While there may be explanations for the collapse of the twin towers, I have seen no explanation for the collapse of World
Trade Center Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11. It was across
the street from the rest of the center, and physically separate. The building next-door to it did not collapse.
It seems insurance companies will need to charge higher premiums for
buildings that house CIA, US Secret Service, IRS and Securities & Exchange
Commission files, now that they have a propensity for spontaneous collapse.
First things first, we should get a general Bill of Rights of universal application protecting the whole panoply of civil rights. Gotta walk before you can run.
Free Speech is a very contentious thing in Australia, so why not trial some definition of Freer Speech online. If it works OK, move it to meatspace. Also, the Commonwealth may not even have the Constitutional power to legislate Civil Rights (granted, the treaties power may make it possible)
Free(r) speech
Already, you're weakening the definition of free speech protection to exclude "that which the majority has found offensive". That's exactly the problem we're trying to deal with.
The main idea behind the Bill of Digital Rights is to stop the increase in net censorship and wind it back somewhat. Absolute free speech is not realistic, even the US Supreme Court has invented exceptions to it (defamation law for instance). May as well have the exceptions spelt out to start with, rather than have them sprung on us by a court. Also, it's gotta get through Parliament. And that means compromise.
Defamation
The need to liberalise commentary on corporations would be especially relevant to shareholders, whose concerns may not be in "the public interest". I'd also suggest that if you take the advantages of incorporation (the creation of a new legal "person"), it's not unfair for there to be some kind of allowance for greater accountability. Can you suggest a better formulation?
Public interest (a special case of relevance) is already a defence under the law of defamation, AFAIK.
True, but currently you also need to prove facts, and the legal bills for doing so are a very effective way of shutting people up. The malice standard is the US defamation test, established in Sullivan. We also need a national uniform standard online, rather than have to worry about the laws of each state. And then there's the Gutnick case (now before the High Court). If Victoria's defamation law applies in the USA, then it's definitely a national issue.
The vision thing
The inclusion of items in the Bill which are not really enforceable is a way of getting Parliament to acknowledge the issues, and then take some concrete action.
Workplace rights
The right to use employer's technology for non-work purposes is important. Various State and Commonwealth Crimes Acts can be read as saying that it is a crime to use a computer for a purpose your employer has not sanctioned (like calling a stop-work meeting), since the onus for proving you had "authority" is on you, not the prosecution.
The Australian net community has got used to opposing the stream of stupid laws that the States and Commonwealth pass, one after the other. It would be better to be more pro-active. I've proposed a Bill of Digital Rights to affirm rights at a national level, and pre-empt these stupid laws.
Lindsay Tanner, the Federal Opposition's Communications spokesman, has given a positive response to the idea and expects to have serious discussions about it in the coming term.
Australia's CSIRO is doing research into turning steam and natural gas into CO2 and H2 by applying concentrated sunlight (achieving temperatures of around 800 degrees C).
Effectively, you are electrolysing water while adding value to the natural gas. You can also capture the waste CO2 more easily.
Australia should liberalise its defamation laws, and make them uniform across the country.
As a member of the Australian Labor Party, I got the following passed by ACT Labor and Australian Young Labor this year: Bill of Digital Rights and Responsibilities
This branch recognises that global electronic communications have
created a defacto standard for free speech online. ACT Labor further
recognises that it is not a coincidence that the most dynamic and enduring
societies and economies are those that foster freedom of expression.
Recent and proposed legislation relating to digital communications has acted
to erode legal certainties and rights. This trend should be decisively
reversed.
This branch calls upon the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, once in Government, to commence public
debate on a Bill of Digital Rights and Responsibilities, to be legislated
using the Commonwealth's electronic communications powers under the
Constitution.
Such a Bill would include:
A recognition that when communicating online there is the responsibility to
not racially vilify or otherwise contravene the Commonwealth Racial Hatred
Act or other Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination legislation.
A less restrictive national definition of defamation, over-riding laws of the
states and territories. The defamation laws would provide:
Freedom for non-malicious speech acts concerning corporations
Freedom for non-malicious speech acts concerning matters of public
interest
That in the absence of malice no general damages be awarded.
The burden of proving malice would be with the complainant.
A right to not be criminally prosecuted for any speech act made digitally
that is of a purely expressive nature, with well-defined non-trivial
exceptions. Also, a right to publish those speech acts on or by means of
computers within Australia.
