Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Communications Government The Internet News

AU Government Demands Universal Wiretapping 236

Posted by Zonk
from the that-means-all-over-the-place dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AU Government Demands Universal Wiretapping

Comments Filter:
  • by Sepiraph (1162995) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @05:56PM (#23111416)
    the land of the Criminals.
    • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) * on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:39PM (#23111868) Homepage Journal
      "Reform"

      NewSpeak alert.
      • by kestasjk (933987)
        All these new "reforms" on internet "interception" have been coming, faster and faster, since the new Rudd Labor government got voted in.

        To all Australian readers; vote a Liberal govt back next round!
        • He's not evil, he's just drawn that way.

          Actually I think he's a bit too fast in some ways, too slow in others. He just let a $4.7B tender for fibre to the premises, which is good, but I tend to distrust any agent of change who moves too quickly.

    • Re:Fitting for ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:09PM (#23112562)
      the land of the Criminals.

      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 ?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)


        Of course I'm marked as a Troll.
        Safety in numbers as I said. Cheap shot at Australians +5 Funny. Retaliatory cheap shot at Americans -1 Troll. Thanks for making my point.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by G-funk (22712)
        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
      • Hows that Patriot Act working out for y'all BTW ?
        Rather poorly, but thanks for asking.
    • by MichaelNeale (454114) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @10:50PM (#23113558)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony

      in fact, North America was a dumping ground for scum for 150 years, versus only 75 for Australia. Explains a lot really.
    • Listen buddy, I come from the land down under, and I'll have you know that it's actually a place where women glow and men plunder.
  • by ImYY4U (539546) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @05:59PM (#23111446)
    Nobody...

    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...
    • by KlomDark (6370)
      Amen!

      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.
    • by name*censored* (884880) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:31PM (#23111788)
      @ 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").
      • by sqrt(2) (786011) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:46PM (#23111942) Journal
        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.
        • 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,

          Afghanistan and Iraq aside, in Vietnam the US was not significantly screwed until the NVA regulars got involved in a big way. And they had tanks.
        • by MvD_Moscow (738107) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:08PM (#23112548)
          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.
          • You make a very good point about gun-owners being likely to side with government. Take out the ultra-patriotic and your remaining gun owners are probably mostly criminals or whackos.
          • by Agripa (139780)

            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.

            Battle of Athens [wikipedia.org]
          • the whole point of democracy is to promote compromise and enable solution without the use of violence.

            Funny, the sentiment that you're arguing against is the same sentiment of the people who created this country.

            This country was founded with every intent that its citizens be armed and capable of presenting rapid resistance to a government's decisions. No ever more a cautious and beneficient governing body than one fearful of those they govern.

            You think Bush would be such a prick if he knew one of his genera
          • by mjwx (966435)

            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.

            Welcome to the Australian gun laws.

            Contrary to popular US opinion we don't have a total ban on firearms but we do have restrictions, restrictions on automatic rifles and caliber sizes (yes you can get .50 automatic pistols such as the Desert eagle). You need to have a

          • by halr9000 (465474)

            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"?

            Well remember now that we're a nation of 50 states. There's plenty of issues that split the states. If there were one that was so heinous and so large that it resulted in actual armed rebellion, it's not hard to imagine that a revolutionary group could attain the support at the highest levels of a single state, and then gain sympathies from states with a similar political demographic. It happened once before in American "Civil War" (somewhat jokingly referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" by so

        • by c6gunner (950153)

          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.

          So...when were you planning on giving us an example of a "small, vastly out gunned forces defeating a large conventional army using asymmetric warfare"?

          Not to be pedantic, but none of your examples were military defeats. They were all political decisions. And while Vietnam a

          • by sqrt(2) (786011)
            The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is an apt comparison because the forces that we are trying to defeat there have persisted despite the best effort of the greatest military power on Earth. They are using the same kinds of tactics and equipment that can be found or improvised for in the US, and their numbers are actually much fewer than would be found in a type of citizen revolt in the United States following a catastrophic loss of confidence in, or outright betrayal by the government. The people
            • by c6gunner (950153)

              The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is an apt comparison because the forces that we are trying to defeat there have persisted despite the best effort of the greatest military power on Earth.

