Australian Journalist Arrested, Released After Detailing Facebook Flaws 200
CuteSteveJobs writes "Yesterday Australian journalist Ben Grubb was arrested by police at an IT Security Conference after an article Grubb wrote about vulnerabilities in Facebook's privacy controls was published on Fairfax media websites. Grubb was later released, but police have confiscated his iPad. Late last month police tried to force fellow Fairfax journalist Linton Besser into revealing who leaked information about corruption. At the time, Fairfax editor Peter Fray called it an unprecedented attack on the freedom of the press. Australia has no explicit right to free speech and lacks shield laws to protect investigative journalists from having to reveal sources."
Summary of comments (Score:3, Informative)
Australians defending their government against Americans talking about how crazy it is.
People applying their IANAL interpretation of laws... of other countries.
A frost pist that is off topic.
Several jokes about Foster's.
Retort that 'real IrishmenAustralians don't drink Foster's.
Jokes about 'Facebook police'.
Question about Men at Work.
Defense of vegemite.
Vegemite vs. marmite discussion.
Complaints about submission/slashdot in general.
are we really that different? (Score:5, Informative)
in the USA, Judith Miller was thrown in jail for refusing to reveal a source
James Risen has been subpoenad about the source for his book on the CIA
one of those suspected of being his source, Jeffrey Sterling, is under an Espionage Act prosecution, with possible 10 years jail time, for talking about CIA mistakes in the late 1990s.
Then there is Stephen Kim, another Espionage act case; his crime? telling a reporter North Korea might test a nuke.
Then there is Stephen Drake, espionage act case, for whistleblowing against the NSA ... several of his friends homes were raided by the FBI, guns drawn. one of them is a diabetic with one leg. as
One of the UK ambassadors to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, wrote 2 books about what he saw there; torture, rape, abuse, violence, mass slavery, murder, all committed by our 'ally' in the 'global war on terror'. oh and i forgot to mention the children being anally raped in front of their relatives to force confessions about being in league with al qaeda.
in the US, our ambassadors said nothing. when some kid, Bradley Manning, dumps a bunch of their emails, he gets thrown in solitary, naked, 23 hours a day, being asked every 5 minutes 'are you OK'.
so no, i personally find australia's laws and UK's laws to be ridiculous. but the US is kind of moving in the same direction. The Espionage Act in particular, is becoming a de-facto State Secrets Act by virtue of our past 2 presidents, our court system, our media, and our education system.
its bad all over.
Re:The issue... (Score:5, Informative)
In fact he was placed under questioning arrest and taken to a police station.
He was questioned for an unspecified number of hours and released.
Re:are we really that different? (Score:4, Informative)
For clarification of bill of rights in Australia read this http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn42.htm [aph.gov.au]. So the specific concern is a bill of rights limits rights, rather than rights being unlimited until legally contested and put before state and federal governments. Apart from 'implied freedom of political communication' and of course constitutional freedom of religion, both of which can of course be stretched to infinity with regards to freedom of speech.
The more interesting point is that Facebooks privacy controls are a complete illusion http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/security-experts-go-to-war-wife-targeted-20110517-1eqsm.html [theage.com.au] and of course computer security experts (drips under pressure) can be a cantankerous lot and use the letter of the law like a club to attack others whilst believing is does not apply to them personally.
Holy Alarmist Summary batman (Score:3, Informative)
He was later released without charge
So a person was bought in by police for questioning. Which as I understand it is legal in most western nations.
/. It must be required penance for having the better beaches and a working economy.
But it is very important to keep up the uninformed Australia bashing here on
Re:The issue... (Score:5, Informative)
and he wasn't arrested, and has his iPad back. Seems to be a storm in a tea-cup / media beat-up.
I'm thinking I'd prefer to be over there (Australia) than here in the "free" US of A.
He was arrested, then released without charge. But they still have his ipad. Stop spreading made up BS.
A few minor corrections (Score:5, Informative)
I know poking a stick at foreign jurisdictions is a popular past time on Slashdot (and this is sometimes with good reason) but it would be nice if blanket statements weren't thrown around quite so much about the state of laws in other countries. As usual with most things in life, the situations is generally more complex than can be summed up in a sentence or two.
From the summary:
"Australia has no explicit right to free speech and lacks shield laws to protect investigative journalists from having to reveal sources."
Though this isn't an inaccurate statement at a high level, it's not quite true...
Australia has no ~constitutional~ right to free speech, in that its Constitution does not contain a Bill of Rights like the American one. This is not unusual - most Westminster democracies have no such thing and generally have rights conferred by common law (case law) and/or statutory rights. And at least two jurisdictions DO have "explicit rights" to freedom of expression in Australia - the ACT and Victoria, which both have (statutory) 'Bills of Rights'.
Incidentally there have been proposals to introduce a constitutional Bill of Rights in the past. They have not been successful. There are as many arguments against an entrenched and absolute statement of rights, as there are for one - there are pros and cons in each case.
And as for shield laws - again, the jurisdiction matters. One state, NSW, does indeed have a shield law. The others don't, although I believe WA and a couple of others are working on one at the moment. However, as of March this year, a Federal shield law also passed both houses of the Federal Parliament in March this year and is currently awaiting Royal Assent.
So basically, Australia has some shield laws that may or may not apply depending on the case. In a NSW or Federal court, or a case regarding the NSW or Federal Police or a NSW or Federal law, yes, there are shield laws that apply. Otherwise, no, not at this point in time.
An update on this story by Grubb... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/grubbs-story-privacy-news-and-the-strong-arm-of-the-law-20110518-1esn9.html [brisbanetimes.com.au]
The Policeman who confiscated Grubb's iPad was Detective Superintendent Errol Coultis. "When I questioned under what legislation they had the right to seize my iPad, Coultis told me I was under arrest in relation to receiving unlawfully obtained property." Head of the Queensland police fraud squad, Brian Hay said accessing a photo without permission was the same as stealing a TV.
Amusingly the "Queensland Police Media Service" are into twitter damage control: "Police can legally seize material which may be evidence of a crime. It will be returned as soon as we can do so."
Grubb said "I was told that forensics officers were going to make a complete copy of the information on my iPad, whether it related to this matter or not."
An absolutely disgraceful peformance by the Queensland Police involved.
Re:Anonymous Proxy (Score:4, Informative)
Fucking summary
And the fact that these subpoenas were even served reminds us that in Australia there are no statutory protections for journalists - no shield laws, as they're known - worthy of the name.
Or there weren't, until a couple of weeks ago, when the
Evidence Amendment (Journalists' Privilege) Bill 2011
-- Evidence Amendment (Journalistsâ(TM) Privilege) Bill 2011
was finally passed through both houses of the Federal Parliament.
It provides bluntly that...
If a journalist has promised an informant not to disclose the informant's identity, neither the journalist nor his or her employer is compellable to answer any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant...
-- Evidence Amendment (Journalistsâ(TM) Privilege) Bill 2011
It's a disgrace that it took until 2011, but the Aussies now have a shield law