Australia Spying On Its Own 474
AVIDLY INTERESTED writes: "Well well, the Australian government has been caught out spying on its own citizens, despite denying for years that they do this type of thing. This story at The Age shows that the Defence Signals Directorate listens to just about every bit of communications in Australia. The interesting thing about this story is the background to it. In this case the govt spied because they were trying to win an election, and needed evidence to demonise a ship that was docking in Australia carrying a bunch of refugees. National security be damned, this is echelon for political gain. Is it happening anywhere else?"
Australia: The new France? (Score:3, Insightful)
Australia in recent years seems to have taken a turn for the worst. I'm a libertarian, but I can definitely say that Australia stinks of 'Liberalism' right now. Is the country run by a bunch of soccer moms who are scared their kids are going to be raped if everyone in the country isn't kept under constant surveillance? Probably.
Australia is advocating a 'no-privacy' state.. and I can't help but think that that stance will put off a lot of companies from doing business there.
Re:Australia: The new France? (Score:2)
Do some research and you will see that Australia is run by the right -- Conservatives not liberals.
Re:Australia: The new France? (Score:2, Informative)
>Do some research and you will see that Australia is run by the right -- Conservatives not liberals.
Just to be more confusing - the Conservatives are called the Liberals. http://liberal.org.au [liberal.org.au]
Liberalism? (Score:3, Informative)
Liberalism is seldom associated with increased surveilance and invasions of personal liberties: Quite the opposite in fact. Most "soccer moms" who call for greater and greater restraints and government controls are conservatives. A liberal approach to things is live and let live. A conservative approach to things is "live the way we see as the best way to live".
Re:Liberalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, to the confusion of all concerned, the political party currently in power here is called the Liberal Party, thus the previous poster's comment. The Liberal Party should actually be called the "Rich Conservative Bastards" party, which would cover most of their points of view.
The current leader of our lucky country is a man named John Howard (you seppos might have seen him on your tvs recently, trying to act like Australia was actually important to the rest of the world - most of us aren't under such illusions). Little Johnnie is of the opinion that Australia would be entirely better off if we were to wind the morals and values of the society as a whole back to 1950 - eg, he opposed single women orlesbian couples getting IVF. Not a proper family he said, ignoring the thousands upon thousands of broken homes that fuck the kids up far worse...
Anyway, it's not like anyone here really cares about Australian politics. Most of us aussies don't, why should you? (=
The Australian conservative party = `The Liberals' (Score:2)
In Australia the main conservative party are called `The Liberals'. Hence the confusion.
Re:Liberalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?
You are thinking of the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority conservative Republicans there, bucko my boy.
"I tend to run on the conservative side, because I think that government should not be allowed to invade privacy on a whim. "
Oh you mean you are liberal, like myself.
You've really got your terms confused.
"But I think the definitions are fairly unbiased and true. (I'm sure many will disagree with that, too)"
Well at least you admit to your biased misrepresentation of the facts.
Re:Liberalism? (Score:3)
I based my definitions on the political actions of those that attribute themselves to the those leaning. (a mouthful, I know)
The Left in the United States constantly call for more healthcare, welfare, and social security benefits, paid for by taxes. If this is not socialism, I'm not sure what your definition of socialism is.
From dictionary.com:
socialism n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
As I implied earlier, Liberals tend to try and regulate business (Implied by the statement that conservatives tend to DEregulate business).
You are thinking of the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority conservative Republicans there, bucko my boy.
These groups are not trying to socialize our economy, but tend to try and legislate morality. I don't agree with this either, but that does not make me a Liberal. BOTH sides have tried to legislate their own brand of morality, the right through censorship of porn and books, and the left through censorship of ideas and words with "political correctness". As I said, I don't agree with either.
If you have different definitions I'd love to hear them.
Re:Liberalism? (Score:2)
One of the unfortunate problems with the political system in the United States right now is people like you who have no critical thinking skills. You listen to what Rush Limbaugh tells you, and believe every word of it.
