Australia Moves Toward New Restrictions On Technology Export and Publication 91
An anonymous reader writes Australia is starting a public
consultation process for new legislation that further restricts the
publication and export of technology on national security grounds. The
public consultation starts now (a few days before Christmas) and it is due
by Jan 30th while a lot of Australians are on holidays. I don't have the
legal expertise to dissect the proposed legislation, but I'd like some
more public scrutiny on it. I find particularly disturbing the phrase "The
Bill includes defences that reverse the onus of proof which limit the
right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty" contained in this
document, also available on the consultation web site.
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably worried about the Sony thing and can see egg or their face in Canberra considering all of the questionable things occurring presently down under.
Re: (Score:3)
So if some nice upstanding code monkey makes a few changes to, say, OpenSSL, the minute he uploads it to the repository, the Australian police are going to come down on him like a ton of bricks?
Meanwhile, some batshit crazy Iranian refugee can buy a gun...
Innovative sheepdips (Score:2, Flamebait)
Seriously: Australian technology?
Do the Chinese even raise sheep?
Re:Innovative sheepdips (Score:5, Informative)
CSIRO has been responsible for a number of important technological advancements. Heard of Wi-Fi? They invented that. But don't worry, the Australian government is hard at work dismantling this subversive organization.
Re: (Score:1)
Writing a standard is not the same thing as inventing spread spectrum communications.
Re:Innovative sheepdips (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't write the standard. They invented much of the error correction necessary for wifi to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did not, because the people who invented the relevant bits of Wi-Fi and brought them to the IEEE invented them before CSIRO did.
Re:Innovative sheepdips (Score:5, Insightful)
They did not, because the people who invented the relevant bits of Wi-Fi and brought them to the IEEE invented them before CSIRO did.
From my understanding CSIRO solved the key problems for microwave echo cancellation and invented the IC's that encapsulated the fast fourier transforms. Here is an article with a video if it is too long to read.
Certainly Australia probably doesn't have the innovative capacity of larger countries like the US/UK and Canada but for a country of 25 million but we do make significant contributions for a country whose conservative party is constantly ripping apart research and development funding and forcing us to be more dependent on other countries. 5 Billion dollars a year was taken from the IT sector alone way back in the nineties so any criticism of Australia's capacity to innovate is not indicative of our past performance, current capacity or future ability but the performance of our politicians whose vision for Australia is to be the worlds coal mine.
It wouldn't be the first time we've been made to wait for everyone at the finish line and wave them all past. In the meantime those of us who care will be forced to read this bill to understand what restrictions will be place on the capacity to innovate in the business sector now.
Re: (Score:2)
>From my understanding CSIRO solved the key problems for microwave echo cancellation and invented the IC's that encapsulated the fast fourier transforms. Here is an article with a video if it is too long to read.
You mean OFDM? Try googling "who invented OFDM". It dates back to the 60s.
I am one of the authors of 802.11 and 802.16 that both use OFDM. So are many other Slashdot readers.
Re:Innovative sheepdips (Score:4, Informative)
Then you would (or should) know that the CSIRO patent is specifically about dealing with interference caused by short-delay local multipath reflections in OFDM systems, not OFDM itself.
And you would know (or should be able to find out) when it was initially accepted into the IEEE patent pool for 802.11. Hint: it was right near the beginning, predating the parts of the standard that use the techniques by many years...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I remember the lawsuit.
Re:Innovative sheepdips (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently only the Ars hackjob version, or similar stories.
The Wikipedia section [wikipedia.org] is a reasonable rundown, athough it's not entirely accurate - it skips over some of the early history (like the initial 1992/1993 Australian patent/update), mentions nothing about the patent's acceptance into the 802.11 patent pool, skips quite a bit between the development of 802.11a and the patent lawsuit, and slightly misrepresents the state of Radiata at the time of the lawsuits...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>From my understanding CSIRO solved the key problems for microwave echo cancellation and invented the IC's that encapsulated the fast fourier transforms. Here is an article with a video if it is too long to read.
You mean OFDM? Try googling "who invented OFDM". It dates back to the 60s. I am one of the authors of 802.11 and 802.16 that both use OFDM. So are many other Slashdot readers.
I am honored to make your acquaintance.
