StonyandCher writes "The Australian government is pushing a bill to force all telecommunications providers to facilitate lawful data interception across fixed and mobile telephone systems, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), Instant Messaging (IM) and chat room discussions. Sweeping reforms will make it easier than ever for law enforcement to intercept communications if amendments to the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act are agreed upon by a Senate standing committee. This follows from a story earlier this week where the Australian government is legislating to allow employers to snoop on employees' email and IM conversations."
Such a fine line between +5 Funny and -1 Flamebait.
To me this is simply insulting. Guess it comes down to which side of the fence you sit on and safetly in numbers. Since the gun control debate has already surfaced as the supposed reason Australians are facing the prospect of unrestricted government wire tapping, I think I'll take my criminal ancestry, sit back on my Aussie arse...cop the insult on the chin, turn the TV on to COPS or 48 Hours and watch some pro-gun Americans shoot each other.
Hey just coz they're getting the shaft too, doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset. At least they have a bill of rights, even though it's slowly getting corrupted. We've got no such thing to even challenge all these stupid things. We've no right to free speech, no protections against illegal searches, nothing. People who watch too much law-and-order think we have the same sort of protections, and so they don't get so upset when our new nanny-state overlords enact a bunch of new laws to protects us from ourselve
In the immortal words of G.W.Bush to his holiness the pope.. "Awesome speech"..
There's no point in taking cheap shots at the US, their president does so much its like kicking 300 million loud-mouthed, obnoxious, self centered, obese, gun-loving, slack-jawed-yokel, banjo playing puppies while they are down... oh wait.. sorry...
This is why it is so important that we in the US fight for ALL of our rights, however trivial they may seem. Because once one is taken away, the rest soon follow...
Very good point of view. We need to put an immediate end to allowing leadership by these short-sighted legislative drones. They are destroying a lot of good, for no apparent reason.
@ Title: Now, I hardly think anyone's going to start an armed revolution over THIS. Armed revolutions are for when democracy fails (some might argue this has already happened, but that's another can of beans) or the government does something that is universally dispised - otherwise, the best way to announce your objection is to vote on it. If anything, having guns makes the situation worse, because it gives the illusion that people have a "nuclear option" - when really, they don't (I would imagine that the government/army would win in a fight vs the people). As an Australian, I'm glad the guns have been taken away - we have few real reasons for them (you can get gun permits for hunting), and they otherwise do more harm than good.
But good point about fighting for your rights, it's just a terrible shame so few people are passionate AND informed enough to understand the implications of potential laws and not just the PR-wrapper ("Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children").
You're assuming the state would retain full control and command of the entire armed forces. If something truly devastating to the fabric of democracy happened that shook us to the very core, I'm sure the military would not be spared in being divided. So you combine that with a populous of well armed resistance fighters acting as irregular forces along with what ever military and paramilitary groups that oppose the government, and you could have a successful resistance. History is full of examples of small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare. Look what happened to the US in Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan or now the US in Afghanistan/Iraq. And just on a personal level, I'd rather die in a shoot out than in front of a firing squad if those are the choices.
What makes you think that the American government won't retain control of the armed forces in case of an "emergency"? What makes you think that a significant portion of potential paramilitary groups won't support the government in an "emergency"? Since when did the 'rightist faction' of Americans start admitting that America does make mistakes? I didn't see any large scale protests (involving people from across the political spectrum) against the 'Patriot' act or the Bush's totalitarian policies such as the use of unlawful wiretrapping/torture/war mongering?
All your examples are largely irrelevant, they all involve a nation being invaded/occupied by an external power. That's no where near the same thing as a successful resistance against your own government. And lets not forget that South Vietnamese received enormous support from their brothers up north/the USSR.
I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power. African regimes with constant rebellions and other chaos don't count. Now you might say that this kind of stuff always happens in countries were personal firearms are banned, but that's just an excuse. We both know that if your government allows you to bear arms, chances are your democratic institutions are sufficiently developed for a rebellion not to occur in the first place.