I just can't imagine how your original bullshit got modded up. More dittoheads I guess.
Re:Liberalism? (Score:2)
Conservatism (at least here in te USA) calls for the creation of a theocracy "for the good of the citizen".
Oh, does that statement unfairly paint all conservatives with the same brush? Am I making generalizations based on the beliefs of only a few who claim to be conservative? Then I'd appreciate not being lumped together with socialists. Liberals are as varied as conservatives.
Signed, a Liberal.
Completely false. (Score:4, Informative)
Liberalism has a meaning. It is a political philosophy that puts individual liberty and freedom as the natural and desired state of human beings, and dictates that burden of proof must always fall on any person or law that infringes on individual liberty in any way (that is, speed limits are ok even though the limit freedom, as long as we can show that they do great good to make up for it.)
Liberalism should be contrasted to a conservative political philosophy, which means that the burden of proof always falls on people and laws that change the current situation. That is if there is currently a law that infringes on peoples freedom, the liberal will say, "Show me why we need this law, or I will get rid of it," while the conservative says, "Show me why we would be better off without this law, or it stays."
It makes my skin crawl every time I hear an American attacking liberals as wanting less freedom and more laws. If somebody wants that then they are BY DEFENITION not liberal, regardless of what they, the media, their opponents, or anybody else says. Nor does liberalism have anything to do with socialism, which is a political system (not really a philosophy) that tries to even out social injustices. There are people who combine the two under the argument that people without money are having their basic freedoms infringed by the economic system, but that is neither universally held nor in any way inherent to being a liberal.
If you think that, all things equal, people should be as free to do whatever they want as is possible, then you are liberal. It doesn't matter if you find that hard to swallow because you are American and don't like the people who call themselves liberals around you, or whether you despise Al Gore, or whatever. Get over it, and learn the meaning of term before you attack it.
Re:Completely false. (Score:2)
You are correct, it isn't. The American Democtatic party has some very unliberal policies. This is not a secret to anybody except Americans who apparently thought it was more convenient to misunderstand the term "liberal" instead of accepting it.
The political philosophy that you have described is libertarianism, not liberalism.
Absolutely not. Libertarianism is a liberal political ideal in some areas, but it goes far beyond liberalism in it's absolutist attitudes regarding things like private property.
Re:Completely false. (Score:2)
The only people who claim the Democrats are pure Liberals is Rush Limbaugh dittoheads. Weren't you paying attention to Ralph Nader in the 2000 election?
"The Democratic Party is trying to expand government power at an ever increasing rate."
And the Republican Party is different in what way?
"they deny the individual the opportunity to decide for themselves how their hard-earned money is spent."
The people already decided. Were you not around for September 11th? The people decided that they wanted their hard-earned money spent on increased security. Get rid of morons guarding our airports and install qualified personnel. That's why the National Guard is there today, and guess who pays for their presence?
"This is a limitation of their freedom."
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
We also have border patrols preventing the freedom of movement of non-US citizens. Is that wrong as well? We could sure save everybody a lot of money by not paying those people.
The Declaration of Independence starts out with a phrase "We the people..." and goes from there. Any government is a collective whereby the people give up certain rights and freedom in order to attain economic and physical security.
The principles inherent in the United States is that "We the people..." have a say in defining how our collective operates. That was a very Liberal concept at the time of it's creation, in a world where most people were ruled by king or some other authoratarian.
It's ridiculous for you to argue that we should not have discussions about federalizing airport security because it limits freedoms. It is most obviously clear that all laws and decisions of the government limits freedoms. Do you want to eliminate all laws? I doubt it, even most Libertarians aren't that bad.
This is again the problem when people do not think for themselves but instead suck up the bullshit fed to them on talk radio.
Re:Completely false. (Score:2)
The other poster already pointed out that sometimes the greater good of the populace is upheld by laws that limit freedom. There is a burden of proof required to pass such a law, and that is why we have political debate.
