Slashdot Mirror
Australian Government Cracks Down on Net Users
The Australian Government has hastily enacted several measures overnight that should send a shiver down the collective spines of all Net users. Firstly, it passed major legislation that enables the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), similar to the CIA, to remotely tap into and alter data on any Australian's computer. APC Newswire has the story. Secondly, the Government minister responsible for IT, Senator Richard Alston, has appointed an Internet content censorship advisory board stacked with representatives who support his heavy-handed approach, critics say. Critics of Alston's agenda in the past have included the ACLU and the EFF-affiliated Australian Net-users' group, Electronic Frontiers Australia. Again, APC has the story and a commentary.
If they can do it Down Under, how long do you think it will be before similar measures come to a town near you?
If they can do it Down Under, how long do you think it will be before similar measures come to a town near you?
I wish I knew who said it, but a favourite quote of mine, that I have heard a few times lately (typically in the context of various repugnant US policies) was:
"Thank god we got the criminals and not the Puritans".
Of course not, they've been programmed over the years to accept they have no basic rights to firearms ownership and accept it. Unfortunately it means they also have no recourse once a corrupt government comes into power except HOPE they can resolve it through political means without bloodshed. When it comes time for a revolution you will find your asses against a wall if you do not have a gun. The French would still be licking a King's balls if it wasn't for revolutions.
The same thing could've been accomplished in 2 days with 1,000 heavily armed American milita. We could invade Britain and move on to Eurasia easily with a handful of troops.
Not really on topic, but there is no President of Australia, the head of state is the Queen of England, their political leader is the Primie Minister (of Aus, not UK).
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
It is a British commonwealth... therefore the Queen rules Australia with an iron fist. The "people" merely make suggestions to her majesty and if she agrees with them may enact them into law, if not, she doesn't.
If you would, go take a look at the Top-500 Supercomputer list, and tell me why the US Government has that many machines for classified purposes.
Hey, if they had even TOLD US they were intending to do this before they actually DID IT, we would have stood up for ourselves. I (as an Australian) am am *very annoyed* with our backwards view of the future. It is high time we changed governments, I think.
You take that back, or I'll blow your fucking head off!!!
I *am* the NRA!!!
11/17
apache
11/26 (11)
askslashdot
11/24
books
11/24
bsd
11/24
features
11/22
interviews
11/12
radio
11/25 (4)
yro
Andover.Net
AndoverNews
FreeCode
Freshmeat
ITR
MediaBuilder
Interview: KDE Developers Answer Your Questions
Posted by Roblimo on Friday November 26, @12:00PM
from the great-things-coming dept.
Last week, Microsoft and antritrust. This week, thoughts on KDE's
future from some of the people who work directly on it, specifically
Kurt Granroth and Richard Moore. Instead of posting their e-mail
addresses here and swamping them with messages, please see
http://developer.kde.org, which will tell you not only how you can contact these
gentlemen, but much more about KDE development.
( Read More... | 21362 bytes in body | 2 of 2 comments )
What constitutes an Alpha-version?
Posted by Hemos on Friday November 26, @11:07AM
from the what-does-it-mean dept.
jacobm writes "An article went up on mozillazine.org yesterday in
which the Mozilla team asks the community: what will it mean for
Mozilla to be alpha? Probably a good question for everyone to think
about, especially those of us who develop (or will develop) software for fun or profit.
" Interesting question, especially when it comes to Mozilla. With M12 coming up,
they are getting close to that stage, and have setup a criteria they think works. Do
you agree?
( Read More... | 34 of 37 comments )
Australian Government Cracks Down on Net Users
Posted by nathan on Friday November 26, @09:51AM
from the Big-Brother dept.
The Australian Government has hastily enacted several measures
overnight that should send a shiver down the collective spines of all Net
users. Firstly, it passed major legislation that enables the Australian Security and
Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), similar to the CIA, to remotely tap into and alter
data on any Australian's computer. APC Newswire has the story. Secondly, the
Government minister responsible for IT, Senator Richard Alston, has appointed an
Internet content censorship advisory "If they can do it Down Under, how long do you think it will be before similar measures come to a town near you?"
Notice that this stuff isn't done until after gun control is implemented. We won't have gun control for a few years, yet.
Like the Aussies, we'll have these laws when President AlGore or Bradley reinvents the internet.
Hillary Clinton made a revealing statement a few years back. She said the internet was a very dangerous thing because anybody could say anything, uncheck by gatekeepers or editors.
Why do you kids keep voting for people like this? Face it, you're single issue voters. The liberals and control freaks support a woman's right to choose, and you'll support EVERY other policy to keep abortion "safe, legal, and (hah) rare."
The U.S. is too busy destroying the freedom of their constituents. I see nothing like that happening without a major change of administration even in the United States.
"how long do you think it will be before similar measures come to a town near you?"
Notice that this stuff isn't done until after gun control is implemented. We won't have gun control for a few years, yet.
Like the Aussies, we'll have these laws when President AlGore or Bradley reinvents the internet.
Hillary Clinton made a revealing statement a few years back. She said the internet was a very dangerous thing because anybody could say anything, uncheck by gatekeepers or editors.
Why do you kids keep voting for people like this? Face it, you're single issue voters. The liberals and control freaks support a woman's right to choose, and you'll support EVERY other policy to keep abortion "safe, legal, and (hah) rare."
It would be nice to blackhole all addresses in Australia for a day or so to express the net's displeasure at this legislation. And if they read or change data as it merely passes thru Australia, I'd support making it permanent until they stop. It's a clear and present danger to the integrity of the net.
That would work in theory, but I dont believe that the government would give a damn if their citizens werent allowed full access to the net. They are doing it to them anyway. I believe that governments like ours and the Aussies hate the idea of the internet, because they cant control your mind there...that is the game that they are in. Take the net away while increasing legislation, and you switch from democracy to a stalinist communism, or something like that...
There seems to be an implicit assumption that a government is an evenhanded institution that would never abuse power or play favorites. Few real governments are that good, most are made up of people with agendas
Those countries are usually poor countries led by dictators. Here, its not the people in charge, nor the government in its main mass, its the people that are dragged around by big business and lobbyist groups.
icq:=22921393;
Law enforcement officers in the NRA? Sureyou jest! Don't you recall the fund raising letter a while back where the NRA pontificated against "jack-booted government thugs"? You remember, the letter that made George Bush publicly denounce the NRA?
I find it interesting how you don't mention how well funded gun manufacturers fund the NRA.
it's one step closer to the british government controlling the entire world. Why do you think this kind of stuff is only happening in places run by the british- australia, canada, etc. You all know that the reason they banned semi guns was so the people couldn't make a militia when the military takes control of them.
Done all the time in the physical world.
And it's probably done in the computer world as well...
The problem is that it's ILLEGAL to do in the physical world.. this bill basically says that if you plant "cyber" evidence, then it's perfectly legal as long as you're with the secret police.
I'm glad the last of my familty moved from Australia last year... it's not a place I'd want anyone I care about to live..
Law enforcement officers in the NRA? Sureyou jest! Don't you recall the fund raising letter a while back where the NRA pontificated against "jack-booted government thugs"? You remember, the letter that made George Bush publicly denounce the NRA?
It's wonderful how it's never mentioned this wasn't anything close to an official statement by the NRA. It was a comment made by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Of course, the media blew it way out of proportion.
I find it interesting how you don't mention how well funded gun manufacturers fund the NRA.
It's also interesting how people complain about the so-called influence of the gun industry on the NRA via funding, but we never attempt to discern the funding sources of grouple like the ACLU. This aside, i'm sure we'll find with both, the lion's share comes from membership dues and private donations.
And so it goes. The ACLU is worshiped for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights, while the NRA is demonized for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights.
-Tom O'Rear -- tomed@radiks.net
What if that Australian was no longer in Australia? Would this law empower them to alter data regardless of where the person was?
What if the person became a citizen of another country? How long does Australia consider a person an Australian?
"Oh, By the way, we've granted you unconditional Australian Citizenship. We've found some porn and anti-Australian propaganda on your computer (because we put it there) and have begun extradition proceedings. We know you didn't apply for citizenship, and we know that your machine was clean before, but we're building some olympic venues and we need lots of prison labourers to get the job done within the budget.
Welcome to the Land Down Under"
>A civil war has already taken place in the US not so long ago, between opposed political views.
But it was a nation divided. In present day, it's not the same. It's not the people v. the people now.. It would be the government v. the people, right? How many of those soldiers do you think prefer their government above their families and friends?
>This is an experimental proof that strong, quasi-mystical, beliefs in how a country should be ruled can overcome the >natural resistance to killing someone just like you.
Yes. But look at the entire picture. If a few trees fall, is the whole forest destroyed? Do a few bad apples ruin an entire crop? So if some resistance fighters were tortured and killed by their own, wouldn't the movement still continue?
The point is, the majority of soldiers (and citizens) on the defense would still have a hard time killing fellow countrymen for reasons they either don't understand or don't feel are right.. Remember those people didn't join the military to fight themselves..
-mg.
The truly frightening thing about this legislation is the way it was presented to the Australian people - not at all. I don't recall a single story in any of the media that mentioned this particular legislation, or its level of intrusion/access. Even today, there's nothing in the media about it.
The Australian attitude means we ignore/don't hear about this sort of thing until it affects somebody powerful enough to scream loudly - then we hope that the courts can settle it to our general satisfaction (which they usually do, on the third or fourth try...)
For what it's worth, know that most of the media in Australia is owned or controlled to some degree by Rupert Murdoch/News Ltd., better known to the US as Fox. Imagine 24 hrs of Fox-TV specials, and you've got the general idea...
What about Stalin?
Note Australia has a convict heritage (read: used to authoritarianism), and have done pretty well in staying on their masters' (the UK and now their federal government/UN/UKUSA ) good sides.
/. might just be getting itself worked up over something Australians couldn't care less about.
.. oh, nevermind ;-)
Australia doesn't seem to have much interest in technology (can't think of one big Australian hi-tech firm). Perhaps it really isn't important to them, because they don't have anything they consider worth hiding, or any causes they think are worth fighting for.
A nation of sheep, eh? Must be from
That seems to be the attitude of the government and major players. They still don't really get it, so they're busy trying to bend it to become like something they understand.
Funny thing is, Australian business in general is so bad at customer-related business. For instance, mail-order is not big here. Until a few years ago almost nobody used it (except in cases of extreme isolation - the bush, etc - and even they usually dealt with a local store where they knew and trusted the owner, etc). Now, businesses are trying to provide "customer satisfaction" without face-to-face contact - despite the fact that they had trouble doing it with face-to-face contact.
Case: I ordered some CDs from "Australia's Largest On-Line Music Retailer", Chaos Music. My credit card was billed the day after I sent my order. Despite having lots of signage on their website promising speedy delivery, email updates on order status, notifcation of delays, etc, I received nothing for 2 1/2 weeks except junk email promoting their IPO. Finally, I received 3 out of 4 CDs - shipped from the US. After a total of 4 weeks, I'm still waiting on the 4th, supposedly shippped locally, even after email enquiries that assured me it should be shipped early this week. Guess who's not getting my business again?
Sadly, this is not unusual - it is the norm rather than the exception. And business feels they need to rule the internet over here, to prevent people shopping overseas!
The other day I ordered some stuff via snail-mail with a good old-fashioned money order, direct from a band in Los Angeles (Buck). My money is betting that that will arrive before my order from CMM here in Oz...
well well well, Australia is becoming a nice little faschist communist country. First they make almost all firearms illegal and then severely restrict electronic communication. Never thought the new world order would have started with them.
Neither.
Nor does the average Australian approve of neo-colonialist interference in Crown/State affairs :-)
Besides, it'll just mean more available seats for the average "aussie battler" (yes, the term our PM uses) to see Cathy Freemans' 100m track final!
(I feel sorry for that girl - 18 months out from the Olympics, before the track & field timetable or seats were available, and already she was being lumbered with the expectations of being the winner. Talk about pressure...)
YOu live there? I'm sorry for ya. really. Now get out on the net, and start clamoring! 'Cause you might not be able to complain about this later (when your right to free speech gets squelched).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The link about "remotly tap into and alter data" is broken. I think this is the correct link.
The Mass shootings in the schools didn't start untill after it was made illegal for anyone to have a gun on schoolgrounds.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Is it just me, or is this a very scary priviledge, that could be easily abused.
Say they get permission to go onto someone's computer, to find something, can't find it, but decide to fake it anyway. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Actually the referendum was a safe bill which would've replaced the Governor-General (who is appointed by the Prime Minister) with a President who would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament (so the President couldn't be a political figure like he is in the US).
The Monarchists had to be against it because if passed, the Queen would no longer be our head of state. There was a good old FUD campain by the Monarchists and Direct Electionists to confuse the uneducated -- statistics show that the educated and high income electorates mostly voted 'yes', while the poorer areas with less educated people voted against the proposal. Personally I reckon that says something for the 'no' cases PR campaign, but not much else.
>BTW, it is illegal to use the Military for domestic law enforcement.
That's nice in theory but does anyone remember the stink when a squad of Marines shot a young Mexican boy at the border. Apparently they had been co-opted by the Border Patrol to help law enforcement watch the border. Highly illegal but they did it anyway. And what of the stories that there were military present and partaking of the Branch Davidian mess. I won't even get into the possibility of any truth in those wacky "black helicopter" stories.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
I'm betting they could with most folks but NOW is the time to GET/USE some serious encryption Aussie's and the English have some basic differences (read lack) in their personal freedoms protections and basic rights, but the US Govt' is slow, not stupid, they'll want a piece of the pie soon...
In many ways this legislation negates itself. For example, if I am brought into court for my pornographic nihlistic blueprint for the destruction of the Australian Way Of Life can any of my computer records be relied on as evidence? Can anyone prove my files are really mine? It won't take an enterprising solicitor long to bring these sorts of problems to light in court. Another problem is how do I handle confidential information with my collaborators located in Australia? Do I recomend to my shareholders that we cease doing buisiness in Australia due to the probable lack of security? It's one thing dealing with script-kiddies, it's an entirely different matter dealing with a government. How far does this go? Do we have to take special care to ensure that none of our communications are routed through Australian servers? What about working with other government contracts? Will I have to restrict my access to Australian based sources simply because of the potential lack of security? This is the kind of dollars and cents (US or Oz or otherwise) argument that politicians understand. I agree entirely that individuals must pay the price for their freedom- but use all the weapons at your disposal. In addition to voting and letter writing as citizens, use your influence with whatever corporation or institution you might be involved with. As IT professionals your views are (presumably) respected by the people that own the politicians. As individual crackpots we are easily ignored.
The US has equivalent laws already.
