Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government and Cracking
D-Fly writes "The
Australian government is trying to withdraw
from public view
a secret report which, among MANY other interesting things,
recommends that laws be changed so that Aussie spy agencies
can legally "hack" (their terminology) their way into
private computer systems. I recommend that you read the report. It reflects a lot of the same motivations and goals you would see among US intelligence services. It's just that you rarely see this kind of stuff go public."
Now that the Aus gubment have outlawed
firearms, they can DO ANYTHING
they WANT.
Hey Aussies please tell us how it feels
to be a slave of the gub-r-ment.
We want to know because we (Amerikans)
will be in the same boat when CHUCK SHUMER
and the DEMOCRATS get control of this
country in two years.
Seems like the government wants the ability to legally insert Trojan horses into commercial shrink-wrapped software. That could open a VERY big can of worms...
Open source, anyone?
I mean, they have what....15 people living in the country...and a whole bunch of nothing.
Here are some more examples (from "this day and age") that demonstrate why it's useless for splinter groups to own guns:
Kosovo and the Albanians
Turkey and the Kurds
Obviously these people would have a lot more freedom if they had no means to fight for it.
SARCASM-OFF
Despite the sensational title this was posted under, the actual publication is pretty reasonably. The author is basically stating that the governments powers should be enlarged to allow searching, via whatever means possible, electronic data PROVIDED that a valid warrant is obtained, of course. I don't really see this as any different as wiretapping phones, or use of other surveilance devices to monitor suspected criminals, as long as a proper warrant is obtained. The idea of modifying software at its source is very frightening; the idea of the govenment modifying a particular application (say, PGP) on a suspected criminal's hard disk, with a proper warrant is perfectly okay by me.
Nothing new in this one...
I mean, this report comes down to: They have encryption that we can't break, we'd like to break, but we shouldn't do it just yet.
Actually, this article is quite a bit more mild than (say) the Halloween I document. The conclusion is that no action should be taken.
Waco ? you mean Janet's barbecue ?
Im sure the 2 year old kids that were
cooked in the inferno we a threat to humanity.
Ruby ridge ? oh yes, where the FBI sniper
shot Randy Weaver's wife in the head while
she held their baby in her arms.
Ruby Ridge ? where the FBI officer was
found to have used excessive force, and Weaver
was acquitted of all charges.
You my friends better start to question the
government of the USA.
Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
Have you ever heard of Adolph Hitler? Before gearing up for the Holocaust, the Nazi Gun Control act of 1938 was passed. Does this tell you a little?
Don't forget that we sent our prisoners over there to form their country :) The only good thing about Australia is Samba.
> Now that the Aus gubment have outlawed firearms...
...they can DO ANYTHING they WANT.
They didn't "outlaw firearms", only certain categories of firearms (such as automatic assault rifles) - all, mind you, with the *majority* of the public's support.
>
The Commonwealth Government is *explicitly* *limited* by the Australian constitution in the types of laws it may make; all the real power is (and always has been) with the State governments.
Heck, even this "outlawing of firearms" that all you insecure Yanks worry over is a result of *State* laws, NOT any Commonwealth government laws.
But here it is: [my emphasis]
6.4.4
All the [admittedly! -ac] intrusive investigative powers have to do with the preservation of 'public safety' in the broad definition given earlier. The approach suggested is to incorporate all these powers into one statute which would provide in its title an easily [mis-]understood purpose, quite separate from any agency. It might, for instance, be titled the 'Aid to Public Safety Act'. Such a title would be precise in terms of objective, reassuring in terms of community expectation and positive in its statement. The various investigatory powers should be couched in purpose or objective terms. The specification of the means by which any particular purpose may be realised should be eschewed. For example, the problems created by the current definition of a listening device in the AFP Act when the purpose should simply be stated as being for 'the transmission of data'.
So, this is pretty much what everyone suspects is going around in these reports: how to mislead the public into giving away their privacy rights. The really stunning sections refer to all the new tracking devices they hope to be able to install in your vehicles and personal belongings.
Learn to vote, folks.
Voting Libertarian might be a good choice.
-Proudly "Anonymous" Coward
Right, that's why our "organized military" with it's superiour firepower kicked ass in Vietnam!
Yes, if it's 100 soldiers vs. 100 civilians, the soldiers are going to win. But not if it's 1000 civilians for each soldier. Civilian militias just make it that much harder for ANY small group to dominate the country. Just look at the current situation in Sierra Leone for an example of what happens when the general population doesn't have the means to defend itself. (For the uninformed, a small group of "rebels" basically rapes, loots, and kills whomever it pleases.)
...and PINE GAP!!!!!
Hitler also built the german highways, the autobahn. My conclusion of this is that highways are inherently evil. The only reason for building highways is to gain control over the population.
