Australia Called Out as Willing To Undermine Human Rights For Digital Agenda (zdnet.com) 79
A report from AccessNow has asked Australia to change its course and lead the way in serving as a champion for human rights instead of against. From a report: Global human rights, public policy, and advocacy group AccessNow has called out Australia for its lack of focus on human rights as it adapts to the challenges of the digital era, with a report from the non-profit saying the country should instead be leading the way in serving as a champion for human rights. "Australia should be a global leader in serving as a champion for human rights, such as the right to privacy and rights to freedoms of expression and association," AccessNow said. "Unfortunately, Australia has taken actions that indicate the nation is willing to undermine human rights as it adapts to the challenges of the digital era."
In Human Rights in the Digital Era: An International Perspective on Australia [PDF], AccessNow says that as the digital world continues to develop, and technology increasingly becomes an "intimate part" of daily lives, Australians are facing a choice. "The country can either continue to be a testing ground for policies that undermine privacy and security in the digital era, or it can be a champion for human rights in the digital age, leveraging its relationships in the world to raise the standards for the next generation," the report says.
In Human Rights in the Digital Era: An International Perspective on Australia [PDF], AccessNow says that as the digital world continues to develop, and technology increasingly becomes an "intimate part" of daily lives, Australians are facing a choice. "The country can either continue to be a testing ground for policies that undermine privacy and security in the digital era, or it can be a champion for human rights in the digital age, leveraging its relationships in the world to raise the standards for the next generation," the report says.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia has a horrific human rights record, after the slaughter of the aboriginal peoples and confining them to a small area makes the way the USA treated the Native Americans look downright hospitable by comparison.
And since then?
Re: Summary doesn't say (Score:5, Insightful)
The Aussie government has still not dealt with the fact that tens of thousands of Aboriginal children were outright kidnapped from their families for a variety of purposes.
What exactly does "dealt with" mean?
It took a band, namely Midnight Oil, to hammer this stuff into the consciousness of the Aussie public, and most still ignored the blatant atrocities.
Hooray for consciousness! Problem solved, right?
Re: Summary doesn't say (Score:2)
I've never heard of a 12 step program that involves admitting that someone 50+ years ago had a problem, but OK, we got your step one covered. What's step 2?
Let me guess: "gimme money"?
Re: Summary doesn't say (Score:2)
It is a terrible thing when righteous indignation cripples one to the point where someone cannot use google.
It's a terrible thing when incompetence cripples one to the point that they think "hurr durr use google" is a phrase which can be used to degend any idiocy they personally believe.
"Of course the earth is flat! Use google!"
Thanks tips.
Re: (Score:3)
And some people are still trying to tell me that something that my grandfather might've done to their grandfather is something that I should apologize for.
That's a really good way of perpetuating inter-generational segregation.
Maybe we should be focusing more on what policies we could introduce today that give children the education and support they need to break the cycle of following blindly in the footsteps of their parents (toward drug addiction, prostitution and domicile in a region with zero employmen
Re: Summary doesn't say (Score:2, Informative)
Manus Island. Tampa Incident. Nauru. SIEV-X. Stolen Generations. New Norscia. Child imprisonment in the Northern Territory. Two strikes laws, also in NT. Thursday Island. Pacific Solution. Peter Dutton. Deporting of Australian children with tenuous NZ connections under terrorism laws. Timor Gap bullying. Failure on every social indicator for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
That should help bring you up to date.
There's more, but this is a start.
Re: (Score:1)
You had me at Dutton.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, more recently their treatment of foreign residents, legal or not, is completely shameful. The way a dual citizen can't be an MP, for instance - what's that about? The withdrawal of health care from permanent residents. The treatment of refugees. The - exile is the only word that really seems to fit, for minor criminal offences, of people who've been legally resident in Australia for 20 years or more.
(To clarify: imagine someone who came to Australia from New Zealand in 1993, aged 3, who is now convict
Re: (Score:2)
The way a dual citizen can't be an MP, for instance - what's that about?
To be fair, that came as a surprise to everyone. Really, though, that's a major inconvenience if you're an MP, but it's an odd one to open with, considering everything else you mentioned, plus all the stuff you didn't.