Used to be. Now it's illegal to use the Military for domestic law enforcement, unless drugs are (suspected to be) involved.
If one right can be taken away, then others can. Those who wish to destroy other peoples rights allways start by disarming them. When you give up your right to defend your self, you are making it easy for someone to take the rest of your rights away.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Note: The following post is a rant. The views and opinions expressed within are the views and opinions of a especially pissed offed /. reader.
Why don't people riot over this? Why don't they do anything? This is a very disturbing question. These laws are morally outrageous and completely contrary to the basic rights that people deserve, yet they are simply accepted as is and nothing is done about it. That is the real problem. If the people (I mean the general population. I'm sure there are some who care, but they are the minority) actually cared laws like this could never be passed. But they don't.
Why are people so willing to flush their basic freedoms down the toilet? The first factor is ingorance. Your average Joe doesn't understand the issue. All your average Joe knows is that there are "bad people" on the internet and that big brother government is needed to protect the poor, defenseless children from them. No matter that these laws don't do squat for protecting the "poor, defenseless children", but they do wonders for oppressing the general population. Average Joe's attention span has been rendered far too short by sensationalism and TV to actually spend the time to determine what exactly the laws are doing. All average Joe cares is that big brother is doing something. So the end result is that the only one that big brother's actions serve to protect is big brother itself.
It disgusts me how easily people can be fooled. Sometimes I am embarassed to be a member of the human race. Honestly, people don't look for any sort of evidence so support their opinions. They just look at what everyone else is doing and decide to hop on the bandwagon. If they hear about "evil things" going on on the internet (or anywhere else) they are all too happy to get themselves into some unjustified outrage over these "evil things" regardless of how much they have been blown out of proportion or even whether or not they are true. Then they will start writing letters and going to protests about these evil things until big brother swoops in to protect them. They just love big brother. Big brother is their friend. In their minds. In reality, the only evil thing going on is big brother.
OK, I'm starting to sound very repetitive so I will stop writing now. In conclusion: I'm pissed off and I hate the government. Hey, if anyone from big brother is reading this now feel free to go after me or something. I'd make a much better martyr than I'll ever make a speaker. Maybe we can actually get the general population to give a damn about the fact that they are flushing their rights down a toilet.
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
I could see how the government might want to be able to see any data for national security purposes... ... but to also be able to change the data?!?!!? That's a scary thought. Let's see, joe shmoe puts something up on his website that is "controversial" and the government can step in and delete it or change it to something it finds more appropriate?!?! AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!
>But, a "right" is not something that your massa gives you -- it is something that you are born with! Just because it is illegal, does not mean that it does not exist. Remember the bit about "These truths we hold self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?
That's nice as an empirical truth but how well does it hold up in practice. Ask the slaves, or the Jews about their "Human Rights". All the Rights in the world won't prevent massa from knocking on your door and hanging you from a tree, raping and killing your family. Where are your Rights then?
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
I thought that clipper chip1,2,3,etc had dealt with the issue of secure, bugged transmission.
Basically, i guess we don't have that much to worry about, just keep on using your pgp, and keep on browsing with your OC-3 connection and i'm sure you'll notice if you're being tapped.
How free did you think you were to begin with?? --nsfmc
Equally predictably, several people counter-argued that there is no relationship between private firearms ownership and freedom. That those (Americans, in particular) who believe so are deluded cowboys living in the 18th century.
What folks who make that latter argument fail to take into consideration is that it's not the condition of private firearms ownership that's important. Nor is it even a question of the existence of guarantees (Constitutional or otherwise) to "keep and bear" firearms that's important. What's important is the mind-set that drives Governments and individuals to deprive others of their ability to defend themselves with lethal force should they deem it necessary. The logical conclusion that one can justifiably draw from such attempts is that there is a reason others wish to disarm them.
One might assume (and perhaps safely so) that so-called "anti-violence" organizations have only the best of intentions: that of protecting themselves and their fellow citizens from harm. This doesn't perforce make them right. It doesn't even automatically endow them with some particular "higher moral authority" than others. They have a point-of-view. It is dependent on each individual to consider their arguments in light of reality and come to their own conclusions about the "rightness" of any particular position.
But unthinkingly assuming a Government restricts ones freedom with only the best of intentions is completely unjustified. Governments and the professional politicians that comprise them have agendas. And those agendas rarely, if ever, coincide with the best interests of individuals and their freedoms. To believe otherwise is to ignore history and all that it should have taught us.
The correspondence between freedoms to keep and bear arms and other individual freedoms amounts to a philosophical one. It is a question of "mind set." If your fellow citizens, neighbors and Government have no need to fear you, they will feel no need to disarm you. If they do feel the need to disarm you, you have to ask yourself: why?
Just as you should when others wish to infringe on any freedom.
Jim Seymour
jseymour@jimsun.LinxNet.com
Caveat: I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. I'm probably not licensed in your jurisdiction, and I'm certainly not licensed in Australia. See an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice on this or any other matter.
.). However, Australia and the rest of the English speaking world draw their rule of law and notion of government from the Common Law of England, with which I am familiar.
I have no direct familiarity with Australian constitutional issues (save that silly idea to add a president with political power; at least a distant figurehead queen is harmless . .
Whether expressed explicitly, as in the U.S. Bill of Rights, or through tradition, as in England, the law puts finite limits on the powers of government. THat is, there are limits on the ability of the government to pass legislation that changes the law in certain ways, and legislation that purports to do so simply is not the law.
In the U.S., this wouldn't get out of committee in Congress (though state legislatures regularly turn out attempts this stupid, and initiative processes do far worse). In Britain, I'm fairly certian that this wouldn't fly (except when dealing with wartime emergencies). I'll be sadly disappointed if the Australian system doesn't have sufficient checks & balances to handle this. Good Lord, these folks just reinvented the general warrant . . .
hawk, esq.
Unfortunately, the majority of the voting public knows very little or nothing about the internet, and things generally end up catering to the lowest common denominator.
>> (And I won't mention the appalling racist hierarchy that is openly maintained in the US)
Well Michael, I spent 2 1/2 years in Sydney working for a computer company that had offices in all of the major cities so I had an opportunity to get around the country and have a first hand view. The way that the Australians treat the Aborigines is pretty pathetic. I would say your country is about where the U.S. was about a hundred years ago.
Perhaps the NRA should push for the Swiss solution of every male between 18-60 *must* own a working firearm and must do a year (or is it 2?) of national service training.
The US had a draft that lasted up until the early 70's. I myself was drafted out of college as an EE to become a Combat Targeting team member (team of 3). Later I also competed internationally in pistol competitions for the military. I, however only have a rifle for deer hunting now. But there are millions out there like me, who have the knowledge, lack the fear, and will do what is right in our minds if the time comes. I personally do not think it ever will come though, and I am thankful if it does not.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
Well, U.S. sometimes follows similar policy, and not only according to "cyber" wars. Remember Panama?
So very right, but at the same time, so very wrong. In an ideal world, you are perfectly right: a democracy is ruled by the majority(who are presumably right, kind, and just) delegating their powers to representatives(who are presumably even kinder and juster). However, in practice things don't always work out this way. Sometimes, you have what is known as "tyranny of the majority", where the majority uses their democratic power to oppress the minority. The Jim Crow laws that sprang up after the Civil War typify this. Certainly this was pure democracy in action -- the legislators doing what their constituents wanted. These laws, coupled with the resurgence ofThe KKK, made it very uncomfortable to be a political(and, in this case, racial) minority in much of this country for quite a time. Democracy in Action!
However, the founders of the US had thought of this, and set down the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is specifically intended to preserve individual liberty, even at the cost of pure majority rule.
Of course, in practice, this hasn't always worked so well (see above). It seems that no matter how many times freedoms are written down, even on real paper, they can be stolen by the government and/or antagonistic fellow citizens.
Only one thing stands between the black sharecropper and the Klan, between the Warsaw Jew and the Nazis, between any oppressed minority and the pogrom. It is the one thing the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto tried desperately to aquire, the one thing that was immediately taken from free blacks in the South, the one thing that every tyrant fears: a gun.
All too often, in America and elsewhere, personal weapons have meant the difference between liberty and slavery, between life and death. Remember the words of Martin Niemoller: "In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Do you think this would have happened if every Communist, Jew, trade unionist, Catholic, and Protestant had had a gun and ammunition? Of course, one of the first things Hitler did was register, and then later confiscate, almost every priately-owned firearm in Germany.
Maybe I'm just another crazy American obsessed with guns. Maybe this time, for real, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, government is really kind and benevolent. Maybe you will put your faith in them, and vote, and hope that this time, they won't take away quite so many of your rights.
And maybe, it will be because you have no other choice.
-----------
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
`nuff said.
This is achieved by compulsory preferential voting which virtually makes it impossible for any new party to enter the arena - as proved with the recent "One Nation" party debacle. One Nation (a far right party) attracted 20% of the National vote but unded up with only 1 representative.
The existing parties don't want to lose the power they have. This was evidenced at the last election where they gave preferences to each other than to One Nation, and at the recent Repulic Referendum. Despite newspaper polls showing 70% support for a Republic where the people would elect the President, the politicians decided/rigged a referendum where the only model on offer was a President essentially chosen by politicians (with only 15% core support). Was this because a politically controlled President was less likely to make decisions to 'rock the boat'?
Australias 'rigged' 2 party political system results in a system where critical bills where the 2 leading parties are in disagreement end up being passed by backhanded deals done with a small number of 'independent' senators - hence the mess we're in.
Probably about the same as they did before. This bill changes the act to allow ASIO to treat your computer the same way it treats your filing cabinet. So, after getting a warrant ASIO can now read/copy/change your data to the extent necessary to obtain evidence of a reasonably suspected security threat. It previous could do all that to a "safe, box, drawer, parcel, envelope or other container". This bill only brings ASIO into the 21st century. You know, the one where terrorists know how to operate a PC as well as a filing cabinet.
In fact the law also says that it "does not authorise the addition, deletion or alteration of data
Zod cant get Net+ to put his password through properly
But your skirting the issue. Guns are still useless!! You are still depending on the morals of people. Don't forget that people are more likely to kill people that are shooting at them. Guns just motivate the soldiers to protect themselves.
It's only insane because of the certain details, not the overall concept; ask the Israelis.
You are aware of the school shootings *stopped* when a teacher retrieves a shotgun from his car, right? Or did the media not mention 'em to you?
Those details include:
* Most teachers over here haven't had firearms training, and probably wouldn't want it. Hence, many of them might be worse than useless.
* The Israelis aren't messing around with handguns, but are instead armed for bear.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
God, why is this drivel Score:2? Maybe our poster here needs to wake up. It's all well and good to have an active /. who is aware of all these internet censorship issues, but normal people don't care. And normal people are caring less and less about internet censorship. Why? Easy.. /.! And with access being as easy as a point and a click, people get scared. At least with pornography and sex in general, there's a society of taboos to stop a 14 year old from walking into a porn store. There isn't a freedom of information in society as it exists today anyway, yet somehow it should exist online?
It's so easy to say 'censorship is bad.' Yet with the Internet being in it's relative infancy, anyone can post anything. Total drivel (This is my cat's homepage). Hate mongering. Pornography.
Also, don't expect to see anything terribly violent happen anytime soon. Despite your conclusion being generally logical, remember that Karl Marx had very logical arguments that claimed Communism would just sweep the world because of the oppression of people during the late stages of the Industrial Revolution. Also, the Internet, by and large, still doesn't have enough daily penetration into peoples lives for your scenario to play out. A net underground would be an easy thing to crack down, the way that information is both so free (if it's easy for you to find it, it's easy for it to find you).
There, my rant is done. Note that my opinions may or may not be stated, I was more or less playing a Devils Advocate.
*sniff* Not much of a troll, if you ask me. Rather lame. Probably from the FBI :)
>Does this include the computers used by Australians, or just those >owned by Australians ?
/. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
I wish I knew. "Used by Australians" could mean just about any server on the Internet, including
This is happening right next door to me and it's scary.
Anonymous New Zealand Coward
Anyway, I'd suggest you go off and have a really long think about someone like Ghandi, or the Dalai Lama, or
someone along those lines - it might restore a modicum of your faith in your species.
Like Ghandi who was shot dead, and the Dalai Lama who is now living in exile? Not much encouragement there.
Every law enforcement officer I know belongs to the NRA, or one of the other anti-gun control organizations (such as GOA). The "jack-booted government thugs" reference was made in response to several instances of federal agents shooting innocent people in their own homes. It did not referr to local police officers.
Well you can be required under s3V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to give your name and address, but I don't know of these other powers of the NCA and the Feds. Could you point me in the direction of the source of this power. (ie the relevant provisions of the relevant act).
Israelis also live in a world of reciprocating hate. Believe me, it's not pretty. I lived in both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The guns and conscription are there for simple survival.
Also, if you think the amount of 'crazies in the US is disturbing, try israel, iran, iraq, turkey, greece et al. The difference is that in a lot of these countries, leaders have done a good job of propogating hate and denial and target particular groups.
What I do not condone, is the use of a violent means to promote self-righteous behavior while masking it as a means to promote freedom and liberty. Unfortunately the world isn't so perfect. I do, however, find it refreshing that there are some societies in the world where paranoia is generally unfounded and we can more or less live in peace.
The issues of 1) right to carry firearms, 2) rights to access whatever I want on the net and 3) freedom of speech are NOT the same thing.
To think they are the same is a kneejerk simplification. Think a bit more before responding. I'm quite happy in my Australian city knowing that my neighbour or the local gangs of kids don't have easy access to automatic weapons.
I'm yet to meet an intelligent Australian or American who believes complete freedom to own whatever armoury people want is a good idea. Most Americans don't realise what a laughing stock the USA is with their 18th Century attitude to firearms which they protect so fiercely whilst having such an appallingly high crime/death rate using weapons!
Perhaps the NRA should push for the Swiss solution of every male between 18-60 *must* own a working firearm and must do a year (or is it 2?) of national service training.
Maybe it's just me, but when I'm in the US (fairly often) I feel the average US citizen is much more worried about being shot that being sexually assaulted by someone who looks at porn on his PC.
Like when I was in Washington last year and was told "Whatever you do, don't go to the bad side of town, it's not safe." So I'm educated about the massive crime rate in the nations capital. So please, criticise the recent Net laws, but don't lecture us on firearms. (And I won't mention the appalling racist hierarchy that is openly maintained in the US)
Why is it that the "land of the free" is such a dangerous, unsafe place compared to "close minded" societies like Australia?
pithy comment
You don't believe popular news reports about the Internet do you? You've developed your various opinions on the issues that revolve around the Internet based on your own research and investigation, haven't you?
Then why do you believe the tripe published in the popular press regarding the issues that revolve around gun control and fire arms violence?