The idea of firearms being a last resort for the protection of democracy is a myth. Chances are by the time you get to the point where you have to use the last resort, you won't have your firearms. Traditions/norms/values don't change overnight, you can't go from a relatively well functioning democracy to a totalitarian state in one night, not without external influences that render your last resort argument meaningless (fighting an external enemy is a whole different story).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the use of personal firearms. I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff, but in principle I am fine with people having licensed pistols for self protection and licensed rifles for hunting. I would never by a gun myself, but if you are into this kind of stuff it's your choice. What I do oppose is the promotion of the myth that democracy can be protected with firearms. It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
Move to Adelaide, I made that mistake mid last year. Just because the weapons have been taken away doesn't mean they're not there ("Criminalise the gun and only the criminals will have guns or whatever it is") and the amount of fire power in this city is phenomenal (albeit concealed - so entirely unlike America). Taking them away didn't really solve the problem, it just prevented every dick and his dog from getting one (ok, I will concede this is a good thing)
Didn't they really only take away semi-automatics? You know, the one's that can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time? Admittedly, I was only about 8 at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, so my understanding of what took place following is a little hazy, but from what I remember, they put a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and it was made mandatory that you have a firearms license and register each firearm you own.
So, we still have guns, but in order to get them, you must be at least 18 years of age, licensed, and the weapons must be registered and kept in secure storage.
So how is a gun going to protect you when the goverment can bomb you from miles away or 30,000 feet?
Ah, yes, all those WW2 foot-soldiers were totally redundant, we should have just fought with bombers. And why the hell are there men on the ground in Iraq? Should have just bombed them into the stone-age, right?
Seriously, I can see that you obviously have no military experience, but that comment is pretty ignorant even for a run-of-the-mill civilian. Give your head a shake. The airforce may be able to destroy shit in a spectacular fashion, but only men with guns can actually hold ground. You can't occupy a piece of land from 30,000 feet, no matter how many bombs you have.
Guns only seem to be something to care about in the US...
Speaking as an Australian, it didn't make that much difference when most guns were banned following the Port Arthur shootings [wikipedia.org]. Semi-automatics & shotguns were generally banned, and it was mainly people in rural areas (farmers etc) who had these for pest control. Gun violence in Australia makes the news in a big way because it's so uncommon - more often than not it's between underworld figures/biker gangs etc than against civilians.
Insightful indeed, the law as it stands applies to all business right? So government contractors would have their emails subject to this as well. Would government employees be subject too? Since third party contractors can gain access to the information, what would prevent them from publishing all the correspondence between the gov and its contractors? Wouldn't it be lawful for a private company (or a NFP like the EFF or someone) to get "permission" to access all such emails and publish them?
Only a 27 year old graduate of MIT with an interest in theoretical and practical teloportation could save Australians now!
Please apply somewhere in Arizona, goatee, handiness with a crowbar encouraged. Mutes are welcome to apply. Benefits may include hot woman being inexplicably attracted to you, becoming a cult figure for human and other species. Workplace hazard pay not included.
Have they actually had any circumstances justifying such Draconian legislation?
Or is this just a big power grab?
If any country should be aware of the dangers of somewhat-haphazardly designating a large number of people as criminal/undesirable/incorrigible, it should be Australia. A whole bunch of supposedly worthless uncivilizable "criminals" shipped to Australia as "lost causes" turned the whole thing around and built themselves a nice place to live, and now they are fucking it back up themselves. Trying to turn most of themselves back into so-called "criminals".
America has significant influence over Australia, that's for sure. In this case, however, it's more of a response to conservative values within Australia. There's been a big growth in public awareness of the darker sides of the internet and communications in general. There was a big program whereby people could gain access to a variety of free client-side net filters, for example. Generally, Australia has grown more conservative (possibly indirectly from US influence), and this policy is the result.
Have they actually had any circumstances justifying such Draconian legislation?
The headline is incredibly misleading.
The law, like the US CALEA, just says that law enforcement needs to be able to tap into the system upon showing a lawful warrant. It's a technical standardization measure, not a warrantless wiretap measure.
It makes it easier to abuse the system, but nothing about this law allows warrantless wiretaps. It makes it possible for law enforcement to have a standardized set of hardware used to access lawful (with warrant) wiretaps.
Which says the same thing, and amounts to "no system is perfect, there's always the possibility for abuse". If you followed through on that we'd have no power strucures at all, only anarchy.
Chances it's going to improve the quality of life for the average Australian? 0%
Quite. It's not like wiretaps are doing anyone any good and they should be banned outright. Wait, are they part of making law enforcement work and making a civilized society under the rule of law? Nope, no benefit there.
Seems like voting NO is a no-brainer here.
Maybe it is, but I didn't see it. I saw two knee-jerk reactions and a general conclusion you can us
Voting no? Coming from an Australian, we don't have a choice.
