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)."
Keep it classy, Australia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Keep it classy, Australia (Score:4, Insightful)
Having to work for you bastards, it really shouldn't be any surprise to me that you'd want to pull a dick move like this on your own citizens. I hope they vote all of your skanky asses right out of office.
The problem is both Australian major parties are up themselves and won't know rights (only obligations) even if it bit them on the arse or hit them in the pocket! Only solution is to back the Greens in Senate in the hope of hindering such crap laws and loss of rights. We all can thank the up-themselves government types in the USA that push same agendas across treaties and the like.
Re:Keep it classy, Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
So what. Both major parties will rarely agree on any issue and with that the balance of power get's given to the 'currently' minor parties. Want to disrupt the two party duopoly carefully nurtured and coerced by corporate interests, than vote for the other parties.
I was concerned about the near exact nature of both parties with regard to censoring and clamping down on the free exchange of information between adults. So I actually joined the Green Party, paid my membership dues (first time ever for any party) and that is how you shake things up. Reality is, if you want a safe internet for children, than you need to create a completely separate one for them, just like any other activity, in fact all other activities where child and adult stranger participation is completely separated.
Rather than the fringe view the right put on the Australian Greens, I take the viewpoint that they are by far the most conservative party in Australia, careful and cautious about any decision they make, their focus is about conserving Australian families and the environment they live in. It is pretty obvious some care and caution needs to be implemented when it comes to exploiting the environment and the resources it contains, failure really can turn around and not only bite this generation on the arse but future generations as well.
Re:Vote Greens = de- reg'd + "Preferential" voting (Score:2, Insightful)
So in actual fact, passing preferences empowers the voter, and empowers the minor parties because in the case of a party, they can make deals to trade for power. For example, the Geens are really aiming to get as much control over the senate as they can. They know that they won't get the balance of power in the lower house, so they deal away their preferences with the Labour party in order to gain concessions, and to boost their profile so that in following elections, they have more publicly allocated campaign funding and a greater appeal to the public because their visibility is greater.
Where our system does fail us, is in that we have a perception that we are voting for a person to lead our country, but as recent events have shown, we are only voting in members to represent ourselves locally, and it is up to the parliament to determine who should represent it, usually decided entirely by the party in power at the time. So while many thought they had elected Kevin Rudd to lead us, they had forgotten they had only voted for their party member and by default granted that party member the right to vote on the constituents' behalf who the Prime Minister would be. For mine, I'd prefer a third form where you could list your preferences for preferred head of state. PM/President/whatever, to avoid the sort of political shenanigans that occurred so recently.
The two-party majority system that we seem to have is really the fault of the people. If you REALLY want the system to change, you need to use your vote to signal that change, not simply vote for the person you think would win anyway, or vote for the opposition simply to get the incumbents out of power. Your individual vote might not seem like much, but if everyone votes sensibly then the combination turns out to be truly powerful thing, and a responsibility that shouldn't be treated so lightly, especially when you know that there are so many places in the world without our freedoms. So you can moan as much as you like about the alleged unfairness of your system, but count yourself lucky that you actually have the right to do so, and if you want to protect that right, you need to vote to do so.
Oh, and if you think our system is so undemocratic, compare this to the system used in the USA, where only a handful of states actually wield the power to change the government because they get more "votes" than the other states, and where the individual cannot allocate a preference vote if their preferred candidate doesn't win. Yes, our last few governments have a lot to answer for, and yes, we seem to be losing our rights all the time... and yes, that is the collective fault of the public who voted the bastards in! And yet, in spite of all of that I still feel like we are the lucky country (yes, I've lived in MUCH worse), and if you really want to change things, you have the right and the individual responsibility to do so.
Re:Keep it classy, Australia (Score:2)
Re:Keep it classy, Australia (Score:2)
Sadly, the rest of your post rings true... :(
To stop 'premature unnecessary debate' (Score:5, Informative)
They did it to stop 'premature unnecessary debate', apparently.
They don't want any facts or public opinion getting in the way of something they have already decided on and that serves nobody else but themselves.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html?rand=1279849637950 [smh.com.au]
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/354283/government_stifles_debate_web_browser_history_retention/ [arnnet.com.au]
Like they were popular enough already with the manditor filter? And comming up to an election I have to ask, WTF?
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:To stop 'premature unnecessary debate' (Score:2)
Here in the United States, I happened to be listening to NPR and them talking about the National Secrets Act.
