Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Australian Gov't Drops Plan To Snoop On Internet Use — For Now 67

Posted by timothy
from the condense-to-just-prevent-debate dept.
CuteSteveJobs writes "Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has been forced to back down on her government's unpopular plan to force ISPs to store the web history and social networking of all Australians for two years. The plan has been deeply unpopular with the public, with hackers attacking the government's spy agency. Public servants at the spy agency promoting the scheme been scathing of the government, saying: 'These reforms are urgently needed to deal with a rapidly evolving security environment, but there isn't much appetite within the government for anything that attracts controversy,' but a document on the scheme released under the Freedom of Information Act had 90% of it redacted to prevent 'premature unnecessary debate.' Roxon hasn't dropped the unpopular scheme entirely, but only delayed it until after the next election."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Gov't Drops Plan To Snoop On Internet Use — For Now

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 11, 2012 @10:45AM (#40957071)

    "90% of it redacted to prevent "premature unnecessary debate."

    Democracy at its finest....

    • It's quite disgusting really.
    • It's only a billion times more open than the US's IP treaty negotiation policy, which is 100% redaction.

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @05:09PM (#40959983) Journal

      That is exactly how bad laws get railroaded through the process.

      "More specifically, it is information concerning the development of government policy which has not been finalised, and there is a strong possibility that the policy will be amended prior to public consultation," [The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez] wrote.

      The problem with this statement is that, if the first time you get to have input on a law is during the public consultation period, it's too late.
      By that point, months if not years of work and lobbying have gone into the legislation.
      That's why the flameouts of SOPA and PIPA were so shocking to the copyright lobby.

    • by vlad30 (44644) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @07:12PM (#40960653)
      No surprise its a extremely left wing government democracy privacy and what voters want is last on there list of priorities. Additionally "after the next election" also means her successor will have to deal with it, she will be lucky to keep her seat let alone her current job.
      • by 1u3hr (530656)

        its a extremely left wing government democracy privacy and what voters want is last on there list of priorities.

        "Extremely left wing"? Compared to General Pinochet, possibly. In the real world, slightly left of centre. Australia hasn't had a real left wing government since 1975

        Would an "extremely left wing" government kowtow to the US so consistently?

  • Good to see the right thing has been done, for now at least.
  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @11:21AM (#40957349) Journal

    > a document...had 90% redacted to "prevent premature unnecessary debate."

    I think they meant to "prevent mature, necessary debate on who will be elected next election."

  • assume (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @11:28AM (#40957391) Journal
    I think we can all safely assume that every government regardless of locale will try to restrict it's citizens rights to the point that the citizens have to respond to stop them. This is the default criteria for a government in the first place. We all know that this will creep back in a little while when the issue becomes less volatile. The only real way to stop it is by acceptance or revolution (e.g. american revolution). I don't forsee any polititians being strung up in trees so it is the fault of the public. You get the government you deserve.
    • Re:assume (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shavano (2541114) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @11:43AM (#40957533)

      I think we can all safely assume that every government regardless of locale will try to restrict it's citizens rights to the point that the citizens have to respond to stop them. This is the default criteria for a government in the first place. We all know that this will creep back in a little while when the issue becomes less volatile. The only real way to stop it is by acceptance or revolution (e.g. american revolution). I don't forsee any polititians being strung up in trees so it is the fault of the public. You get the government you deserve.

      No, when the government is elected in open elections, citizens can get what they want without revolution. In the USA, we used to have an assault weapons ban (a measure many Americans found sensible). But it was allowed to expire because the National Rife Association heavily lobbied Congress to make sure it sunsetted. This is not about spying, but it is about removal of a restriction that was removed because many Americans wanted it removed. If you can get enough people interested, you can enact practically anything. Arguably, those in favor of repealing the ban were not even a majority. They were well-organized and well-financed, though.

      That's the key thing. Citizens have to care about the issue. Most citizens are ambivalent about security-vs.-surveillance.

      • by Kjella (173770)

        That's the key thing. Citizens have to care about the issue. Most citizens are ambivalent about security-vs.-surveillance.

        It's more the threat perception, yes you can point to all the nasty stuff that happened with MLK and the civil liberties union or McCarthyism or in the Soviet Union or fascist Europe but to most people that's ancient history from the 1900s, neither the communist nor neonazist ideology hold any real sway in western countries. Sure there's quite a few undemocratic countries but they're not talking about an international socialist revolution like the Soviets did, nor does anyone look likely to want to start WW

  • by Jeeeb (1141117) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @05:52PM (#40960211)

    So the internet filter was dropped and the government has been absolutely silent on it since then. We're not going to have browser history data retention laws. iiNet won its case and was found not responsible for its users copyright infringement and we haven't seen any government attempts to introduce French/NZ three-strikes or similar laws since then either. Oh and finally games are going to get an R-rating.

    All in all, Australian democracy has worked quite well these last few years and the Australian internet is looking pretty free compared to a lot of other western countries. Oh and work on the nation wide fibre optic network continues as well.

    • But the future doesn't look so bright. Opinion polling has the conservatives set to gain government at the next election. Australian mainstream media is on the whole very conservative so the information that gets to the general public is very thin and distorted. One of the highest priorities for the conservatives is trashing the NBN. Labor can't be trusted with censorship, however the conservatives are far worse, with at track record of always siding with their friends in the secret services. The Intelligen
    • by Dan541 (1032000)

      The Australian Federal Government intervene when people post offensive content on Facebook.

      Google "Aboriginal Memes" and you'll find plenty of talk about it.

      • by Jeeeb (1141117)
        Meh all that's happened so far is a bunch of ministers have expressed the sentiment that Facebook should delete racists material from its website. Personally, I support their right to express that sentiment. If they go and make laws requiring websites to delete content deemed offensive on request then it will be a different issue all together but that hasn't happened so far.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ASIO can bitch and moan all the want but honestly, there's no way they should have more power than they currently have. Why should they be able to monitor us to the levels they are talking about? There has been no need to up until now and there will continue to be no need to into the future. Any organisation or group has to have a physical point of presence and that is the realm in which ASIO should be working. Warrants for wiretap and warrants for seizure of equipment/servers already exist. It is enough.

  • There's no privacy any more - I'm pretty sick of it.
  • Cut out the Middle man.

    When internet snooping / warrantless data searches were proposed in Canada the people just sent all their daily search histories. tweets and cc'd the Minister on all their emails. So much data was coming into the parliamentary mail servers they had to be shut down. The bill was pulled after first reading and sent to committee, which is not the usual procedure, where it is expected to die when this session of parliament ends.

  • by Spacejock (727523) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @11:36PM (#40961797) Homepage
    Judging by the polls, in 2013 the Australian Labor Party will be handed the biggest caning in the history of Aussie politics. Roxon won't be in power to enact this legislation, and Conroy (Mr Internet Filter) will be out on his ear too. So, where the ALP and their policies are concerned, 'after the next election' equates to 'once hell freezes over'.
    • by SQL Error (16383)

      If we see anything like the recent Queensland state election there'll barely be a Labor Party left.

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas

Working...