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This discussion has been archived.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....

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 11, 2012 @11:30AM (#40957407)

    So in other words, you're one of those people that had kids and lost all sense of reason (or you just never had a sense of reason) and now you're falling for every "give up your freedom to save the children" call. It's truly tragic when that happens. You're really not making the rest of us parents look good. I honestly hope you were just trolling.

    No, I don't want to give up my freedom or privacy to save the children from some (nonexistent) threat. Come up with a scheme that doesn't punish everyone. Since you're always, always thinking of the children, that should be simple for you.

  • by martin-boundary (547041) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @11:34AM (#40957447)

    Whoever moderated this -1 Overrated is clearly violating the moderation rules. It is clear -1 Overrated is for posts that have been already moderated. At the time, it had not. These is clearly done to prevent metamod, and to shut down clearly an ontopic opinion which the moderator did not agree, another violation. I see this quite often with opinions that do not jibe with the groupthink on this site.

    That's the problem with policing the internet. You get parties who believe there should be rules that they invent, that may have nothing to do with the rules that are already in place on a particular forum. And these parties decide to police their new rules everywhere they think that those rules should be applied.

  • by Merls the Sneaky (1031058) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @04:14PM (#40959707)

    How about do some fucking parenting. Do not expect the government to trash everything others enjoy to do it for you?

    As a father of a ten year old son I allow him free access to the internet. I do that because I have taught him the "rules" of the internet, and I trust him to do the right thing. I constantly monitor his usage and have NEVER had to have an uncomfortable conversation about his activities using it. This is after six years of him having net access.

    I do not filter anything, because I actively parent. Maybe you should try it before advocating government spying on it's populace without warrant or cause.

  • 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 Dr Damage I (692789) on Saturday August 11, 2012 @06:48PM (#40960519) Journal

    This is nonsense. If I have a conversation with someone, the government has no right to a transcript of that discussion regardless of whether that discussion takes place in my home, a cafe, a public street or on an internet forum. The government cannot bug my home without a court order and the internet should be no different. The government already has the ability to search through the publicly accessible areas of the internet for information about my activities and this is analogous to law enforcement "watching and patrolling". What you are proposing is analogous to allowing police to randomly search peoples homes because a lot of our actions, interactions and transactions are conducted in our homes.

    As a parent, the responsibility to protect your children is yours not mine. If you find the internet to be so hazardous that you are unable to properly protect them, don't allow them to use it. Easy.

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Working...