Slashdot Mirror
Oz Government to Become "Biggest Hacker in Town"
Wired is running a story with further information about the Australian Government authorising legalised hacking of private computer systems by its internal security organisation, ASIO.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Looks like script kiddies will have a goverment job in the land down under. What to do what to do.
Yes, the government is, at least in principle, accountable to the Australian people, whereas the kid is not.
I realise that many people, on /. in particular but by no means exclusively, have little or no faith in this accountability. There is a general feeling of mistrust in the government and national agencies.
A lot of this mistrust is entirely understandable. But it is, I think, important to make a point of the principle, namely that the issue is not that the govenment has more power than the individual but that they are not (sufficiently) accountable for the exercise of this power.
This is to me the real issue. You do not trust government. But listen: you are the only people who can fix this. You elect these people (I can't vote for any national parliament so I deny all responsibility :-)). Don't just complain and then stay at home on polling day. (How many people in the USA vote? 20%?)
Seriously: if we have zero trust in govenrment then civilization falls. Think about it: some form of government is needed for large scale human organisation. With the population of this planet seemingly ever-groving, the case could be made that we need more government, not less. Of course, it should a government that is truely accountable to the people.
Hi!
What's far more depressing is that it's not even hand coded or running on a decent server. Adobe Pagemill generated the page, and Microsoft IIS served it up. That has to be the most expensive chunk of HTML that I've ever seen. :) I have my doubts about the technical (also ethical) prowess of a government security agency that runs an insecure server OS and can't hand-code a "test page". Perhaps they're just a bunch of 5kR!P7 K1Dd13Z? At least I'm safe.... the machine I connected with was running Win98, and can't possibly stay up for long enough between reboots for them to do anything. :)
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
There is one minor oversight in that post that I should correct. It is nearly impossible to change a democracy from the outside in any large industrialized country. If buisness owners see you as a threat, their employees (a large percentage of the populace) will consider you a danger to their continued livelyhood. Nobody is going to support changes in government that might cost them their jobs.
I realize that quite a few democracies have failed under external pressure in sparsely populated agrarian countries, but this is usually because there is no popular force to help keep the government in place outside of the governments army. External attempts to change large industrial democracies like the U.S. or Australia are doomed to failure before they even start.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
YES YES!!!!
If the NSA don't like you... they will make you "dissapear"
Get a firewall... If you have multiple computers get WinRoute...
So when doing things to aid a business, one should feel a moral responsibility towards the employees of its competetors?
Or is this just only in the case when a business is being given an unfair advantage? In that case, it's OK to hurt these people when playing by a certain set of rules? Then how do you choose these rules?
For criminals I believe they do look at the contents of the computer... Remember the uni-bomber? Well, not a computer but a typwriter. They were able to find out he wrote the letters that way. Didn't they go in the shooter's computers after the incident-of-shooting-in-colorado (avoiding any hot words that may be moderated down by the script :P)? See, I think that for criminals, yeah, great idea. But they're treating everyone as a criminal, guilty until proven innocent and screw it you're STILL guilty, and that is bad.
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
If a seat goes to preferences then votes are distributed according to the preferences _you_ list, not according to your first preference's directions. That's why you have to number _all_ the boxes. When parties hand out how to vote cards on election day they're merely that party's suggestions about how they would like you to vote, not a hard and fast set of rules you have to follow.
/. about Australia without even more being piled on.
Also, it's really very rare (at least in federal politics) for a seat to go uncontested, and it's almost as rare in state politics.
Please, if you're going to whine about our political system, make sure you get your facts right. There's enough crap here on
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Does this mean that we are also allowed to crack their sites?
That would be close to ASIO's normal operating procedures. They have a history of performing unauthorized phone taps and then using the information gathered this way to gain authorization.
The other fun thing they do is when a persons files are released under the 30 year rule they can censor them to their hearts content and claim a National Security proviso with no appeal from the affected party.
It's just typical of how governments claim "protecting democracy" as an excuse to remove more freedom and democracy.
.sig
I am now in a position to access marketing reports, detailed sales figures, and inventory records. I took a few of the reports and ROT-13ed them and added the text to a meaningless GIF file.
I opened up a web page on the many free sites on the net(under false demographic info), and put This GIF file (a little animated bullet thingie) on the site with all the other info about under-water-basket-weaving, or some such nonsence.
Now, once a month, the president of the company (where I had worked for 15 years) gets an anonymous email with a web link pointing to this little GIF.
Sometimes the best place to hide your data is in a place where everybody is looking, but nobody knows to look.
Well what do you expect from a nation of convicts and societal rejects ;)
This is exactly the aspect that made me worried as well. According to the article, authorities can get a permit to break in and check the data. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from cracking their way in prior to the search and PLANTING the evidence they then find when the court order/permit allows.
As they sure as h*ll will modify the data on the computer during both processes, there is no way the victim (er, the owner of the computer) can point to what would have been changed without his knowlegde or consent. In effect, he has no ability to prove that the evidence wasn't there in the first place. ("Of course the files have been modified! How else would the police have managed to access everything on the computer?")
This may set an unwanted precedence and a disasterous example. Orwellian police states may no longer be mere horror speculations, but the standard in the 3rd millenium. I expect with utmost terror as to what countries follow the Australian Way.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
I hope that when this exile is over I will feel very happy. But maybe I will just feel, well, dead?
Seriously: there is nothing wrong with murder (!) all you need is a good reason. Law enforcement and war are typical "good" reasons, but there are others (and better). Even Christian law (normally very anti-killing) acknowledges the need for a little killing every now and then.
Maybe it is not true in the States, but here in Europe the police seems to use their weapons sensibly. I don't have a problem with them carrying guns. I do not normally have a problem when they use them. They are accountable.
Hi!
Technically a trojan isnt a virus, so they could legaly just back orriface a computer.
Im australian, i certainly dont intend to vote for the current government in the foreseable future, they obviously have no clues on technology. (count the ways)
Ill be voting Democrats next time.
I doubt that most countries have a legal procedure for planting fabricated evidence.
Here in the US, police have been known to plant guns on people they've shot to death in order to justify the homicide. (Yes, LAPD, I am talking to you.) No doubt, they rationalize this behavior by claiming that this improves their "security". But it's still illegal, and when they get caught, they get busted.
The Australian law gives the authorities a license to cook the bits on anyone's computer and serve up the results in the courtroom.
As noted in the article, this provides an avenue to challenge any digital evidence presented by the police. It only makes it harder for honest policemen to do their jobs.