Is your freedom worth ten's of thousands of lives? I don't know, maybe. Would gun control laws do any good? I don't know, maybe. That's all part of the debate.
But that debate cannot happen in an intelligent fashion when you try to polarize the issues involved.
Re:Completely false. (Score:2, Informative)
The original terms come from Britain - the Liberals (Whigs) and the Conservatives (Tories) duked it out for most of the 19th century. (The British Liberal Party still exists today but it is really minor as the main contest now is between the Conservative and Labour Parties). In fact, the Liberals were famous for promoting a "laissez faire" philosophy of letting market forces rule the economy. The stuff about government regulation and welfare came from the Labour Party, which grew out of the trade union movement.
Of course, things have changed since then but the basic rule is that liberals believe in small government and individual freedom.
The Australian Liberal Party is "liberal" in the sense that they ostensibly believe in small government (although their actions belie this) and they belive in the rights of the states (Australia like the US is a federation). But in the main they are quite socially conservative, so their name is commonly regarded as a misnomer.
The main alternative in Australian politics is the Australian Labor Party, which is more democratic socialist or what you Yanks incorrectly call "liberal". It is not really "liberal" because it's about big government and welfare but it does tend to be more "liberal" when talking about individual rights. They are more socially progressive, for example letting gay couples adopt children or single women seek IVF treatment.
I guess the same is generally true of the US Democratic and Republican parties.
Today when you talk about economics, "liberalism" or "neo-liberalism" refers to free trade - lowering tariffs etc. This is now such a mainstream doctrine that it is a fairly conservative one, in the sense of maintaining the status quo.
I personally do not feel these terms are particularly useful. This discussion shows what a lot of disagreement there is about their meanings. It also depends on what axis you measure things. Liberal vs Conservative is not the same as Left-wing vs Right-wing, which is not the same as Communist vs Fascist or Anarchist vs Libertarians.
The interesting thing is that - at the extremes each political philosophy starts to resemble each other. Eg. Communists are left-wing and Fascists are right-wing but in practice they are both about authoritarianism. Another Eg., Libertarians are regarded as right-wing and Anarchists as left-wing. However, they come to largely the same conclusions (but for quite different reasons).
The truth is that every political party mixes political philosophies in different ways.
Re:Liberalism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Liberalism? (Score:2)
But I do speak respectfully, O mighty one of the smiting thunderbolts.
In my humble mortal opinion, one is liberal with one's own polices and conservative with another's. At least that is the way in America. We call "Liberal" Conservatives "Radicals" You ever see a conservative want to keep the "status quo" when the status quo wasn't his or her cup of tea? Ever see a liberal liberal with the opinions of pro lifers, or gun control?
Labeling people under one umbrella is dangerous because it allows people to make blanket assumptions about individuals that might not be true. For instance. Conservative senator mcain has come up with some very "liberal" views these past years (term limits, campaign finance reform, patients bill of rights) and is even seen as a betrayor of his own political conservatism because of his views. Some "conservatives" have even asked him to step down from his senate seat because they feel he has deceived him with his "liberal" views.
However, I don't think that Ted Kennedy is ready to invite him to the Kennedy complex just yet for Yahtzee. Anyway, Polytheistic deities should read more not just parrot what he/she hears mere mortals say.
Re:Liberalism? (Score:2)
That is the situation we have in the United States. We have terribly ineffecient use of tax dollars in this nation because our two parties can't figure out how to compromise and come up with programs that work.
Instead every two years we switch directions and do the exact opposite just to prove the other guy was wrong.
Re:Australia: The new France? (Score:2, Interesting)
Australia in recent years seems to have taken a turn for the worst. I'm a libertarian, but I can definitely say that Australia stinks of 'Liberalism' right now. Is the country run by a bunch of soccer moms who are scared their kids are going to be raped if everyone in the country isn't kept under constant surveillance? Probably.