Re: Summary doesn't say (Score:1)
The guests being hospitable to their hosts.
Something is very wrong here.
But it is true that Canberra acts as if the aboriginal population did not exist.
They also don't care much about what ther voters think of their policies.
Re: (Score:3)
Human ones. Did you not read the summary?
Re:Summary doesn't say (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual article tells me that the rights under discussion are things like the right to not have the government use biometric data (e.g., "face recognition"). I'm not sure that this is widely recognized as one of the fundamental human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it bluntly, AccessNow seems to accuse the Australian legislators for not doing their jobs, or being stupid and illiterate.
On behalf of Australia: Yeah, we knew that much already.
Re:Summary doesn't say (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, I read TFA for you guys, you can thank me later.
They are worried about privacy and freedom of speech/association. In particular the government is trying to bring in some anti-encryption laws that would mandate backdoors and step up domestic surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
It started when they took everyones guns away...and now, the govt will start to progress a bit further to take more freedoms/rights away from the populace.
Re: (Score:2)
It started when they took everyones guns away...and now, the govt will start to progress a bit further to take more freedoms/rights away from the populace.
You are bang on right. After the Port Arthur massacre [wikipedia.org] a wave of legislative changes began, starting with the aggregation of the parliamentary voting system in the lower house to corral voting preferences to the major parties. It's been all down hill since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the police openly carry guns.
And security guards.
No military style weapons at all.
It depends what you mean by "military style", but yes. Category D includes most non-fully-auto firearms that most countries consider to be "military style" (centrefire rifles, self-loading or pump-action shotguns over 5 rounds capacity, semi-auto rimfire rifles over 10 rounds capacity), and they are available to those who need one for their job such as farmers and professional hunters.
Contrary to what American marketers would have you believe, non-professional sporting shooters don't act
Re: (Score:2)
No it didn't.
It started when pine gap was opened in Australia, well before they "took our guns away".
(Sidenote: you can still get guns in Australia. It's actually not that hard to get a license if you want one)
Australia's value to our allies isn't just our elite special forces troops (I understand our SAS have a particularly good reputation for their work, but I'm sure the same could be said of a few other countries). It is our unique position in spying on the southern hemisphere. See, Australia started out
Australia needs to clap back (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly, Australia needs to clap back before the Internet gets broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, Australia needs to clap back before the Internet gets broken.
If you've ever used the internet in Australia you'll realise that ship has sailed.
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
That’s a content free post. Better headline "Advocacy group offers vague complaints"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We're dedicated to bringing sunshine and mild temperatures to humanity! Donate to my foundation. Don't let the corporate overlords take away the sun!
Re: (Score:2)
We're dedicated to bringing sunshine and mild temperatures to humanity! Donate to my foundation. Don't let the corporate overlords take away the sun!
Seems legit. I have no need of details. Here, take some money.
Re: (Score:2)
shuddup and take my money!
Re: (Score:2)
Some benighted people still aren't donating. Those ignorant deniers don't believe in the sun!
Re: (Score:2)
But the sun gives off (gasp) RADIATION!!!! And ANY amount of radiation is dangerous!!!
Help Stamp Out The Sun now!!!!
[this message brought to you by SOTS... parodying anti-nuke sentiment since 1981]
Re: (Score:2)
Australia may be willing to violate human rights. Maybe. Someday. In the future. It's possible.
Outcome (Score:1)
1. Government recognises people have a right to protect their comms and sees this as a good thing.
2. People will all be criminals by dint of using strong encryption anyway
* People will continue to use strong encryption regardless of what the law states. Strong laws against crypto will simply drive comms underground, making it more difficult for everyone to communicate and for righteous law enforcement efforts to be successful. We are headed for doomsday as regards the Internet/WWW. More and more people want
Right to freedom of speech vs communication. (Score:2)
I know that some people on slashdot might be able to have some interesting ideas on this.
So I was thinking about it and thought I would pose the question.
Is there a difference between the right to freedom of speech ( which is to say the right to say what you want without punishment or restriction).
and
The right to use public broadcast equipment like the internet to exercise that right.