Just one guy playing hide and seek in the back hills. Hundreds of federal and local agents using gobs of high tech, bloodhounds, etc. searching for him.
Nope. Can't catch one guy.
I love it. What's happening here is the (Australian) government is trying to change the rules, because - quoting from the document at hand -
"Scanning through the measures of those countries whose governments have decided to 'do something' about cryptography, one is drawn to the conclusion that most efforts have already proved nugatory. The flexibility of encryption systems and applications, let alone the greater advantages which hardware based systems will offer, and the pace of technological development, will sideline the remainder."
In other words, game's over already, so new avenues are needed to keep those incriminating cards'n'letters coming.
Here in the US, stupid criminals' activities are cast into florid, newsy style to whip up "support" for laws that undermine personal liberty. Smart criminals aren't dealt with because US law enforcement has a poor track record when up against smart criminals. The Australian government appears to be trying to cope with smart criminals here, but they are going to the same well - they appear to be talking to decision makers, not the public, but the "alarm" part sure is there - as is the 'need' to change the rules.
Anyone who thinks that civilian firearms have anything to do with the accountability of the government really has his head up his ass. The militia gun-nuts seem to think that an assault rifle is the appropriate instrument to use to file a tax return with the IRS.
Let me get this straight, you think that all Aussies should be armed in case a revolution is needed to overthrow the totalitarian regime of AUSTRALIA? In any event, what the hell do think handguns and sporting rifles are going to accomplish against a modern military?
If you want to have handguns and rifles for target shooting, be my guest. I have no objection to hunting.
Are guns useful for self-defense? Perhaps with extensive training, although the rational conclusion from available data is that people buying guns for self defense subject themselves and their families to a much HIGHER risk of accidental shooting.
In any event, the concept of "gun ownership as the highest expression of participatory democracy" is held only by lunatics.
Oh, I forgot, this is a computer site....
If you think that that stuff is not already going on, you are ignorant. We live in the greatest democracy on this current earth, and if you think that this does not come with a price...
For those of you scared about this, write your congressman, vote, make noise! Why let the senior lobby have all of the fun.
Otherwise, pack your bags and go to China, I hear that their gub r ment is real friendly!
Standing armies are precisely part of the problem. This was pointed out by Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1768. Despite the noble-sounding words associated with their introduction -- "We need to protect our citizens" -- inevitably the rulers find it impossible not to misuse them for purposes of oppressing the populace.
The same goes for police forces...with the possible exception of sheriffs, who deputize citizens on an ad hoc basis. Sheriffs ought to be elected.
I am NOT an anarchist, either. Laws should be enforced by the people (or perhaps by sheriffs), not by police forces or armies that answer not to the people themselves but to the rulers.
Standing armies must be abolished. They are a means of oppressing the populace. In their place we should have militias: actual citizens mustered to fight ONLY on their own soil -- not screwing around in the affairs of foreign nations.
Of course, none of this is popular with those who govern since it strips them of power. And that is why they teach people to believe in the utility of standing armies.
Don't believe them.
Rulers don't want you to have guns because they are a means for you to ultimately resist incremental imposition of tyranny.
And for those who inevitably will ask:
NO, this is not a troll.
Junius Brutus
1) In the US, most soldiers would be ever more reluctant to shoot their friends, relatives, neighbors an lovers. :-)
2) All those Americans look alike to me too!
3) The US has a varied enough climate that it is easy to find sections that most soldiers aren't accustomed too. That why we send recruits from Georgia up to military bases in Alaska.
4) I happen to live in a thick forest, thank you.
5) I somehow think there would be tremendous popular opposition to the shooting of American "patriots", thank you very much.
Your hopelessly inane arguments in favor of gun control are just that. See how easy this kind of argument ("it is so because I say it is so!") is to make?
But if there were millions of people like him, using guerilla tactics (strike and run), a small cadre of military usurpers would probably be in deep shit, wouldn't they?
And why the great Soviet Union, at the time one of the worlds greatest military superpowers, kicked ass over a bunch of disorganized Moslem "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan... I'm sorry, the historical record clearly refutes your unsupported assertions. Time to check your assumptions!
He is working at the Circle K in
goodyear arizona.
of course it never hurts to keep poking
around the woods in NC.
having a brain gives you a 100% advantage.
I strongly suspect your brain doesn't give you much of an advantage at all. When exactly was the last time you opposed an unconstitutional military coupe, anyway?
While I have tremendous respect for Gandhi, his tactics relied on the oppressor having a conscience, and also on the oppressor regarding the oppressed as fellow human beings. Based on results, his tactics were appropriate to his situation. However, do you really think non-violent opposition would have helped the Jews being exterminated by the Nazis, or the blacks being lynched by the Klan?
Violence should only be used as a last resort. But the threat of violence as a final resort is usefull in almost any fight for justice. This is unfortunate and saddening, but I'm afraid it is just human nature.
