Australian Government Redacts Anti-Piracy Consultation Paper 56
First time accepted submitter coolstoryhansel writes "You might have heard the Australian Attorney-General published a consultation paper considering the implementation of a streamlined process of getting private information about subscribers from ISPs? Well perhaps not. The Attorney-General's Department have now apparently redacted that document, removing all mention of the controversial proposal, without telling anyone."
I wonder... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like it was supposed to be buried in some 4000 page group of laws mainly focused on say, traffic, that would get passed without much debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Well perhaps not. The Attorney-General's Department have now apparently redacted that document, removing all mention of the controversial proposal, without telling anyone."
Welcome psychic overlords.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Backlash made them rethink it? Or just pretending to go back on it, to reveal it all at the last moment again?
From the update:
The following statement has been received from the Attorney-General’s Department: The Safe Harbour consultation paper is currently on the AGD website. Comments are due by 22 November 2011. The Department is currently working on a number of copyright policy issues relevant to the digital environment. A draft document which incorporated other issues not included in the Safe Harbour review was mistakenly posted on the Departmental website. It was removed as soon as the error came to l
Re: (Score:1)
IMO they were caught out with too much detail and are now backpedalling
Well, the current government isn't exactly running on a tide of voter popularity at the moment (or ever, for that matter, in this electoral term), and it needs the margin percentages to crawl out of the single-digits. Of course, they could always consider the option of taking a stand on something worthwhile to differentiate themselves in some way from the opposition, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Confused, misspoken? (Score:3)
TFA says that 2 sections were removed from the original document. Redacting is different from removal, as one just hides text while the other just makes it go bye-bye. Plus there were some other edits and additions. Shouldn't this be viewed as 'version 2.0' as opposed to 'redacted?' Yes, it seems they tried to slide the changes by quietly, but the word redacted encompasses a whole different set of issues.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Consultation paper - not published outside the government, so they do not need to tell anyone ... no-one to tell
2) Removed from the paper , not redacted (hidden) removed as in no longer in the paper
In other news government changes unpublished document internally and no-one notices ...
My question... (Score:2)
Will they actually use a redact feature in their document editor, or do black font on black background (or just draw a black rectangle object over the text)?
Re: (Score:2)
The latter, and then complain about those evil pirate hackers who figured out how to read the censored text.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I judge everybody based upon their use of oxford commas.
You're currently failing.
Well then I judge you by your use of capitalization. You're currently failing. Oxford is a proper noun.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Will they actually use a redact feature in their document editor, or do black font on black background (or just draw a black rectangle object over the text)?
Nope, a public servant used black paint on his monitor.
Re: (Score:1)
Why are they redacting this document? Who dacted it wrongly in the first place? Do they not teach dacting in Australian Law Schools?
Double plus good, Citizen! (Score:1)
Down the memory hole.
Re: (Score:1)
we've finished taking over the World...
What part of Australia are you from? That sounds like a lot of work... I just want to go to the beach. :/
Re: (Score:1)
My guess: Tasmania.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, if he was from Tasmania he's be too busy shagging his cousin to vote. You know you can marry your cousin in Tasmania. (Yes, I realise you can legally marry your cousin anywhere in Australia. Never let facts get in the way of giving Tasmanians shit, or Kiwis for that matter.)
Re: (Score:1)
Hang on - was that meant to be "giving shit to taswegians and giving shit to kiwis", or "giving shit and kiwis to taswegians"?
These things are important.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't taswegia just evidence that kiwis can swim? (To answer the question, I meant "giving shit to taswegieans and kiwis.")
You can marry your grandmother in Australia (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Morbidly obese
2) Insanely religious
3) Loud and arrogant
4) Ignorant and barely literate
Man, you nailed it with those four. These are never discussed very openly but by repeated example they are promoted as virtues. The message is, you must really be something special if you can afford to be like this. I.e. "you'd be loud and arrogant too, if only you had the confidence", as though you could not be confident and assertive without needlessly imposing on others. I think a whole generation of never allowing kids to feel real defeat and always telling them how special they are to give them fal
Re: (Score:2)
I have this sudden vision of a ball of adipose floating around trying to sneak it's way up on Victoria Beckham, hiding behind street lights every time she looks around, ducking into doorwarys, lurking behind parked cars, inching closer and closer.
Re: (Score:2)
I have this sudden vision of a ball of adipose floating around trying to sneak it's way up on Victoria Beckham, hiding behind street lights every time she looks around, ducking into doorwarys, lurking behind parked cars, inching closer and closer.
