AU Government Censors Document On Planned Web Snooping 169
MrPPS writes "The Australian Government plans to force ISPs to record and retain all citizens' communications traffic. The Sydney Morning Herald requested that the proposed policy documents be released under Freedom of Information laws. What they received was a document that was 90% censored, in order to prevent 'premature unnecessary debate.' More discussion on the Greyhat Security site. Here is the redacted document (PDF, 3.6 MB)."
Text Recovery? (Score:1, Interesting)
I wonder if this is one of those cases where someone can lift the text from behind the blacked out image, that would be some just irony: "just like how filtering wouldn't work, their censorship wouldn't work"
Scanned document (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a scanned document with physical blacking out, unlike the last few failed PDF censorship attempts in which there were merely added black objects obscuring the undeleted original text.
Might still be able to get some information out with image processing, but I doubt we're going to get a lot. I'm off to give it a shot.
Disclaimer... (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyone notice the disclaimer?
From the document: "The paper intends only to stimulate discussion on the issues set out in it. The results of these discussions will be used to inform government consideration of these matters."
SO how does this relate to the whole prevent 'premature unnecessary debate' thingy...
Aust Government showing worrying trend (Score:4, Interesting)
The current Australian government is showing some startling and disturbing trends with their disapprobation for the rights to privacy. First there was Senator Conroy's (Minister for Broadband, Communications, etc) plan to retain a secretive government register, unbeknownst to the public, that would filter websites it deemed to have no classification. Child pornography was the chief motivator but like with so many other noble beginnings, it spawned into an ugly beast - a register with the capacity to capture (and did capture as we now know) websites ill-suited to blacklisting.
Now we have the Attorney-General seeking to deny privacy rights without public consultation. The very people who are affected the most by this policy are unable to comment due to a rather spurious argument that 'premature' debate might in some way affect the purpose of the policy.
There is something grossly wrong with this - if you want to snoop, spy or store data of citizens, by all means - but as a Government, you must get the consent of the population and be willing to accept rejection of said proposal. Silencing or blocking comment is in direct conflict of the notion of democracy.
Privately, I'd revile any Government where my information needs are suddenly in question. The adage 'if you don't have anything to hide, show it' fails - I should never be coerced to reveal anything about me without cause - that's privacy. Respect that.
Did you read the document? (What was left of it) (Score:0, Interesting)
If you read the document you would have noticed the caveat on every page "No decisions have been made by the Government in relation to this proposal".
The Government was asking what data the ISPs currently retain and what technical issues there would be in retaining an undisclosed set of data.
While it does mean that there is some sort of interest in the Government to potentially adopt a mandatory data retention plan they are still trying to figure out if it is feasible before actually pursuing it as policy.
Have a look: http://images.smh.com.au/file/2010/07/23/1710367/Secret-Document.PDF?rand=1279847709475
This is likely nothing more than a staffer trying to answer the question "What would happen if we did this?" as posed by a politician.
Re:The ASP (Score:5, Interesting)
It's more than just the politicians. Actions like these require substantial cooperation from the civil service. I often wonder just how wide and how deep the desire for censorship runs in Australia.
Could any Australian slashdotter provide the wider subtext which is altogether absent in these stories? What is the driving element of society that is pushing for this censorship and how much support do they have among most Australians? Is this part of a historical trend or a new development? How deeply are the Australian political, state, and legal systems affected by it?--Not to mention the corporations. Why does Australia seem to be pursuing these laws so zealously?
Re:Keep it classy, Australia (Score:1, Interesting)
The average person does not possess the intellectual capacity, nor concern to vote properly. They do however, enjoy a great night of 24 and a few Bud Lights.
From my vantage point, Australia appears to be in the middle of a hostile takeover. Austrailians watch out. Soon you'll have RFID tags implanted in all babies at birth, without which you will not be able to enroll in school, participate in commerce, get a license of any type or receive health care. They will shroud this in a veil of protection propaganda.