Yes. His name is John Howard, and he lives in an imaginary utopian world circa 1950. His crowning achievement in this country is that he introduced a chronically confused goods and services tax, after stating categorically that he would never do so, which is slowly throttling small business in this country. Oh, and he lived with mummy until he was 31.
Unfortunately, he somehow won the Federal election late last year, largely on the back of his stance on illegal boat people post-September 11. Which is what the
And John, if the DSD passes this little missive on to you, I won't be voting for you next time either.
Liberal, libertarian, Conservative, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, the poster declared himself to be a 'libertarian', a libertarian, in the US is someone who believes in little government interference and that type of thing, it's a term only really used in the US, as far as I know. And he called what the Australian government's actions "liberal", now I'm guessing he means "liberal" in the US sense, rather then say, the British sense. Now, to make things extra-confusing "Liberal" in the US and "Liberal" outside the US mean opposite things. In the US the Democratic party is called "Liberal" and the republican party is called "Conservative". In the rest of the world, the republican party would be called "Liberal". Liberals out side favor liberty and the like. In the US, liberals are liberal with government money: P.
The term 'libertarian' thus came about here, because people who favored liberty but didn't think the republican party was any good needed something to call themselves. They couldn't use "liberal" because it was already in use by people who they even more strongly disagreed with, thus "libertarian" was minted.
To make things extra confusing partisans, people who identify strongly with a particular labeled viewpoint (like liberal, conservative, fascist, communist, whatever) tend to label things they don't like as being in the opposite camp. This libertarian here called the AU's listening "liberal" in the US sense (I think), because he didn't like it.
Personally I don't think listening to almost everyone in the AU has any particular political slant other then "Sleazy", and of course "Very, very disturbing", (although you might be able to say its "reactionary").
Anyway, let me know of any mistakes I've made. Personally I think we should choose new names in the US for these terms to make intercontinental communication easier.
Re:Liberal, libertarian, Conservative, etc. (Score:2)
There is no libertarian movement in the UK as such. And the only 'liberal' party is called the 'Liberal Democrats' which adds further to the confusion! They seem to hold both libertarian views as well as a few socialist ideas.. so it's a bit of both.
It's hard to define all of these terms because a lot of people use the standard 'Left, Middle, Right' way of defining a party's 'position' in the political world. You could say that the Libertarians are smack bang in the middle.. but this ground is also covered by partly-left partly-right liberal parties who are in favor of big government (the Democrats).
Either way, politics.. it's all BS really.
Definition of a 'Soccer Mom' (Score:2)
I might not be 100% right, but the term 'soccer mom' refers to a mother whose kids play soccer, and who lives out their lives through their kids successes on the pitch. They generally drive SUVs (4x4's for us Brits) and are constantly driving their kids to soccer practice, school, Gap, and piano lessons. They are generally liberal in the US sense.. that is, they'll vote for anyone who will pass laws that will protect their children and damn any freedom lost in the process.
And, unlike in the UK, soccer in the US is as common with girls as boys, so the term 'soccer mom' can encompass mothers with children of either gender.
They're starting to become popular in the UK too, but we don't have a name for them yet. I'm sure you've seen plenty of tiny affluent mothers dropping their perfect kids off at schools in their gigantic 4 by 4s. That's them.
Offcourse (Score:2, Interesting)
Whenever power is in reach or at stake, people will use every possible trick to grab or hold it. Including spy technologies.
See also : Darwinism, survival of the fittest.
Note : I don't approve of it, it's just that I don't pretend to be flabbergasted by the discovery that politicians are corrupt crooks.
Of course it's happening elsewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Or Even Worse (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." -- Senator Frank Church
The question is whether it's too late to go back.
Except... (Score:2)
I can still "flog the dolphin" whenever my roomate leaves the room and no one's the wiser... of course, I have to use the mere 4GB of pr0n I already have on my HDD. *sigh*
Re:Or Even Worse (Score:2)
Re:Or Even Worse (Score:2, Insightful)
How about a law that goes something like "Use of encryption is considered a terrorist act and is punishable by death"? Are you going to risk using encryption then?