Honesty. Loyalty. Kindness. Laughter. Generosity. Magic!
What icon would be appropriate? The Southern Cross? A marsupial? A shrimp on a barbie?
the ozzie govt. couldn't hack their way out of a paper bag
Way off-topic so I put it in as AC, but:
Over half of all Christians are Roman Catholics, so let's use that particular flavour for simplicity. The RC Church has the church canon (literally: rule) which was a very, very heavy book last time I tried to lift it. You should be able to have a look at your local cathedral or church. It is extremely detailed and sometimes interesting.
I don't particularly like Islam, but give them a break. They advocate a theocratic society. When the western world was (to some approximation) a theocracy we had church law and inquisitions, we burned people alive and fought holy wars. Difference is that we largely grew out of it: give Islam another 500 years or so and perhaps they will do the same :-)
Peace.
There is *no* compulsory voting in India, though I do desparately long for such a system. The preferential voting system is restricted to only a few seats for reserved groups, like teachers, etc....
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Wouldn't that be legalized *cracking*?
Someone teach the Australian gov't how to hack, so they can play nice with everyone again...
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hasn't the US Government's NSA been doing the same thing for years? Just not without official sanction. And I think you guys ought to edit the story a bit so that it reads *cracking*, not *hacking* lest the Hacker Anti-Defamation League start raising hell over it. And this from a site by hackers and for hackers!
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Under the new law, Australia's attorney general can authorize legal hacking into private computer systems, as well as copying or altering data, as long as he has reasonable cause to believe it's relevant to a "security matter."
I suggest using a gun. Because whenever a thread on Australia starts, it degenerates into a flamefest because some American finds out he can blame any problem in Aus on their gun gontrol. :-P
Any use of encryption with a greater than X strength (40 bits, maybe), will require a government licence and registration. Illegal possession and/or distribution of said cyrptography will get you a stiff jail term.
Any bets?
--------------------
Earth first? Oooh, and I was thinking of paying the rent.
You are correct, Australia has no real enemies at the moment. The other poster's comment about Fiji was snide and uninformed. Our relationship with Indonesia is rather rocky at present, after the East Timor referendum, and our subsequent major push behind and membership of a peace keeping force. Someone else talked about our "occupation of Indonesia", but the circumstances of East Timor's annexation makes it debatable whether it ever actually was Indonesian territory.
A friend of mine works in military intelligence (show you have some and spare us the "army intelligence" jokes) and while of course he did not speak directly about his work, he did say that Indonesia was a prime interest of his unit.
IMHO most of our real concerns are related to internal terrorism, of which there is not a lot but what there is has occasionally been sensational. Some nutters tried to blow up a Commonwealth Heads of Govenment meeting in Sydney in the 1970's, and there are plenty of screwball individuals and organisations around.
We basically have four parties here. The Liberal/National Coalition are currently in power. The Labor party are contenders and held government through most of the '80s and early 90's. The Democrats are a small party who at present hold the balance of power in the Senate and have the balance of power when the major parties disagree on an issue, usually resulting in intense negotiation with the government. In the recent past, a few independents have had an unjustifiably huge say in political decisions.
The harshness Internet Censorship legislation was to a significant degree a result of the Liberals' desire to get an independent with a strong anti-porn stance to vote for their tax legislation, a move which backfired in any case.
In that case, the Labor party did not oppose the legislation - no one wants to be seen as an advocate of kiddie porn. The democrats put up some resistance to their credit, but without Labore opposing the legislation theirs were token efforts at best. The same thing seems to have happened here.
WE do have another party, One Nation, a populist right wing organsation whose platform seems to be bashing our indigenous people and blaming the country's problems on single parents, the unemployed, etc., headed by a former female fish and chip shop owner with the nastiest pair of eyes I've ever seen. They'd be a real worry poitically were it not for their staggering level of ineptitude and internal bickering. I doubt they'd ever come up with a coherent policy on communications or the internet.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
This simply says that national security officers can break into peoples computesr and do things if their reason for doing so is to protect national security. This is NOT much different from most other countries, the only difference being that in the US, there is probably no 'explicity' rule about breaking into computers. Gimme a break.. In the USA, the authorities can do *anything* in the name of national security... and get away with it.
Oh please. Why don't you read some of the posts here about how the Oz political system works? We all have to vote. We do, politicians still get in.
Short of armed revolution (the "cures" of which have historically often turned out to be worse than the disease) what do you suggest?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Beside, who keeps info that could breach national security on a public server anyhow?
So you advocate international terrorism (shooting down satellites) against an elected government, and throw out the baby with the bathwater by taking action which will affect the average citizen and not the politicians?
And YOU call US stupid?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
This seems to me to be largely a non-issue. The article states that
The only issue to me seems to be that this is under the control of the attorney general rather than the courts. In moust countries the police or security forces have this sort of power with a court order over other information sources, e.g. letters. Why should electronic information be different?
Hi!
Dr. Moureau reference?
The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
I think anything that doesn't harm (too much) and spreads knowledge and information is good . . . as long as they all play nice, it will help the computer world a lot - we'll all learn a little about security.
-Leo
what happened to the department/
He believes the government hastily pushed the bill through parliament using, among other things, national nervousness about the approaching Sydney Olympics to convince parliamentarians to go along
Wait a minute. Australia doesn't have any significant home grown terrorist organisations. There's more worry about international terrorism.
So these laws are mis-targeted, should be for foreign investigations.
The only other threat - solo mad bomber - isn't going to email himself much anyway.
This is a case of government paranoia. The officials that put this stuff together must be so dumb, or worse, so afraid and uncomprehending.
I guess Australian contempt for government is so high they just try to ignore everything it does, kind of like ignoring an annoying toddler. The only problem is, it keeps clamouring for attention with even more irritating behavior. You can't win, Australia!
This should simply have been included as part of the "dumb laws" article (posted just two stories back), where it would fit perfectly.
Sreeram.
Might not the Indonesians be a tad annoyed with y'all? Last I checked, the US was being rather reluctant to be involved on-site, and t'was the Aussies who had troops there despite our reluctance...
Hmm. So, aside from the electronic front, what's the general gist of Australian policy re: law enforcement? Do y'all have such things as no-knock warrants, a history of government infiltrators/agent provocateurs in even remotely potentially subversive organizations, leaders whose operatives break into the files of psychiatrists who treat their enemies...
...or is your government more respectful of privacy when it does not involve a computer?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I know, it sucks. We all think it sucks. And we'd all like to think the Australian government cares about what the geek masses think.
Well I can assure you they do not, and this will be a complete law in practice soon.