Specifically I'm thinking about the internet as a tool that amplifies the effects of ones actions. As another example of wh
Re: Right to freedom of speech vs communication. (Score:1)
Any restrictions to speech are no different on the net than in a public square. Slander and defamation are the same in cyberspace and meatspace.
You say the internet is an amplifier of speech. You seem to forget that anyone on the internet has the same possibilities as long as they have access. This in contrast to broadcast media and the printing press. But this equality is constantly threatened.
And it doesn't apply to those who don't have access. Essentially they don't have a voice. And as such any freedom
Re: Right to freedom of speech vs communication. (Score:2)
Or the plo could have used the Internet to organize a larger more clandestine
attack
Re: (Score:1)
A clandestine attack has to be the most stupid way of drawing attention to your situation that I ever heard of.
Re: (Score:1)
There are two kinds of rights: positive and negative.
A negative right is a right that can only be denied or taken away from you. This includes such things as free speech and religion.
A positive right is something that must be given to you to exist. For example, in order to have a right to medical care, it must be given to a person. Of course, this may mean that something (specifically, a negative and/or other positive right) has to be forcibly taken from someone else in order to ensure the fulfillment of
Re: Right to freedom of speech vs communication. (Score:3)
Interesting, but not really what I was asking? Does the use of the Internet come with a greater responsibility then normal speech because of the way it amplifieshould your speach and audience.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
A limit to a right should only exist where the exercise of that right infringes upon someone else's right. The 'right to swing my fist ends with your nose' kind of thing.
If I have rights to freedom of speech or expression, they may be limited by location. I can be asked to leave private property if what I am saying is unwelcome. My use of a megaphone may well amplify my ability to be heard, but is immaterial for determining whether I should be limited in my right or not.
Your use of a gun to defend yourse
Re: Right to freedom of speech vs communication. (Score:2)
Thanks some good bits of thought in there.
In your example of the use of a megaphone your freedom of speech is limited by someone else right to have quite and not hear you.
So does the fact that your drunk ramblings on reddit might inspire some crazy person to commit murder 5 years later, put it in a different category then your drunk rambling in your family home.
Re:Right to freedom of speech vs communication. (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on the country in question.
In the US, they way it is supposed to work is...that the government does NOT grant you rights, you are born with them.
The US constitution is there not to grant you rights, but to enumerate the limited powers and responsibilities for the federal govt. It is stated aside from these, that most of the law and rules comes from the states and local governments.
And basically, most any new thing man figures how to do, is by your BORN (or God given, if you believe that way) right inherently, unless it is regulated or banned by law.
So, the internet, it was a new thing and you inherently have the right to use it as you please for any speech or expression that isn't illegal (kiddie pr0n for example).....this comes as a benefit of being born a human, it is not granted to you by the government.
Re: Right to freedom of speech vs communication. (Score:2)
Sure, but even inborn rights have limitsome and a certain order as I pointed out. For instance your right to self defense can be limited by the potential for collateral damage in the means you choose to defend yourself. So my question was, does the Internet have the same limits as everyday speech or should there be stronger limits and greater responsibility for its use because of the extra power it imparts to you communication ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a prison colony, actually. The government can't break the habit of tossing the residents' cells.
Their citizen - Julian Assange - BRING HIM HOME ! (Score:2)
Assange is an Australian citizen and he personifies the intersection of Human Rights and the "Digital Agenda".
Now that Sweden has dropped its case, he should be free -- except that the British government now insists on prosecuting him for bail violations (and then extradite him to Trumpistan).
It would be simple under existing treaties for the Australian government to step in and BRING HIM HOME to face a relatively fair trial for whatever he is alleged to have done.
Lobbying the Australian Government (Score:2)
I've been lobbying the Australian government for 25 years on freedom of speech, association and censorship issues. As Australia does not have a bill of rights many really bad laws are attempted here so our populace has to be alert all the time. Unfortunately most don't because, lets face it, it's complicated and frustrating work - exactly what the govt. depends on so they have a path of minimum resistance.
Even though I really love Australia, I'll call my country out for being cunts, bottom line really, b