Basically, since the '50s there has been a precedent where the government simply says 'revealing this would harm national security' and any lawsuit was thrown out.
The original case that went before the Supreme Court and this precedent was set involved a bomber crash that killed 3 civilian contractors.
The USAF consistently argued that revealing the accident report would harm national security. The lower court said fine and found against the .gov. The appeals court said the same. The supreme court overturned it, without ever even asking to privately see the accident report.
Couple years ago one of the daughters finally got ahold of the declassified accident report - which even unredacted didn't contain anything that was classified or unknown back then.
Basically, I understand the need for governments to keep secrets. I just think that there needs to be a review process. You don't need to let everybody view classified documents when a lawsuit comes up, but an independent, neutral party would be a good idea.
Heck, we manage to have military trials where classified evidence is presented, I'm sure that we could come up with Something, even if it was - 'We can't tell you what happened due to national security issues, but here's some money to go away'.
Re:To stop 'premature unnecessary debate' (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the labour party is doing this because of the rise of the christian right in Australia. Labour will never will votes from family first, and pandering to moral authoritarianism (a conservative platform) will alienate the labour base.
I'm just going to consume pop-corn and laugh.
Re:Did you read the document? (What was left of it (Score:5, Insightful)
At which point do you feel that the Australian public should be consulted for the real facts and opinions?
Re:Did you read the document? (What was left of it (Score:2)
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.
That's pure speculation.
Re:Did you read the document? (What was left of it (Score:2)
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.
That's irrelevant. FOI requests require that all working copies and notes be provided, at least when I've seen them. Working copies are covered.
'premature unnecessary debate. (Score:5, Insightful)
aka democracy.
Re: 'premature unnecessary debate. (Score:2)
Re: 'premature unnecessary debate. (Score:1, Insightful)
11% approval rating assholes. Start packing your bags!
95% reelection rate, fellas. Any rumors of being voted out are greatly exaggerated. Leave your suitcases in the closet for a couple more years at least...
Re:Black Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't be the "Obongo" bit, or the off-topic, incendiary nature of the post that got him that, could it? Nah, it's gotta be the raging hard-on everyone has for Obama, and not the fact that someone correctly noted that the post was not designed to spark intelligent discourse, but instead to inflame and derail.
Re: 'premature unnecessary debate. (Score:2)
Cession from the union requires congressional approval.
Re: 'premature unnecessary debate. (Score:2)
And perhaps also gerrymandering. When the representatives can pick their voters before the voters vote, then it's no wonder the incumbency rate is so high. Contorted districts like this one [wikipedia.org] aren't drawn just for the amusement of the mapmakers.
The ASP (Score:5, Insightful)
The only realistic vote in Australia seems to be a vote for the Australian Sex Party.
The other parties seem totally infested by moralism and corruption.
AILARTSUA (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Australia, every Party except the Sex Party wants to Fuck you.
Re:AILARTSUA (Score:3, Funny)
Australian Government: By the Convicts, For the Convicts.
Re:AILARTSUA (Score:1)
Fixed that for you.
Re:AILARTSUA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:AILARTSUA (Score:2)
Re:The ASP (Score:1, Informative)
The only realistic vote in Australia seems to be a vote for the Australian Sex Party.
Russell Wattie (Camel) is running for a place in the Senate. He is a spokesman for the United Motorcycle Council of Queensland. He is against the anti-freedom of association laws (aka anti-biker laws), the ABCC and for a bill of rights.
There is also the LDP ldp.org.au [slashdot.org] who might prove worthwhile and if they can get it registered, for future elections the Pirate Party Australia http://www.pirateparty.org.au/ [pirateparty.org.au]
Re:The ASP (Score:2)
So you have your own Pirate Party? Very interesting...
Not being an australian I haven't seen much of the LDP before. What was their stance on the filtering etc. etc?
Re:The ASP (Score:2, Informative)
Oops, should have checked the link: http://ldp.org.au/ [ldp.org.au] is their site. Their policy on censorship. [ldp.org.au]
The Liberal Democratic Party supports free speech and is opposed to government censorship of books, videos, games and the internet. We:
Oppose any non-voluntary internet filtering or censorship.
Believe no film, book or game should ever be banned outright except in cases where its making involved the commission of a crime, such as abuse of children.
Support legalising the sale of X-rated pornography.