So what can I do to stop people getting into my computer? And don't tell me to run linux, because I'm a designer for a living and hence can't live without photoshop.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Unfortunatly the major parties have managed to literally fix the voting system into a position where they cannot lose.
The combination of compulsory voting (fines imposed if you dont) with a preferential system means that while you vote for a conservative party, if your candidate has no chance of winning, your vote is passed onto that parties next preference.
This is an extremely effective mechanism of freezing out any alternative that the two major parties both dislike enough to exchange preferences over. So while a voter may tick that Liberal box, the vote may end up counting towards the Labor count.
In many electorates, where one side's pollsters feel its not worth spending the money to put up a candidate, no candidate is put up. Independants generally lose their seat after a term, after whatever issue pushed them into parliment has faded from public memory.
In fact in Victoria we have three independants committing to voting with the government, which really bends the definition of independant past breaking point.
And as for the federal senate with its broken proportional representation, leading to situations where one religous nut, who got a fraction of the votes needed in a larger state can dictate tax and censorship issues to a government with the backbone of a limp squid....
There's a good reason most Australian's distrust politians, have more respect for lawyers, and expect more honesty for real estate agents. In the vote on the referendum, (lost mainly because of a scare campaign over "the politican's republic") we had government ministers on TV saying dont vote for this republic, it gives too much power to politicians (a lie), and I'm a politican, and you cant trust us.
---
Silence is consent.
They're supposed to limit it to:
* Hiding traces of surveillance, and
* Anything that's "reasonably incidental"
Dunno 'bout the judges down there, but "reasonably incidental" o'er here usually wouldn't be interpreted as "massive falsification of evidence"; more like the disruption caused by the electronic B&E method itself.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
First, barbecued prawns (or shrimp as you call them) is an dish invented for TV ads. Here in Sydney, if we barbecue seafood, it's typically Salmon cutlets, or octopus in a chili sauce (yum yum).
The best icon would be the southern cross, as expressed on the Eureka flag:
http://www.ausflag.com.au/flags/eureka.html
Maybe we should sick prorams like this onto the tralls of abusive corporate CEOS (read: sweatshop kings) and corrupt politicians themselves, once we have sufficient [shrug] reason to suspect them. Imagine exposing their corruption to the law and the masses simultaneously once it becomes so obviously visible that it is impossible to deny...what a way for geeks to engineer social change!
The truth is out there - we'll let it back in after it sobers up a bit. -The Cube
It isn't a reliable indication of the level of skill present there, but it does make me wonder...
bBob
--
*sig*
Somehow, Australia needs to get democracy and some kind of Bill of Rights/Constitution going to cut back on these abuses in the future. The Vote, Free Speech, and some written guarantees to the people go a long way.
Australia is a democracy. We have a constitution - not a Bill of Rights. Voting is compulsory. We end up with inept politicians. You, living in a country which elected both Reagan and Clinton for two terms each, should know all about that.
Not all our politicians just swallow and smile. There are and continue to be voices of dissent in Parliament. This was a bad decision, but I'm not sure it was arrived at undemocratically.
Do they have any Universities or Law schools down there? Maybe if someone went to a quality law school, and was also a citizen of Australia, they could file a suit against the government just like they do in the "First World" Western countries.
We have good universities and law schools here, and very good lawyers, for example Geoffrey Robertson, who unfortunately for Australian techno weenies seems to selfishly regard international human rights abuses as more important than ASIO's shenanigans and the government's ineptitude.
You can more or less buy a qualification in Australia (though not from the better universities), but it's by no means as easy as it is in the US.
The US has more lawyers and litigation than anywhere else, and I can't see how that has improved things, more the reverse.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
I know this quote has been used a lot, and apologies in advance for not being able to remember who said it:
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither."
Warning: Quote most likely mangled.
-RickHunter
--"We are gray. We stand between the candle and the star."
--Gray council, Babylon 5.
Thankfully, though, I wasn't advocating per se, merely observing :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
A powerful and fact filled article, How COINTELPRO helped destroy the movements of the 60's, is here:
http://mediafilter.org/mff/usdomcovops1.html
Read it and weep.
1000 SlashDot sigs
What is the problem with compulsory voting? Is it not a civic duty, like jury duty?
One thing I believe is good with compulsory voting is it removes the need for ridiculous campaigns the US has to get people off their arses and motivated to vote. Most Aussies look at the US campaigns with a mixture of amazement (the endless empty slogans, the amount of money spent on them). Here, we don't need that crap, it's based on policy.
Also, the preferential system we have here is one of the fairest systems in the world..
But not for the House of Reps. In an election for a seat in the House of Reps you have to number all the candidates in order of your preferences. That's why it's called a preferential voting system.
Sure, senate ballot papers can get ridiculous, and that's why they introduced party votes (that may not be the correct term for them, but they do work as you've said) - at some point it got so that the number of invalid votes in the senate was becoming disproportionate due to people making mistakes, so they had to simplify it.
But the two systems are _completely_seperate_. Just because you can vote by party for the Senate doesn't mean you can for the House of Reps, and the mere fact that it's possible in the Senate doesn't mean that you have to.
As for our Constitution . . . You do realise that the Constitution _purposely_ says nothing about "the people of Australian"? When they were writing the thing they were trying to create a federation of states, and the constitution reflects that - it's all about how powers are divided up between the states and the federal government.
What you have to realise also is that when they wrote that constitution they were expecting to have it reviewed (a la the Constituional Convention) on a regular basis (like every ten or twenty years). Part of the reason why our Constitution is the way that it is is because we haven't changed it as we've changed over time.
The other reason it's the way it is stems from the fact that our constitution is only really relevant to political power distribution - since it's so irrelevant to just about everything else, we've made a point of making everything else up as we go along. All our personal rights and obligations and so forth are founded either in laws made by various parliaments or in common law as laid down by the courts. And you know what? That works. It works a damn sight better (for most things) than the US system of making all their rights stem from the constitution - which they then don't change any more often than we do. If you think our constitution is almost irrelevant to the real world we live in, you might try considering a constitution that actually enshrines people's `right' to bear arms, just in case they need to overthrow their democratically elected government! If that isn't stupid, I don't know what is.
Sure, the US constitution also does things like define rights to privacy and so forth, but whoopdedoo! Do they have such a wonderful society, merely because they happen to have their `fundamental democratic rights' written down on some pieces of paper somewhere? No. Australia is, in many, many ways a far better place to live than the US, and part of the reason is because we _don't_ get our rights from a piece of paper someone wrote two hundred years ago. Our rights are constantly being redefined, according to what _we_the_Australian_people_ agree is important. That's Democracy at work. If you don't like it, then you can bugger off to some tinpot little dictatorship where you can have fun writing a constitution for the revolutionaries. Have a go at it and see if you can do a better job!