From what I've been reading, it would seem that little published in the press can be trusted on either issue.
How many Australian boxes with network servers are Linux boxes? Of those, how many are up-to-date "hardened" configurations? True, you don't have to create a 'asio' account (password: "1Mp34ch!", shell: /bin/rsh, no access to anything but political philosophy documents...)
'sides, they could always try for physical access, or park a TEMPEST van outside your flat and wait until you do enter some passwords. Assuming you're not using some kind of physical OTP S/key-like smartcard.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Assuming the records pertain to a federal offence (or to an offence in NSW), it ought to be possible to get it into evidence. Computer based records could be adduced under any of the various provisions of s48(1)(b), (c),(d) or (e) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth & NSW). This is because 'document' is defined for the purposes of the Act as including anything, inter alia, " ... from which sounds images or writing can be reproduced with or without the aid or anything else"
Depending on the circumstance, computer records might be excluded, prima facie, by the hearsay provision of the Act (s59). (It won't of course if the 'record' is the actual thing you are not allowed to have). However there are many exceptions which would allow the production of the evidence, for instance if it is a 'business record' (s69), if it is a record you yourself made (s66(2)(a)) &c.
Can anyone prove my files are really mine?
Well I guess, since these would be records which "purport to have been produced" (s48(1)(b)(ii)) by your machine, it is likely that the prosecution would put the question to you, whether these actually were your documents. Being under oath you would, of course, answer truthfully, would you not? :P
There are a heck of a lot of people who will argue until they're blue in the face that there is no relation between the two, but remember what Mao said:
Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power rows out of the barrel of a gun."
It applies to more than just Communists.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
When I first read this I didnt really care. But I read it again and realized that someone was smokin' some bad weed or something. How the hell did this government get elected? There has to be some australians willing to stand up for what they believe in and get this government taken down (legally). The have no reguard for what the people want. Yes..the net can be a bad place. If you know where to look. I find that I seldomly "trip over" pr0n or hate sites. 99% of the time if you just look at the domain you are being sent to you can tell if its a porn site or not. Besides...NO filter can get 100%. I dont care if you have a list of good sites there will ALWAYS be a way around it. There is still email with fly by night sites. There are still sites like www.noproxy.com which allow you to bypass it. There are still perl scripts written allowing you to do a noproxy.com on any server you want. This isnt about protecting our kids. It's that parents now adays are just too damn lazy to spend time with their kids and teach them right from wrong. I myself im a 16 year old kid (young adult :) and i feel that parents now adays are just too busy thinking about making money and working than having fun and spending quality time with their kids. I know my parents are just too damn tired to spend any time with us after working long days. The burdon of all of this is on the parents. Frankly my parents dont care what i do on the net. Not cause they are bad people its just that they know i will make good decisions.
In the twentieth century, however, the examples of Nazi Germany, Cuba, Russia and Yugoslavia show us that the popular militia is almost always on the side of the totalitarian power.
Thus the second amendment to the US consititution, protecting the right of the unpopular militia to own firearms as well. Your point is well made, but flawed, in that a state that reserves the right to decide who is allowed to possess a firearm will inevitably produce the "popular militia" (as the state will only allow those who agree with it's political views, and thus pose no risk to the state, to possess firearms.)
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
What good is a private sector that is thwarted by corrupt government officials?
China and Russia are excellent examples of this. To do business, one must bribe, bribe, bribe. Be it the local crime bosses or the bureaucrats, it doesn't really matter. Neither place has the tradition of political rights which will hold the politician's feet to the fire--and keep them mostly honest.
You are correct in stating that economic rights are being rolled back. The same goes with political rights--and in many cases they really are the same.
Take the simple right to vote. Many share holders vote as well as many citizens. Are Chinese citizens not shareholders in their government, and do they not deserve a say in how it is run?
For the folks comfortably placed in the West, we are very lucky to be able to have the freedom to enjoy the wealth we earn. For example, in some countries one cannot legally drink alcohol. Alcohol is common at parties, but afterwards one gets home by avoiding the police at all costs. It is an unpopular rule but the citizens cannot voice their opinions by secret ballot. Civil rights prevent (well slow) motivated extremists from gaining and staying in power.
With rulers which are unaccountable, the average citizen finds money is tougher to earn, tougher to keep, tougher to spend. What then, is the benefit of wealth accumulation?
-B
Please don't bring up quake, you'll just give 'them' something else to try and take away.
wouldnt ipsec be nicer? There are also some blowfish patches available for frees/wan ipsec, and then again ssleay libs are originally from here in australia so imsure we could always use those instead. i just hate the thought of getting people into the habit of using pppd mppe and mschap thru msvpn on thier windows boxes. With the MS NSA keys im sure the Au govt would alrady have that covered as part of echelon... what do you reckon? ;)
meridian at tha.net
I'll repeat that one, because lots of Americans seem to have trouble with it: You Don't Need A Gun To Have Rights In A Democracy.
Well, your example of Australia doesn't seem to be supporting your argument lately. I think we'll keep our guns over here in the US, thanks.
If you are living in a democracy, then nothing and no one can ever take your democratic rights away.
That is completely niave. There are lots of ways a democracy could crumble, both from internal and external reasons. Although everyone hopes it will never be necessary, it seems best to have some insurance in the long run.
Take your pick: either you need guns, the US isn't a genuine Democracy and your 2nd Amendment is the foundation of your Civil Rights
We need guns, the US isn't a pure democracy (it is a republic, technically), and the 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights, and it along with the Consitution are certainly a foundation of our civil rights.
As an Australian anonymous coward, reading all this crap has given me a really good feeling for the gulf between Australians and Americans. Here's an excerpt from the article linked to the original APC Newswire story: "One reason for the reduced time frame is that some amendments must be passed in order to give ASIO new security powers in time for the Sydney Olympics." This is purely and simply an olympics related thing, and I expect it will be rolled back later. Even if that's not the case, comparisons between ASIO and the CIA are absolutely laughable. When was the last time ASIO set up a puppet dictator in a small South American nation? Hmmmm, let me think. We simply do not have the same kind of government/agency setup you do. The internet censorship laws you guys keep rattling on about were passed so that one politician would back the governing party's goods and services tax laws, and he didn't. They were never intended to be effective or realistic, just a bargaining tool. And as I said above, the extension of ASIO's powers is an attempt to guard against the kind of militancy that we can associate with the Olympics, especially since the Atlanta bombing. Who knows how many whackos have booked tickets from the US, intending to pull that off here? So any theories about what the Australian government wants to do to the people, about paranoia and ignorance, about the health of our democracy, are absolutely bogus. Both these bills were examples of extreme pragmatism, and both can be reversed or modified by the next government that comes along. Add to that the fact that only - what is it - 16% of Australians are connected to the internet, and you can see what a crazy, crazy adventure you people are having blowing all this out of proportion. As for gun laws, the Australian community is competely in favour of them, and has been since the Port Arthur massacre. We have never had an antiquated provision in our constitution that allows people the right to arm themselves against those sneaky English. Our democracy is healthy enough that we traditionally feel in full control over the things our politicians do or implement, which is why we don't get so paranoid over 'freedom' issues. We welcome the personal security that such legislation can bring, rather than fear the power of our government. I just wish that you Americans would get your head out of your arses evry now and then and realise that the rest of the world has a lot more going for it than you, with your standards so low, can imagine. Lisa Evans
Perhaps the NRA should push for the Swiss solution of every male between 18-60 *must* own a working firearm and must do a year (or is it 2?) of national service training.
Interestingly, it certainly seems to work for the Swiss. They have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. I've been to Switzerland, and I have to say that the Swiss are very nice, polite people. Its an often overlooked example of widespread access to firearms not necessarily causing any sort of social ills.
Frankly, people like to blame guns for the level of violent crime in the US, and it doesn't wash. The US has higher levels of non-gun violent crime than most of the rest of the world too. However, it is worth noting that violent crime in the US is generally in decline despite the fact that most of the gun control laws on the books are nuisance measures, and the fact that the government has done an absolutely pathetic job of enforcing the laws already on the books. Interestingly, the violent crime rates in Australia and the UK are rising, including their gun related crime, despite near total prohibition of firearms ownership.
What makes you think that I as an Australian give a fuck about what the US thinks of us. We told you Yanks that you couldn't run the show with the bands in the Olympics, and you threatened to sue!
The United States is a fucked up place, and I hope you realise that our country is no where near as bad.
Pull ya fuckin' head in.
Thats not right
.. as it stands now the prime minster can basicly just say who he wants as the govenner general but if the system had come in it at the very lest would have been a majorty of parlament .. our head of state has no real power anyway unlike the US prez
The replublic model would have been a bit better actully than the system is now
everyone download p0rn ... NOW
Guns are for faggots anyway. If you can't win a fight with your hands, then back the fuck down. If the US had gun laws, then maybe the rest of the world woulnd't see the US as one big Ghetto.
Here is a link to a page containing some of the stuff us aussies can look forward to: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1998-99/99bd 172.htm Here is the news that "most" of the legislation will be approved: http://law.gov.au/aghome/agnews/1999newsag/586_99. htm
New Zealander's go to the polls today, so they can go and do something about it.
:v)
If you weren't thinking of voting, do. Go and vote for some libertarian bunch like the Greens and do the only thing that you can legally do in a democracy to change the government.
There is also a vote on reducing the number of MPs. Don't support the cut! Less MPs means less representation for you. If they're too expensive, cut their damn wages.
Vik
Thank you, that was the point I was trying to make.
Maybe in a more civilized future there would be other ways besides base violence to keep the government in check, or replace it. Whoever can destroy a thing, controlls a thing (Dune). There are, or will be soon, things besides life and death that can be controlled, that would provide leverage. How valuable is information nowadays?
Just a thought.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
I do now wonder how long it will be until it is legislated as being illegal to place technology into your network that prevents access by ASIO to desired information.
What will be the outcome is ASIO decides to go after information on your network on which you have an ultra secure firewall and encryption technologies running. Will some charge be trumped up to get a judge to order you to remove your protection and thus open you up to not only ASIO but any others as well.
Sounds like a good reason to keep around some obsolete hardware.
Apple ]['s in prominent positions 'round the office, say...
"Yes, officer. That's my computer. And that one, and that one, and that one, and..."
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
You don't know how correct you are. Basic human psychology: people naturally look for evidence to support their own beliefs. It's stupid, but i've come to believe that the human race is pretty stupid.
As for hoping on the bandwagon, that is true as well: in a group, people act as sheep, following whoever can muster the charisma to lead. While i really don't agree with most of the bible, there are a few comments it makes that ring true. Humanity = sheep. we follow whoever claims the staff, until someone else can challenge them for it.
*elevator music plays*
While Australia seems to have a law that allows access to machines, what countries have a law preventing the same thing?
And I think you'll find "alter data" is journalese for modify operating or application files to allow access to data.
I don't think it means make up evidence - what would be the point?
People are too easily convinced to incriminate themsleves without needing to fake it.
Lyal
The string of Draconian internet bills passed this year can only translate into voter dissatisfaction. Having voted for the Liberal/National party myself I won't be making the same mistake twice come next election!
In April this year I e-mailed my local member, Stuart St. Clair, National Party, to express my displeasure regarding the internet censorship legislation and received the following reply:
"If your decision to switch your vote from the National Party to the Labor is based on this sort of legislation, then you are better off with your friends in the Labor Party."
I don't know if an MP could be more out of touch than this! Australians aren't going to sit back and be told what they can and can't access on their own computers. The present government will be sorry when they're sitting in opposition next year!
Really. Think about it honestly, just briefly.
Honest. Goverment employees are still human, and therefore fallible, last I checked.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
I have to say that I am constantly fucking amzed at how often an issue like this draws out all of the "right to bear arms = personal freedom" crap.
I mean, exactly what the fuck are you gonna do? The US military is creditted as the strongest and one of the most well-equipped armed forces in the world... further the US government is, in general, one of the most influential in the world.
This says to me that the country most likely to never be over-thrown by its people is the United States.
Sorry guys, but your piss-ant AK47 and 9 mill. doesn't mean shit in the overall scheme of things - and about the only thing you'll be able to use 'em for is to shoot the guy walking out of your lounge room with your stereo, or taking a pot-shot at a member of law-enforcement just prior to taking a bullet or 10 yourself.
the right to bear arms = the right to pretend you have a big dick and thats about it. It has nothing to do with acheiving or keeping some idealogical concept of personal freedom.
You forgot the necessary step:
1.5) Have a clue.
Makes the case for private ownership of firearms to prevent an abusive government.
Is it not better that the aussie gov is open about it? At least their citizens' have the opportunity to fight back and express their displeasure with their elected officials (one would hope anyway). I think I am more troubled by the U.S. British, Canadian and Israeli clandestine methods and complete denial. I do NOT condone the aussie gov but at least the folks down under have a clue as to exactly who is spying on them and thus may organise to repeal such legistlation and such governmental departments. Anybody know the constitutionality of such a broad piece of legislation?
Easy: 1) Break into house 2) Boot from root floppy 3) Add backdoor.
Big Brother is alive and well and spreading
his imfluence Down Under.
Let's just encrypt everything!
NO, the Australia Government does want hi-tech.
The best example is the current debate on digital TV. They have already given the four TV station bandwideth worth several BILLION DOLLARS FOR FREE!!!
Instead of auctioning of the bandwideth to the highest bidder is simplily gave it for free. Then to add insult to injury it wants to make Australian Digital TVs incompatible with any others in the world.
Richard Alston should be fired
Open Source + Skill = Better Business Solutions
The Europeans do it.....
Britain is proposing some really extreme anti-crypto laws (you would have to turn over the key to any encryted data you had or prove you don't know the key. Proving you don't have it is virtually impossible, so if someone sends you an email containing a bunch of gibberish then anonymously reports that you're into child porn/terrorism you could go to jail).
But on the other hand Germany is sponsoring development of GPG.
Great idea! I've actually thought about something similar on several occasions (well, minus the secret handshakes and stuff). Question is, what types of connections could be utilized that would be impenetrable by government snoops? Certainly the existing telephone lines and high-bandwidth data networks wouldn't be an option.
Thoughts, anyone?
Or, perhaps more acurately, people in general view freedom of speech as a Good Thing, while they view freedom to carry the means to kill a person as a Bad Thing
I'm not saying that this is the right way to think, nor am I saying its wrong. I really don't know, to be honest. But I am trying to explain a social phernomanon that you really should have figured out yourself - talking good, killing bad.
Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)
"On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9
This is horrible. This is the electronic equivalent of saying: Yes, the government may break into your house, plant incriminating evidence against you or clean out your apartment (deleting your files or altering them in subtle ways that may not be apparent right away but still important). Of course the potential for abuse is gigantic ...
