Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Piracy Privacy Your Rights Online

Australian Government Redacts Anti-Piracy Consultation Paper 56

Posted by samzenpus
from the on-second-thought dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Government Redacts Anti-Piracy Consultation Paper

Comments Filter:
  • Backlash made them rethink it? Or just pretending to go back on it, to reveal it all at the last moment again?
    • by Cryacin (657549)
      More like the cheque hasn't cleared yet.
      • 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.

    • by Sulphur (1548251)

      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)

      by jezwel (2451108)

      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

      • 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.

  • by bryan1945 (301828) on Sunday October 16, 2011 @03:39PM (#37732630) Journal

    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.

    • 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 ...

  • 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)?

    • The latter, and then complain about those evil pirate hackers who figured out how to read the censored text.

      • by PPH (736903)
        Why not just outlaw highlight, copy and paste functions as tools of DRM circumvention. Violating WIPO treaties and prohibited (in the USA) by the DMCA.
    • by crutchy (1949900)
      politicians aren't that good at using a word processor - they'll probably outsource any redacting to a contractor
    • by mjwx (966435)

      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.

    • by sempir (1916194)

      Why are they redacting this document? Who dacted it wrongly in the first place? Do they not teach dacting in Australian Law Schools?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Down the memory hole.

  • 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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • by fostware (551290)

      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

      • by mjwx (966435)

        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.

        • by fostware (551290)

          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...

          • by mjwx (966435)

            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.

        • 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.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      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.

  • Typical of the current Australian government, a politically sensitive policy that is redacted, classified or somehow protected as a trade secret. Rather than face legitimate scrutiny by the people paying for the project, the Australian government is currently more interested in public relations rather than developing sound policy.

Real Users never know what they want, but they always know when your program doesn't deliver it.

Working...