And fuck off they don't do this already. An Australian guy posted on 4chan [wikipedia.org] saying he was going to shoot up a mall in America (obviously bullshit). Someone, we managed to figure out who this guy was. How? Obviously 4chan is Anonymous. I seriously doubt they handed over his IP, because I seriously doubt they had it (highest turnover I've ever seen, thread would've died before the authorities did shit). Which leaves what? Data logging. Maybe not here, almost definitely there, but to me it's fucking scary that they tracked this guy down and tried to fine him a shitload ($20, 000 I recall), just because he was talking shit on some website.
The AFP have been pushing hard for powers like this. As far as they're concerned, this law is a slapdown... That is, it doesn't give them anywhere near the powers they've been saying they 'need'.
If all that passes in the worst possible way, it is about what we have in the US now. All data from a user, given a subpoena, shall be sent to the government. It has been ruled in the US that the computer and everything running on it and through it belongs to the owner. If you get a work computer for work, they own all emails you send from it, files you store on it, and can track everything you do through the corporate Internet connection. That's all perfectly legal now in the US. So, hearing some othe
I would argue that you are comparing apples to oranges good sir.
A company handing over data about what happens on their network is VASTLY different from the government being able to spy on what a user does in their personal time at home.
You should always assume you have no privacy in a corporate environment, because a company is paying for YOUR time. Therefore if you do anything other than work on that connection/resources, you are just being stupid.
That is like complaining that you work at 7:11 and there's a camera monitoring you, so if the government puts cameras in your home, it's the exact same thing.
IP phones can and do support TLS encryption over the SRTP [wikipedia.org] media protocol. Not all of them use or support this feature, but TLS/SRTP calls happen.
I work at a VoIP-related company, and trust me, we deal heavily with TLS/SRTP calls.
Voip is only feasible by making the delay as little as possible. By adding an encrypt/decrypt step I would certainly expect some delay.
I don't know if you've been keeping up, but CPUs are getting pretty fast. Network latency will dwarf encryption overhead by several orders of magnitude.
On another note, who really cares if the government finds out your mom sent a care package in the mail?
If they are legislating that the networks will be required to have security holes, the question becomes: who really
Don't worry aussies! some freindly type folks have been so kind as to share encryption software! [sourceforge.net] And how precisely will the AU Government deal with that? If everyone there starts encrypting all their IM's Emails and VoIP calls, there is simply not enough processing power to make it valuable to tap anything in the first place. I predict significant backlash once Law Enforcement figures out that this isn't going to help them at all, but rather it is going to popularize encryption (which is in my view A G
Service providers can be regulated. Software cannot (at least not easily).
And remember: if governments can intercept, other parties can too. Regardless of where you fall within the fascist/anarchist spectrum, privacy is something that must be implemented by the endpoints.
It doesn't surprise me that governments are trying to do this, but their efforts ought to be in vain. From a network's or provider's PoV, VoIP and IM should just be a bunch of ciphertext.
Yup. Put a couple of taps on the PM's phone, with realtime relay of all his telephone calls over radio and TCP. After all if he can listen to us, we can listen to whoever is wasting our money.
Well, not really, but if the police (and higher up the investigation chain) aren't able to (and already do so) tap IM and video streams I'll eat my socks.
Time was, countries like the USA and Australia prided themselves on standing up for individual freedom and protecting the rights of the individual against the State. Well, it seems there is a life cycle to cultures as much as anything else.
I'm old enough that I worry more for my grandchildren than for myself, but I am inclined to take some degree of pride and comfort in the thought that my parents' generation managed to spread some of those values widely. What I've seen from Brazil, for instance, gives
They are nuts, so it's hard to say exactly what "their dreams" really are. But if the way they ran Afghanistan was any example, or their slightly less nuts/fanatical/medieval fellow Salafists the Saud family tells us anything, then they would of course love total control of national snooping infrastructure.
But of course I'm not saying that some Qaeda jerkoffs are in a cave somewhere plotting to do stuff like that. They barely hijacked some planes, after years of planning, fanatical (if sometimes inconsistent
Fitting for ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Sweeping Reforms..." (Score:5, Insightful)
NewSpeak alert.
Parent
Re:Fitting for ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a fine line between +5 Funny and -1 Flamebait.
To me this is simply insulting. Guess it comes down to which side of the fence you sit on and safetly in numbers.
Since the gun control debate has already surfaced as the supposed reason Australians are facing the prospect of unrestricted government wire tapping, I think I'll take my criminal ancestry, sit back on my Aussie arse...cop the insult on the chin, turn the TV on to COPS or 48 Hours and watch some pro-gun Americans shoot each other.