I'll keep my guns, thank you.
But if he got is 1,000,000 closest friends to hide in the woods with him, they probably could.
Arguments from "in this day and age" or technological superiority are worthless. The rich group has ALWAYS had tech over the poor group, but has not always won. The correlation between money and military effectiveness is not as good as some believe.
The correlation between not having popularly available firearms and LOSING is very good, however.
...it's the only thing we have.
How do YOU suggest we defend ourselves against a military coup?
Even if you do believe that Whitlam getting thrown out was a `coup' and due to the influence of the CIA, all that happened was a federal election got held a few years earlier than planned. Whoopee. If the general population still wanted his government in he would have been re-elected.
Actually having lived in both countries, I get the feeling that the Federal government in Australia has more control. When I first visited the US I couldn't believe the number of separate taxes - eg federal, state, city, county. Never had to fill in a federal and state tax return in Australia ! Mind you, the taxes are lower in the US so I won't complain too much :-)
Obsolete power? Ceremonial post? What have you been smoking?
The Governor-General (not the royal governor) uses his powers infrequently and for the good of the people, unlike some heads of state who use it to pull chicks.
The Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) and his government were enacting legislation that had been rejected by Pariament (and by definition, not the will of the people.) The Governor-General stepped in and exercised a power that he holds for just that very purpose, and fired the government.
So the system worked, and prevented an abuse of democracy. Why is this a bad thing?
Malcolm X, advocate of violent protest. Which got more done? (note that the question is NOT, "which is more respected")
As for violence being the last refuge of the incompetent, what is the last refuge of the competent? And I do mean last. When Saddam finally refuses to back down and starts pointing chemical weapons at his neighbors, what do you want the "competent" to do about it?
Who is the best known black-rights activist? Not some black guy with a gun.. Rather, it's Martin Luther King, Jr., who strongly advocated non-violent protest.
And a lot of good it did him, too! First, what did he ever really accomplish? Second, some asshole shot him, because they knew the stupid pacifist wouldn't be carrying a handgun to defend himself with!
Go ahead, when some drug-crazed criminal comes to shoot your ass, rape your wife, and steal your valuables, you go ahead and appeal to his conscience. I'll pull out the Walther PPK hidden next to my bed. I may not prevail, but I beleive I've got a lot more chance of being successful than you do!
You're correct that small weapons are no longer useful if the government sent the military out, but this suggests to me that the citizenry need access to bigger weapons, not smaller. Of course there will be citizens who abuse this right, but it is the proper role of the government to deal harshly with abusers.
How would you suggest countering a government passing unjust laws?
If the lawmakers were simply incompetent than the situation could be resolved with peaceful debate.
However, it the lawmakers sole purpose was to gain control over the citezenry then no debate is possible -- they already know that their law is wrong, but they have implemented it not for it's value to us, but it's value to them. The only way to change the situation is to have the law changed. This requires force to be exerted by the citizenry. If this force were not backed with anything but words why would someone who seeks power over the citizenry listen?
Please explain.
Ruler: I'm going to lock you up for no reason.
BoBo: No please don't otherwise me and my friends will rant and rave about you and bore you to sleep.
Ruler: I am He-Man!
She-Ra: I love you big boy...
I'd like to draw your attention also on Europe, where gouverments try to do some similar thing: The Enfopol-Project by the European Union. (read more (in german) at telepolis (Enfopol Special)) Have anyone more Information on that ? Maybe also about the Russian "SORM 1&2" Project ? (link in german!)
Ok, so that should have been "coup", as in:
coup d'etat - a sudden revolution in which control of a government is seized by force. Also means a sudden stroke of policy.
So if we push the envelope of what "incompetent" means not to mention search several generations back for those at fault we arrive at a solution.
I totally agree that if everyone was rational all the time we wouldn't need violence. And therefore we wouldn't need guns (at least not for defense).
But I think I'll fight to keep guns available until this blissful day occurs.
I know I shouldn't respond to trolls... but I do
want to point out that the majority of Australians
don't want large numbers of guns in the community, and look on in horror at the US experience.
We also don't feel ourselves to be slaves of the government.
The Walsh report recommends solutions much tamer than common experience in the US. It's also worth noting that it points out that there will never be an Australian equivalent of the NSA... it costs too much for too little gain.
Add to the others cryptozilla and SSLeay. Oh yeah, and who could forget Enlightenment? And mSQL too. And Elle Macphearson. And AC/DC.
So back da fsck up, honkey lips.
:-)
Travis
We gave the world rolf harris too, as well as
Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, Geoffrey Rush, and
Tooheys (heh)
Aleister Crowley, infamous Englishman from circa the first half of this century. Mostly known for his involvement in the Golden Dawn, an occult society, the publication of a lot of books about magic and a lifestyle that appalled his contemporaries. *Not* known for an open and sharing approach to information.