Support the introduction of an R-rating and X-rating for video games, thus legalising games that have previously been banned.
Support a review of current film and game classification criteria, taking a rational rather than morality driven approach to classification.
Re:The ASP (Score:2)
Well, the LDP is not our Pirate Party.
We *do* have a Pirate Party Australia, www.pirateparty.org.au which a registered political party.
It can not contest the 2010 elections (due to timing issues) but it exists.
Re:The ASP (Score:2, Informative)
The only realistic vote in Australia seems to be a vote for the Australian Sex Party.
The other parties seem totally infested by moralism and corruption.
I prefer the Australian Greens. They are actually both very similar on their views (letting in asylum seekers, stopping this Internet filtering scheme) and definitely has a environmental friendly approach.
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:The ASP (Score:5, Informative)
There are two major parties in Australia, the Labor party and a coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party.
Both are pretty much the same, Labor is perhaps centre left, and the other two are Centre Right. Though in American terms they would all probably be classed as far left.
The balance of power at the moment is pretty much 45% Labor, 45% Coalition, 10% smaller parties.
The smaller parties are Independants (Generally Centre Right), Greens (Left wing), and the Family First party (Ultra right wing).
Essentially for any government to get anything done they need to get the Family First party onboard, and in general, Christian votes. The Family First party is pretty much a church group, all their candidates are former Pastors etc.
So basically:
- Christians (in South Australia) hold the swing vote.
- Most Australians think this shit is bullshit.
- Our opinion doesn't count.
Re:The ASP (Score:2)
I've only just moved to Australia so I can't really provide much political insight but there is interesting global context for this story in particular. That's that many other countries, including the U.S. have laws like this that are already in effect. Obviously the law wouldn't require all traffic content to be recorded, but rather IP logs to put internet traffic on similar footing to telephone calls. The police can look up who you talked to and when with a subpoena but no warrant.
I might be wrong, I'm basing this on similar legislation that was just passed in Canada, but that was my impression of the heavily redacted document. At least in Australia and Canada there is debate. I'm fairly certain that in the U.S. such logs are already maintained by law as well; the U.S. was used as the example that Canada was lagging behind in terms of security. Not only do U.S. ISPs maintain IP logs but traffic flowing across the American border is monitored by the NSA with almost no public supervision. And American public information is snooped and logged by the NSA. Quite frankly, the U.S. approach to monitoring it's citizens it's much more invasive, secretive and frightening.
The redacted document is a miserable failure of the current government to provide transparency, but at least the measures taken by the Australian government will be made public before they go into law; even if debate on the issue is curbed. It's far from an ideal situation, but I'd take Canadian or Australian internet laws over the NSA.
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).
Re:The ASP (Score:2)
Typo fix: "married into an American" should read "married into an American family". Lol.
Re:The ASP (Score:3, Insightful)
Australian here- It's pretty simple really. (Disclaimer: I've posted this before, but it bears repeating)
We have a political system where, instead of directly voting for a prime minister, we instead vote for our local representative; the party with the most seats gets to elect the prime minister. Essentially.
The problem comes when the two main political parties own almost equal seats, but many seats are "safe" seats. Think Texas. Is a Democrat ever going to be elected in a landslide in Texas? Nah. Is a Republican going to take San Fransisco in a landslide? Nah.
So, politicians focus on the marginal seats. Think Florida, which could go either way.
It just so happens a number of those seats are, currently, in and around areas which have a higher than average population of religious constituents. So, politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are metaphorically sucking our version of the Bible Belt's dick in order to get those precious one or two seats, which means they can keep/gain government respectively.
Which means our current administration is pushing through knee-jerk think-of-the-children legislation while the opposition is basically screaming "US TOO BUT BIGGER, BETTER, MORE KNEE-JERKY."
It's pure horseshit and doesn't represent the will of the Australian people at all.
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.
Ignorance is Strength (Score:1, Insightful)
The only realistic vote in Australia seems to be a vote for the Australian Sex Party.
The other parties seem totally infested by moralism and corruption.
You can't vote for a party [wikipedia.org] that has already been banned [slashdot.org] (by the Internet filters).
Electronic Frontiers Australia, which the Australian government has labeled an extremist organization, says;
We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about people having insight into the consultation.
Of course the government has excuses for its hypocrisy; if it makes more laws then there will be more criminals, and an educated criminal is a threat to society; so the goal of the government is to try to keep people ignorant. Ignorance is Strength [wikipedia.org].