              Sure, and criminals persist despite the fact that you spend billions on fighting crime. So what? How does that mean that you're losing?

              That's another advantage, they actually don't have to defeat us to be victorious, they just have to hang on long enough until we no longer have the political will to carry

      • 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)

        How would we go about fighting for our rights e
      • by nurb432 (527695)
        When privacy is gone, demcoracy has failed.
    • by Trentus (1017602) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:55PM (#23112022)
      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.
    • by HillBilly (120575) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @07:16PM (#23112158)
      So how is a gun going to protect you when the goverment can bomb you from miles away or 30,000 feet?
      • by c6gunner (950153) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @08:59PM (#23112872)

        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.
      • by Agripa (139780)
        The gun is not for attacking the plane or the bomb. It is appropriate for must softer targets.
    • 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.

      So please don'
    • Precisely. Because gun ownership in the USA has prevented unconstitutional laws [wikipedia.org], illegal wiretapping [politechbot.com] and government-mandated human rights abuses [wikipedia.org].

      Gun laws are now being tightened in Australia (thankfully), with farmers being required to justify ownership of handguns. And it's about time.

      The civilian ownership of guns in the USA is a false sense of power and security. Should anything happen, in response to which the use of guns would be appropriate, your army of (1) Go-it-alone Rambos; (2) idiots who don'
    • Um, voters? People? Police?

      Licensing guns is precisely to stop people like you who think violence is the only way to get what you want.
    • Actually it matters not. Its up to the army weather it decides that such an order is legal and weather or not to follow it. Even with all the guns that the US citizenry have it doesn't mean shit when faced with a trained and better equipped army unless a large part of that army has decided to fight on the other side. When talking about rebellion and revolution in a modern nation if armed, the army decides the winner.

      In Australia it is more likely that the entire nation will just stop working if the gover
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:02PM (#23111478)
    including the all of the governments of the world, whats good for the goose is good for the gander & vis/versa...
    • by Gat0r30y (957941) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:35PM (#23111822) Homepage Journal
      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?
  • by StreetStealth (980200) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:03PM (#23111488) Journal
    This sounds just like the USA CALEA program.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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.
  • Thats funny (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gat0r30y (957941) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:09PM (#23111556) Homepage Journal
    I was under the impression that Oceania was supposed to be the former UK along with some of Europe. Perhaps I've been misinformed?
    • No, Oceania includes the UK, but none of Europe, Europe all belongs to Eurasia, along with Turkey and most of the old Soviet Union (that's why the UK is "Airstrip One"). Oceania is the UK, all the Americas, Australia, and Africa south of the bulge. Eastasia is China, Japan and northern India, for the most part. The rest is disputed territory.
  • How long until... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:09PM (#23111558)
    "We have always been at war with Oceania."
  • by KlomDark (6370) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:10PM (#23111566) Homepage Journal
    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".

    I do not understand.
    • It's not a big power grab, it's the influence of America and it's policies that is hurtling us down this path - rather sadly at that.
      • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @10:34PM (#23113446) Journal
        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.
    • by WaltBusterkeys (1156557) * on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:33PM (#23111802)
      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.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:39PM (#23111874)
        Chances all this power will never be abused? 0%

        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kjella (173770)

          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

        • by Mike89 (1006497) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @09:54PM (#23113220)

          Seems like voting NO is a no-brainer here.
          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.
        • All your percentages are out. These powers may not last long enough for them to be abused in any significant way. Also, keeping crime low does improve quality of life, with less chance of the average Australian being a victim, plus making for slightly more stable and efficient economies, which improves quality of life slowly but surely, etc, etc.

          It seems like your calculations were all no-brainers as well.
        • "Chances some of this power will be abused? 100%"

          Chances this will make absofuckingloutely NO difference to the status quo? - Near certainty.