Without getting into whether or not something like this would actually ever happen, my answer is yes, I would still use encryption. If there weren't people willing to give their lives for what they believe in, where would we be today? Things would certainly be very different.
Living your life in fear of death is not the way to happiness. We are all impermanent anyway, why worry about the inevitable?
"How wonderful! How wonderful! All things are perfect exactly as they are!" -- The Buddha
A government represents its voters (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely the Australian government will have its bases covered on the jurisdictional side of things. After all a government can make its own laws, so they're the best placed to know any and all loopholes to make this kind of 'spying' perfectly legal. There's no doubt that this government will have a perfect explanation ready as to why their actions were legitimate.
On top of that, an elected government represents its voters. There is a slow but undeniable tendency in Australia for the last ten years towards more hostility against immigrants. Is this xenophobic and therefore perhaps loathable? Perhaps (even probable). But it's there, so as more and more voters don't really want any more foreigners to live in Australia, those people will have more and more representation in government. Those people may object to having their own phones tapped, but they probably have a the-end-justifies-the-means-attitude towards phonetapping potential immigrants.
I'm not saying that's a good thing. After all even Hitler was at first elected in normal elections, but that's the way a democracy works (or should work): if enough voters want something bad enough, the government will make it happen.
Re:A government represents its voters (Score:3, Interesting)
Before Australia gets raked over the coals by a bunch of obnoxious ignoramouses, I should point out that, among the Western democracies, Australia takes an enormous number of immigrants (relative to its fairly small population) and treats them very well.
The primary issue here is not that Australians are racist or opposed to immigration, but that Australians are fed up with _illegal_ immigration. There's a system in place, and these economic refugees are "jumping the queue".
I'm tired of hearing a) endless rehashes of Australia's sordid past and b) context-free attacks on Australia's so-called "racist" attitude by people who live in countries that deal with an order of magnitude less immigration, whether legal or illegal.
Re:A government represents its voters (Score:2, Informative)
This is a view I hear time and time again from fellow Australians. Perhaps you might like to consider why Australia's "sordid past" comes up again and again.
It's because that past has never been satisfactorily rectified. Australia really does have an abhorrent history, which most people know about and I wont rehash. But the attitude of most Australians is to try and forget about it, to sweep it under the carpet and look the other way as if it never happened. This attitude is reflected in the current government, in fact it's the reason they're currently in power.
The liberal government in Australia won the unwinnable election by going to the lowest common denominator and playing up to people's inherent xenophobia. They welcomed every right wing loony (the ones who were voting for one nation only a year or two ago, about 10% of the population) back into the political mainstream. They've made it socially acceptable to be racist again, but hidden it under the rhetoric of "queue jumpers" and "economic refugees." They've basically sent the country back 20 years to the days of the white australia policy and shattered forever the myth of giving everyone a "fair go."
Regarding your point (b), I'm an Australian now living in the UK. The UK takes on far more refugees on a per capita basis than Australia, and while it certainly is a problem, people aren't automatically singled out as being fraudulent and locked away for years when they try and claim refugee status.
The politicians here are just as back-stabbing as they are anywhere but both sides have agreements not to bring race into political debate. Why? Because they're mature and responsible enough to recognise that stirring up racism for short term political gain is in noones interest and makes the country a much worse place overall.
From a distance the country I call home looks like a selfish spoiled brat that doesn't know how to face its responsibilities and grow up.
Re:A government represents its voters (Score:2)
This is, quite simply, untrue. While the government has been repeating this ad-nauseam, in fact what they are referring to is the quotas, and they are pointing out that the quotas are in the top 4 (IIRC). Of course only 8 of the countries that take refugees have a quota in place - the rest judge refugees on their merits and take those that arrive. In fact, when you look at the number of refugees actually taken, Australia is at #35 on the list internationally, on a per-capita basis.
