have the World's highest incidence of alcohol related brain shrinkage.

Re:Laugh

[Midnight Thunder]

I am try to understand "it was" or "is becoming" a prison colony? ;)

Re:Laugh

[drinkypoo]

I am try to understand "it was" or "is becoming" a prison colony? ;)

Everything old is new again.

No 2nd Amendment?

[kurt555gs]

Too bad you lot gave up your guns. Maybe now you understand it wasn't about hunting or crime.

Re:No 2nd Amendment?

[Yunzil]

So let's be clear here: are you advocating that the citizens of Australia should shoot the members of their government (Y/N)?

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[michelcolman]

Voting for a republican majority in the house with a democratic president, resulting in gridlock, government shutdowns, etc.? Yep, that too was a mistake.

Time for /. to get a permit?

[Midnight Thunder]

So, does this mean slashdot is now potentially breaking the law in Australia when it publishes any tech news? Maybe tech websites should geoblock Australia just in case?

Re:ROTFL!!!

[fustakrakich]

We are about on the verge of a government housecleaning here in the US

You're joking, right? A 95% reelection rate is hardly what anyone would call a "housecleaning". The US needs a house razing. Every two years another opportunity goes by, and nothing happens.

You were expecting journalism?

[drinkypoo]

This is Slashdot. We talk about news on other sites. It's not a journalistic endeavor. It's a discussion forum. Even so, every actual news outlet has its own bias, and the only way to get "unbiased" news is to play one against the next until you attain opposing viewpoints. Even then, you're sure to miss out on something. Like they say: your side, their side, and the truth.

"....and we LIKED it!"

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Australian scientists and engineers face 10 years imprisonment for communicating without a government permit on biotech, robotics or manufacturing.

Biotech? It's about time. Sooner or later that newfangled witchery is going to give us all cancer, and then give that cancer AIDS. Lock it down, I say, the tighter the better.

Robotics? Crazy future murder machines, you mean. Gonna turn us all into batteries--I saw it in a movie. Lock it down, lock it down, lock it down.

Manufacturing? Uh... yeah. Can't have dangerous information about... um... manufacturing.... leaking out. It's a... menace?

No, never mind, forget it. I only support Orwellian repression of scary new technologies, not methods of mass production that're literally hundreds of years old at this point and that absolutely everyone has at least a basic understanding of.

What am I going to do now that I can't be a Luddite? I guess I'll have to switch to some other ridiculous type of bigotry.

commentsubjectsaredumb

[Falos]

>communicating without a government permit
The future is here.

What, you thought it'd be heralded by jetpacks and teleporters?

Export/Import laws in the USA?

[stackOVFL]

I feel like this is the same as out import/export controls. If we make a unapproved export of controlled information/material we can get slammed too. Although our law do not, as I recall, state scientific/engineering "people" can't speak to each other(if that's what AU is saying). I expect it's speak to each other about the AU ITAR/EXIM controlled subject. I can understand why a government would want to control the export of controlled technology verbally as well as in a more traditional sense. We (USA) do the same thing.

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[wyHunter]

I don't know, they elected an individual whose only qualification was that he'd been a US Senator in the senate for less than 150 days. That's smart?

Re:ROTFL!!!

[HornWumpus]

Gridlock is the best we can hope for.

Re:The usual right wing idiocy

[HornWumpus]

Yeah gridlock, it's our only hope.

Re:Stop Blacks from owning guns

[brantondaveperson]

I wish Blacks had never been brought in as slaves.

I rather think that they wish they'd never been slaves too.

Re: Bigger defence spending as well

[KGIII]

In reference to both this thread and your signature, I think Poor Ned might be appropriate here.

Why yes, yes you probably would be a bit surprised by the music in my archives.

Welcome to Harperland...

[Krokus]

This is the Harper regime's ideology being played out in Australia all over again. Having lived through nine and a half years of this right-wing anti-science crap here in Canada, I really feel for our Aussie friends because gagging scientists is only the beginning.

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[cyber-vandal]

Ok Yemen then or Mexico our ask the other fine examples of the magical power of guns.

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[goose-incarnated]

Ok Yemen then or Mexico our ask the other fine examples of the magical power of guns.

There is no correlation - for every example you provide with large gun ownership and high homicides, there are more counterexamples showing large gun ownership and *low* homicides.

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[cyber-vandal]

Like France for example. Yes I can see that on the Wikipedia page. There is likewise no convincing evidence that widespread gun ownership lowers crime because crime is dependent on all sorts of factors.

Yemen has high gun ownership but is a very dangerous place to live because it's a very poor country.

Switzerland has high gun ownership but is a very rich country that looks after its citizens so is a very safe place to live.

South Africa has higher gun ownership than the UK but is far more dangerous because there is a much wider gap between rich and poor.

Guns are not magic wands that make crime disappear. The idea that you can't drive a car without a licence because you'd be a danger to others but pretty much anyone except convicted criminals can buy lethal military weapons in a supermarket and use them without any training at all just sounds like madness to me.

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[goose-incarnated]

Guns are not magic wands that make crime disappear.

My only point was that there is no correlation between levels of gun ownership and homicides. It appears that you've accepted that. Well Done! Most people do not change their minds when faced with facts, so consider yourself an exceptional human.

The next fact you shouldaccept about measured/recorded deaths and guns is that... a swimming pool in your home is five times more likely to kill a child than a firearm (check the CDC's figures from 2014).

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[cyber-vandal]

I haven't changed my mind. I made a throwaway remark that suggested that there was no link between gun ownership and low crime. I'm not sure what point you thought I was making.

Re: Austrailia was doomed

[cyber-vandal]

Read the post I initially replied to and my initial sarcastic response.