As an Australian let me tell you that a select few in Australia determine our policies re the internet, and our system is incredibly undemocratic . . . just like you all hate AOL, we all hate OzEmail. OzEmail has the loudest voice on internet issues over here even though they keep on fucking up their billing system and basically sponging as much money as they can from the consumer. So no doubt OzEmail will support this STUPID proposal and then charge thegovernment shitloads to do it with their technology. How do i know? . . . i used to be a senior techy there
Closed attitude to information?
... there's really no connection between occultism and programming, no matter how much the occultists would like to say there is.
So this would be why he published the secrets of the Golden Dawn and got sued (and won) for it?
Come off it
You ought to check out this website, http://rfi.ml.org
but not as pathetic as a bunch of Canadians on a self-respect binge.
The "gubment" of Australia didn't ban firearms, you pathetic, illiterate, moronic cretin!
The Australian "gubment" banned the use of aotomatic and semi-automatic wepons in response to a massive public outcry over another psychopath ( like yourself ) going beserk and killing nearly 50 Australian citizens down in the state of Tasmania.
Do yourself and everyone else a favour - go and take your shotgun, stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger. Your obviously too stupid to be allowed to breed, and the sonner lame cretins like you are purged from the gene pool, the better.
Idiot. I can tell that you have never used a long-bow. At short range ( less than 10 meters ) a long bow has a higher effective calibre than most hanguns. Don't under-estimate the long-bow because it's "muscle-powered".
I'd really like to argue the point with you dude, but I kind of suspect that on this point, your probably right.
How the hell did we get to this kind of mess? Why is it that we would rather blow our neighbours heads of than trust them?
Go check your history books. The Jews made a determined stand against the "Nazi War Machine" in the Ghetto's of Warsaw. Using only small arms and home-made explosives, they stood up to the power that flattened Poland, Chekoslovakia and so many others for more than six months. So much for the "overwhelming might" of the state.
Violence is not the last refuge of the incompetent, not when your fighting for your life, your family and everything you hold dear.
Learn some history, *lame* *brain*.
Go read about the Peloponesian wars.
Read about how 3000 Athenians faced the might of 30,000 Persians, and routed them from the field of battle!
Read how *200* Spartans stood before the might of Darius, the so called "King of Kings", and only failed because of a low-life traitor.
Please learn some history before you shoot your mouth of again.
One of the more chilling aspects of this for me was the casual mention of (and the efforts on the part of the Aussie government to avoid the release of information regarding) the strategy of embedding "spy code" in commercial applications in order to monitor users' activity. It struck me that the only way to be safe from this sort of thing is to either 1) trust the company selling you your proprietary precompiled binaries to resist government efforts along these lines, or 2) inspect the source code and compile it yourself.
This in turn made me wonder about the longterm interest that the government might have in avoiding the success of the open source movement and encouraging the continuation of the current proprietary model. I guess this means that the folks at the NSA might not be as enthusiastic about the MSFT trial as are their counterparts over at the Antitrust Division...
It brought home to me, too, the similarities in the essential philosophical underpinnings of both the free software and free speech movement: empower the individual, restrict the ability of outside forces to constrain his/her behavior, and that sort of thing.
Then again, maybe I'm just suffering from sleep deprivation. Time for a (not-free) beer, and then a nap.
I just think that in a great many cases, violence is not necessary and we should work MUCH HARDER on not letting violence-requiring situations arise, instead of just letting them be and solving the symptom rather than the problem.
Agreed, but the proven ability to inflict serious damage can act as a deterent to actually prevent situations from escalating into violence. Insane as it is, the nuclear defense concept of Mutual Assured Destruction has worked so far, and prevented us from engaging in any direct confrontation with the other members of the "I've got a lovely nuclear warhead" club...
In fact, many would argue that perceived weakness encourages violence, while perceived strength discourages it. Of course, this assumes that the perpetrators of violence are somewhat rational, and I've seen skinny little drunks stupid enough to swing on 300-pound harley-biker type bouncers...
Back to the original argument: if guns don't solve anything, then why do the police carry them? Why should the police be given a different status than other civilians with simular training? The second ammendment implies that we don't have a military elite, but instead all able-bodied men are responsible for defense (which is the definition of a "militia". By extension, all able bodied men should also be prepared to act as police in times of emergency. Of course, people that haven't demonstrated the judgement, sanity, and proficiency to use weapons effectively should be denied the right to possess them.
We don't have a constitutional right to guns for hunting. Unfortunately, we don't have an explicit constitutional right to guns for our own defense. We do, however, have a constituional right to guns to defend our country from tyranny, regardless of whether the threat comes from without or from within the country. Just one of the many checks and balances on government power put in place by our founders, based on their experience with the British.