Hows that Patriot Act working out for y'all BTW ?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's no point in taking cheap shots at the US, their president does so much its like kicking 300 million loud-mouthed, obnoxious, self centered, obese, gun-loving, slack-jawed-yokel, banjo playing puppies while they are down... oh wait.. sorry...
USA was also a former land of criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
in fact, North America was a dumping ground for scum for 150 years, versus only 75 for Australia. Explains a lot really.
Parent
They took guns away, so who's left to stop them? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why it is so important that we in the US fight for ALL of our rights, however trivial they may seem. Because once one is taken away, the rest soon follow...
Re: (Score:2)
Very good point of view. We need to put an immediate end to allowing leadership by these short-sighted legislative drones. They are destroying a lot of good, for no apparent reason.
Re:They took guns away, so who's left to stop them (Score:5, Insightful)
But good point about fighting for your rights, it's just a terrible shame so few people are passionate AND informed enough to understand the implications of potential laws and not just the PR-wrapper ("Won't Somebody Please Think Of The Children").
Parent
Re:They took guns away, so who's left to stop them (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:They took guns away, so who's left to stop them (Score:4, Insightful)
All your examples are largely irrelevant, they all involve a nation being invaded/occupied by an external power. That's no where near the same thing as a successful resistance against your own government. And lets not forget that South Vietnamese received enormous support from their brothers up north/the USSR.
I dare you to give me a recent example where the population was able to successfully organize a resistance against a relatively well funded/organized government that was willing to use military force to remain in power. African regimes with constant rebellions and other chaos don't count. Now you might say that this kind of stuff always happens in countries were personal firearms are banned, but that's just an excuse. We both know that if your government allows you to bear arms, chances are your democratic institutions are sufficiently developed for a rebellion not to occur in the first place.
The idea of firearms being a last resort for the protection of democracy is a myth. Chances are by the time you get to the point where you have to use the last resort, you won't have your firearms. Traditions/norms/values don't change overnight, you can't go from a relatively well functioning democracy to a totalitarian state in one night, not without external influences that render your last resort argument meaningless (fighting an external enemy is a whole different story).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't oppose the use of personal firearms. I do favor more regulation and bans on M16s and stuff, but in principle I am fine with people having licensed pistols for self protection and licensed rifles for hunting. I would never by a gun myself, but if you are into this kind of stuff it's your choice. What I do oppose is the promotion of the myth that democracy can be protected with firearms. It's a stupid idea that underlines a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
How would we go about fighting for our rights e
Re:They took guns away, so who's left to stop them (Score:4, Informative)
So, we still have guns, but in order to get them, you must be at least 18 years of age, licensed, and the weapons must be registered and kept in secure storage.
Parent
Re:They took guns away, so who's left to stop them (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They took guns away, so who's left to stop them (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I can see that you obviously have no military experience, but that comment is pretty ignorant even for a run-of-the-mill civilian. Give your head a shake. The airforce may be able to destroy shit in a spectacular fashion, but only men with guns can actually hold ground. You can't occupy a piece of land from 30,000 feet, no matter how many bombs you have.
Parent
Re:They took guns away, so who's left to stop them (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as an Australian, it didn't make that much difference when most guns were banned following the Port Arthur shootings [wikipedia.org]. Semi-automatics & shotguns were generally banned, and it was mainly people in rural areas (farmers etc) who had these for pest control. Gun violence in Australia makes the news in a big way because it's so uncommon - more often than not it's between underworld figures/biker gangs etc than against civilians.
So please don'
lets spy on everybody (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lets spy on everybody (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Welcome to the club. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pick that up... (Score:2, Funny)
Please apply somewhere in Arizona, goatee, handiness with a crowbar encouraged. Mutes are welcome to apply. Benefits may include hot woman being inexplicably attracted to you, becoming a cult figure for human and other species. Workplace hazard pay not included.
Thats funny (Score:3, Insightful)
How long until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the deal with Australia the last few years? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or is this just a big power grab?
If any country should be aware of the dangers of somewhat-haphazardly designating a large number of people as criminal/undesirable/incorrigible, it should be Australia. A whole bunch of supposedly worthless uncivilizable "criminals" shipped to Australia as "lost causes" turned the whole thing around and built themselves a nice place to live, and now they are fucking it back up themselves. Trying to turn most of themselves back into so-called "criminals".
I do not understand.