Some guarantee of the opportunity for each Australian not just to access
Digital information, but to publish it. The information super-highway must
not be one-way: barriers to entry must be lowered as much as possible for the
Australian with an idea on a small budget.
A right to "fair use" of all digital intellectual property, restoring the
original intent of copyright law.
A right to not have substantive personal information transmitted from one's
personal computer without consent.
A right to use communications technology provided by an employer or
educational institution for non-work or non-study purposes to a limited
extent.
Explanatory points:
The relevant parts of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act are here
The ideas for reforming defamation law come from "The Law Report" on Radio
National, see here
The section concerning criminal prosecution addresses many problems, present
and potential. An example of how bad things can get is a bill before the SA
parliament. See here
The "fair use" of digital intellectual property could become a big problem in
the future. Presently it is a crime to provide the means by which someone may
decrypt encrypted digital data such as a DVD, without the authority of the
publishers. This has the effect of restricting "fair use" of copyrighted
works. Yet this does not prevent piracy.
The right to use workplace technology for non-work purposes is important.
Catch-all provisions can be placed in employment agreements that allow
employees to be dismissed for trivial reasons or for their politics. There is
also the possibility that by making non-work communications unauthorised,
employees are criminally liable for "misusing" computers in the workplace.
The Australian Govt has been outsourcing IT in government departments.
It has been a complete failure. It has not saved any money.
What's more, it has handed our Govt It infrastructure to foreign companies. It has failed to build our local IT industry.
Even worse, the tax data collected by the govt from every Australian taxpayer is managed by EDS, the giant subsidiary of General Motors. A US multinational has our tax data!
Yes, we elect our upper house (Senate)
We have a proportional system, with preferences, so you can put your least favourite candidate last!
Voting is compulsory.
All this makes Australia the world's most democratic nation.
see
www.aec.gov.au
I think it's important to have archives of web content because, as more of the authoritative versions of so much information becomes electronic (like phone directories and legal documents), it will become ever more tempting for the publishers to "up-date" information to suit present circumstances, as in 1984, the famous George Orwell novel.
At first, I thought, "obviously this isn't broadcasting." However, as I think about it more, how is setting a file up for streaming by the general public any diffferent from an open broadcast?
The reality all along was that the law's definition of broadcasting does not include "on demand" data, which of course includes any kind of webcast.
As someone has said, the Government was just trying to create FUD for the benefit of TV licencees.
Australia is actually implementing some privacy controls. The federal government is (was?) trying to introduce a law which would mean that anyone collecting personal information to put into huge databases would have to have your permission first. Problem was, this doesn't apply to current databases
Here's an opinion on our useless Government's farcical privacy bill.
Slashdot Mirror
Not frontpage news heh?
The truth hurts, don't it?
http://www.copvica.com
http://www.pi911.org
There was ample warning, and the procedures for intereception were absolutely standard, but were not used, as demonstrated by this thorough analysis using only mainstream news sources.
There are precedents for this. During the 1960s, senior figures within the US Government considered staging terrorist incidents to justify a war with Cuba (including downing a US passenger jet).
And there's the classic example: Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. He blamed the Christians, but many suspected that he started the fire.
(see here and
here. )
It seems insurance companies will need to charge higher premiums for buildings that house CIA, US Secret Service, IRS and Securities & Exchange Commission files, now that they have a propensity for spontaneous collapse.
(see here and
here. )
Assemble!
Quote:
Dr Bishop [the founder] is respected worldwide as a pioneer in vehicle steering technologies.
First things first, we should get a general Bill of Rights of universal application protecting the whole panoply of civil rights. Gotta walk before you can run.
Free Speech is a very contentious thing in Australia, so why not trial some definition of Freer Speech online. If it works OK, move it to meatspace. Also, the Commonwealth may not even have the Constitutional power to legislate Civil Rights (granted, the treaties power may make it possible)
Free(r) speech
Already, you're weakening the definition of free speech protection to exclude "that which the majority has found offensive". That's exactly the problem we're trying to deal with.
The main idea behind the Bill of Digital Rights is to stop the increase in net censorship and wind it back somewhat. Absolute free speech is not realistic, even the US Supreme Court has invented exceptions to it (defamation law for instance). May as well have the exceptions spelt out to start with, rather than have them sprung on us by a court. Also, it's gotta get through Parliament. And that means compromise.