> You will find that the USA was originally
:-)
> structured in this fashion, yet somehow the
> federal gov has taken over damn near
> everything, bit by bit.
What part of "explicited limited" don't you understand?
In order for the Commonwealth/Federal Government to "take over everything" (bit by bit or not) they have to change the constitution - anyone with any sense for Australian history knows that referenda for changing the constitution have been voted down (failed) by the public more times than they've passed.
oh wow...really? I'm sure the guy that posted the 15 people comment didn't know this! Good thing humorless idiots like you are lurking around out there to instantly correct someone what was just trying to be cute/sarcastic/caustic etc etc etc....
It was an joke you moron...
On section 1.2.33: ...
Authority should be created for the AFP, the NCA and ASIO to alter proprietary software
so that it performs additional functions to those specified by the manufacturer. Such an
authority, which clearly should be subject to warranting provisions, would, for example,
enable passive access to a computer work station of a LAN
They want to hide trojan horses like BO in proprietary software!
Guess what they think of Open Source...
BTW it's a good time to read Reflections on Trusting Trust By Ken Thompson
Be paranoid
Look, you gun lunatics - the point was that the chief reason given for owning guns, that they can pretect you from gummint men, is proven wrong time and time again.
Whether or not this is a good thing is a totally separate issue. Whether or not the gummint was in the wrong at Waco or Ruby Ridge is irreveant to the point. The guns didn't give the Davidians the ability to fend off the gummint, and they didn't give the Weaver's the ability to either.
No matter what you've got in your gun rack, the gummint's got bigger stuff like tanks and missles, and so on. Regardles of if this is morally wrong, it happens to be true. Your guns are not going to defend you against the government unless there are a hell of a lot of you banded together - in which case you don't need the guns and passive resistance will work too (and make it easier to take the moral high ground).
Why don't you guys admit the truth - that you aren't stockpiling guns to fight the government - you are doing it to fight other ordinary citizens that you don't like.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Have you noticed the kind of hardware that the military is packing these days? Do you really think that even an assault rifle and a case of grenades would do you one bit of good if they decided to come after you and any other gun-toting buddies you have? They could kill you before you ever saw them if they really wanted to. The probably wouldn't in most circumstances, but if the government decided to forcefully make you comply with some law that you don't agree with, do you really think that local groups of gun owners could make a difference? Nope.
Guns are fine for self-defense, but the whole thing about an armed population being insurance against a corrupt government is a bunch of bs now. It might have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but not today. The only hope you could have is that the soldiers in the military would revolt as well. Other than that, you're screwed.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Didn't Hitler introduce that? I always knew cars were tools of the devil.. ;)
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
It is still a good example of how low tech, skill, and determination can defeat an army of gov lackeys armed with high tech gear.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
It's great to see governments of the world supporting terrorist activities... Makes me feel all warm and giggly inside.
--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
>I mean, they have what....15 people living in the >country..
dont forget international farnarkeling and 'XXXX' beer....15 people, you must be one of those techo-hillbillies I keep hearing about, dung dung DUNG dung DUNG dung dung....(banjo sounds to the to the tune of delieverence)
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Because he has such a good grasp of the issues, he said things in his report (which, need I remind anyone, was written for PUBLIC RELEASE) which the Government didn't like, e.g.: Key Escrow is fundamentally broken and short keys are manifestly inadequate.
As a result of writing down what everyone outside the Government knows is obvious, but which the Government can never be seen to admit if it wants to be able to justify its short key and export control policies, Walsh got his report suppressed.
It's good for us that the Government here isn't actually very good at anything, and their attempts to suppress the report have failed utterly. It's almost comical how many times they've got it wrong, really. Someone in the Attorney Generals' dept must be feeling pretty stupid by now.
-----
-----
I tried an internal modem, but it hurt when I walked.
Take a look at Kosovo. In that area the vast majority of the population wants to secede, and their militia (the KLA) has as good or better weoponry than the average USA militia group, with a much larger membership and fanatic motivation.
Notice how successfully they are fighting against even a two-bit country like Serbia.
Unlike America, or England, there isn't one person running this country.
Our Prime Minister, John Howard... Can't do SHIT!
To be perfectly honest I don't care about this sorta thing because there is no way it is going to happen. Many people don't realise how FUCKING INCOMPETEND our government is.
I mean... I am currently attending a Public High School. I have a Kremlin sitting on the drive at the school.
Kremlin allows encription of CAST-128, IDEA etc. encription, I can encript what I like, send it to anyone in the world from a goverment satillite and no one in australia really is going to do anything about it.. They don't care.
There is ONE thing that is really important to australians...
If you live in Victoria: VB
If you live up north: XXXX
Don't believe me? There was a gas shortage in Victoria late last year, the WHOLE STATE was without gas for a week or two. When the government fixed it, Carlton United Brewrys (makers of VB) had the gas for a day or two before ANY OTHER COMPANIES. INCLUDING THE FORD FACTORIES!