Re:What's the deal with Australia the last few yea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the deal with Australia the last few yea (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:What's the deal with Australia the last few yea (Score:5, Informative)
The headline is incredibly misleading.
The law, like the US CALEA, just says that law enforcement needs to be able to tap into the system upon showing a lawful warrant. It's a technical standardization measure, not a warrantless wiretap measure.
It makes it easier to abuse the system, but nothing about this law allows warrantless wiretaps. It makes it possible for law enforcement to have a standardized set of hardware used to access lawful (with warrant) wiretaps.
Parent
Re:What's the deal with Australia the last few yea (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances some of this power will be abused? 100%
Chances it's going to improve the quality of life for the average Australian? 0%
Seems like voting NO is a no-brainer here.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chances all this power will never be abused? 0%
Chances some of this power will be abused? 100%
Which says the same thing, and amounts to "no system is perfect, there's always the possibility for abuse". If you followed through on that we'd have no power strucures at all, only anarchy.
Chances it's going to improve the quality of life for the average Australian? 0%
Quite. It's not like wiretaps are doing anyone any good and they should be banned outright. Wait, are they part of making law enforcement work and making a civilized society under the rule of law? Nope, no benefit there.
Seems like voting NO is a no-brainer here.
Maybe it is, but I didn't see it. I saw two knee-jerk reactions and a general conclusion you can us
Re:What's the deal with Australia the last few yea (Score:5, Interesting)
And fuck off they don't do this already. An Australian guy posted on 4chan [wikipedia.org] saying he was going to shoot up a mall in America (obviously bullshit). Someone, we managed to figure out who this guy was. How? Obviously 4chan is Anonymous. I seriously doubt they handed over his IP, because I seriously doubt they had it (highest turnover I've ever seen, thread would've died before the authorities did shit). Which leaves what? Data logging. Maybe not here, almost definitely there, but to me it's fucking scary that they tracked this guy down and tried to fine him a shitload ($20, 000 I recall), just because he was talking shit on some website.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not happy about it though.
We were first (Score:2)
Re:We were first (Score:4, Insightful)
A company handing over data about what happens on their network is VASTLY different from the government being able to spy on what a user does in their personal time at home.
You should always assume you have no privacy in a corporate environment, because a company is paying for YOUR time. Therefore if you do anything other than work on that connection/resources, you are just being stupid.
That is like complaining that you work at 7:11 and there's a camera monitoring you, so if the government puts cameras in your home, it's the exact same thing.
Parent
VOIP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely.
Re:VOIP (Score:5, Informative)
I work at a VoIP-related company, and trust me, we deal heavily with TLS/SRTP calls.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if you've been keeping up, but CPUs are getting pretty fast. Network latency will dwarf encryption overhead by several orders of magnitude.
If they are legislating that the networks will be required to have security holes, the question becomes: who really
Re: (Score:2)
551 Projects and counting.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop relying on "service providers"! (Score:2)
Service providers can be regulated. Software cannot (at least not easily).
And remember: if governments can intercept, other parties can too. Regardless of where you fall within the fascist/anarchist spectrum, privacy is something that must be implemented by the endpoints.
It doesn't surprise me that governments are trying to do this, but their efforts ought to be in vain. From a network's or provider's PoV, VoIP and IM should just be a bunch of ciphertext.
Re: (Score:2)
After all if he can listen to us, we can listen to whoever is wasting our money.
Surprise surprise (Score:2)
Behind the Times (Score:3, Funny)
I know Australia's a little behind sometimes, but seriously, this is what automatic updates are for.
Funny how it goes (Score:2)
I'm old enough that I worry more for my grandchildren than for myself, but I am inclined to take some degree of pride and comfort in the thought that my parents' generation managed to spread some of those values widely. What I've seen from Brazil, for instance, gives
Is Howard still in office? (Score:2)
The Terrorists Have Won (Score:2)
Why bother fighting when we're just laying down and surrendering?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if the way they ran Afghanistan was any example, or their slightly less nuts/fanatical/medieval fellow Salafists the Saud family tells us anything, then they would of course love total control of national snooping infrastructure.
But of course I'm not saying that some Qaeda jerkoffs are in a cave somewhere plotting to do stuff like that. They barely hijacked some planes, after years of planning, fanatical (if sometimes inconsistent
Appropriate /. Meme?? (Score:3, Funny)
All your digeridoo are belong to us?
I, for one, welcome our new communications-intercepting, vegemite-eating, penal-colony overlords?
But will it run Paul Hogan?
Feel free to contribute!
Or not...
Cheers!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)