... I really hope that other governments don't copy this ...
So no, in Austalia your right to privacy in the digital domain have just been vaporized
...two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
Of course we all know that there is only one canonical list of approved spellings in English, and that's Webster's Dictionary. Ha. The US and UK use a z in organization. Australians use an s. We also use a c in defence, a u in colour and re in centre. I know that these are all inherently hilarious because any sign of difference is hilarious and foreigners outside the good ol' Uninety States especially so, but excuse me if I don't laugh.
first they came for the jews but I wasent a jew so I dident care then they came for the christians but I did not care then they came for me but there was no won left to care
there is some in the middle of this but I don't rember but all you have to do is replase the religens for contries and you can see the rest
one plus one dose equel three
1) The bills passed before government are not debated solely on their merits. Political "deals" are done (you support my bill, i'll support yours) and even EXPECTED. Hence to achieve anything in governement, pathetic and unwarrented bills become law, purely because a worthwhile bill needs support
2) We have a two party preferred election over here. If you vote for any other party, votes from that party are counted against a preferred party OF THE VOTED parties choice! This is called preferential voting. Which is why I ALWAYS fill in ALL the boxes for the house of Reps.
Lets see this in action. I vote for the pro-choice internet party. Deals are done before the election so that any vote that is given to PCI is then given to the Liberal Party! So who do you vote for? It doesn't make a difference one way or another!!! THAT is the problem with AU politics. Damned if you do and fined if you don't! That's right! All AU citizens without a good reason are required by law to vote. Makes a mockery of the entire system!
So while the internet is gaining popularity here in AU, there is still the voting masses who have no idea that this denial of freedom of speech is going on! Or even care!
It would also be refreshing to see your duly elected representative listen to their electorate, say, my electorate does not agree with my party, and cross the floor occasionally! But no, why break with tradition!
Darrell
*Thank god I switched to Linux when I did!*
Senator Kate Lundy, LABOR, was highly critical of the Net Censorship Legislation. If she was in my Senate seat I would vote for her.
Bozo Alston continually made lame remarks about her stand long after the legislation was passed.
The annoying thing is the Liberal/NP Coalition had no real policy on any of these things before the election. All they had was a plan for selling off the Telstra monopoly and ensuring it stayed that way.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
...but it seems our Aussie friends are already in the middle of the whirlpool, ready to drop out of sight. PLOOP! *ffLOOOOOOOOSHHhhh* ~gurgle~ /plik/ Perhaps its because they flush the other direction down under ;) ALTER DATA?! As in *FABRICATE* ?! So they can go on some aussie's computer, put a couple megs of illegal kiddie porn on his HD (or whatever your imagination can think of: death threats, terrorist plans etc, whatever makes their target look like scum...) in some forgotten directory, then raid his house? Can you say 'I'm glad I have a shotgun, and I'll save the last shell for myself' ?!? I mean, WHO THE FUCK WOULD BE THE WISER?! And if they were even 'caught in the act' its fucking LEGAL?! Its actually not easy to go in someone's house and plant shit, but now this...talk about convenient! May the intestines of whatever fucking autocratic asshole(s) who thought this pile of shit up twist a thousand times over and soak in elephant shit for eternity.
Sort of like that Tarpit article, on the big dinosaurs struggling hardest just before they die. Execpt it was about Microsoft, but it seems to fit into what you're saying.
I'm sorry, we're talking criminal proceedings here, you would, of course, exercise your right to refuse to answer such a question, doh!
It holds up only as long as you have the means to protect your rights. As the origional post on this thread mentioned, this means guns.
Check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control,
and read this interview with a Holocaust survior.
-----------
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
Backward view of the future? you mean you have it written down in books are are forced to study parts of it in highschool?
Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)
"On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9
Washington DC has some of the most restrictive gunlaws in the US yet it has the highest "gun related" crime rate. There are other major metropolitan citys that have very loose gun laws and have a lower "gun related"crime rate.
I do not have the stats on hand as I learned of this in a high school class 3 years ago. The end conclusion of the data the class looked at was there was an inverse relationship between leagal gun ownership and gun related crime rates.
I hate to keep reiterating myself on this subject and am flatly amazed at the lack of fervor on the topic, but here goes yet again...
Three words...
Geek's Day Off..
Pick a day. All self styled geeks stay home that day. Turn off your pager. Take your phone services off hook. Forget about email. 24 hrs. of no geeks available anywhere.
The results would be truly spectacular.
Let these bozos know who's REALLY boss. We're benign, most of the time, but a collection of severely nasty m****r f****rs when we're riled. GDO would make Y2K look like a harmless glitch.
Atlas shrugs. You get the picture.
I'd bet even microsofties would care enough to participate.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
What's the next general election going to be good for? Both Labor and Liberal parties supported this legislation, only the Democrats criticized it.
...and if they do try it, and come even close to succeeding, I think rioting would be the _least_ of the government's problem. Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots. AC's Comment on Kaa's Law: The Australian government is sufficiently large.
>>Unfortunately america is full of uneducated lunatics. And unfortunately those people tend to group in militia.
>And you base these statements on what, exactly? Have you ever visited the US? Lived here?
I've lived here all my life and I agree entirely...our country has far more than it's fair share of kooks.
>>People in militias are people who are plainly to stupid and ignorant to join a political party and use their constitutional right to change the system in a civilized way.
>Again, what do you base this on?
First off, I'm a gun owner and an NRA member, but I've seen the inside of militias and wouldn't shed a tear to see them erased. Most militias (at least the ones I've seen), tend to be full of rednecks and racists, good ole boys still bitching about the south losing the civil war. Most of these guys are more interested in pushing their own agendas than defending the liberty of US citizens.
My primary objection to the militia types is their opinion that our gov is too badly broken to even try and fix. I believe that there is nothing wrong with our system that we couldn't fix if we wanted to. Don't like Congress? Throw them out! Don't like Kleentong? Impeach him. Think our government is too powerful? elect leaders willing to cut back on it!
Now, I know your next reply. "But the sheep keep overpowering our righteous votes!" Tough sh*t. The US is a representative democracy where our representatives are selected by the majority. The fact that the changes you want aren't getting enacted is because you are a voting minority. Deal with it, that's how a democracy works. If you really think you're right, spend your time trying to change the majorities mind. If you're not willing to spend your time to do that, don't bother whining to me when your government doesn't work the way you'd like it to.
The true power in America doesn't lie in the halls of Congress, the hands of the President, or the chambers of our court system. The true power of America still lies with it's citizens. While the naysayers would like to convince us that this is no longer the case, that little fact hasn't changed in more than 200 years. I personally don't worry about laws like the ones proposed in Australia surfacing in the US. If a law like that passed, I'd be willing to blow every dime I own to inform the American people of it's infringement on their rights. You don't thing they'd react angrily to this? Hell, I could run myself and probably get elected based solely on one of these issues.
You can do anything you want with our government, you just have to be willing to participate in it.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
The fact that a few turncoats will sometimes act against their own countrymen isn't a good indication that organized military can always easily crush armed civilian guerillas. I think that even your example of the Vichy French collaborators that most French people supported the underground and opposed Hitler. Ultimately, Hitler lost the war, albiet the role the French resistance played in that is debatable. If you've ever heard of the "Guide Lamp Company" and their product "The Liberator", you'd understand how much value the US government saw in arming the French populous against the Nazis.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Many of us disagree. Frankly I just don't buy your arguments, and if you can't depend at all on the morals of people, then this is truly a more sad world than I think it is, and I consider myself somewhat of a pessimistic skeptic.
Don't you love the way the Internet Advisory Board is known as `NetAlert.' The minister for communications sees the internet as nothing more than a danger to the fragile balance of civilisation. Who votes for these people? It wasn't me.
:wq
Law enforcement officers in the NRA? Sureyou jest!
Surely I don't jest. The NRA is a big supporter of law enforcement, as long as they act within the law, the constitution and the bill of rights. The NRA doesn't speak out against law enforcement, only against excesses comitted by law enforcement agencies or individuals. It is a gross mischaracterization by the media that the NRA is anti law enforcement or that the rank and file of law enforcement agencies are opposed to the NRA.
I occasionally go to gun shows in my area. A good example is that the NRA booth is usually manned by at least one uniformed local police officer.
Don't you recall the fund raising letter a while back where the NRA pontificated against "jack-booted government thugs"?
Have you ever seen the video footage of the Waco incident? Tell me what those BATF agents had on their feet. Many law enforcement officers I have talked to hold about the same opinions about the federal agencies (specifically the BATF, FBI and DEA) as I do. I think they are way out of control and need to be brought into line, and a vast number of the rank-and-file law enforcement officers out there do too.
You remember, the letter that made George Bush publicly denounce the NRA?
Uh, and you are saying this is necessarily a bad thing? George Bush, while better than Clinton, wasn't exactly a great friend of freedom.
And you base these statements on what, exactly? Have you ever visited the US? Lived here?
>I would sleep a lot better if their guns were taken away from them.
Why? Do you believe that they threaten you over there in Europe?
>People in militias are people who are plainly to stupid and ignorant to join a political party and use their constitutional right to change the system in a civilized way.
Again, what do you base this on?
>My government (in the netherlands in case you wonder) should protect me from this kind of people, that's what I vote for and that's why I pay my taxes.
Historically, most governments, the US included, haven't been so kind to their people, even those that vote and pay their taxes. That's why we have a written Constitution, which includes provisions specifically designed to limit the government's power over it's citizens. Such things as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom to own and carry personal weapons, freedom from self-incrimination, etc..., keep the government chained down. That's why they try to pre-empt them at every opportunity.
-----------
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
The Europeans do it.....
Britain is proposing some really extreme anti-crypto laws (you would have to turn over the key to any encryted data you had or
prove you don't know the key. Proving you don't have it is virtually impossible, so if someone sends you an email containing a bunch
of gibberish then anonymously reports that you're into child porn/terrorism you could go to jail).
But on the other hand Germany is sponsoring development of GPG.
Germans sudden move to sponsor GPG has cirtanly changed my attitude towards them to the better. However I was refering to a situation some - ohh - a year ago, maybe, where Denmark (I am really Danish by nationality, allthough I live in France for the time being) signed some EU-thingie (law, bill, whatever). I have lost track of that (and a quick search didn't help me), but it was something which should be equivalent to the US-regulations on crypthography.
What was really amazing was, that signing that "thing" on behalf of Denmark was done by some administrator - not by an elected politician, and without any previous and public debate. Most people, interrested in this field (such as yours truely) didn't hear about this thing until after it had been decided.
Another astonishing example of governments pulling some law out without involving neither technical experts not informing us - the people....
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
This legislation is, clearly, the best thing to ever happen to efforts to popularize encryption. I'd like to applaud the Australian government for their efforts to inculcate in their populace an understanding of the necessity of strong encryption. I expect shortly the average Australian citizen will be more encryption savvy than the citizens of any other country in the world.
Remember, practice safer connections!
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Currently l0pht Heavy Industries (www.l0pht.com) have been working on setting up a wireless network, or guerilla.net. They've made quite a bit of progress so far.
BTW: I'm an Australian, and there's no f'n way I'm going to let the government shelter me from my beloved pr0n, nor will I condone any sort of violation of my privacy. Law schmaw, they can go f'k themselves.
nf (nf@bigpond.net.au)
Cheap shot, I know, but someone had to say it :) Seriously, when a government decides that it is allowed to get into my personal business without my private authorization, I say it's time to overthrow the government. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
We did sign Wassner (sp) though, so some alterations to encryption laws (I don't think we have any now, but IANAL) are possibly on the way.
>> ( y2k, global warming, Ozone hole, these are all fixed right, after all i havent heard anything about the last two in awhile, and the first one our government says is fixed, which is exactly what they would say whether it is or not)
Actually, none of these problems were ever truly a threat to the Earth or to us personally, they all have great demogoguery power, however, as they strike fear into the hearts of the uninformed.
The "Y2K problem" is always laid at the feet of embedded systems (most of which never know what the date is in the first place) or the banks/infrastructure, most of which have been dealing with the implications for 20 years or more (after all, a 30 year corporate loan taken in 1970 is terminating sometime in the year 2000).
"Global warming" is about as natural as anything else that ever happened to the world; in ten minutes, Mount Saint Helens vented more carbon monoxide and other nasties into the air than humanity has over the complete existance of the species, and more than they ever could even giving a Malthian expansion of population.
"Ozone hole" prophecies, like the global warming issues, are based on a flawed understanding of both the natural processes of the planet and a hugely overblown panic-button mentality that immediately brands anything that we don't understand completely at the moment as a deadly threat. In truth, the 'ozone hole' is only a 'hole' in the loosest sense of the word, and its over Antarctica, for Hades sake! If the eco-freaks were right about the causes, don't you think it'd be over the worlds' largest users and abusers of CFCs or downwind thereof?
In short, when you see a panic, step back and consider who profits because of it.
-- Riding the Winds of Fires Lit in Ancient Days
Frankly, this is getting very disheartening.
Isn't it striking that the two (democratic) countries that seem the closest to implementing far-and-wide, liberty-squashing legislation are two of the most important members of the Commonwealth?
I do hope this trend is not going to spread any further -- I'd hate to see Canada, the European Union and the United States implement such brain-dead laws...
Now, the question is: what can we do to fight this trend? Re-create PPP/PPTP/encrypted links to/from Australia to bypass the censorship? Protest and scream with our Australian friends until we are blue in the face?
What on earth do we have to do to be left alone by clueless politicians?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Here's my suggestions as to who to contact if you want to: (I'm going to give you websites, not email address - you'll have to click through. I really don't want to instigate the /.-ing of my government :) )
:)
You can find email addresses for ministers on this page. The Prime Minister's page is here. The Leader of the Opposition's page is here. The email address of every member of the House of reps is here. Senate addresses here. Be careful please
If nothing else, they're not all of the party in power...
Ministers in the government:
Hon John Howard MP, Prime Minister of Australia.
Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.
Shadow ministers (ie in opposition - not of the party currently in government!):
Hon Kim Beazley MP, Leader of the Opposition.
Hon Bob McMullan MP, Shadow Minister for Industry and Technology.
Senator the Hon Kate Lundy, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Industry and Technology on Information Technology.
Some web pages for Australian political parties: the currently governing party (strictly, the party with a majority in the federal House of Representatives) is the Liberal Party of Australia. The party in Opposition (next greatest in numbers) is the Australian Labor Party. The party with the balance of power in the Senate is the Australian Democrats.
I know I will get flamed by people with anti-freedom sentiments, but doesn't it seem eerie that this is following so closely behind Australia's virtual complete elimination of private rights to firearm ownership? Seems like Australia and Great Britain are sliding quickly down a slippery slope where virtually all civil rights will be given up permanently in the name of some temporary appearances of safety.