          There are no 'extra' powers other than making it compulsory for telecoms to have wiretapping capabilities for various types of digital and analog comms. AFAIK they have all had that capability for quite some time. We don't have a bill of rights AND we don't have warrantless searches, go figure.

          As for the "what's the deal" question in the title the answer is "J
      • 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'.

        I'm still not happy about it though.
    • I was hoping that after Little Johnny was kicked out that sort of policy would stop.

      Meet the new lizard, same as the old lizard.
  • 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
    • Re:We were first (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Umuri (897961) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:15PM (#23111622)
      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.
      • by AK Marc (707885)
        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.

        Huh? This is about two things, one, allowing the government to more easily tap after it has done the paperwork to file a warrant. This already exists in the USA, CALEA. The government isn't doing anything they aren't otherwise allowed to. It's just requiring that the companies that carry the traffic make it easier for the government to gain acces
  • Can someone explain how exactly are they going to snoop on encrypted VOIP conversations?
    • Hah! You think VOIP conversations are encrypted?

      Unlikely.

      • Re:VOIP (Score:5, Informative)

        by Quattro Vezina (714892) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:53PM (#23112000) Journal
        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.
    • by bug1 (96678)
      Well if they cant snoop then it must be a tool of the terrorists, it must be banned !
    • For that matter, how would they snoop on Google chat conversations, which happen over the encrypted Jabber network. Will there need to be AU-only versions of popular applications to support non-cryption? Or will these simply be out of use in Austrailia?

  • 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.
  • by Sentry21 (8183) on Thursday April 17, 2008 @06:31PM (#23111786) Journal
    Pfft, this is sad. Ambrosia's offered a Universal Binary of Wiretap Pro [yourmaclifeshow.com] since last August.

    I know Australia's a little behind sometimes, but seriously, this is what automatic updates are for.
  • 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

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      Time was, countries like the USA and Australia prided themselves on standing up for white male landholder freedom and protecting the rights of the white male landholder against the State

      There, corrected that for ya! :)

      It's easy to pick out some bad trends and conclude that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. It's equally easy to pick out some good ones and conclude that we're entering a golden age. Both conclusions are grotesque oversimplifications. Where the exact balance is, I've been unable to determine in the mere four decades or so of my life, but I have come to the conclusion that things are getting better and worse at ever-increasing rates. I'm not sure I believe in the

  • Because this sounds like something that *he* would be pushing. I guess Australians have a funny-peculiar definition of "liberal".

  • If the Qaeda's dreams came true, it would have us hand it our huge telecom infrastructure so their terrorists could spy on our every move.

    Why bother fighting when we're just laying down and surrendering?
  • Roll on Android phones, assuming that it will let you encrypt the speech data stream...

    Vik :v)
  • Down the road to fascism or worse. The problem with deploying these "investigative" technologies isn't necessarily what use the current administration will put them to (although just wanting this kind of access to peoples private lives is troubling) - it's what the next administration or the one after that will do with it.

    Human beings are what they are; a certain percentage would look upon this ability as a way to prevent anyone from mounting any kind of opposition to their continuing domination of the cou

  • wait wasn't rudd supposed to be the fix for everything?
  • by BlueStrat (756137) on Friday April 18, 2008 @06:57AM (#23115496)
    Umm..how about:

    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

  • The solution will be a gradual shift in package design. All new programs really, really need point to point encryption built in by default. As in, I want to program a new {whatever}: In program design I first decide how to secure the connection and encrypt the data. Second, I decide *what* I'm going to transfer, then the interface.

    Post cards eventually led to folded paper with a wax seal to the letter inside a sealed envelope. Where is the same standard of privacy in Internet Clients I expect when I mai
  • Is already owned by the company, so i dont see a big deal there.

    But for you private citizens, its time to encrypt everything. Even 'can you get a case of beer on your way home' type of messages. Make it universal.

APL hackers do it in the quad.

Working...