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
Please don't send your e-business to Au!
We don't want it.
In fact, we don't want any type of commercial internet business at all!
That's because commerce is destroying the net.
It was better when it was a bunch of hackers who could only type a line at a time.
can be found at www.2600.com/~asio/
:wq
Please! A "shrimp" on the barbie!
Funnily enough, I think this would be rather symbolic of the Australia-related stories on Slashdot. We don't even say shrimp - we say prawn... The shrimp on the barbie icon would be an ironic play on the fact that we are so misrepresented overseas - and our government only exacerbates the situation.
I don't know a single person who agrees with any of our recent technology legislation. That includes people who don't have a huge understanding of the ramifications of the changes made. Most of it was put through for the benefit of other bills - mostly related to the current conservative government's tax scheme.
Sadly, most of the media focus on government decisions in the previous few months has been focussed on the republic issue. Even then we were caught with our pants down.
There is only on party in Australia who have any idea of the importance of our technology sector: the Australian Democrats. At the last election, they were essentially given control of senate decisions on partisan issues.
There is hope...
That's not bad, that's funny.
The Australian government better keep it's tentacles down under, because if I catch them reaching across the water to my machine, I will have to create an international incident.
--Nimbus Qrygg, The One True Qrygg
OS > Religion;
--Nimbus Qrygg, The One True Qrygg
OS > Religion;
Come dance with the
Orwellian might describe the way the article was written. A fine and shining example of newspeak, implying that the Australian government was going to hack into everyones computers and that any day now Aussies everywhere might find that important files had been altered. But let's read a little more carefully, shall we? The limitations imposed on these powers state that the use of the government hackers in altering data is only to conceal surveillance. Furthermore, there must reasonable cause to assume that it is a matter of security. Think of it like an electronic warrant. Warrants and sub-poenas are served with due cause, when it is believed that issuing such will produce evidence. We trust (i know i am speaking optimistically) that judges and those who issue warrants and sub-poenas do so with due cause, because they believe that information will be brought to light that will aid a case or provide evidence. Generally we assume that most government agencies would act on a similar principle. i.e. they aren't breaking into just anyones files for the hell of it. So I gues it all boils down to "Do you trust your government?" or "Do we have reason to believe that these measures would be abused?"
--she sings from somewhere you can't see...
...accountable to the Australian people... You got it. The problem with this particular law is that the government is not accountable to anyone. The Attorney general gives permission, but theres no further process involved, so it could be a once-off permission to agencies to hack anyone or everyone in Australia in the interests of "National Security". At least theres no enforced backdoors. That would really be the end. I've portscanned myself and turned everything off, don't a have permanent connection, run a sniffer on the interface, no servers, can encrypt files on the disks. They haven't got much of a chance (I think :-/ ) of h4x0ring me. Confrontation with government is kind of fun, like a street protest. There's no equivalent of pepper spray in the law's arsenal yet, so hey, get serious about security! ..AC in Perth, Western Australia..
The serious problem here is that the government can easily break into computers and people would have no way of knowing. It is much easier to punish police for violently murdering people than to punish them for breaking into computers.
To suggest that the police are cracking computer systems "for fun" is childish.
Police probably won't break into computer systems "for fun," but if they have a personal problem with someone then they could attack that person's computer and either destroy important data or plant evidence.
The whole idea behind a democracy is that the power stems from the people.
As I see it (and I'm not a political theorist, but I think my ideas are valid), the basis of a democracy is that everyone in the democracy has equal power, and no one can deprive anyone else of their power. That's the fundamental basis, everything else stems from it. (That may not be what the political theorists say, but it's what I've observed from living in a democracy and watching other democracies in action)
Governments only come into democracies because having power distributed so completely is not very efficient for running countries (and countries do need to be run - they need police, they need infrastructure, they even need armed forces, generally). So, what happens is people agree to delegate their power to some group of people who then use it to do the stuff that can only be done for the nation as a whole. Voila! We have a Government.
The point to note is this: _all_ the power that the government wields (in a true democracy) is power delegated to it by the people. This is important, because it implies that if the people decide they don't like what their government is doing, they can take their delegated power back, and thus remove power from the government.
That's why governments get freaked out by elections - they know that they are at risk of losing their power, if the people decide to delegate their power to someone else.
The upshot of this is that in a democracy the only threat to the nation is going to be external - since everyone has the same amount of power and can't take power away from anyone else, and since the government is entirely reliant on the people for it's power, the only thing you have to do to retain you `liberty' is to make sure you vote. Make sure you participate in choosing where your power goes.
I suppose you could say that's a form of `eternal vigilance', but it's from an entirely different viewpoint to the one that you're espousing. Your argument seems to be that you have to keep on watching that all powerful government to make sure that it doesn't try to take away your liberty (though if the government really is all powerful, how are you going to stop it?). Whereas my argument is more one of good housekeeping - make sure you help decide who gets your power for this term of office, because if you don't the idiot down the road will . . .
Note that I'm not saying anything about external threats to a nation - that's why I said democracies often need armed forces. Also, it is possible for the people of a nation to choose to give up their power en masse - that's pretty much what happened in Germany before WWII. Interestingly, though, that's also pretty much what the British population decided to do during the war - they handed their power over to Churchill's War Cabinet for the duration. The difference between Germany and Britain there was that the Germans gave their power to an insane megalomaniac, whereas the British gave their power to a farily responsible group. Also, the Germans don't seem to have reserved the right to take their power back - they gave it up wholly to one man, rather than to the people who just happened to be leading their country. The British, on the other hand, gave their power to the Government, rather than to Churchill, so that the power remained with the nation rather than an individual.
In any case, my argument is basically that governments in a democracy are not something to be feared - the people of the democracy can take power away from the government without needing to fight them. The case of the US War of Independance was an _external_ threat - another nation imposing it's will. You can't extrapolate from that case to the case of a democratically elected government.
himi
I may not have been a political theorist before, but I'm perilously close now . . .
My very own DeCSS mirror.
You're giving ASIO way too much credit. They couldn't tell they're arses from their elbows. ASIO has a habit of making the news for the wrong reasons. Usually, it was because they raided the hideout of some "terrorists" only to find that they had the wrong house. "You mean this isn't number 37? Doh!"