Sadly, there are too many politicians and shortsighted people here in the US that want to bring us the same restrictions on freedom. It seems clear that if the 2nd Amendment is circumvented or eliminated that the 1st Amendment will fall shortly thereafter.
well this may be a little pedantic..but i feel the need to respond because this sort of thing annoys me....ASIO is NOTHING LIKE the CIA...CIA deals with threats to the USA from outside the USA - ie everyone's idea of traditional espionage, whereas ASIO deals with threats to Australia from within Australia...ie groups/individuals within our borders that pose a threat to Australia and Australian interests. Our equivalent of CIA is called ASIS. And USA's equivalant of ASIO is a mixture of FBI and the Secret Service.
The problem with an argument like that is that there's no way that you can come up with a global definition of "basic freedoms". Just as an example (and a controversial one, at that), here in Australia we don't believe that people have a fundamental right to bear arms, whereas in the US you do. That kind of difference makes it incredibly difficult to argue coherently across national/cultural boundaires about this sort of thing.
On top of that, I would take issue with your reasoning about why people don't riot in the streets. You have to understand that most people believe that things like Police surveilance are an acceptable price to pay for what it gains - a more effective policing of the law. The fact that these powers can be abused is part of the price, and yet we still come to the conclusion that the price is worth paying. Doesn't that tell you comething about other people's values? That maybe they don't think about things the same way that you do? Perhaps you should stop assuming that people who have different opinions to yours are ignorant, foolish or stupid, and instead wonder whether there are reasons behind their opinions.
And finally, in case you think I'm foolish and stupid, I _do_ think this legislation is a really bad idea. It sounds to me like the people who wrote it don't realise that if you can change just enough to break in, then you can change just about anything, and once the courts realise that the evidence is going to be useless. Either that or they thought the information gained would be useful enough in other ways to balance that out.
Note that I'm _not_ fundamentally against that kind of surveilance - I think it has it's place. I am against anything which would make it that easy to fabricate evidence, which is where our legal system would start breaking down. That possibility _does_ worry me.
All of which won't stop me from making my box as hard as possible to break into . . .
Anyway, I'd suggest you go off and have a really long think about someone like Ghandi, or the Dalai Lama, or someone along those lines - it might restore a modicum of your faith in your species.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
And just how do you propose to do this?
We'll start by inventing a practical assembler technology and forming an underground movement to give everybody in the world access to it. Free assembler technology means virtually infinite resources, which means that everything upon which our current economic model is based upon comes tumbling down. As the human species becomes economy-less, it also gradually becomes politics-less (this is a process we can try to speed up). "Social" crime and violence vanishes, and there is no longer a need for law per se. As governments break, we then make a massive effort to make people conscious of their own freedom - people no longer have economic shackles holding them down, and they should be able to do whatever they want without having Big Brother always breathing down their necks. What this really means is that it no longer is valid for any group of people to try to hold a monopoly on authorized violence (which is the best definition of a government). We also spread the idea of self-regulation - eternal vigilance to guarantee one's own freedom. As life conditions improve drastically, people have no need for a government per se, but only corporations to take care of their bureaucratic needs - life insurance, etc. Because there are no governments and everybody is free, corporations are no longer able to gain power in ways that harm consumers (directly or indirectly). So we have anarchist capitalism.
It's a nice idea, and the only thing upon which it really depends to work is the technology. We'll see what happens in the long run.
The last fellow to proclaim himself independent of the law lived in a compound in Waco, TX. Last I looked, he died, his followers died, and just to be sure, two dozen children died in a fire.
Wow. You know, you're right. Two dozen children died, so we should stop trying to free ourselves from tyranny. Because that's the fate of everyone who attempts to break free - or who questions the morality behind the idea of government.
Maybe you should research the histories of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They were killed, their children killed, their homes and farms burned.
Again, is that supposed to scare me or what?
Vigilance? You don't know the meaning of the word.
I don't? Please enlighten me - how do you know that? Are you by any chance familiar with me? In fact, have you ever heard of me except for this post? So how did you come to the conclusion that I don't know the meaning of the word "vigilance"? Probably by the same means through which you found that I am a doormat. Oh well.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
So does this mean that if I am an Australian and I detect a network intrusion that comes from a government machine, I am supposed to spread my legs and bend over?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Encryption seems to be OK, at least of data on computer systems. However, the introduction of digital mobile phones was delayed here for a while because ASIO wanted backdoors into the encryption of phone conversations.
Speaking as a Canadian, I'm glad to say that our government at least seems to be fairly clued-in privacy-wise. From what I've seen, its unusual for them to be clued in about everything, so this is quite encouraging.
On the other hand, this could just be because (again, from what I've seen) Canada isn't exactly on the bleeding edge of technology. This does seem to have its ups and downs, especially if our government does clue in before this becomes a problem up here
On the downside, the Canadian government does seem to have a history of rolling over for the Americans. If they set up bills that let the NSA or FBI or whoever have free reign over their computer systems, or limit crypto, you can bet they'll be pushing for their neighbours up north to do the same. After all, we're right next door, and we've gotten a bunch of "benefits" (like the Free Trade Agreement) from the States...
Please note: This is probably a very biased point of view. I'm not certant how accurate or recent my information is, as I don't exactly have time to keep up with Canadian-Government-related news. There are more important things right now. Like studying.
-RickHunter
--"We are gray. We stand between the candle and the star."
--Gray council, Babylon 5.
We here in the united states must continue to be on the watch for such legislation sneaking through congress as riders on legitimate bills or as hastily enacted voice vote bills.
I think people in australia should be rioting in the streets over this, especially over the legalization of "altering data" on any users computer. What? We dont have enough evidence to convict this guy? Just plant some evidence on his computer, no problem. After all, he must be guilty or we wouldnt have accused him.
The question is, what would we do if such legislation was enacted here? Would we riot in the streets? Or more likely, would we just start a thread on slashdot and rant for a day or so? The second is much more likely, and worst of all, this is exactly what they want you to do, if you burn yourself out after a day, theres nothing left to keep the protest going. Americas collective attention span is so short that even the most dire problems come on their radar screens after its too late, or darn near ( y2k, global warming, Ozone hole, these are all fixed right, after all i havent heard anything about the last two in awhile, and the first one our government says is fixed, which is exactly what they would say whether it is or not). So, rather than ranting, why dont we come up with some suggestions of what to actually do if and when this actually happens here. Even if it doesnt, its always good to b prepared for any contingency.
EFF and the ACLU are about the most essential agencies out there protecting our freedoms. I hope that all slashdoters out there who enjoy their freedom give them a donation, or beter yet, join them.
It only takes a moment to email your disgust at these laws to the papers. These are a couple of addresses for the guys in Melbourne...
The Age
The Australian
---
Silence is consent.
Firstly, it passed major legislation that enables the Australian
/won't/ be one of the ones against the wall.
Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), similar to the CIA, to remotely tap into and alter data on any
Australian's computer.
How are they going to do that if they're not even hooked up to the net? Damn, i want that technology "Remotely access your computer without a telephone line or network cable, Hell, EVEN IF IT'S OFF!!!"
Seriously though, this stuff just scares me, and it's the whole "We don't understand it, therefore it must be bad" mentality so widespread in politicians, ah well, i don't know about you guys, but when the revolution comes i
"Look around
this world we've made
equality our stock in trade
come and join the brotherhood of man"
--2112, Rush
Korea, for example, already has an anti-pr0n law in place. When free speech was mentioned, one lawmaker said he couldn't possibly call it speech. This is a country where "Serial Mom" was banned for excess violence (unlike Swiri, a Korean film featuring NK commandos bayonetting prisoners for practice).
Most likely this will just be another law to satisfy the busybodies while everyone else looks the other way (and corruption flourishes), but it's still a step in the wrong direction.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
It gave some rather frightening power to politicians, specifically the Prime Minister.
It wasn't much of a change from the present system. At the moment the Prime Minister of Austrlia is the elected leader in the House of Representatives of the party with the majority of the MPs.
The term head of state isn't used in our Constitution - but essentially it is Elizabeth, Queen of Australia (the Constitution refers to Victoria and her desendents). The Govenor-General is her vice-regal.
The Governor-General is almost always an Australian, personally chosen by the Prime Minister and apporved by the Queen (the monarch used to choose a British subject).
The Goevernor-General, currently Sir William Deane, has normally ceremonial powers. There is however, one important one - he/she can instantly dismiss an elected government. This happened to the Labor government under Whitlam when the Senate blocked supply in 1976. It was replaced by a caretaker Liberal government under Fraser.
This wasn't the power the 'No' campaign focussed on however. The proposal was to replace the Queen and GG with a President of Australia, who would be appointed by two-thirds of the House of Representatives, and could be instantly dismissed by the Prime Minister, although this was normally supposed to occur by a vote of the House.
The right of the GG to dismiss a government would be retained in the powers of the President, but this wasn't the issue. It was the PM's power.
There were three camps in the campaign:
Constitutional monarchists: want to retain the status quo.
'Yes' campaigners: advocates of the proposed model.
Direct electionists: advocates of a 'no' vote because their preferred model was one where the President would be elected by the people, not the parliament. They formed a temporary alliance with the monarchists, and are now hoping for another referendum.
The reason such a small change was proposed, was, ironically, that Australians are usually opposed to any Constitutional change. Out of 42 referendums to do so, 8 have passed (the right of Aborigines to vote was one of them).
But it turns out that a lot of people, especially the "battlers" (rhetoric for lower income-earners) wanted a directly elected president.
About 70% of Australians support a republic in some form.
The problem with the government right now is their complete lack of vision, this is true for both major political parties in Aus. The ruling givernment fears change like anything, esp the prime minister, and due to the very very small majority they'll do nothing to disrupt it.
THe big proof for this was how Mr. Howard pretty much sabotaged the repbulic vote, which if it would had been passed might have gotten his name in the history books.
Unfortunatly in aus everything done has a political purpose i've yet to see one politicion who wanted to do something for the good of the community. The only reason we have the censorship bill coming into effect 1st of 2000 is b/c the government needed to appease a senator and they needed votes from the mothers of australia who see the net as the big bad wolf who'll consume there 'innocent' kids. This new bill appears to be providing for a way of spying, marring people extreamly easily. Which would no doubt be of great use to the polititions of australia in there ever ending bid to keep those superannuation packages growing for each year in parliment.
I recommend people possibly write letters to the editor in the major aussie newspapers, (age, SMH, australian) to get this out into the public sphere before its too late
------------------------------------
I am really beginning to believe that governments in general stopped acting in the best interest of people a long time ago. There is an interesting theory that most government policy is for the facilitation of technology rather than promoting justice and reciprocity for the people. The legislation in question is a prime example of this.
Some background. Let's define technology as a way or a method of doing x. This differs from the common conception of technology as artifact, but it is easier to recognize a method as having an ethical slant as opposed to an artifact which is often seen as being ethically neutral. Using my oversimplified view of "the Internet", the method is allowing one-to-one and one-to-many communication via a standard set of protocols.
Much is made of "internet years", that one month on the internet is equal to one year in the real world. Things are moving that fast. I am deeply skeptical of this notion in that there is still a human element to the equation. Realistically, I don't believe people can adapt that fast. If you look at the history of technology, there is a definite progression of how a technology is enculturated. Look at other revolutionary technologies of our era: the car, the telephone, electricity. None of these technologies really took off until governments stepped in and facilitated their widespread use. Historically, we have absolved our technological decision making to government, and to a lesser extent to a culture of experts. Is it any wonder the odd piece of unpopular legislation is generated? Politically, we don't care about the ethical considerations. We want widespread adoption, right now!
Technology has become culture. Technology now drives culture, rather than culture driving technology. We adapt to technology, rather than technology being our servant. How can we expect truly just implementations of new technologies until we become more proactive in judging what is right and what is wrong about a technology?
Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
Or maybe they're enforced to, by law?
e d") government that doesn't have much of a clue on anything except economic policies.
:)
No. It'd be a good excuse.
We just have a majority-elected (debatable in the last election actaully, sorry, I meant "majority-but-only-if-you-count-preferences-elect
Why is it that most of the major powers in the world are trying to control the internet to an greater extent than their control of their own cities streets?
I can walk down any major street in any major city and be offered sex, drugs, cult pamphlets and weapons. How can the internet change this?
The truth of the matter, simply is that the governments are saving face. Parents of the world (majority if we like it or not) are concerned about their children's exposures on the internet. So, instead of cleaning up the streets and fighting real crimes. They strike out at something they think they can control.
But until legislature like this one that violates every rights charter and code in the 'free world' (if that exists anymore) is introduced, it's not possible. Now it seems all too close to reality.
This is something that should be stopped. I'm not sure about australian law, but the police should need a warrant to enter a home, regardless of the medium, be it the front door or a T1 line. And I should be notified that there has been a warrant to search my house(computer) before the search is done.
If you have read Orwell's 1984, you know that the big-brother world is not one that you want to live in. And legislature like this is precisely what could lead to such a state.
--A very frightened Ozzy
Remove the NOSPAM to spam me...
Australia also currently possesses a notably bone-headed executive, currently intent on some tax reform that depends on placating one Tasmanian Senator. He, and they, will not last forever.
Indeed not. In fact your information is out of date - Senator Brian Harradine was our excuse last time.
He is a conservative Catholic (very anti-porn among other things). He held the balance of power in the Senate until recently, while the Liberal government was trying to pass a bill to introduce a Goods and Services Tax (10% on purchases). Hence the Net censorship bill.
However, on July 1 when the newly elected Senate came into being, the Democrats (a minor party, unlike in the US - Liberal == Republicans and Labor == Democrat in Aus) gained the balance of power. Harradine is now a minor player.
They passed the GST bill with some admendments a while back, so as of the coming July 1, that's happening.
What the government wants now... heaven's only knows.
Thier needs to be a manditory review proccess by the public before ANY bill gets passed into law. this is the kind of stuff i am really worried about here in the US. The Ausie Goverment should be ahsamed of their selfs. Their people should be up in arms. I would fight till death on this issue if it was enacted in the US.
The question is, what would we do if such legislation was enacted here? Would we riot in the streets? Or more likely, would we just start a thread on slashdot and rant for a day or so?
/. discussion, nobody in the street (or so few that I didn't heard about it in the UK) to complain about it.
/. comment that said that if your ISP didn't shut your site down at a copyright holder request then he was to be co-defendent not only in this case but in all the foregoing cases. Is it true only if you loose the case (you indeed infringed someone's copyright) or if you win the case the ISP isn't co-defendant to later cases. In the latter case it is already a reason tohave an outcry, but in the former case it really would be outrageous beyond any limit.