Re:The ASP (Score:5, Insightful)
Not many of the other parties have had such a clear policy.
Re:The ASP (Score:3, Informative)
The Australian democrats went the way of the dodo years ago. They were a sensible, centrist party which lived up to their slogan of "keeping the bastards honest" but they're time is over. Years of very public infighting ruined it for them. It's time to move on.
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.
The reality will be disappointing (Score:2)
It's disgusting that we have bullshit like this to get those that firmly believe in censorship to vote for the government instead of their being some sort of effort to convince them that censorship is not the solution they think it is. However there's no point pretending this thing is a real policy .
Re:Text Recovery? (Score:2)
Re:Text Recovery? (Score:2, Funny)
Just make up whatever you want it to say. What, are they going to deny that that's what it said? Didn't think so.
Well, at least it's not for national security, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
To prevent "premature unnecessary debate" --- gotta give them credit that at least they're not lying about their motivations, unlike using "national security" to keep ACTA negotiations secret.
"premature unnecessary debate" (Score:2, Insightful)
Pesky democracy. Let us pass the bill, then you can debate it.
Re:"premature unnecessary debate" (Score:2)
Ah no - the contents of a Bill once it is put before the Parliament is public knowledge. In full.
The "premature unnecessary debate" quote has arisen because the Government hasn't even decided whether it wants to go down this route yet. It's a discussion paper, not a proposal to actually do anything. The quote is actually fairly accurate - debate arising from the content of the document WOULD be premature and unnecessary if they end up going "nah, screw this idea".
Not that I agree with it being censored. But it's not quite as ominous as people are making it sound.
Re:"premature unnecessary debate" (Score:2)
The quote is actually fairly accurate - debate arising from the content of the document WOULD be premature and unnecessary if they end up going "nah, screw this idea".
You, sir, are an irresponsibly optimistic MORON.
WITHOUT the debate, the powers-that-be will rapidly storm forward with any kind of idiocy their rampantly power-obsessed delusional minds can encompass.
Already we see where "let the government have time to think about it" leads to. The Great Internet Censorship Project is just such a madness which our government has decided to impose.
NO DEBATE is allowed, no alternate opinion will be considered.
"IF YOU ARE ANTI-FILTERING THEN YOU MUST BE A PAEDOPHILE" is the only thing the government has to say on the matter.
WITHOUT "debate arising from the content of the document" the only SCREWING the government will be doing is THE PEOPLE.
Re:"premature unnecessary debate" (Score:2)
What on earth are you going on about (allcaps and childish names notwithstanding)? I'm not saying there shouldn't be debate. There should be, and plenty of it. But there's not much point in debating whether x is good or bad, until it has actually been agreed and defined what 'x' is in the first place. Governments canvas things and throw ideas around internally all the time, and if there was a full public debate on every random thing that anyone in Government ever thought of, nothing would ever get done.
Anyway, my point was not that it is OK that the document was censored. Like you, I agree that it shouldn't be. I was merely pointing out for the non-Australian audience on /. who reads only the headlines that this not in any way shape or form a formal proposal, and hence why the "premature" quote isn't as bad as it sounds (still 'bad', but not incredibly so).
(Also debate about the filter HAS actually led to it being put on an indefinite hold, and if it ever returns it is likely to be in a modified form, e.g. opt-out/in, which I don't think most people will take issue with. Your example thus seems to be contradictory to your argument - Government had already pretty much settled on the form the filter was to take, details were THEN publicly released, and as a direct result of people's protestations and actions against it, caused a shift in policy. Noone has "imposed" anything on us.)
Dear Au Gov: (Score:1)
Please publish all of your employee's internet connections from the past 3 months. This should include all connections from their family members as well.
Once you complied, we can discuss your idea. If you don't, that plan of yours is just premature and unnecessary.
Redacted (Score:1)
I hope they are sloppy as we are about redacting PDFs...
Re:Redacted (Score:1, Insightful)
printed, blacked out, and scanned. Hopefully someone sends the full doc to wikileaks.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, there you have it (Score:2)
Because a few handguns and assault rifles are going to work against tanks, choppers and nukes. Right.... The only time a civilian militia can defeat a modern professional army is when the modern professional army doesn't want to kill every civilian in sight - i.e., a bit of civility. Don't think for a second that the same thing is not possible in the US, because the same shit is going on right now.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Do you watch the news? (Score:2)
Err.... can you read, or do you just post when you read specific sentences? Sort of like a pavlovian poster?