As stated though, it seems the CSIRO invented the chips that made wi-fi commercially viable and invented the methods that provided the refinements required adequate throughput of data via wi-fi. I think the courts in the US decided in the CSIRO's favor and the article suggests that it was the CSIRO's management that decided to pursue the credit and much needed financial royalties associated with the invention.
Are you saying they are lying? Mindful of your contributi
Re: (Score:1)
Parents are very high up in CSIRO, they have had research stolen on them on a number of occasions, most recently by a Chinese citizen that was employed (in Canberra I believe) for a few months, during that time he collected as much as he could (which was a lot) and then high-tailed it back to China. This might have been avoided if any form of vetting had been done (apparently he was hired because he was cheap). Vetting is required at CSIRO for most administrative and managerial positions due to the sensitiv
Re: (Score:2)
Parents are very high up in CSIRO, they have had research stolen on them on a number of occasions
So what are you saying, that this proposed bill would have prevented that?
Re: (Score:3)
The Australian radio-astronomer John O'Sullivan developed a key patent used in Wi-Fi as a by-product in a CSIRO research project, "a failed experiment to detect exploding mini black holes the size of an atomic particle".
So a researcher at CSIRO developed some patentable technology during a research project, patented it, and then enforced their own patent?
That's how patents are meant to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think the Chinese already have found out about wi-fi.
Re: (Score:2)
Google "SILEX nuclear".
Re: (Score:1)
your ignorence is stunning ! we have to be creative because of our " low population " and distances !
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>This is one reason so many "American" companies are headquartered in Ireland.
But the primary reason is avoiding import tariffs into Europe, by residing in the most tax advantageous place in Europe (for a corp).
Atlas Took A Leak (Score:2)
What's there to translate? It will always end up being "We own your fucking asses, peons."
Tradition (Score:5, Funny)
Nice to see Australian politicians are getting back to their ancestral criminal roots.
because we all know Australia invents best crypto (Score:2)
The best spectacularly bad analogy I can think of is a law forbidding the export of water from your leaky submarine.
Dear Australia (Score:2)
I submitted a public comment even though I'm not Australian. :)
--
Dear Australia:
Congratulations from the USA on making the international news - apparently you're debating a new bill, which includes as part of it reversing the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
We've done some newsworthy things in the last decade about restricting freedoms and civil liberties, but no one on this side of the pond has dared touch that one yet.
The bill *does* make sense in a way -
Re: (Score:1)
Especially as it is supposed to be "innocent *unless* proven guilty"...
Re: (Score:3)
Hate to break it to you, but the US is way ahead of Australia in that regard.
If you ever get pulled over by a cop while carrying a large amount of cash on you, you'll find out the hard way.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you, but the US is way ahead of Australia in that regard.
If you ever get pulled over by a cop while carrying a large amount of cash on you, you'll find out the hard way.
Also we can record our cops.
For every traffic stop, my dash cam records audio. Plus because they use things like breathalisers, I cant be pulled out of my car because the officer "smelled beer on my breath", there is a standard of evidence to be upheld.
Not that I've ever had trouble with the cops. I get pulled over into an RBT (Random Breath Test) site about once a year and pull out a minute or two later with a "thanks for your co-operation sir". This is in my boy-racer Nissan Silvia S15 with fart can
The right to be presumed innocent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding... we lost the right to be presumed innocent years ago.
The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?
The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax. Where's the presumption of innocence there?
Citizens of the USA have given away most of their constitutional rights after being duped by a government that says that those rights must be surrendered to avoid massive terror attacks and Australia (plus NZ) have becom little more than lap-dogs to the US government.
Here in NZ, Kim Dotcom (love him or hate him) has had his assets seized and was incarcerated at the US government's whim -- even though he has not been convicted of any of the charges laid against him. Where's his right to be presumed innocent?
I'm afraid that the world in 2014 is a very sad place where most Western governments consider all their citizens to be enemies of the state unless they can prove otherwise.
The terrorists have won this war completely -- they have done what the Germans could not do in WW1 and WW2 -- they have taken our freedoms from us and we have surrendered them without a fight.
As Midnight Oil so wisely said: It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees -- what a shame our politicians don't get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about Australia, but in the US 'presumed innocent' does not mean, and has never meant, what you think.