The worse part is that as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) you already have a law that destroy one of your fundamental rights, if not in the letter of the law, at least in the way it is applied.
The law: The DMCA (DIgital Millenium Copyright Act, or maybe with another order for the words)
The right: being considered innocent until proven guilty.
When you can have your free speech reduced without going to court then you ARE told guilty without going to court, and you MUST go to court to prove yourself innocent.
And the most outcry I have heard is in some
I have a qestion about the DMCA anyway. There was a
Anyway, with the censoring laws in Australia (and this new law), the DMCA in the US, the cryptography law in the UK that deny you the right to remain silent (not passed yet though) I wonder how many violation of human rights will occur in these country in the next few years.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
This law allows for total information gathering. Under this law anywhere you go, anything you say, anything you record on your computer systems, EVEN IN A FOREIGN COUNTY will be recorded.
Don't worry, you just have to put some words in your text like porn, fuck, toy,... so your text will be automatically censored and won't go in Australia
What they do understand is: $. The more the better. If the case can be made that this censorship is hurting business, and hurting it bad, that tax revenues will fall dramatically, that sort of thing, well, they'll turn around fast. Then people might have the breathing room to tackle the real issues. IMHO, of course. As a first try, I should mention here that the Aussie gov't may have just eliminated Australia as a honeymoon destination for us... and I'm not making that up. Good-bye $10,000 (AUS) tourist revenue! Apologies to any innocent Aussies.
Not being an expert in all this political BS and double talk i see it as ASIO now has the power to get a warrant that allows them to access a computer remotely and get information...
who says they will even be able to get into the named system as no where does it say that you are required to give them access? and also if they can get a search warrant to access a system remotely surely they can get a warrant to access the house or building that the system is located in then just seize the system?
I still think it's scary that people this well umm... stupid (if your in Oz watch parlement question time, always good for a laugh) are in control of regulating the IT future in my country...
Another important question -- does this infringe any copyright laws in .au? What if the government was paid off by some large corporation that knew someone in .au was developing the next killer app and they abused the system into allowing them full access to what is on the other company's servers?
Perhaps it's time for someone to start a business in a small country with a very small government where hi-tech companies can headquarter themselves and keep all development servers (the island would need really really fat net pipes to everywhere). That way .au companies can circumvent the possibility of (il)legal search and seizure.
-R
Hey folks... It's that easy. It will happen here eventualy if we don't stand up to those that would strip away our freedom. The only thing that stands between a free WWW and one that is locked down is a couple of opinion poles.
Let freedom ring!
'Do...
I sometime wonder just how little Americans understand about little things like democracy. You live in a democratic society, and yet you have completely warped ideas about what that means.
IANAP(olitical)T(heorist), but I've given this matter a lot of thought. My conclusions probably clash with a lot of theories about democracy, but hey, they're only political theories - there's no evidence to back them up, so they probably don't even rate as hypotheses. So mine's as good as yours . . .
Anyway: the whole idea behind a democracy is that every person has exactly the same amount of power as any other person. Generally that power is understood as being the vote, which is why voting's as important as it is, but voting isn't fundamental to Democracy - the totally equal distribution of power is.
In a sense this is like an anarchistic society, but there's a difference - in a Democracy, no one is allowed to take another person's power away from them. In an anarchistic society, anyone can do that.
So, a deomcratic society is one in which everyone has equal power, and no one has the right to take another's power away from them. Those are the fundamental concepts underlying Democracy.
The problem with this as a practical political system is that this kind of distributed power is very inefficient at dealing with all those things that a nation has to do, like interact with other nations, defend the nation's border, etc. So what happens is people delegate their individual power to someone else, and they do so en masse. This is where voting comes in - when you vote for someone you're saying "I'd like to delegate my democratic powers to this person for a little while". Depending on your political system a group of people are selected on the basis of how much power was delegated to them in the election, and those people take up the task of doing those things that the nation can only do as a whole, rather than as a collection of individuals - this is the government.
So what does all this guff mean? Well, it means that no matter how powerful the government might look, it is exactly as powerful as the citizens of that nation allow it to be.
Also, a government can only have power as long as people delegate their power to it - the people who make up the government have no more power in a democracy than anyone else. Ever noticed how governments get really freaked out at election time? They're worried about people deciding not to give their power back. And they have every reason to worry - even the most deranged and power crazed governments have, in a genuine democracy, been removed. In countries that aren't really democracies, where government power is rooted in something other than delegated power, this doesn't work so well, but even then it can be successful.
So, what has all this got to do with this thread? It's simple: you don't need a gun to have rights in a democracy.
I'll repeat that one, because lots of Americans seem to have trouble with it: You Don't Need A Gun To Have Rights In A Democracy.
If you live in a democracy, then all you need to to retain your civil rights is a voting slip. All you need is some way to exercise your fundamental democratic power.
I'm Australian. Australia is a Democracy. So I don't need to worry about having some way to throw the government out the window by force - I can do it by writing a few numbers on a bit of paper every so often. It might result in some complete morons having power every so often (well, more often than not, really), but I'm prepared to pay that price in order to have the benefits of living in a Democracy.
If all you US citizens out there genuinely need guns to retain your democratic rights, then I'm afraid you aren't living in a democracy. If you are living in a democracy, then nothing and no one can ever take your democratic rights away.
Take your pick: either you need guns, the US isn't a genuine Democracy and your 2nd Amendment is the foundation of your Civil Rights, or you are a Democracy, and the guns thing is complete bunkum. You can't have it both ways.
And finally, I would thank you all to shut up about the supposed link between Australian/UK/European gun laws and our freedom of speech/civil rights/whatever being eroded. There isn't one. Period.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Good luck in fighting net censorship in Australia. I get quite concerned when representatives of a "democratic" country try to limit freedoms of speech. How long before governments want to restrict criticism of their policies on the net? It's a slippery slope and when such causes gain momentum in one country politicians use it as an excuse to jump on the band wagon in other countries, like in Canada where I live. Unfortunately, all countries seem to have politicians that will jump on a cause whether it's worthwhile or not to raise their profile and help their chances of re-election.
The US government is a lot more powerful than it was 200 years ago. A couple of privately owned guns wont help you at all. With a semi automatic you can take out two, three FBI agent's who come to tap your phone and place cameras in your bathroom. Maybe even a dozen if you take them by surprise, and arm your wife and children too. But will this deter the government? No.
Everyone's right to own a thermonuclear device should be protected by the constitution. If absolutely everybody can blow up washington if they like, that will certainly stop the government from abusing their power.
Technically this post is mostly correct, but the first time the Queen did that we'd have an instant referendum and become a Republic.
Oh, and we're the Commonwealth of Australia - we're not "a British commonwealth". A sovereign nation, who just happens to share a Monarch with the British.
And no, I don't particularly like it.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
On a related note, I think if Bill Gates or Ross Perot wanted to own an MX Missile and had the money for it, more power to 'em.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Unfortunatly, Australia's constitution has no provision for free speech (such as the US constitution). This makes it much harder to fight such legislation (particularly the net censorship).
...that I find scary, Australians (this admittedly being a generalisation that will attract much resistance) tend to have a much different view on things that Americans would call "Civil Liberties", that is, they tend to be more willing to sacrifice them for what is agreed to be the greater good (the "greater good" ofcourse being arguable and often transitive). This sentiment seems to be echoed in the U.K. (or is that Australia echoes the U.K? ;) ). What I find most disturbing about it is that this legislation has been passed without any notification, this has not been a news item (at all to my knowledge), nor has there been any other public announcement of it. Even if I thought the legislation was a good thing, I do not wish to find out about it after the fact, when the process of reversal can be so difficult.
First off, we have countries like Australia and the US slowly eradicating privacy and freedom. This is in itself a bad thing.
Here's the kicker though. When the Y2K bug hits (which will, in and of itself, be a mostly non-event now...), the ensuing paranoia, rioting, etc will cause considerable chaos. Don't forget that Clinton still has the ability to sign exectutive orders! Does anybody else see the US becoming a dictatorship soon?
Regardless of Y2K, the other side of the coin is large, multinational corporations and conglomerates like the RIAA and MPAA. With the legislation being passed, soon these companies will have absolutely NO liability to consumers, and, in fact, to the government itself!
Then again, I oculd just be paranoid and sleep-deprived from working quadruple-overtime. Heh, whatever. Glad I live in Canada.
The first time someone uses evidence gained this way, or even uses evidence from someone's computer, this will be pounced on by the defense lawyers. And once that first bit of evidence has been thrown out there's a precedent, and all future evidence of that type will be challenged at every opportunity.
As everyone has been saying, this is a rather stupid law. But hey, isn't that what governments are all about?
/cynicism>
(on second thoughts, I think I'll keep my cynicism firmly in place . . . )
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
I hate being rude to people I haven't met, but I'm not a moderator so I can't really respond more constructively.
As I said, Fuck You!
himi
Hates all those fucking American morons . . .
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Need I say more?
Australia is an extreme. Has China or Cuba gone to such lengths?? I cannot believe Australians put up with this. Or maybe they're enforced to, by law?
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
What you are not aware of is that under the ASIO act the director of ASIO can issue warrants to his staff. There is no judicial review of ASIO's behavior.
Why is there always this thing with Americans about overthrowing governments? I thought the whole point of a democratically elected govt. was that the people could decide not to elect them next time . . .
Voting is far more efficient than revolution, particularly when all you need is a relatively small change. I'm certainly going to vote against this current govt. at the next election, and I reckon there's going to be lots like me . . .
Ain't democracy wonderful?
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
We should start an underground internet, returning to what the Internet was really about. We could have secret ways of connecting and secret handshakes and all sorts of things like that. Stupid patents and stupid politicians and so on wouldn't be able to say what we do.
:)
/. to procrastinate so he doesn't have to do his project
Iv'e got a 486 with 256meg hard drive and we could run it on that
Iain - Putting crap on
The title was a cookie for Echelon...
Why do government people always mistrust the common people? Last time I checked Australia and the US are both democracies (don't split semantic hairs). That means that in theory that the people are the government.
I only wish that the founding fathers of America had specifically listed the right to privacy. Don't get me wrong, I think that the founding fathers did a great job, but they did leave a few loop holes.
I don't know why the government does all this black bag crap without telling us anything, when I need that information to see who to vote on next election. Yet they think that they are allowed to have complete access to everything that we own. Money, property, information... And I thought that you had the right to not incrimidate yourself? So how do they justify making you give over the private keys to your encrypted data files. Sorry, but doing that would tend to incrimidate me.
The supreme court says that money is speach. The supreme court also upheld the ATF confiscating everything you own if they suspect you of a drug crime. It is up to you to prove that you are not guilty.
Democracy sucks because you have to constantly fight for your freedom while thousands of groups try to slowly gnaw away your personal freedoms...
Anyone remember the former internet bill that almost passed congress?
O.K. if it just means that I have to go to prison at some point in my life, then fair enough. let me say here and now that any government has no right to demand my passwords or post anything on my machines. I will supply them with my passwords on the day that they aggree to hand to me all of theirs and a copy of all their messages. One of the main arguments that they employ is the idea that they are trustworthy and that we only have anything to fear if we are doing something wrong. Even if they are trustworthy, then I still could not accept this law as the law would still be in place when the opposition are in place and even the government will tell you that they aren't trustworty. The Australian law should be resisted in every way possible. if for no other reason that it makes all computer based evidence in court untennable. any computer fraudster can now claim that 'it wasn't me it was the government'
Firstly, it passed major legislation that enables the Australian Security and
Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), similar to the CIA
Actually, ASIO mainly deals with internal matters, so it's more like the FBI. We have other agencies that are concerned with foreign affairs; apparently DFAT (the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade) got in a lot of trouble a few years ago for not finding out about the hiring of the Sandline mercenaries in Papua New Guinea, despite the local embassy possessing the capability to monitor and store *every* telephone call in the country, Echelon-style......
deus does not exist but if he does
I think that the intent of the "changing data" provision is backdoors. Once they got into your system, they want easy access from now on. However, just because this is the original intent, there is no guarantee that soon enough some "smart" guy figures out that altering data can make their life much more easy... And even if it doesn't stand up in court -- what a wonderful tool for pressure tactics. It's the same "drop a packet of coke/heroin/etc. during the search, find it, and lean on the guy real hard" technique.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Oops -- any clever moderator, please remove the :)
post just above, HTML error....
Firstly, it passed major legislation that enables the Australian Security and
Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), similar to the CIA
Actually, ASIO mainly deals with internal matters, so it's more like the FBI. We have other agencies that are concerned with foreign affairs; apparently DFAT (the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade) got in a lot of trouble a few years ago for not finding out about the hiring of the Sandline mercenaries in Papua New Guinea, despite the local embassy possessing the capability to monitor and store *every* telephone call in the country, Echelon-style......
deus does not exist but if he does
I'm an Australian IT professional, and I'm seriously worried about my career, my freedom and my personal interests. How seriously are international recruiting companies going to take (apparently previously respected) Australian IT workers? - It seems as though we're about to become a laughing stock. How do I protect myself from ASIO if they decide I'm a threat and plant evidence on my machines -LEGALLY-? How do I ensure that my favourite websites aren't blocked by this crew of paternalistic school teachers and kiddie porn crusaders which have been appointed? I read many (and contribute to one) news/humour sites (Big Hairy Balls) which would almost certainly be considered profane. We swear a lot, we have a contributor who talks about death and rape (which i personally don't approve of), and sometimes one of the lads posts a link or a picture of a semi-clad girl. I can't wait until the next general election.
It's definitely time to look at setting up some international encrypted VPN's. If worse comes to worse, you can even get sneaky and transfer data (Encrypted or otherwise) in IP packet sequence values or some of the other unused headers of the IP packet.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh, come off it! Try typing a webservers IP address into your browser box and grow a clue. Or at least think about all the various ways you can get web content. Or even try to guess who knows most about computers. /end wasted breath
The real question here, is what lies in "essential liberty". In my book - the "right" to carry a gun is not an essential liberty. The right to free speech, on the other hand, is. But, then again, we have a problem - bullying.
.. if ALL people were open minded, and accepted different opinions, without wanting to bully the ones coming with the different opionions.. THEN, and ONLY then, would totally free speech be a good thing.
I go out and 'say' something in public - which is quite controversial. A lot of people disagree with me. They start showing up with banners outside my house, outside my workplace, and so on. They keep track of me 24h, and really tries to make my life a living hell. Should this be allowed? If not - doesn't that 'not' interfere with free speech?
If most people
We don't live in an ideal society. Should we then have ideal rights - which only fits an ideal society?