Maybe thats what ASIO wants. If something like that happens there will be a "new funding initiative" to "combat emergent domestic terrorism". i.e. Appointment of six level seven bureaucrats on $150,000 a year each, for starters. Prolly better to stay on the government's good side, that way they can't waste so much of your money.
Hmmm, good point for the first but it will only work with OS's that aren't open source - So just run Linux,BSD problem solved. As for the Fiji thing WTF! - you're dreaming pal, why would Australia as a nation be scared of a pissy little island like Fiji. Sure most people don't like to be beaten up by burly islanders but I don't think the Australian defence forces would be quivering in terror when faced with the miltiary might of Fiji.
In most countries, they would deny having done such actions and in some they'd just kill you for suspecting a national security breach.
At least the Aussies admit to being willing to investigate you to no end if you have enough evidence stacked against you.
The US is a bit Mickey Mouse with a H&K MP5 behind his back.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
C'mon! People who talk l33t are monuments to idiocy. Laugh at them. They're too busy applying layers of clearasil, or trying to find a job, to actually do any damage.
Sounds like an effective protest would to put a *.au domain check in as many systems as possible. (Unix of course.) Then they would at least have to pay for AOL accounts like all the other script kiddies.
In school I was taught that australia was founded by criminals. I am glad to see they are keeping the tradition alive.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
come on so few people keep any thing that the goverment really needs on the computer all that they are going to do is fuck over the any trust that there citizens once had of their lousey asses come on plz aren't we a little past this big brother thing i know that i would feel violated if some one was prying through my pc looking through all my source code and varoius other privite things or saying huh this person in my opinion is a fucking idiot and i think they have a plot against the goverment, then they have just condemmed every citizen, cause every body at one time or anothe have had huge amounts of hatred twoards the feds
Australia was used initially as a dumping ground for the less than desirables by the British. Discovered by Cpt James Cook (b27 October 1728 in Marton, England - d14-Nov-1799, Hawaii), Australia was also settled by free settlers concurrently.... the link goes on to explain...(my emphasis)
- Captain Cook's account of his discovery aroused much interest in England but Britain did not try to colonise Australia until its American colonies achieved independence. On 13 May 1787, the first fleet of 11 ships sailed from England under the command of Capt. Arthur Phillip. They reached Botany Bay on 18 January 1788 with 1530 people, 736 of them convicts.
So it was not until the Boston Tea Party that the Brit's deceided to look for another dumping ground for their criminals. Another site, Convicts of Australia goes on to say....- 1718-1783 About 50,000 British criminals were transported to colonies in America.
Australian convicts just happened to put to good use as a good source of cheap labour, building infrastructure, harvesting crops and rum. Though branded criminals, a lot of poor old souls got a life ticket to Van Deimans Land (Tasmania) for crimes such as stealing bread, forging, etc... and anything else convenient the British could think of. That and the fact that the prison ships moored off the British coast had filled to capacity.1775-1783 AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE - hostilities with Britain brought transportation to a halt.
1783-1787 British prisons and hulks began to over-flow.
For those with a history bent that above urls above are a great read. For the writer above, surely you where aware of these facts, so dont bother.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
The point is, it's not okay for burglars to break into your company and steal or alter your private data, but it's somehow okay for the government to do it (now). I'd say it should also be legal, then, for non-government people and companies to break into government computers and steal or alter the data. What's good for the goose...
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
A local hack would imply that the police enter your premise and sit down at your computer. A remote hack implies that the police connect to your computer while you're surfing on the Internet.
I can see this rankling a lot of Slashdotters who fear Big Brother, but remote access is really not different than what anybody anywhere on the world can do. I mean, you system is either vulnerable or hardened against intrusion. On Linux, if you simply remove all unnecessary network services in inetd.conf and install simple packet filters like ipchains, then there isn't much the police are going to be able to do. Similarly, on Windows you can install Network ICE which will not only block them, but also alert you to exactly what they are trying to do.
I mean, anybody who runs such countermeasures regularly sees attempts against their machines. Why get into a tizzy over the government doing what Russian hackers/crackers are doing to you anyway? Indeed, the Russian hackers are likely to be much more intelligent than government drones.
In any event, I've got countermeasures on my system. This means that the most likey outcome is that bungling investigators would tip me off to the investigation, not compromise my machine.
(I guess my reaction is atypical: my geek distaste for l-users who can't configure their system outweighs my geek distrust of authority :-)
I know that Slashdotters don't take this kind of post seriously. We know that people who write this stuff all over the net are just mainly a bunch of script kiddies (or not even that) who talk big.
However, I don't know, are the mass number of computer users scared of this type of person, making them willing to let their governments pass anti-privacy laws? Not that there aren't skilled crackers, but there are a lot more people who go around CLAIMING they can compromize your system than can actually do it.
So I'm thinking, people acting like big shot crackers might actually be helping these laws come to be, because people are willing to give up their online privacy so that their governments can track down these "dangerous computer criminals."
Just a thought. ^_^
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
The key question is does this new law infringe on the constitution (or whatever they call their basic national laws) of Australia? If it does, then it is wrong and will hopefully be ruled unconstitutional. If it does not, then okay. If the ppl don't like it, then they need to change their constitution.
The same holds true in the US. Remember all the brouhaha over COPA? Ultimately, the high courts started telling Congress that they passed unconstitutional laws.
Some ppl have stated that the gov is doing the same thing as script kiddies. Well, here in the US, law enforcement agencies have been given court approval to break into private property to play listening devices; for instance, this was used in the 80's against New England organized crime. Additionally, wiretapping by the gov is okay if its has court approval. Private wiretapping (like secretly recording telephone conversations) is illegal in many states. Linda Tripp is learning this lesson right now.
Hardly. But then...
The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization.
Yes indeed. God forbid that the unwashed masses should take any responsibility for their own actions. God forbid that The PeePull should behave in an orderly and civilised manner without the Law Givers.
To suggest that the police are cracking computer systems "for fun" is childish.
To suggest that any organ of Government is necessarily looking out for your best interests is naive.
I think this article was placed wrongly... clearly it should have been an appendix to the the "Dumb Laws" article posted 2 hours prior to this one. :)
unless of course they left a resident program on your system to record keystrokes or what have you.
I suppose this is true... if they are hacking into your box and you frequently crash it could make it harder for them to get at that crucial data in your Explorer Cache....
/dev/null file.
The feature Windows really needs is a
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
.
I agree that this is not *too* interesting. After all..
"This just brings ASIO's powers in line with new technologies," she said. "It doesn't give them increased powers at all."