Australia is a great place to live.
AHHHH
HOME AND AWAY
NEIGHBOURS
AHHHH!!!!
PLEASE ACCEPT OUR DEEPEST APOLOGIES!!!
AUSTRALIA IS NOT REALLY LIKE THAT!!!
As a representitive of 100% of the intelligent Australians I would like to say:
I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE MY TEETH EXTRACTED ONE BY ONE WITH PLYERS AND NO ANSTHETIC THAN WATCH THOSE SHOWS!!!
Where I live, the Sheriff is elected.
What the hell are you talking about? Gun laws in Australia were introduced by the Liberal Party. That's the equivalent of the Republicans (maybe a little less right socially). And they've been great (gun laws and Liberals)
Believe with me, my saplings.
It tells me Hitler was a hypocrit...
Believe with me, my saplings.
Well, I suppose thay could push the envolope with the foreign affirs power a bit tho ;)
Believe with me, my saplings.
> Standing armies must be abolished. They are a
> means of oppressing the populace.
Bullshit. That's way too generalised. There are a hell of a lot more factors involved than that. In Indonesia, I'd say certainly. But in Australia absolutely not. I cannot think of an example of the military holding it over Austrlaians in our history, although there was a short period of marshal law when some extremists bombed a conference in the 70s that the PM was at.
As an earlier post said, the moethod by which armies are constructed is important.
And don't give me any of that 'by the people' crap either. Give us real arguments.
Believe with me, my saplings.
I've just hada look at this guy's profile
:User Bio
:Reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer
I imagine the Philadelphia Inquirer is at the forefront of quality journalism in the United States, would I be right? Right up there with The Times and The Australian Financial Review?
I don't mind Americans. But those who write this sort of crap about our government can go to hell.
Study some Australian politics before you start pushing this sort of crap:
> semi-legal constitutional coup at the behest of
> the American CIA in the 70s.
I can't begin to know where the hell you got this from. The governor general who sacked Whitlam was a pacifist leftie. Do you think he'd take orders from the CIA? As for being semi-legal, that's rubbish. What was at *best* semi-legal was Whitlam continuing to hold the ranks of governemnt when he did not have the numbers to pass supply (basically the annual budget, although it's a bit more complicated) and keep the government running.
The royal governor has a responsiblity as our constitutional safeguard. Like the British, we have some powers that are unwritten (called 'conventions' - although unlike them wer have a written constitution). It is accepted that while the governor general is a largely symbolic role, there are time when the role comes in to play to keep bastards like Whitlam from betraying our constitution in times of uncertainty.
It's always good to note that at the resulting federal election, the Liberal/National coalition won one of (if not the) biggest victory ever in Australian politics and the Labor opposition was crippled with not very many seats in parliament at all for almost the next decade.
Whitlam did a lot of bad to this country and we were all better off after his glorious departure, although the debt of his legacy (blowout in social services bankrolled by massive loans, a cowardly policy towards Indonesia with regard to East Timor) is a lingering stench.
As for involvement by the CIA: Go to hell! We run our country quite fine without the involvement of your mob. How arrogent to assume our governor general could give a damn about what the CIA wanted!
Believe with me, my saplings.
What about Geoffrey Bennet (the Toshiba Windows refund man?) He's Australian.
Believe with me, my saplings.
In South Aust we drink Coopers. It's really great. Apparently Australians are supposed to drink Fosters as well,although I have yet to actually see a pub in Australia sell the stuff... I guess the import market is too lucrative ;)
And as for Howard not being able to do shit, I seem to remember seeing him at one of MarkW's greatest games admiring the action and drinking VB. You've got to respect that.
Believe with me, my saplings.
Well, I prefer to be crushed by real arguement. If you've got em then for God's sake use 'em.
;)
I'm pretty sure Fraser did declare a period of marshal law for a few hours following the Hilton bombing while he and foreign diplomats were clearing out with the help of the military. I'm suspiscous of your claims of an ASIO frame up, though. I have greater faith in the motives of our security agencies than in the words of what you describe as an inconsistent low life.
But I'm open to pursuation
As for the scrap metal business: I'll recognise they're bastards, but this is some distance from having a military that's 'oppressing the populace'. It's also some distance for a real justification of abolishing the military.
Here's something to get you worked up: I believe that it is good to have military force working to defend democracy. At the same time, I believe the Vietnam war was fought in all the wrong ways and nearer the end calls were made for practical political rather than idealogical ends.
I need far more of your documented evidence than that.
Flame me baby.
Believe with me, my saplings.
You must have a hell of a gun if you can pierce Chobham armor, or shoot down an A-10.