Beware.
Re:Storage vendors are jumping up and down with gl (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:To stop 'premature unnecessary debate' (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the document in question is so heavily censored you really have to ask what is are the Government afraid off. After-all it not as if the document could be classified as top secret and with so much censorship the mind boggles.
Since I am a swinging voter I will not be voting for Labour this coming Federal election the problem is I am not to keen on the opposition either.
Re:Storage vendors are jumping up and down with gl (Score:3, Interesting)
They are just very passive about it so people still feel the anonymity of the web.
State and federal task forces do log you once they get interested.
Your average Australian ISP would just pass cost on to users or request a federal grant.
No more new data caps or lower prices fro a while as they pay for cheap Narus clones.
Democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
If this wording of the answer does not enrage the majority of Australians regardless of their position on the issue, and won't affect their vote, then they do not really deserve democracy.
It reminds me of the HST ruckus here in BC. The petition. (First step to referendum) to repeal it got widespread backing from many people of all political backgrounds, including those in favor of HST - because of the way it was pushed through.
Re:The ASP (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a saying "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance", well this apples to all societies but when you have politicians or lobbyists who want to shape society in a way that conforms to what they believe in and push their beliefs on society then you are going to have problems. This is not to say that these people have bad intentions however to force one's beliefs on society is IMHO very wrong.
Since the Federal Labour party came to power it has been strongly influenced by what I would call "bible bashers" or "bible thumper's" if you like who seem to want to shape society in their own image since they seem to perceive that they know best. Basically no politician in their right mind wants to be seen as forcing rapid change so they make incremental changes coupled with sayings like "Think of the children" (lets censor the internet more) or (sigh!) "Speeding kills" (lets have more speed cameras) just to name a few.
Australian society is not any different to any other democratic society but like any democracy, people need to be aware of issues which could in the long run affect their freedoms and vote accordingly. At least we do have that right at the moment..
Re:The ASP (Score:5, Interesting)
Australians have a very different attitude to government than Americans, and perhaps to some extent many other countries.
By and large, they see the government as a service provider. It provides their health care, education (right through from elementary school through to university), postal service, once upon a time even the telephone network and power and water services. Basically, any exigent need that an Australian citizen feels is immediately reflected in their mind to the government as the first port of call as to who should fill it. The government is accutely attuned to this and doesn't hesitate to jump in and try to first exaggerate the need for and then propose some (usually token but sufficient to win votes) solution to the "problem". This, combined with the fact that Australia has been a peaceful democracy since inception (if you ignore Aborigines, but that is what Aussies do) has lead to an implicit trust of government that simply doesn't exist in the US.
Now, don't get me wrong - Aussies hate the government - they are full of cynicism and basically assume that every politician is corrupt and every bureaucrat is incompetent. But they don't think they are evil. They would never even imagine that their government might persecute them or become their enemy in a war, etc. Even if they did, the government is so institutionalized in normal people's lives that it is basically pointless to worry about it. The American viewpoint seems a little bit ludicrous to most Australians - really, you want to hold onto your guns and absolute rights to free speech just in case you want to overthrow your entire government one day - like that is actually going to happen? You, with your pop gun are going to take on your nuclear armed government?
So when the government says they want to censor or monitor the internet, most people see it no differently to if your ISP announced that as a new extra feature to protect them. You pay for virus checkers and filters on your home computer, now the government is going to do that for free - awesome! It sounds like a good idea (catch more criminals, protect children etc) and due to implicit trust they have they don't really pursue it to question whether evil things might be done as a result, and even if they do it seems like a very theoretical, abstract concept.
Re:The ASP (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent is a fantastic post - someone please mod him up (I have points, but already posted in this thread).
I'm a dual Australian and American citizen and it's completely accurate. Australians see the American mistrust of government as incredibly paranoid, verging on delusional. By and large the Australian Government, despite the odd bungle and scandal, does a pretty good job in providing the services that it does and keeping Australia's quality of life and economy the best in the developed world (only G20 nation not to go into recession due to the 'global financial crisis'). They are on our side in the end, even if some of their ideas are a bit misguided from time to time.