The very next sentence says: "The only time a civilian militia can defeat a modern professional army is when the modern professional army doesn't want to kill every civilian in sight." Which is exactly what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can win in those places. We are just not barbaric enough to go all the way.
It's because ... (Score:1)
Re:It's because ... (Score:1)
... information wants to XX XXXX.
I have something very important to say to that. Here goes:
XXX X XXXXXX XX XX XXXXX XXXX XXXX. XX X XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX your mom XXXXXX. XXXXX XXXXX X XX XXXX XX XXX XXX XXXX XX XXXXX XXXX. XXX XXXX XX XXXXX! XXX XXXX XXX XXXXXX XX X XXXX X XXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXX XX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXX XXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX a big XXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXX X XXXXXXXX up my XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXX.
Note: This comment was edited to save people the trouble of bothering with unnecessary replies. You're welcome!
"We have to assume the worst..." (Score:1)
So that's what we've reduced ourselves to, huh? Let's hope everybody acts on that assumption and does their best to put a stop to this. And quit electing these assholes! Alright?
Re:"We have to assume the worst..." (Score:2)
And as always with censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Storage vendors are jumping up and down with glee (Score:5, Funny)
Can you imagine the cost of complying with 'recording all customers traffic'?
Re:Storage vendors are jumping up and down with gl (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Storage vendors are jumping up and down with gl (Score:2)
But what is the point in logging encrypted (ie https) traffic? Do the policy makers even know such things exist? This will only cause more websites to switch to encryption.
Re:Storage vendors are jumping up and down with gl (Score:2)
But what is the point in logging encrypted (ie https) traffic? Do the policy makers even know such things exist?
Don't explain it to them or they'll simply require all e-commerce transactions to be carried out over plain, unencrypted HTTP. That would be even worse.
Scary (Score:1)
Can anyone please tell me why... (Score:1, Insightful)
What possible reason is it in anyone's best interest to spend mountains of treasure to create a massive archive of every single internet transaction apart from the people who sell hard drives.
How much electricity will be needed to run this server farm? .... well, what exactly. More prosecutions? Public officials whacking off to citizens' cyber sex chat transcripts?
Exactly what evidence is there that this archive will result in
What will the start up and long term fiscal costs be?
What safeguards are there to prevent this archive by being used only in the prevention of serious crimes.
What is the audit system to be to ensure that it won't be abused?
Re:Can anyone please tell me why... (Score:2)
The idea that local law enforcement have to 'wait' for a court, get paper work, contact the isp, wait, get the address and start logging, request a delayed notification warrant. Its a huge long list that this hopes to avoid.
Your is is spotted, a trusted, vetted, trained officer enters your IP and gets to see your details in seconds for an ISP in Australia. That can be linked to wider state and federal databases. Do you have children, work with children, travel, language skills, CC use, phone calls made...?
Your web surfing history loads up too and with some reading a person of interest is flagged or someone has faulty wifi might drop out.
No waiting, no errors, rapid deployment if needed, long term monitoring for international collaboration.
Safeguards would be basic vetting and onsite physical lockdown. Audit system would be random logs to ensure your not requesting doing outside work
Long term, Australia might outsource aspects too
Of course they did! (Score:1)
Of course they censored it.
This falls under the realm of a threat to national security.
Us.
I thought "V for Vendetta" took place in England? (Score:2, Insightful)
Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:5, Insightful)
We've got an election three weeks away where voters will have the opportunity to throw out Julia Gillard. Gillard is Rudd's deputy who knifed him in the back to take his job, yet was party to all his unpopular decisions. She is continuing to support the web filter (though deferred implementing it until after the election).
In the other corner is Tony Abbott, a conservative catholic who is also pro-web filter (see earlier comments in Slashdot).
These are the two major parties in Australia. Their policies are so similar it's hard to tell them apart. One of them will win. What sort of a choice is this?
Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:1)
What sort of a choice is this?
What? We give you democracy and now you ask for choices?! What an attitude! You're not a team player!
Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:2)
Paralyse them by stacking the senate with minor parties. I plan to put liberal and labour at the bottom of the senate ticket.
Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:2)
There may be more than two choices but one of those two will be Prime Minister, regardless how often you may repeat the simplification that there are other options. Spoken as someone who is leaning Green in the Senate as the only one with sane policies outside the environmental policy area.