Presumption of innocence simply means that the prosecution has the onus in a trial. They must prove you are guilty. The defense does not have to prove anything, they just poke holes in the prosecutions case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding... we lost the right to be presumed innocent years ago.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?
No. Police don't conduct criminal trials.
The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax. Where's the presumption of innocence there?
What crime have they found you guilty of? They make an assessment, if you don't agree with it you challenge it.
Citizens of the USA have given away most of their constitutional rights after being duped by a government that says that those rights must be surrendered to avoid massive terror attacks and Australia (plus NZ) have becom little more than lap-dogs to the US government.
You don't seem to understand what a constitutional right is. Or that the US, AU, and NZ have three totally different constitutions.
Here in NZ, Kim Dotcom (love him or hate him) has had his assets seized and was incarcerated at the US government's whim -- even though he has not been convicted of any of the charges laid against him. Where's his right to be presumed innocent?
In the courts. Any other questions?
I'm afraid that the world in 2014 is a very sad place where most Western governments consider all their citizens to be enemies of the state unless they can prove otherwise.
The terrorists have won this war completely -- they have done what the Germans could not do in WW1 and WW2 -- they have taken our freedoms from us and we have surrendered them without a fight.
As Midnight Oil so wisely said: It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees -- what a shame our politicians don't get it.
You do realize that the lead singer of Midnight Oil became a politician?
Re: (Score:1)
The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?
No. Presumption of guilt would be to lock you up, then later determine if you actually were drunk or not.
In the US, it was determined that police may stop vehicles for purposes of determining if driver is driving intoxicated. But they may not do anything else during these stops which includes searching your vehicle.
The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax. Where's the presumption of innocence there?
That has nothing to do with anything. There are things like courts that find you guilty or not, not "taxman". Taxman does not determine if you should go to jail for avoiding taxes.
Here in NZ, Kim Dotcom (love him or hate him) has had his assets seized and was incarcerated at the US government's whim -- even though he has not been convicted of any of the charges laid against him. Where's his right to be presumed innocent?
You should know
Re: (Score:2)
No. Presumption of guilt would be to lock you up, then later determine if you actually were drunk or not.
Presumption of guilt would be 'you have been accused of drunk driving, unless you can prove otherwise you are hereby convicted'.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Presumption of guilt would be to lock you up, then later determine if you actually were drunk or not.
Presumption of guilt would be 'you have been accused of drunk driving, unless you can prove otherwise you are hereby convicted'.
In Australia, if you get charged with DUI, the police have to have evidence. This can be in the form of a breathalyser reading or blood test but not in the form of "I smelled beer on his breath".
Once you're charged you have two options, the first is to contest it and take it to court. The second is to pay the fine which is considered an admission of guilt. Because the requirement for evidence for Australian Police is high, most opt not to go to court. High range DUI (over 0.08 BAC) has an automatic court
Re: (Score:2)
The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?
The "presumption of innocence" is where you begin in a US criminal trial.
It does not define the geek's every encounter with the law.
Driving a car or truck on the public roads is not a right but a privilege. It has never been out-of-bounds to demand proof of your sobriety or a show of your license.
Sigh, so many people dont understand the law. (Score:3)
The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse this privilege and it will be taken away from you.
If you dont like RBT's you have the choice not to drive. A lot of Australians like RBT's because it cuts down on drunk drivers. Whilst we're on that subject, you have no right to drink and drive.
That assessment is court admissible evidence that you do owe
Re: (Score:2)
The ATO makes rulings on what you owe, there is no innocent or guilty, simply your bill, if you want to dispute what you owe then it is on you to prove you don't owe that amount. If they wish to charge you with tax avoidance or another crime they are required to prove your guilt.
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege, you can completely avoid having to take a breath test by not driving.
finally presumption of innocence is for when you are on trial for a crime and is not now nor has it ever been intended a
Re: (Score:2)
"The police can set up a road-block and demand that drivers provide a breath test and proof of their license at any time. Isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence?"
Not really, it's just a requirement to be subject to testing. Like if there is a rule saying you have to take your car to the mechanic once a year to test the brakes and indicators, it's not presuming anything about you being guilty.
"The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be g
I don't see how this could possibly happen (Score:2)
"The Bill includes defences that reverse the onus of proof which limit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty"
How could this be? This would be completely counter to one of the most fundamental and commonly-stated protected in any civilized nation's bill of basic rights.