OTOH though, I've seen the other side of the fence now that I live in America and have married into an American. Americans have a much better understanding of human nature when it comes to how governments can abuse their power and become 'evil', I think. Mostly as the parent says, due to their more turbulent and violent history. But I think some degree of mistrust and suspicion is a healthy thing, and the Australian people could do well to be a bit more like the Americans in that respect. Australians are incredibly apathetic about politics. Most simply don't follow politics or care one way or the other. America seems to have a higher proportion of people who are politically-interested and opinionated. Some are a bit extreme though - irrationally HATING some idea just because it has SOME degree of Government control or influence.
Also, to remain a bit more on topic - the document referred to in TFA is an internal discussion paper. Not a law. Not a Bill. Not a draft Bill. Not even a formal proposal of any kind. Slashdot always likes to beat stuff up and make it seem much more ominous than it actually is (see also: Internet filter proposals that have zero chance of actually being enacted in their current form - politically impossible given the current and likely future Senate makeup and massive public unpopularity - it may eventually get through as an opt-in or opt-out filter, which is fine).
Vote Greens = de- reg'd + "Preferential" voting (Score:1, Interesting)
I've never liked the fact that I have to write name & address on my postal ballet envelope; who knows if they really separate the name/address envelopes from the ballot envelopes?
Also, I've never liked the so-called "preferential" voting system (in which your votes are re-used, ie, if your first choice doesn't win, supposedly in favor of your (OR your Party's) 2nd choice, 3rd choice, & so forth... until someone actually wins each seat.
Most don't want to number each & every candidate on every ballot paper (ie, use up every number, in order, from 1 to the number of candidates listed on each ballot - EVEN when there are zillions of candidates listed - like 50+ to order, from first to last; eg, if you use a number twice or skip a number, YOUR VOTE WON'T EVEN BE COUNTED!!! You can't even stop numbering when you don't want to vote for, say, some racist indepentents, left over... How to order preferences for any end-of-list near-nazi racists? They'd all stink, and it would be a mistake to vote for any of them!!!)...
so, they vote for the Party, which requires just ONE number to be written; there's no risk of having your vote not getting counter... but...
In this case, however, the Party decides who your vote goes to (ie, if their candidate can't win), and you have NO say about it at all!!!
The "preferential system" is designed to exclude smaller independent parties from elbowing into the legislature, and it should be DUMPED in favor of a more democratic system, that would let people decide for themselve who to vote for, for each seat.
Re:The ASP (Score:2, Interesting)
Could any Australian slashdotter provide the wider subtext which is altogether absent in these stories
I've read the other responses here, and there's a more specific background a lot of Australians aren't familiar with.
As everyone is well aware, the religious right have gained some significant traction in Australian politics over the last several years. But additionally, and possibly more importantly, the religious right has to some extent become aligned with the corporate and independently wealthy right wing businesses / people. This is because various businesses in Australia are losing profits and see the cause as the internet, which may or may not be true, but there's agreement between the various right wing lobby groups that policing of internet 'crime' (ie. offshore gambling, illegal pornography, importation of goods without duty, content piracy etc.) is a good thing.
Now with the Australian federal government being practically co-opted by the various labour unions without democratic process and with the utilization of a figurehead prime minister for the purposes of garnering the female votes from those people whom don't follow nor care about politics (ie. the majority), we're seeing the shaping of a political environment which in a very real sense is conflicted with itself.
This document illustrates how the left wing of Australian government must now shake hands with the right wing lobbyists and the requirement for censorship illustrates how little the left wing voter base would agree with this alliance and with the up-and-coming election ... the labour party is trying to be cautious. All in all, the incumbent government's situation is tenuous at best and any serious mis-step could see a media storm of dissent whip up the indifferent voters to swing away from the incumbents.