And I think this is a direct result of Echelon. Remember, Australia just outed the U.S and Britain for their own activities in citizen monitoring. I doubt they are still getting the and same info they were a few months (years?) ago? So basically they took it upon themselves. The same end result, I guess...
Like the sig says says, monitoring ALL the information would not be a happy task. Just don't act conspicuouly, you scientologists, libertarians, and illuminati, SLASHDOTTERS UNITE!!!
(err, whatever. I could tell you about the real-time demographic information that is available based on the sound of your name and your zip code, this is private corporations monitoring your info, and my guess is they have more money to spend on it than the government does, more quantity than quality tho, and the government has access to this info but not vice-versa.)
+&x
You have to turn up. You can vote informally. You're in fact free to right "You can all go to hell" on your ballot paper.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Do you really think the NSA doesn't do this, too? What are the checks and balances there?
If the NSA is doing this, they are in rather deep trouble. It is illegal for the NSA to gather information on US Citizens. The ECPA (Electronic Communications and Privacy Act) also contains a lot of restrictions on what sorts of things can be intercepted, by who, and how. If the NSA has been intercepting stuff like email and reading the content without obtaining court orgers they can be hit by some pretty stiff penalties under the ECPA too.
Congress as well as civil liberties organizations are really putting some heat on the NSA right now. EPIC is suing because of disclosure requirements that the NSA has not met under our FOIA - goverment agencies are required to disclose internal documents when requested unless they can prove that there are some sound reasons like national security not to. Congress also has an investigation going which the NSA has refused to provide testimony for - Congress' response was to cut funding for the NSA legal department by 33%. This is the ultimate check and balance that Congress holds over the executive branch in the US.
There were some incidents like this in the 60's with the CIA which is also forbidden to gather intelligence within the US. The results were not pleasant for those guilty of this.
The FBI has the right to gather information of US citizens - but the FBI does not have black budgets, and they are generally required to be much more open about their activities than the NSA or CIA. Ultimately any information that the FBI can present in a court in the US has to pass a variety of tests under the Unreasonable Search and Seizure provisions in the Constitution, too.
I will gladly pay you today and eat Tuesday up like the cheap burger that she is.
Is an issue such as this one diverting Australian computer/Internet users minds from other real Australian computer issues? Sure, this may represent a slight invasion of privacy by ASIO. Yet it is hardly different to what already goes on with police search warrants. How often would a power like this be used? Any information that ASIO would be interested in would not be stored on a public server, instead, to gain this information, the Australian government would just follow avenues which are already in place to physically obtain the machines they wish. This issue is diverting Austrlians from the Internet Censorship issue which will be in place in less than a month now.
Your argument seems to be that you have to keep on watching that all powerful government to make sure that it doesn't try to take away your liberty
Nope. If a government is all-powerful, you have no liberty to guard. And governments don't seek power -- the people in them do. If you can keep them busy taking power from each other, they won't threaten your liberty -- even though they're still spending all their time trying to expand their power.
If you're really lucky, one group will expand your liberty just to weaken their rivals. After all that's how the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments came to be -- Republicans after the Civil War trying to weaken the Democrats.
I was proud to be an Australian at some near point in the past. I'm not so sure any more ..
matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com
Errr...which satellites in geosynchronous orbit over Australia? Last time I looked, the Equator didn't run through Oz...
It's a lost cause, and perhaps an artificial distinction, especially since the "Caltech Football Hack" is really a crack as far as I can see. This is part of the "New Hacker's Dictionary" which is supposed to be informing non-hackers about hacker culture.
1). New better crypographic security measures will be created, then the aussies will fight over wether its legal or not.
2). The aussie govt will come up with better exploits/script kiddie attacks. since the biggest OS used is M$, these will be directed towards windows and this will make windows look very bad.
3). Other govts will follow aussies lead and there will be worldwide chaos and geeks battle legislative drones in control, eventually this will come down to one apocolyptic battle where the good people (sporting penguin costumes) fight against the corporate/government sponsored army of doom.
As we all know good always conquers evil in the end so we have nothing to fear.
"The importance of using technology in the right way has never been more clear."
In addition to the NSA, CIA, FBI, ATF, & the DoD, you can now add the Oz govt. to your list of job prospects.
I'm sure they'd never actually PRACTICE "massive falsification of evidence" in THIS country. I feel COMPLETELY SAFE knowing that OUR government wouldn't even CONSIDER electronically falsifying evidence in the name of national security.
I'm sure that none of the three-letter Federal agencies would EVER modify private individual's credit ratings just to harrass them on the grounds that they were "subversive" writers and artists. No way! Not in the USA!
However; if they DO decide to hack into your private database, they'll be easy to spot with their "Federal Hacker" badges and their officially issued Sig Sauers.
Naturally, they'll show up at your front door, knock politely, and show you their warrant just so they don't violate your Constitutional right to know when you are being monitored.
Kick ASS! This sure sounds like an exciting job to me; SPYING on people with impunity for fun and profit. I wonder if they're still hiring?
It's not a matter of what is reasonable or intended. It's a matter of HAVING THE DAMN SKELETON KEY!
There is an old saying in our culture:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
I beleive it was the late Kurt Cobain who quipped: "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean no one is out to get you." (or some such words)
England passed laws called "The Navigation
Acts" around 1650 restricting certian aspects
of trade (i.e. you can only buy/sell certian
products from/to England and you have
to use English ships).....they also authorized
the government to issues "letters of marque"
to owners of private ships which alllowed
them sieze enemy ships on the high seas,
steal their cargo and sell it for a profit....the
result of this "well intentioned" law (unless you
happened to be French or Spanish) was the
creation of widespread piracy...."but of
course we stole this cargo from a French
ship"...."but of course we we obtained
this information by hacking the web sites
of suspected drug dealers....".
The more things change....
That's exactly what it is. Plain and simple. Yet another step towards Big Brother. You know the Australian government seems to have been taking a lot of them recently; even the US government doesn't have the audacity to proceed at this pace.
Frankly, this solidified my decision: I won't ever move to Australia. I'll grant, I don't like the US government. But at least they pay lip service to the rights of the citizens (and occasionally respect them); this law simply stomps all over Australians' rights without even a shred of subterfuge. Same with all the censorship laws there, many of which go into effect in less than a month. And then there's the other Net-related fiascos going on there...
By the way, earlier in this thread someone noticed that ASIO's Website had a "test page." This poster feared that ASIO was using it as a tool in their Big Brother scheme. I read it a bit differently (seeing as there was nothing in the page source that indicated the possibility of sending data).
