Australia Called Out as Willing To Undermine Human Rights For Digital Agenda (zdnet.com)

A report from AccessNow has asked Australia to change its course and lead the way in serving as a champion for human rights instead of against. From a report: Global human rights, public policy, and advocacy group AccessNow has called out Australia for its lack of focus on human rights as it adapts to the challenges of the digital era, with a report from the non-profit saying the country should instead be leading the way in serving as a champion for human rights. "Australia should be a global leader in serving as a champion for human rights, such as the right to privacy and rights to freedoms of expression and association," AccessNow said. "Unfortunately, Australia has taken actions that indicate the nation is willing to undermine human rights as it adapts to the challenges of the digital era."

In Human Rights in the Digital Era: An International Perspective on Australia [PDF], AccessNow says that as the digital world continues to develop, and technology increasingly becomes an "intimate part" of daily lives, Australians are facing a choice. "The country can either continue to be a testing ground for policies that undermine privacy and security in the digital era, or it can be a champion for human rights in the digital age, leveraging its relationships in the world to raise the standards for the next generation," the report says.

Comments

Wow

[Kohath]

That’s a content free post. Better headline "Advocacy group offers vague complaints"

Re:Summary doesn't say

[XXongo]

Yes, this bothered me too. What human rights are they talking about, exactly? The right to a trial by jury? Here is the UN declaration on human rights, which ones is Australia proposing to violate? http://www.un.org/en/universal...

The actual article tells me that the rights under discussion are things like the right to not have the government use biometric data (e.g., "face recognition"). I'm not sure that this is widely recognized as one of the fundamental human rights.

Re: Summary doesn't say

[c6gunner]

The Aussie government has still not dealt with the fact that tens of thousands of Aboriginal children were outright kidnapped from their families for a variety of purposes.

What exactly does "dealt with" mean?

It took a band, namely Midnight Oil, to hammer this stuff into the consciousness of the Aussie public, and most still ignored the blatant atrocities.

Hooray for consciousness! Problem solved, right?

Re:Right to freedom of speech vs communication.

[cayenne8]

Is there a difference between the right to freedom of speech ( which is to say the right to say what you want without punishment or restriction). and

The right to use public broadcast equipment like the internet to exercise that right.

Depends on the country in question.

In the US, they way it is supposed to work is...that the government does NOT grant you rights, you are born with them.

The US constitution is there not to grant you rights, but to enumerate the limited powers and responsibilities for the federal govt. It is stated aside from these, that most of the law and rules comes from the states and local governments.

And basically, most any new thing man figures how to do, is by your BORN (or God given, if you believe that way) right inherently, unless it is regulated or banned by law.

So, the internet, it was a new thing and you inherently have the right to use it as you please for any speech or expression that isn't illegal (kiddie pr0n for example).....this comes as a benefit of being born a human, it is not granted to you by the government.