Hah. That might be enough for me to believe "it's not my fault!" etc. Or I'd just say she needs better situational awareness.
Re: (Score:2)
well, only (5) is false; but you added (4) and (6) as if they're bad things. loud and greedy arrogance is actually mostly harmless fun if you're not ignorant and economically; politically; and morally bankrupt.
alas, we are.
TOPPLE YOUR CRAPPY GOVERNMENT. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually it's already coming to Canada. Lots of nice Conservative omnibus bills with presents like this hidden around. Australia is just waiting for Canada to force it through first. Then they can argue that they're merely harmonizing with Canada.
The Conservatives have a bill that will change PIPEDA, Canada's privacy legislation. It will "streamline the process of getting private information about subscribers from ISPs". And there are very few checks, balances, controls in the bill. Law enforcement can call
Re:TOPPLE YOUR CRAPPY GOVERNMENT. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem seems to be that the Attorney General (and other government ministers including the communications minister) are trying to do backroom deals with ISPs and copyright holders in order to do an end run around the need to get legislation through a potentially-hostile parliament.
The content producers are basically telling governments all over the world that unless they "streamline" the methods used to target pirates (and by that they really mean "give us a way to sue people without that pesky step of needing to collect evidence that would hold up in court"), they will all go out of business. But that's total garbage, what they are REALLY worried about is that they will no longer be the "gatekeepers" of what people watch, listen to and consume.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh FSM no...
While our government needs a serious clip 'round the ears to bring them back into reality (and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy given an sulphuric acid enema), the opposition party are the right-wing Liberals - the kind that pander to the xenophobic "F--- Off, We're Full!" brigade. (Seriously 2000 asylum seekers a year and we panic? Don't tell Pakistan or Egypt!)
If we went to a military war because our Liberal Prime Minister of the time was hanging on every word of George Bush, do you thin
Re: (Score:3)
Oh FSM no...
While our government needs a serious clip 'round the ears to bring them back into reality (and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy given an sulphuric acid enema), the opposition party are the right-wing Liberals - the kind that pander to the xenophobic "F--- Off, We're Full!" brigade. (Seriously 2000 asylum seekers a year and we panic? Don't tell Pakistan or Egypt!)
If we went to a military war because our Liberal Prime Minister of the time was hanging on every word of George Bush, do you think copyright escalation wars are going to make them bat an eyelid?
We're screwed either way, but at least with a somewhat minority government, anything's possible.
And the constipated angry right wingers constantly fail to understand why the Greens are so popular. As well as being the only party that wants to know about you if you're under 30 and have no kids, they are also the only party that cares about freedom.
On a side note, I support the "F*ck off we're full" crowd and propose, if we are so full we should support mandatory castration, starting with the F*ck off we're full crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note, I support the "F*ck off we're full" crowd and propose, if we are so full we should support mandatory castration, starting with the F*ck off we're full crowd.
I've started my bit with a sticker that reads:-
"F*ck off, we're full
(of racist immigrants from 200 years ago)"
but I'm not sure the target audience can understand three-syllable words...
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note, I support the "F*ck off we're full" crowd and propose, if we are so full we should support mandatory castration, starting with the F*ck off we're full crowd.
I've started my bit with a sticker that reads:-
"F*ck off, we're full
(of racist immigrants from 200 years ago)"
but I'm not sure the target audience can understand three-syllable words...
I was thinking along the lines of
"When I say
'F*ck off, we're full'
I really mean
'F*ck off, I'm racist'"
And attaching them to the bumpers of people who have F*ck off, we're full stickers.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is something he enjoys, then I hope I does that too :)
Re: (Score:1)
As well as being the only party that wants to know about you if you're under 30 and have no kids...
From what I've seen anecdotally, the Greens have picked up a lot of support from the over-60s who have had enough of being shafted by both of the major parties. Plus, of course, they also seem to be able to claim a vote from the rare one or two middle-aged individuals who are able to muster a quorum of neurons on election day.
Re: (Score:2)
TOPPLE YOUR CRAPPY GOVERNMENT. Before it comes to Canada. Historically they push through all the fascist draconian policies there in Aus first as a test run before deployment in the rest of the commonwealth.
Uh, no they dont. Remember that Canada has the "piracy tax" whilst Oz doesn't.
Secondly, you'll find the source of both our law problems at the moment is external to the commonwealth, you know who they are and do you think they'll stop with us.
Re: (Score:2)
Politics: PR Style! (Score:1)