Idiot. Guns are archaic symbols of a low-technological era long gone. Having a gun affords you 0.000001% more leverage than not having a gun. On the other hand, having a brain gives you a 100% advantage.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Red Herring.
Nazi Germany made guns illegal and bad things happened.
On the other hand, dozens of other countries made guns illegal and really good things happened. So, by pointing out facist Germany as an example, you point out the exception, not the rule.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Have you noticed that America's military are all volunteers?
Have you noticed that America has escaped the curse of a politicized military?
Have you noticed that all military personnel are ultimatelly responsible to the commander in chief, and he is responsible to only the constitution of the United States?
Do not make the mistake of assuming that the military is separate from the people, or from the constitution. It would be extremely extremely difficult for the military to ever turn on the people because of this.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Where to begin ...
:)) I can't wait to get back to Australia. Lets make it REAL SIMPLE for you. (You obviously can't spell, I only hope you can read).
... I feel their pain.
As an Australian working in the US (hey, someone has to do the work
Here's some stats (albeit around 1994ish)
USA
Population: 254,250,000
Gun Deaths: 38,317 (0.15 per 1000)
Gun Homocides: 17,971 (0.07 per 1000)
Australia
Population: 18,173,600
Gun Deaths: 596 (0.033 per 1000)
Gun Homocides: 85 (0.0047 per 1000)
If I lived in a country where I felt that I needed firearms in case the government went sour, I'd imigrate. If you really need "iron" then I suggest you use it on yourself and stay the hell away from the rest of us. Here's some more tidbits.
- U.S. has the highest gun related death rate among children and youth in comparison with 25 industrialized countries, 16 times more than all these 25 countries combined. (Center for Disease Control, Feb. 7, 1997)
- In America, in just two days, more people die by handgun than in one year in Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, Australia and Japan combined. (Center to Prevent Handgun Violence)
- Homicide rates (per 100,000 pop.) in the U.S., for males age 15 to 24 for 1992 are 37.3, the next highest rate is only 4.3 in Italy, followed by Israel 3.7, Ireland 1.8, Germany 1.1, France 0.9, England & Wales 0.6,and Japan 0.5. (CDC Report, Jan. 1995 from WHO & NCHS)
- During the 8 years of the Vietnam War, 58,000 American soldierswere killed. More people die by guns in the U.S. every 2 years now.
- Every 20 minutes, an American is shot to death.
This is not to say there's not a shitload of decent, inteligent Americans who also have to put up with this morons like you
I personally don't agree with "the right to bear arms". The intention of it is that the people can then have a chance at militant rebellion if a dictatorial government should arise. (NOT, btw, so people can fight vigilante-style against criminals.)
Ever heard of Gandhi, people? I don't believe in militant rebellion. There are always better ways, especially in a modern society like the U.S., to fight the government.
I mean, honestly, with today's weapons, even if it's possible to fight militaristically against the U.S. Armed Forces, there'd be a helluva lot of bloodshed, which could be avoided by non-violent rebellion.
Note the key phrase: "which clearly should be subject to warranting provisions"
If they were allowed to modify anything they wished, that's one thing. But compromising privacy after obtaining an court-approved warrant is not very different from compromising privacy via a warranted wiretap, etc.
I'm still not necessarily for it, but I'm just pointing out that if it's only legal after getting a warrant, I would not be immediately against it.
Excuse me, but have you actually BEEN to China?
I was born there, moved to the US when I was 6, but have visited a couple of times.. and I can tell you that it is hardly the hellhole the American media portrays it to be. In terms of commerce, China in many respects is even more freely capitalistic than the US.
But more importantly, remember those 1989 student protests in Tiananmen Square? I can tell you that they had a DEFINITE effect in convincing the government to be progressively more and more liberal in its policies.
And I don't it's so bad for the policies to change gradually.
Even the student leaders of that protest agree that no one wants China to "go democratic" the way the Soviet Union did.
>>The point is that they build back doors into everything, so that access is guaranteed if they want it.
It seems to me that the article is saying that, with a warrant, the cops could modify that SPECIFIC COPY of the software.. like installing a bug, not installing bugs in ALL software.
I'm not certain of which the article was talking about, but I would be in favor of the former, though not the latter.
Yes.. I never said China was perfect, only that it is getting better slowly.
Of course, most US citizens are only concerned about "worker protection" when the workers are American.
US companies exploit people in other countries routinely.. perhaps the worst, even.. and those who protest it are all too often seen as troublemakers.
I recall a quote from one major US company after being complained to about its treatment of workers in other countries (forget which it was, alas), who said "Well, that's unfortunate just the state of the global economy at the moment." Bull.