I don't even think they have a proper Website. All that page was missing was that inane yellow diamond with the animated digging man inside it and it would have exactly mirrored the perpetually in-progress page of a typical technologically-illiterate person. I honestly think they're that clueless about technology; even more so than the US government (which is itself pretty damn bad). They fear it, fear it with such intensity that they'd do anything to crush it.
Oh, one last point: isn't this getting dangerously close to becoming a human rights violation? The situation there seems to be getting out of control; someone needs to bring them back into line and remind them who really runs the show.
How about a nazi swastika replacing the union jack... Seems appropriate, our governement, afterall, are acting like nazi's
Actually by definition murder is wrong. Murder = the wrongful killing of an individual. I.e. killing in self defence in not murder, it's self defence. Law enforcemnt IMHO is never a good reason, every time an officer fires his weapon he has FAILED in action, and if he wounds, or worse, kills his target he has FAILED as a PEACE OFFICER, not just as an action. We can all agree that failure is not good. War - well there is a nice kettle of fish, it may be fine and dandy to kill in self defence, or in the defence of another, but to think it's alright to hop on a ship, travel 2,000 miles and then shot an indigenous people because your goverment says they are "Bad bad bad" with no further justification at any level, *smile* I'm laughing out loud and scared shitless. As for Christian law *GUFFAW GUFFAE* there is no such thing unless you mean islamic law? biblical law is not law since each "Law" was created in and of its self with no logical basis from others. KNOW what I mean??? On the sensibly thing, if you can assume that the police will act sensibly then it is also logical to arm them for any situations that may transpire. Such as stopping a large vehicle traveling at high speed tword a crowd. The best device for this situation is a bazooka, mortar, or grenade launcher. You really trust a cop with one of these heavy ordinances? You just need one to have an accident to make it multiple deadly. When it comes to human nature - hope for the best, plan for the worst Arm you protectors with the minimum of weapons necc. to do thier job. When give the choice always choose non-deadly munitions.
If shit like this keeps happening, democracy eroding, privacy being taken away you better believe there will be domestic terrorist organizations in Oz. Look at what happened in America when the federal govt. got big and started fucking with people, the whole Waco and Ruby Ridge shit created many terrorist or psuedo-terrorist organizations in America. The whole world is coming apart.
But it IS illegal to tell other people to vote informally, or campaign for this, even to campaign for split preferences and so only bend the voting regime a little (- what was that Alfred guy's surname again? - didn't they lock him up or fine him? Can't remember).
So you can't campaign against the system, only stand against it yourself.
Look, our (I'm Australian) govenment has done some pretty bad stuff lately, but I don't think this one is too bad.
So, they made a law that lets them (basically) monitor your computer use if they get a court order.
What's wrong with that? Sure, I don't like EACELON (sp) but this is totally different. That is indiscrminate wire tapping. This is focused on people who are breaking the law.
I don't like the idea of someone searching my computer, or my house. However I dislike even more the idea that the govement that is supposed to protect us cannot because the law forbids it from searching a criminals house (or computer)
At least, now, it is out in the open, and not against the law. Where there is law, there are proceedures, and appeals, and checks & balances.
Do you really think the NSA doesn't do this, too? What are the checks and balances there?
OI!
Live free or die!
No. Since the police carry guns we can no longer criticize citizens who carry guns.
Or, more accurately: If the police were allowed to kill people without cause (in the name of "the people," of course), then, yes, we would be kind of out of order if we criticized other murderers.
The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization.
The state's only legitimate power derives from the consent of the governed. How many governed are going to consent to this kind of madness?
I, for one, am going to start boycotting Australia. These things are happening everywhere to some degree, but they are completely out of hand Down Under.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.
If you take a look at Elecronic Frontiers Australia there is a document which the Aus government recalled earlier in the year suggesting this course of action. I'm not sure if I agree with the spooks installing trojans, but could it be any worse than echelon? FWIW, "they" would have to get up pretty early in the morning to get past some modern operating systems undetected, especially those used by only one person.
Okay.. I was wrong.
That will teach me to skim read & post.
It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power.
Trust me: the focus of all politics everywhere has always been on the wielding of power. (With the "categorical declarations are subject to a small but trivial degree of error" caveat.)
Bribery and corruption has always been a second-order effect that is often mistaken for the problem. People who primarily want money instead of power will not go into government unless the government has expanded itself to the point that you cannot make money outside of government.
People who want to do good and benefit the people are no exception -- they either aren't involved in politics, or they need to accumulate power to impose their vision of the good of the people. In fact, they can be even more tyrranical about it -- because they know they are doing the Right Thing.
Politics and government is entirely about power, always has been (everywhere), and always will be (everywhere). Which is why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
OK, next they will prohibit people from securing their systems (cuz how will they otherwise get in?), then they will like it and will require every application/OS/computer/whatever sold in Australia to just have a special password for the gov't (hey, why spend taxpayers' money on cracking when you can just force people...). How cool! Big brother is watching...
And am I just terribly ignorant, or is it right that Australia doesn't really have direct enemies and therefore doesn't really need such extraordinary powers?.. I know, they are VERY scared of Fiji people.....
This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc. In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)... By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody". > The new powers are contained in a bill passed by > Australia's parliament late last month (the > Australian Security Intelligence Organization > Legislation Amendment 1999). This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power. ** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED ** Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system. -nullity- "Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"
This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc.
In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)...
By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody".
> The new powers are contained in a bill passed by
> Australia's parliament late last month (the
> Australian Security Intelligence Organization
> Legislation Amendment 1999).
This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power.
** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED **
Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system.
-nullity-
"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"
Is more Democracy.
--Al Smith
Govener of New York In the '20s I think.
HE was refering to things like sweatshops that were covering new york at that time.
So lets stop bitching about this and do something. I know both parties are having trouble getting people to run for office. So how about some folks consider running for your State Leg or Congress. Even if you don't win you might get stuff taked about.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Doesn't anyone else remember seeing this story on YRO a few days ago? If it's an issue big enough to put on /. now, why not then?
Weak impostor. Owned with this last post!
_.......................__
||.....__...._._||_..||-\\..._...._._||_
||......_\\.(/_'..||....||-//.//.\\.(/_'..||
||__((_||_,_/).||_..||....\\_//.,_/).\\_
The final word; anything following is redundant.
Great, another way for a government to take away people's privacy. It's kind of ironic that the Australian government can commit a crime that the rest of the world is fighting to stop. Oh well, I guess it's not like they wouldn't do that if the laws wheren't passed.