Defamation
The need to liberalise commentary on corporations would be especially relevant to shareholders, whose concerns may not be in "the public interest". I'd also suggest that if you take the advantages of incorporation (the creation of a new legal "person"), it's not unfair for there to be some kind of allowance for greater accountability. Can you suggest a better formulation?
Public interest (a special case of relevance) is already a defence under the law of defamation, AFAIK.
True, but currently you also need to prove facts, and the legal bills for doing so are a very effective way of shutting people up. The malice standard is the US defamation test, established in Sullivan. We also need a national uniform standard online, rather than have to worry about the laws of each state. And then there's the Gutnick case (now before the High Court). If Victoria's defamation law applies in the USA, then it's definitely a national issue.
The vision thing
The inclusion of items in the Bill which are not really enforceable is a way of getting Parliament to acknowledge the issues, and then take some concrete action.
Workplace rights
The right to use employer's technology for non-work purposes is important. Various State and Commonwealth Crimes Acts can be read as saying that it is a crime to use a computer for a purpose your employer has not sanctioned (like calling a stop-work meeting), since the onus for proving you had "authority" is on you, not the prosecution.
Alex
Lindsay Tanner, the Federal Opposition's Communications spokesman, has given a positive response to the idea and expects to have serious discussions about it in the coming term.
You can read more on it here.
Alex
Effectively, you are electrolysing water while adding value to the natural gas. You can also capture the waste CO2 more easily.
Go here for more
Alex
NT is supposed to stand for "New Technology". But....
HAL is to IBM as
VMS is to WNT (WinNT)
nhavar makes a good point.
Though perhaps we should just have a law against really huge companies (seriously!)
As a member of the Australian Labor Party, I got the following passed by ACT Labor and Australian Young Labor this year:
Bill of Digital Rights and Responsibilities
This branch recognises that global electronic communications have created a defacto standard for free speech online. ACT Labor further recognises that it is not a coincidence that the most dynamic and enduring societies and economies are those that foster freedom of expression.
Recent and proposed legislation relating to digital communications has acted to erode legal certainties and rights. This trend should be decisively reversed.
This branch calls upon the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, once in Government, to commence public debate on a Bill of Digital Rights and Responsibilities, to be legislated using the Commonwealth's electronic communications powers under the Constitution.
Such a Bill would include:
Explanatory points:
The relevant parts of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act are here
The ideas for reforming defamation law come from "The Law Report" on Radio National, see here
The section concerning criminal prosecution addresses many problems, present and potential. An example of how bad things can get is a bill before the SA parliament. See here
The "fair use" of digital intellectual property could become a big problem in the future. Presently it is a crime to provide the means by which someone may decrypt encrypted digital data such as a DVD, without the authority of the publishers. This has the effect of restricting "fair use" of copyrighted works. Yet this does not prevent piracy.
The right to use workplace technology for non-work purposes is important. Catch-all provisions can be placed in employment agreements that allow employees to be dismissed for trivial reasons or for their politics. There is also the possibility that by making non-work communications unauthorised, employees are criminally liable for "misusing" computers in the workplace.
The Australian Govt has been outsourcing IT in government departments.
It has been a complete failure. It has not saved any money.
What's more, it has handed our Govt It infrastructure to foreign companies. It has failed to build our local IT industry.
Even worse, the tax data collected by the govt from every Australian taxpayer is managed by EDS, the giant subsidiary of General Motors. A US multinational has our tax data!
Alex
Yes, we elect our upper house (Senate) We have a proportional system, with preferences, so you can put your least favourite candidate last! Voting is compulsory. All this makes Australia the world's most democratic nation. see www.aec.gov.au
http://www.holoscience.com
Those who control the past, control the future.
Alex Pollard
In the ACT, of course! Checkout TransACT alexgp
The reality all along was that the law's definition of broadcasting does not include "on demand" data, which of course includes any kind of webcast.
As someone has said, the Government was just trying to create FUD for the benefit of TV licencees.
Checkout this
alexgp@telstra.com
Apparently British pound notes all have traces of cocaine on them from their use in snorting. Looks like lots of false positives there......
Here's an opinion on our useless Government's farcical privacy bill.
If you have something to say to the Government, tell the Parliament what you think by May 12.
alexgp