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Does this mean I just put: ALL:*.gov.* in my hosts.deny??????????????? or do we take up arms, just like our q3arena training has tought us, and start a revolution?
I wonder if this will cause a backwards shift in the computer trend. Isolate terminals and servers with sensitive data on seperate networks with no outside data lines. This wouldn't in any way stop the physical methods that this this bill seems to authorise, but the current trend of everyone being 'wired' might falter a bit in Australia.
This could also spawn a whole new set of consumer products dealing in heavy encryption, where every single piece of data sent, even notes inside a company, is hardware encrypted in the background.
In the old days of barbarism, the people fought with hatchets. Civilized men buried the hatchet, and now fight with g
Well, if it does come to a town near me, I write protect all files and close all ports. Isn't this how all those movies about insane computer users who use their skill to destroy government start? This reminds me about the article when Kansas wouldn't teach evolution... when people are too stupid about something and don't understand it, they just outlaw it. Their brains can not handle the stress of change. Unfortunatly, these people sometimes come to power and force the ways of the old to be enforced. Isn't the government made by us / run by us? If no how the hell can they make laws that the majority highly dislikes? I don't know if Australia is a democracy or not but if that happened to me I'd be half tempted to gather a band of rebels to overthrow the government ;P
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am
Sorry, sometimes I just assume everyone on /. is a yank . . .
About representative democracy, I don't think you're doing it justice - it definitely isn't perfect, but saying it causes more trouble than it's worth is a biiig stretch. If there's a significantly better way to run a country for everyone then I don't think anyone's invented it yet . . .
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Hah! In Australia now you can be "required" to give evidence, even if it be self-incriminating. No Bull. Refusing can get you jail.
The NCA (National Crime Authority) and the Australian Federal Police have this power. It is supposedly to tackle "organised crime" - (how much of that is there here anyway?)
Really down the toilet.
Let's have a wakeup call here people! Yes I agree that such legislation is quitte obscene but let's not forget who are the losers in this game. since laws like this are easely written but OH SO HARD to implement. YES we should react with vigilance to things like this but we should not overrate the chance it has of ever hindering us. REMEMBER ; The US tried (and failed) the UK tried ( and failed) Germany tried (remember RaDiKaL--> xs4all ) AND FAILED BIG TIME. in fact I have no memory of any country ever succesfully solving the problems of counting al the one's and zero's that on a daily bases go through the internet let alone check for improper language ;) LAW's on the net look nice ONLY ON PAPER :)
Hell, to the best of my knolage(sp) you can not even READ the files on my puter (BeOS, NO servers running), let alown anything else.
as to what files you are downloading, your ISP has ALWAYS been able to do that!
Mlk
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
Allowing the government to read and change all data on computers in a country is something that will lead to abuse eventually if not soon.
It wouldn't be very hard to put some poorly encrypted child porn on an enemy's computer, modify the logs, then bust them. Even should they win the case in court it's not likely they'd ever be able to win political office again after the reputation damage. Of course there are millions of more subtle ways to damage an enemy thru their data.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that a government is an evenhanded institution that would never abuse power or play favorites. Few real governments are that good, most are made up of people with agendas.
How will Australian corporations feel about the government being able to access all their records, and modify them if they so wish? What sort of power will people leaving government and joining private industry have due to having had access to this information? There could be some lobbying power if businesses can be convinced this is not in their interests either.
Does this imply that information temporarily stored on Australian servers is subject to Australian government control even if the source and destination of that data are in other countries? This is of international concern if so.
It would be nice to blackhole all addresses in Australia for a day or so to express the net's displeasure at this legislation. And if they read or change data as it merely passes thru Australia, I'd support making it permanent until they stop. It's a clear and present danger to the integrity of the net.
Maybe YOU should look more often at /. articles because it states specificly what THOSE computers try BUT FAIL to do.
h tml
;)
:) , (don't, it's a cliche)
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/11/25/1029228.s
That is exactly what I mean,THESE people are just after big fish , SO consequently what kind of computing power is needed to check smallfry.
Think in expontential numbers here.
security through obscurity
ps. the YOU in the first sentence is called patronizing
People like you should not be moderating.
They may be a lot of other things, but they're definitely *not* libertarian.
What's needed here is a new version of the spam poisoner "Sugarplum" that sends garbage info to anyone who scans your ports from an ASIO domain.
That'll fix 'em!
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Next year the olimpic games will be held in Sidney, won't they? Well, guess who will get most of the gold medals? Prepare for some strange statistics :)
Yes it's bad, Yes i disagree with it...and no it shouldn't have been passed, but it's not the end of the world....for instance not ANY Austrialian's computer can be tapped ie: (i) allowing the Minister to issue warrants which may authorise ASIO to:
/shouldn't/ ( key word ) shouldn't be snooping around Joe Smoe's computer for no good reason.
/is/ scary is this: (iii) amending provisions dealing with search warrants to:
/not/ be too easy, because that's what gets it closer to Joe Smoe's computer. Of course one part of the bill /did/ make me laugh:
- remotely access data that is relevant to security and is stored in a computer specified in the warrant;
hence, there has to be a warrant issued, so they
What
- simplify the description of the matters about which the Minister must be satisfied before issuing a warrant;
Issueing a warrent should
(xi) changing the spelling of Organization in the title of ASIO to Organisation.
Fortunately, there are so many groups out there that will attack the entire organiztions doing or attempting to do net censorship and privacy invasions that much of this legistlation and those government-appointed agencies who have to do something, even if it's bad, to justify their existence, that I'm not worried about it.
....And, on a political note, who do you think is more interested in staying out of your private buisness, Democrats or Republicans? Liberals or Conservatives? If you don't know, find out. Believe it or not, voting does count, especially when you get everyone else you know in your boat.
Examples?
A censorship group includes homosexual terminology, words such as "gay" and "lesbian", as words that should be filtered out by xyz. Homosexual organizations, including people who are not homosexual but support the organiztions, will make tons of noise, and heads will roll, killing off said legistlation and censorship groups because, in reality, there is only one right way to do it. Parental supervision.
When the President of Austrailia learns that not only a lower government agency is reading his mail and watching his child-porn-net-browsing habits, but that regular joe citizen can also do it by cracking software or leaked software from the agency, heads will roll once again.
My point is, radical change leads to radical mistakes.
This is legalised hacking, and its a VERY, very, very badly thought out piece of legislation.
1) The bill allows for intrusion of a computer system and removal of any relevant data.
2) It doesn't allow for trashing of the computer system.
3) It does allow for bugging and tracking of people or equipment.
4) It allows for the "use of any force that is necessary and reasonable" to enter your premises for bugging you.
If you come under the scrutiny of the security services under this law, expect someone to hack your system, break into any premises that yo frequent, copy the hard disks of your computer systems, fit a tracking device to your laptop or your shoes, and bug the telecoms systems that your use.
It's a *really* bad law in my opinion. It's too wide ranging, and leaves too many things open for abuse. I know that the security services need wide ranging rules to allow for "odd" situations, but in the past, if they were careful not to break the law. This law allows for so much that they can do anything, and it's legal.
Now they have the full force of the law behind them, so if you catch them, you can't do anything, but they can do anything they want to you.
This law even allows for spying:
27B Performance of other functions under paragraph 17(1)(e)
If:
(a) the Director-General gives a notice in writing to the Minister requesting the Minister to authorise the Organisation to obtain foreign intelligence in relation to a matter specified in the notice; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of advice received from the relevant Minister, that the collection of foreign intelligence relating to that matter is important in relation to the defence of the Commonwealth or to the conduct of the Commonwealths international affairs;
the Minister may, by writing signed by the Minister, authorise the Organisation to obtain the intelligence in relation to the matter.
So, in theroy, anyones computer could be available it you annoy the aussies enough.
It's frightening that a government can think about passing a law that will allow thier security services to declare cyberwar against people that they don't like.
This law allows for total information gathering. Under this law anywhere you go, anything you say, anything you record on your computer systems, EVEN IN A FOREIGN COUNTY will be recorded.
Maybe it is time to overthrow a bunch of governments. When a government can trample all over its peoples rights like this, they arent fit to govern. They don't really care about the people.
Call for actions - all /.'ers........
Seriously speaking, I think we see more and more of these "issues": Censorship, govermental approved and required intrusions (and now even legal modifications) without the peoples knowing, requirements of "backdoors" to the government in cryptography, restricions on publication (americans call it 'export' and 'matter of national security') of cryptography etc. etc. etc.
The Australians do it.....(obviously)
The Americans do it.....
The Europeans do it.....
Or if they haven't yet passed laws or bills, they are about to and have such in the process. Gee, I am told that if you are in France, using 'ssh' is in fact forbidden......That makes me a criminal, since I dislike the idea of transmitting cleartext root-passwords on any network.
This is an issue, which in my mind is more and more beginning to turning into a "people of the world" vs "the collective governments of the world".
My guess is, that unless action is taken SOON, then it will be too late. As soon as one major country/government makes precedense, preventing others from following will be hard. Remember, people, that the issues at stake are ultimately - as many others have pointed out - the "freedom of speech" and the "right for privacy".
I think it is time for action. The question is WHAT action can/should be taken? And how? Take this as an "Ask Slashdot", btw....I would like to hear more knowledgeable peoples take on this....
Slashdot represents - in my mind - an opportunity to unite briliant minds across the world. Slashdot COULD become a MAJOR GLOBAL POLITICAL PLAYER on such issues - if used in the right way. After all, I the average Slashdotter (whos posts get a score >0) is equiped with a cirtain level of technical expertise and common sense.
I'd say "slashdotters unite" - let's figure out how to play the game right, and prevent insanity of government control, restrictions and supervision.
I will end by saying as Evita does in Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical "Evita":
"...true power is YOURS, not the government, unles it represents the people!"
Somehow I feel that there are many governments who do not - at least on this issue.
(Sorry for being emotional on this. But I am deeply concirned over the current development)
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
What is the state of encryption laws Down Under? If they don't have Britain-esque laws regarding encoding your data, then at least they can download GnuPG or PGP and protect the contents of their computers.
Also, do the laws give the government permission to break into your computer, or do you have to install software that opens the door for them. If the later, ugh, seems like a big security risk. *I* wouldn't want to store my company's financial data on a computer where I have to have a backdoor that lefts government (or criminals using the backdoor) come in and snoop around. Conversely, if they merely have permission to break in, I would be doing everything in my power to prevent it. If the Feds can get in, so can criminals or just nosey people.
Canada still seems friendly to privacy issues, but it scares me because the more countries that adopt measures like this, the more likely our government is to jump on the bandwagon.
Dana
I'm sorry. I'm Australian. We suck.
I've said it before but I'll keep repeating hoping someone will listen... Content is a simple domain problem. Create a new toplevel .xxx domain and enact legislation defining what content has to be in that domain with penalties for not following. After that it's a simple password in browsers to get access and all the children are "protected". Done. Hell the government in it's usual fashion could even get a cut by requiring licencing or charging some stupid fee to be in the domain. Of course this would never let them implement their REAL agenda.... DAMN common sense huh?
Nor let us underreact.
The worst thing an advocate of freedom can do is to discredit the cause by not having his facts straight.
The link to information on the proposed legislation is stale, does anyone have a newer one?
I searched for "ASIO data" and my only hit was a piece of testimony from April about cryptography.
It seems to me that the "Right to remotely access and alter" data on private computers can cover a lot of ground, running from policies that many people would find reasonable to highly unreasonable policies. A lot depends on what the legislation says about the scope of those rights. A carte blanche is obviously a bad thing, and if that is whasis being granted I'd say we should treat Austrailia as a pariah government the way we did South Africa. But how about the equivalent of a wire tap with judicial overview?
Example: suppose a person can credibly be shown to be taking part in a conspiracy to commit a bombing; the extent of the conspiracy is not known, however. In such cases, a court might grant a wiretap or bug, which would involve modifying some of a subject's property in a way that the tap was invisible. Likewise, suppose the persons were believed to be using the internet with strong encryption to coordinate the bombing. Perhaps the court could authorize putting BO2K on the user's computer to capture keystrokes. The intelligence agency may not have such a legal right, and I'd say that the fact they feel the need to get legal authority to do such things is a good sign. I'd doubt very much that the CIA or NSA would let a little thing like illegality stop them.
So, a lot depends on exactly was is being granted. Anyone have any facts to offer?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What is difference between something like this and the regular wiretapping the FBI does besides a change in medium?
This is it. We may not realise it now, but the internet is the next great force that will change the structure of the entire world. It is uniting people in a way never before seen. Within the 'net, political boundaries are invisible and sites halfway around the globe are as readily accessible as sites a few kilometres away. Nations, once separate worlds in their own right, are being crammed and fused together from the bottom up. Individuals, the common people, are forming this new global nation directly, all by themselves, without nore requiring cooperation from their parent governments. Long standing laws and rules of various nations are clashing violently within the net because they are all incompatible with one another and simply cannot all coexist. In response, nations are struggling desperately to impose local order over the net but are finding that they can have very little control over what is a global entity. And each time any one nation tries, there is a global backlash by the world citizens of the 'net. Those beyond the reach of legislators make it their mission to foil the new restrictive regulations, and have done so with stunning success. Witness the "banning" of DeCSS and the resulting wider propagation that resulted. Stronger and more restrictive crypto export regulations have resulted in a deliberate moving of crypto research to crypto friendly nations. And as gov't finds their powers being lessened, they lash back with stronger and more sweeping attempts to strangle the net back under their control. Eventually it will get to the point of global backlash and the world will descend into war and chaos between vicious govt's and a vast flourishing 'net underground, or the world will come together and embrace the new globalness. Only time will tell.
From a country that disarms it's people. What do you expect from a country that either has no constitution or ignores it? As far as I'm concerned, I think those poor bastards deserve it. This is what you get when you buy into all that "if it saves one child" bullshit and start infringing on natural rights. This is about human rights.
Is Australia trying to make net access a business only tool? It certainly seems that way with all the restrictions they are placing on their residence. I would think that the home users would/should boycott the internet and really not even use it in their work environment either, then maybe the government will see how stupid and oppressive the laws are in there country.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" -- Albert Einstein
They'll just make it a felony to posess a computer that's not on their network and running govt-snoop-enabling daemons/services. Network connection and running govt-supplied snooper daemons will be made mandatory in the very next phase of this evil plan.
Lets send spam with "Kill the President" followed by 400 lines of random text.
Eventually they will have to give up...
Remember Gandhi and his colleagues and followers freed India from being a British colony through a campaign of non violent protest, despite intense pressure from many people to start an armed stuggle with the British. You don't have to have a gun to prove your point, or even to win.