Winston Churchill on Democracy (Score:2)
> Can anyone offer real insight into why people vote this way?
It's a good question. Voters whine about the lack of choice, but always vote for the two majors. Often we hear of a protest vote, but the voters cower out at the last minute. It happened in Britain with the LDP. It will probably happen in Oz with the greens.
My theory is that most voters are uninformed, cowering simps who don't have the brains or the balls to pick the best candidate. Most of them vote for party X for the same reason they follow football team Y; because they always have, or their dad did and their mates do.
Try talking politics with someone. They'll tell you immediately who they like, but pry deeper and you'll find their reasoning ill-thought out. Winston Churchill said "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with your average voter." Try it. Not to try and convert them to your cause, but just to see how shallow they are.
Gillard and Abbot are the most pathetic line up in living memory, yet one of them will win.
Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:2)
http://www.democrats.org.au/campaigns/no_internet_censorship/
Vote as you like
Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:3, Informative)
You have your choice in the upcoming election with a choice of up to 25 parties [aec.gov.au] for Senate and House of Representatives (Upper and Lower house respectively).
There's websites like my website ShockSeat's Federal parties list [shockseat.com] that'll give you some basic information about parties. Or you can try Wiki's list of Political parties in Australia [wikipedia.org]. Or simply look up the party names, almost all of them have websites and see what they have to say.
My last comment for those who feel demoralised at 'duopoly' of major parties and considered not voting; if you don't vote, then Australia would still continue to be represented by voters. Don't complain that you're not represented for the next 4 years.
This years tactic - bit like last time (Score:2)
The only way this is going to go away is after the pressure groups give up on trying to push censorship - child porn is the excuse but that's not really why they want it.
Tony is so "conservative" that he got thrown out of a seminary for being a very bad boy and has been before the magistrate twice, once for sexual assualt - he's only really Catholic on Sundays on the Church steps in front of the cameras. He was called the "mad monk" more for screwing anything in a skirt (like Rasputin) than anything else.
Re:Vote Tweedledum or Tweeledee (Score:2)
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.
Re:Aust Government showing worrying trend (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that the child pornography hysteria that fuelled these actions was noble, I don't see what you consider so ugly about these inevitable conclusions. Rotten causes leads to rotten effects.
If they actually did it (Score:1)
Thought my eyes were going bad pdf (Score:1)
What can be done about this - in 3 weeks? (Score:1)
Re:What can be done about this - in 3 weeks? (Score:2)
The question is which direction do we go? Do we want the liberals in? They might be worse.
Re:What can be done about this - in 3 weeks? (Score:2)
We need more diversity in parliament.
True
Why isn't this part of the election debate? (Score:1)
Record of customer communication #30J4RFG239449P (Score:2)
XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
Don't use so many caps. Itg's like yelkling.
Don't use so makny caps. Irert's like yelling.
Don'tr use so many caps. It's lire yelling.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
Don't use rso many caps. Itgrr's like yeleling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yerrelling.
Don't use sor many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's liker yelling.
Don'tr use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use sof many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so maffrny caps. It's like yelling.
Don't use so many caps. It's like yelfling.
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.
Moving Australia Forward (Score:3, Insightful)
I just saw this website which takes on these issues using a labour catchphrase - http://www.movingaustraliaforward.com/ [movingaust...orward.com]
Speaking of premature debate... (Score:3, Informative)
I started my own premature but very necessary debate [slashdot.org] over on the corporate blocking of the Sex Party story [slashdot.org] where I mentioned that the SMH article is, in fact, very misleading, and the "premature and unnecessary debate" quote was taken completely out of context. Basically, the document was censored because it was exempt from the FOI act, and it was exempt because:
a) It's some internal discussion amongst the party that's not even at the proposal stage. That is, it doesn't affect the public, and it's far from finalised, and
b) In its current form, there's no guarantee that any actual proposal that comes from this will reflect the document at all. That is, actually releasing it would be misleading.
Basically, this document didn't need to be released at all, and in certain parts, it's against the public interest to actually release it.
I also realise that my comment I linked to above was modded down, but I'm hoping that this time around Slashdotters take their own advice, and refrain from censoring dissenting opinions.
Who decides... (Score:2)
What means "unnecessary debate"?
Re:Returning to their roots... (Score:2)
Re:Returning to their roots... (Score:2)