Oh, wait, I see the problem. [slashdot.org]
Next step... (Score:2)
And of course moving out of the country, or just going abroad for holiday or business certainly qualifies as exporting or publishing technology, if you happen to know anything which qualifies as restricted information. Australians, better move out while you can!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest EU countries of central Europe. That's such a mess that it will be very difficult to clamp certain basic freedoms down, especially considering how there are still people who experienced various dictatorships first hand. Of course non-EU citizen staying there would depend on your own country keeping your passport valid, but if things really got so bad that you would not get a new visa, you could probably apply for political asylum...
Horse. Barn Door. Open. (Score:1)
Once information has appeared in a public place anywhere, it's almost impossible to prevent it from being available ANYWHERE.
Sure, there are cases where the information seems so un-interesting that nobody will bother to copy it before the state manages to seize all copies of it. There are also cases where loyalty to the state (or employer, or church, or fraternity) is so strong that thousands of trusted people may have copies but they won't distribute them and you (the state/employer/church/fraternity offi
Overblown concern by the anonymous submitter (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, this isn't a general law, it's an amendment to the law governing foreign sales of military technology. It only applies if a specific technology is classified as solely defense or strategic. Yes that classification can be manipulated, but a court would have to be convinced that the classification is valid.
Secondly, the bill isn't doing away with the presumption of innocence globally. It is saying that if a person selling the regulated technology relies on the exceptions and regulations to decide whether it is safe to supply technology, that they have documented that reliance properly. Basically they want people to do their homework before handing classified military information over to a foreign actor. Seems fair enough.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
" It only applies if a specific technology is classified as solely defense or strategic"
Really ? Have you seen the list before talking ?
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00051
Is ridiculously broad, including things like "FPGA with more than 200 pins or 230,000 gates".
Basically ANYTHING could be construed as "defense or strategic" if the government wishes too.
This is the new legal trend : keep the law broad and vague so that, if someone annoys you, you can charge them of something, anything.
Also, doesn'
Re: (Score:2)
Being a software exporter, I was concerned by this post, so I went and read the material. Not all of it, but fairly large swathes of it. I'm actually a little bit disappointed that Slashdot would greenlight the original submission when the abstract is so sensational and misleading.
This is not a new bill... (Score:2)
This is not a new bill, it is an amendment to the "Defence Trade Controls Act 2012".
I see nothing to suggest that, say, exporting open source cryptographic software without a permit is more illegal under this bill than it is as things stand right now. I did 6 months working for Motorola doing software development back in 2005 or so and I remember they had training and stuff regarding export controls including export controls on cryptography.
The actual list of what is export controlled is the same list as us
Re: (Score:2)
I see nothing to indicate that the list in that link is significantly different to the export control list that has been in force for years.
Yes it restricts the export of a lot of stuff including nuclear stuff, electronics, computer gear, telecoms gear, aerospace and more but unless there is some big list of "stuff added to the export control list just recently" that I have missed, I dont see all that much that is now export-controlled under this new bill that wasn't export-controlled before.
National Stupidity.... (Score:2)
Abbreviates "NS"....
It is NOT just about encryption (Score:1)
I keep seeing comments that this only "affects encryption" and what a reasonable person would assume is military technology (i.e weapons).
It DOES not, please, please READ the list before talking :
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00051
Good morning Australia (Score:1)
This just in. After realizing the country is about to be bankrupt due to low employment and a aging population the Australian government figures out more ways to increase the brain drain.
Loosen the tin foil hat!!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously! Let the blood back into the brain your tin foil hat it killing you!
This is EXISTING legislation. AND the proposed changes tighten the definitions in most cases. Firstly they are removing the prohibition on talking to someone about it, now you actually have to supply the documentation or the item. Another is to allow a project to have the ability to release information not just an individual.
The publishing rule is being narrowed to be publishing only in direct contravention of a restriction or if something is specifically listed.
They have narrowed the brokering offence to only part 1 of the DSGL which are military use only items and changing brokering dual use items an offence only if you do it negligently or recklessly and the items will be used for WMD.
So rather than doing a Chicken Little, how about you stop making yourself look like an idiot and read.
Does anyone else think... (Score:1)
What technology does Australia export? (Score:1)