-D0n'+ h$+3 M3 b3C0u5e 1'M 4 1337 Hax0R!-
This article really p*sses me off.
With the same argument I guess that since the police carry guns we can no longer critizise violent murderers? This is just plain silly and pathetic.
The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization. It is right to watch the way the state uses those powers carefully, but this article is just paranoid. There are (apparently) issues with the new law, but the journalists seems to have largely missed them.
To suggest that the police are cracking computer systems "for fun" is childish.
Hi!
I have a manuscript for a novel. first case: I typed on an old fashioned typewriter and have is stored in a safe. second case: I have typed my manuscript on my computer.
What is the difference, between the two documents other than the media on which they are prepared.
Whats next, and where does it stop!!
I agree with you mostly. Although, a few slashdotter would be irked if the gov. started spamming. These intrusions are more noise you have to deal with before you can get any real work done. More people cracking at my box = more time making sure it's secure and less doing something productive like daytrading to make money for an orphanage.
Others will be annoyed at the concept the government can plant evidence on an unsecure system and then legally destroy the evidence of planting it. Rather irksome. Rather hard to prove.
GOV - "Yes we have records showing that we broke into the system and changed data, but all we did was change some access logs, etc. All that kiddie porn on his system was there before, and those 12 copies of Office2K and those 20 gigs of MP3s. All were located on the system in question"
ATRNY - Then how do you explain that this computer was a kiosk in a Burger King? With no keyboard or mouse?
GOV - Obviously Burger King is involved in a kiddie porn/warez/mp3 ring and must be stopped.
Actually the acticle states that no court order is needed. It is purely the decesion of the attorney general that is necc. no court must be informed or give its approval. No evidence of criminal action must be produced to do it. They already have the right and ability to do this if the court says it's ok, this law basically does an end run around the courts.
Really. Look at the source to the test page. What do you get?
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 2.0 Mac">
Come on. Some supposedly-advanced computer intelligence agency had to use Pagemill to get something that said "ASIO - Test page" in a big font? Oooh, I'm scared of them now!
go to this url, deal with the damn shockwave player, and find out via -Cartoons-Bizaro what the author and I think about people who use Nazi
r o.html
http://www.shockrave.com/flashcards/theme_bizar
How long before people start dropping all
ip traffic from oz? Too bad ipfwadm doesn't
take a wildcard dns name:
ipfwadm -I -i d -S *.au
Unfortunatly the major parties have managed to literally fix the voting system into a position where they cannot lose.
The combination of compulsory voting (fines imposed if you dont) with a preferential system means that while you vote for a conservative party...
I have vaguely heard of this before. Doesn't India have something similar? Compulsory voting, anyway. The right to speak includes the ability to not speak, the right to vote should operate the same way.
I'm curious, though. What is the state of the Australian Constitution? Do you even have one, or do you have something more similar to the British system of laws upon laws upon laws, back to the Magna Carta or so? Does the premise of judicial review exist Down Under? Could an appeal of some kind to the court system get this law ousted (the parties obviously aren't going to do it, legislatively)? An independant judicial system seems to be one of the few saving graces in America right now.
Communication is only possible between equals
We all know that Australia is the best continent to control in Risk. .
What's the bloody Story! Australia is having an internet shocker recently.
http://parasite.pcfan.com
Of course, in this scenario, the gov't responds by instituting even more intrusive laws that attempt to guarantee their access to "private" data, which causes the criminals to increase their security...ad nausium. Unfortunately the average Joe has his rights trampelled on in the process. Any way you cut it, it's a damn scary business.
Foster's, it's Australian for Beer.
Intrusive, it's Australian for Government.
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Be careful Mr Gormley, Albert Langer went to prison for advocating voting outside the AEC's instructions on how to vote. He spent three weeks in jail for telling people an alternative, legal method of voting. But they know where you live, expect to be raided tonight and your equipment seized.
---
Silence is consent.
Beside, who keeps info that could breach national security on a public server anyhow?
If their gov't is run by people, and if the people that run their gov't are similar in any way to the people that run ours, that won't always matter. Now, I realize that thus far I sound like I'm a accusing the Australian gov't of being bad people, but I'm not trying to. I'm just going to assume that they're not going to specifically define what they'll consider to be information that is a breach of national security, b/c that would convolute the workings of politic. (ok, so I'm ranting now.. moderate me down then.. sorry)
Insert mind here.
Also, Australian gov't likes to send lots of it's troops to help out whoever it thinks are it's friends. Whenever the US finds a cause, Australia backs it. Sure, our army is quite insignificant by comparison, but it's assumed that alliances with the US and Britain would be of some use if we were attacked.
On a slightly unrelated note, shouldn't we have "Australia" icons on the slashdot main page! Surely there's enough articles for a seperate section
Sometimes people break into computers and break the law.
Sometimes people break into computer and they ARE the law.
Which would you prefer?
The Australian Government is not hiding unethical activities, they're doing it out in the open where it can be challenged. Who knows what the United States government has been up to? We certainly can't change anything if we don't know whats going on. Cheers to the Australian government!
http://technology.news.com.au/news/4 262081.htm
I say I ain't giving you no tree fiddy you goddamned Loch Ness monster, get yo own goddamned money!
Wow, these third-world Island countries are weak.
Even RedComChina treats their people better than this!
Somehow, Australia needs to get democracy and some kind of Bill of Rights/Constitution going to cut back on these abuses in the future. The Vote, Free Speech, and some written guarantees to the people go a long way.
Do they have any Universities or Law schools down there? Maybe if someone went to a quality law school, and was also a citizen of Australia, they could file a suit against the government just like they do in the "First World" Western countries.
If the Aussies decided they were upset enough about this to take some sort of protest action, one way would be for ISPs to redirect any HTTP requests from .gov.au and .mil.au domains to some sort of 'access denied as a protest' page.
Just a thought...
WE'd be screwing over the citizins of Oz, thats why. They are not at fault, the gov is.
And I thought there were no cool jobs in the public sector anymore!
I don't know what everyone is so afraid of.
They used a WYSIWYG to make that web page.
I think it is about time we do the following to the australians... maybe these things will tell their government to stop messing with their people. -cut off all telephone/cable lines into and out of australia -ban users with an australian ip from all american and canadian hosted websites -shoot down all satellites in geosynchronous orbit over australia so they can't have net access that way. Maybe when we make australia even more of an island in terms of communication their government will finally get the picture.
META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 2.0 Mac"
Suddenly, I'm not afraid of the Internal Security down under...
SocMeth