Jezus, there are several valid reasons why US lost vietnam, and it would NOT hold true if the oh-so-evil government was trying to put you down. I'll list the reasons the US lost vietname:
1) Most soldiers did not want to fight in vietnam, they went there to "serve their country"
2) The US could not separate enemy from friend, so they started killing pretty much ALL of the "gooks"
3) They were trying to OCCUPY a land in an enviroment and climate which they were not used to at all.
4) guns and heavy artillery do not do well when you're fighting in thick forests
5) There was popular opposition to the war back home, and politicians had their votes staked on it.
now.. the reasons why these reasons DO NOT apply in the US.
1) the US population is for the most part, materialist lazy complacent slobs. They wouldnt really care if a military dictator came to power if they got their hot-pockets and prime-time teevee.
2) Hitler had popular support in germany when he came to power. He provided an easy solution to complicated problems. Jews were a minority, and they were discriminated against already. He raised it to a new level, and gave the people what they wanted - a "strong" germany. If something like nazi germany were to happen in the US, the people would be WITH the establishment for the most part, and the people who would be WITH them would include the "republicans" and "conservatives", gun lovers, etc.
The thing is, these kind of people come to power WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE. If the people dont support the regime, it wont stand. In Russia, the russians believed in the socialist system, so they kept Stalin up. In Germany, the people believed in Hitler, so they kept him up.
In cuba, the people DID NOT side with the establishment - a ragtag army of 100 managed to take power from Batista - even when they were opposed by the Unied States itself. Do you think the majority of people in Cuba during Batista's reign had firearms? (hint: answer = NO!) Castro's revolution was funded mainly from the oustide. They won because they had the popular support of the people.
Your hopelessly inane arguments against gun control are just that.
-Laxitive
How about ipchains?
If they break into your computer, are they not inherently tampering with any evidence they may find. How can they *prove* that you broke into other computers when you did not have control of the machine. It would be SO easy for them to plant evidence this way, and would be equally easy to claim real evidence found was in fact planted.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
As far as I can tell, the sections deleted fall into two categories:
This is true. There isn't much that they can do about it, and they know it, but they'd rather not proclaim this to the masses at large, because a large fraction of the criminal population is lacking in common sense and won't clue into the need to use this for a while if left alone. That still leaves the competent criminals, of course.
I tend to agree that this might be the only practical way to monitor encrypted communications and so gain incriminating evidence. However, I have doubts about it being worth the cost in practice (it's too easy to abuse this power, which means that eventually the intelligence agency would). The fact that the Australian government was reluctant to release this information shows that they know how well this would fly with the public.
Anyone reasonably competent could figure out the above on their own, so it's not really secret. What this document says to me is that the agency writing it _was_ reasonably competent, and realizes that it's up the creek.
No, guns helped those people hold out long enough to get media attention before they were murdered.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Problem:
Modified software != regular software. Size, at least, will change. Anybody now nervous about security (not just criminals) is now clued to compare files.
Solution:
The ONLY way to get away with this would be to have M$ modify all of their O/S's, then just activate it on suspect systems.
If the aussies have written public papers on it, it's already happened.
So the feds and M$ (they wrote it, remember?)have access to all files touching their O/S's.
Hmmmmmm... One can't help but think of the "lost portions of source code" for Windows. Betcha a nickel that this ridiculous claim isn't challenged by the feds -- which means that the [if broweser = Netscape then infinite loop;] sections are going to get "lost" too.
Did all you Micro$laves remember to update your NT service packs?
Start looking, crackers & kiddies! The ultimate BO is already installed, you just have to find the keys! Who'll be first?
Is cracking this a good job for Distributed.net? What fun!
Who would have dreamed it? Open source is the only way to have privacy. Simply amazing.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Don't you just love it.. Typical Americanism. They slag off every other country and hide behind anonymity. Why don't you put your name to it?
I know... becuase you're an ignorant moron who thinks that because they're an American they're so wonderful. Well let me assure you that the Yanks don't do everything right. Take the Gulf War for example. The Yanks killed more of their own soldiers than the enemy did. You've got to love a country that is proud of killing their own people.
Yeah.... just the sort of country I want to live in..
*sarcasm_mode=y*
Well guys... Cya. I'm going to take part in a drive-by shooting.
*sarcasm_mode=n*
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not the responsiblity of the user, as I probably stole them anyway
I was talking about America, I am an American as if you can't tell, and have been all over the world including your beautiful country several times.
Since I have seen the way other countries and peoples live I get a little irritated when people here in the United States complain about government this and Government that and really do not realize how good we do have it. Yes our government has problems, but so do everyone elses even yours I am sure. If these people who complain so loudly would turn their attention to Washington, they might just be surprised!
does that mean that they're breaking into a "nominated computer system" to secure evidence that they just broke in?
*snorts* stupid! sounds just like something a government would do....
Just sounds like more paranoia/ psychosis fodder for the unknowing masses in the US......
Let's just hope this isn't happening allready in the U.S.