I agree with the poster who stated that Australia will lose tourist dollars because of this. I've already e-mailed the Australian Tourist Commission and told them as much. (http://www.aussie.net.au) I say that the US should boycott the Olympics in Sydney. It'll probably never happen, but nothing could send a clearer message to those holding office in Australia that the US does not approve of the destruction of Australian citizens' personal freedoms.
Indeed.
And what if it's only on a LAN, with no outside connection, eh?
and what if the computer doesn't belong to an Australian?
Insert mind here.
I say that the US should boycott the Olympics in Sydney.
It'll probably never happen, but nothing could send a clearer message to those holding office in Australia that the US does not approve of the destruction of Australian citizens' personal freedoms.
But, a "right" is not something that your massa gives you -- it is something that you are born with! Just because it is illegal, does not mean that it does not exist. Remember the bit about "These truths we hold self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?
As for the civilians vs. military, check out the following conflicts:
American Revolution
Boer War
Vietnam
Afghanistan
In short, the most important quality for a fighting force is will, or morale. All of the tanks/planes/bombs in the world do nothing for you if you won't use them. Look at What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army? for further thoughts.
-----------
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
Why is it that a body to regulate Net content for the population at large, is composed predominantly of schoolteachers ? Australia appears to have selected the perfect "k12 regulatory body", then placed them in charge of everything.
At least being forced to wear a chador in Australia will reduce the risk of skin cancer.
PS - Have you seen some of the linked pages in the .gov.au domain ? "Test Page", "Under Construction" and flakey ASP search engines. these people clearly can't run their own corner of the Net, let alone everyone else's.
Haven't we all learned that economic rights are far more important than civil ones?
The revolutionary war was not won over civil rights; it was lost to the British who pulled out in light of Adam Smith and Wealth of Nations.
We should be fighting for the rights of capitalism which have been drowning since the days of the progressives...
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Who in their right minds is going to sit there while the GOVERNMENT (of all ppl) *HACKS* into our PRIVATE systems and messes about with our sensitive data.
Do as I say, don't do as I do
The Australian government will bang you in jail for hacking - *unless* you are on their payroll!
I understand the paranoia whit this kind of
:) )
legislation. The most scary thing is that they are
legislating stuff they don't understand and thus
tend to do harm.
Think of the french legislation banning
cryptography. A parade example of someone shooting
his own foot (do you plan to do e-comerce in
france?
But one thing has to be said: Abuse is abuse and
stays abuse. Child porn has to be tracked,
attacked and the people behind it deserve at least
to be jailed. And this is just an example.
One can argue a lot about this, but to what extent
is a recipe to build a bomb similar to a gun?
You are not allowed to do everything in public. To
what an extent can you consider the internet a
public ''place''?
We are asking for legislation barring spam and
other kinds of abuse from companies and
corporations. Some kind of legislation regulating
the actions of individuals is also in order. I
think the time has come for the comunity to make
some constructive comments on this matter. After
all, abuse of the internet in any direction will
do no good to any of us.
Putting on some decent heat shielding...
The Anonymous Coward
Does this include the computers used by Australians, or just those owned by Australians ?
And computers belonging to Australians who are not currently in Australia ?
For instance, Australians working with defence contractors for other governments ?
The internet is the exchange of information between computers, no one needs to be consulted before content goes live to the net, as it does with TV, literature, radio, or pretty much anything else. Its a free-for-all, and its at the forefront of American culture, which is one of the first times a totally unregulated medium has been as such.
I certainly hope the US has more sense than Australia
- Matt
/usr/games/fortune: Segmentation fault (Core dumped)
--
43rd law of computing:
Anything that can go wr
She really believed (and still believes, as far as I know) in government serving the public interest, and told me it's a common Canadian attitude.
:)]. Also, my mom is from Canada, and she trusts the govt probably about as much as I do (ie, none).
I hadn't heard of this before. I mean, OpenBSD is based in Canada; how much more paranoid can a project get? [Note: I like paranoia
Unless there's something about the linux OS I didn't know about, how would the ASIO go about logging into individual computers and changing data? It's not like there's a special "Government" port waiting for a connection on every linux box. And even if the government somehow forced linus to code such a stupid concept into the kernel, it is open source, right? I don't see how the ASIO plans on using backdoors, when the source is completely open.
Such is Canada. We don't worry about our government, because the only thing it's good at is infighting and buying $20000 doorknobs. They waste lots of money, yes, but what government doesn't? If that's our biggest complaint, we have little to complain about.
Now for a list of why I say this: We have free crypto (afaik), you can use radio scanners to pick up cell-phone conversations legally (whether this is good or bad is your decision... I don't do it, but some do...), very very little is censored.
There is no 'internet decency act' equivalent up here. In fact, there was a recent ruling stating that the ban against downloading child porn was unconstitiutional. (Mind you, creating such stuff is still VERY illegal.)
We all grumble about the government here, but trust is a non-issue. How many people hear about CECIS (the canadian equivalent of the CIA, possibly spelled wrong)? Not many. Why? Because it is TINY, and has almost NO power inside of the country!
Oh, and the status-quo is protected with a passion here. Any attempt at censorship results in a terrible onslaught of outraged protests, and quickly dies a silent death.
Basically, we've proven that a non-government is better than a totalitarian democracy ;)
But, what about security on the computer networks that are potential targets for the Aussie security guys? I mean, if I have a corporate site, I'm gonna have a firewall, right? I'm gonna filter packets, maybe have an IDS, maybe a DMZ w/ a sniffer/monitor, damn sure I'm gonna have a choke router and NAT. So, what's the implications here? I see somebody seriously tappy-tapping on my fw, they can't get in, I then get a nice call asking me to open a few ports so they can pop in a have a nice looksee?
Or the security guys have stuff that can blast through my stuff w/o leaving a trace, setting off alarms in the NOC? Or they want to have a peek, call me up and ask for access?
What about dialup users? The security guys gonna have the local/national isp's squirting back orifice on every user's 'puter w/o letting them know so the security guys can then putz around next time the user logs on?
This is all sooooo weird. A bit ot, but any Aussies out there want to give an overview of the current Australian political scene/climate? The reference to "Tricky Dick" just gave me the willies.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
> Gee, I am told that if you are in France, using 'ssh' is in fact forbidden......That makes me a criminal, since I dislike the idea of transmitting cleartext root-passwords on any network.
This is both true and false.
Some previous government (right-wing, I think) had passed a law putting strict constraints on cryptography. The current government (left-wing, or "socialist" if you prefer) is removing those restrictions, and actively promotes the use of cryptography.
So far, they lifted the limit on encryption without authorization from 40-bit to 128-bit. They couldn't go further legally - the executive branch just can't say "hey, the law says that there should be limits on encryption technology, but, hey, we issue an executive order saying not to care about it". They are proposing a law which would shred the remaining restrictions - and perhaps give some legal power of digital signatures. Alas, parliament is currently overloaded due to silly foot-dragging tactics by the right wing. How intelligent.
[And to contradict another myth: France does not regulated in which languages Web pages are written, except when they are from government agencies (understandable) and when they constitute an advertisement (you must put a translation nearby; this is because of litigations on misleading advertisement. Any other claim is myth.
People that want to verify can always check official legal codes on http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
Don't trust what the press says!]
Australia has a written constitution, which is actively policed by the judiciary.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/gen eral/constitution/
Australia also currently possesses a notably bone-headed executive, currently intent on some tax reform that depends on placating one Tasmanian Senator. He, and they, will not last forever.
JFK's security was no match for Oswald's sniper attack. In an armed society, a politican who was a threat to freedom wouldn't face a lone gunman, (Spare me the conspiracy theories), But litterly thousands of patriots willing to defend thier freedoms. Sooner or later one of them will nail him.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
It seems to me that instead of a lot of wringing of the hands the Aussies should be doing some letter writing, demonstratating, getting referrenda on the ballots, bringing court cases to impune the constitutionality of these measures and otherwise creating a big malodorous stink right where it will be smelled the best.
I grew up in the 60's and let me tell you, it is quite possible for citizens to have a big impact on government.
What are you waiting for? If you do not take political action you have only yourselves to blame for how you are governed.
Oh, aand if you need ideas on how this works, grab a copy of Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobediance" and give it a careful read.
"they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither libery nor safety." sounds right to me, and covers multiple issues, gun rights comes to mind, but this issue fits far too well too.
We'll be fired?
Maybe - but getting another job is as easy as 1-2-3 ...
it's in my head
don't take the piss, nigel, or I will be forced to own your AOL account again.
2000 coming up and we still have first-circuit knuckle dragging apes controlling third-circuit apes and higher. Can you really feel proud about our species when we have examples like this? I'm having visions of a big gigantic spaceship, filled with lawyers, salesman, and hairdressers.
Anonymous Coward
Founder of the Institute for Moral Rehab
The people responsible for this have, by declaring this as law, declared themselves to be not worthy of further life.
Get it over with now before it becomes even worse.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it
is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-
The whole IT industry here is fed up the gills with this crap and we've run out of ideas on how to stop the insanity.
ASIO is *not* the equivalent of the CIA. ASIS, the Australian Security and Intelligence Service (acronym expansion slightly uncertain here), is the Australian equivalent of the CIA. ASIS, and the CIA, are (legally anyway) not involved with domestic intelligence. They spy on other countries, in other words, not their own citizens.
ASIO are a highly secretive, but quite small, organisation that is mainly involved with counterintelligence (ie making sure that local diplomats stick to diplomatic activities rather than spying) and tracking "internal security threats". Over the years these have historically included Communists (which seem to scare the bejeezus out of Americans, and Australians of an earlier age, but seem pretty laughable to me), and Vietnam war protesters. Not surprisingly, the political left has disliked ASIO for quite some time. It was only in the 80's that they came to accept the perceived need for an intelligence agency (and when you've got a country of 200 million people that seems to be de facto run by a rather nasty army across 100 miles of water from you, a foreign intelligence service comes in handy).
I should make clear that this is more dumb legislation from a minister who seems to make only dumb legislation. He's the one responsible for the net censorship laws (which didn't achieve their desired goal - get a tax bill past a particular Senator), he's mandating an extremely dumb HDTV broadcasting standard that no-one else in the world will use, and now this. Technologically savvy Australians are counting the days until Senator Alston gets the boot, either by election or by his own party.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The first step to subjugating the populace is to take away their right to keep and bear arms. They did it in Australia. Now Australia is in the process of becoming an Orwellian nightmare, where the sheep-like citizens cower before the pointy-headed totalatarian elites.This is chilling, and must serve as a warning to all freedom loving peoples.
The fact that the Australian government is spitting on freedom of speech and tossing civil liberties in the trash can should surprise no one. After all, they just finished getting guns out of the hands of the general populace. The same thing is happening in the UK, where trial by jury is being phased out. The same kind of thing happened in Germany in the '30s, after they passed extensive gun control legislation. Governments understand and respect only raw force. Once the people are disarmed, the velvet glove comes off and the iron fist is revealed.
The difference between slaves and free men is the possession of firearms. Essentially all guns were banned in .au a few years back, and all of the erosions of civil rights have started since then. Do you think the government would carry out stunts like this if the possibility of armed revolt existed?
...when I leave the UK to escape from the growing police state I certainly won't be moving to Australia.
Check some facts:
ASIO is internal security and intelligence, sorta FBI like.
The Australian Federal Police is responsible for policing federal crimes on federal property - again,sorta FBI like.
Australia does not have these 2 roles under a single agency as the US seems to have.
ASIS is the official external intelligence agency, with no internal powers
State police are responsible for crime policing in the rest of Australia
While these are not perfect, the issues are less serious that you seem to think. Lyal
And just how do you propose to do this?
The last fellow to proclaim himself independent of the law lived in a compound in Waco, TX. Last I looked, he died, his followers died, and just to be sure, two dozen children died in a fire.
Maybe you should research the histories of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They were killed, their children killed, their homes and farms burned.
Vigilance? You don't know the meaning of the word.
The prohibition amendment was repealed, so congress has legal precident to repeal the Bill of Rights as well.
:-), leading to the IMO relatively safe assumption that if there are ever 3/4 of both Houses and 2/3 of all States ready to ratify a repeal of one of them, then the Government has already become a monster which ignores the rights anyway.
Yes the prohibition amendment was repealed... with another amendment. No, it wasn't a legal precedent, it was simply an application of the rules in the Constitution providing for amendments:
Artivle V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Bill of Rights is nothing more (or less) than the first 10 Amendments because it wasn't even in the Constitution at first. It was a list of 11 (yes 11!) laws which were proposed to insure that the people would be protected just a bit more from the governement. 10 of them passed through this process to become part of the Constitution and the 11th fell short of the 2/3 of the States and sat around unratified but ratifiable(sp?) for 200+ years until several years ago the requisite 34th State (don't remember which) ratified it:
Amendment XXVII
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
The Bill of Rights legally have a status identical to all other amendments, and thus all other parts of the Constitution, making them subject to amendment (and, yes, repeal). What sets the Bill of Rights apart is this almost worshipful attitude most Americans have towards them (which you displayed to a small degree
I reccomend you read up a little on the relevant documents:
The Constitution
The Amendments
There are also 1 or 2 papers and books and articles and such which have been written about these documents if you want to brush up on the background.
Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Censorship, the removal of citizen-owned guns, and now complete digital search, seizure, and alteration is "legal" Down Under. Must your backs be against the firing squad wall before you dobies realize that you are setting yourselves up for a one-way ticket to complete dictatorship?
My company will never invest in Australia or locate equipment there while you continue to exhibit such insane tolerance for your politician's bleeding-heart policies.
The public good is not served if Australian citizens have no way to curb their government's actions. Wake up!
Mmmh, this stuff is gonna have a pretty interesting side-effect. The Aussie gvt won't be able to use any computer information as a legal proof. With this law, any computer data is potentialy tainted by gvt manipulation, as they are entitled to do so.
:-)
It looks to me like they shot their own foot
Of course you are right its cracking, not hacking. I apoligse to the set of programmers labelled "hackers"- my brain had switched over to government minister mode to read the legislation.
One would have thought the days of dictators is dead. These are the tactics of great dictators like Stalin and Hitler used to prevent their people from speaking out or going against the goals of the state. First the Australian government disarms the citizenry (complaints only go so far against the government, but bullets put the fear into the hearts of the government attempting to pass dracoian laws) and then bans porn on-line. Now they are attempting to destroy the freedom and private property of the individual. Australian government must have joined the so-called Third-Wave as their counterparts in England and US (and Bill "Long Nose" Clinton). I do believe that the Australian people must either start a new party and soundly kick out those in power by election or start leaving in droves. If they lose their tax-base, then the government closes shop. Maybe we should found a country along the lines of Robert Heinlein's book Methuselah's Children? Where privacy is king without the option to change the bill of rights. I hate those would attempt to force their views on others.