A huge part of the problem right now is the outright lies being told by the government, who are refusing to allow anybody to get information out of the detention centres that the government hasn't filtered to ensure that their own stories are the ones getting the airplay.
Australians are fed up with _illegal_ immigration. There's a system in place, and these economic refugees are "jumping the queue".
And when there is no queue, as is the case for these refugees? For those that do have acess to a queue, how about when people die in the queue after being assessed as genuine refugees, as is notoriously common?
Any way you cut it, saying "they don't have a right to be here because they weren't born here, and I do because I was" is an us-and-them attitude that is intrinsicly xenophobic. Being born in a location entails no intrinsic natural right to that location to the exclusion of others, and a claim that there is, especially as against people who are fleeing oppression, has no validity of any description.
Re:A government represents its voters (Score:5, Insightful)
Immigration is a really really contentious issue, but there is no way in hell that you're going to stop people looking for a better life. If they think that they're going to find it in your country, they will come. It's capitalism in its purest form. You can either work towards a more equal global society (so people don't feel they have to leave their own country to get on in life) or accept immigrants and make the most of what they have to offer. Current methods in place in most of the world don't work and only promote racial tension.
Ireland's complete lack of coherent policy, for example, isn't helping at all. Just like in Australia, political parties use the issue as a bat to beat each other over the head with, and meanwhile racism is growing in the population, ironically enough helped to a great extent by racist groups from other countries. One of the first Irish racist websites, for example, was mostly composed of poorly-localised BNP and National Front content.
The man point to take away from this article, though, IMHO, is that the Australian government is happy to use illegal methods impinging on the rights of its own citizens to pursue racist policies. If they don't care about their own people, and they don't care about other people, only maintaining power, even if it means inflaming hatred in their own country, should they be in power?
Re:A government represents its voters (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm actually Irish, hence the little bit of Irish perspective.
Those on the boat at that time were not even illegal imigrants. From the time that they threatened the Captain of the Tampa, they became, by definition, Pirates, and therefore criminals. It was within the Australian Government's right to know of correspondance to and from that vessel on which criminals were residing.
First off, the captain of the Tampa has consistently come out on the side of the immigrants, not the Australian government. And even if they were criminals, or suspected criminals, I'd be very surprised if their communications could be intercepted legally without the Australian equivalent of a wiretap warrant.
Finally, it's a bit rich calling the immigrants pirates when the Tampa brought them on board of its own volition, especially after the (Norwegian) ship was later boarded and taken over by Australian military forces, against the will of the ship's captain and owners. Which of these two scenarios is more likely to be interpreted as piracy?
More info... (Score:5, Funny)
personally, I think that spying on citizens is like masturbation. Everyone does it, no one admits it, and in the end it gets you nowhere.
Uh, shouldn't it be "where isn't it happening"? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the German government's Lauschangriff to Echelon to the NSA to my provider [Hi, guys! Keep up the good work!] to some company that routes my data to people I haven't even heard of, I would just assume that anybody who can listen in will listen in. Germany does have a constitutional Right to Privacy that the U.S. Bill of Rights doesn't, but I don't think that is going to impress too many of those people - what am I going to do, sue the people who run Echelon?
My suggestion: Live with it and use crypto where you can.
Re:Uh, shouldn't it be "where isn't it happening"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you live in the UK where our then Home Secretary managed to push through a bill (which sounds astonishingly like the one in Enemy of the State) that allows the government and the police to do all the snooping they like. It's not like it wasn't happening anyway, but this made it legal.
The real kicker though, is that anyone who encrypts their data has to decrypt it if the police say so. If you don't, then you get locked up. The problem is, the law makes no distinction about refusing to decrypt, and not being able to decrypt. If you lose your keys, then you can get banged up. The government were planning a national database of encryption keys where you had to submit your own. I don't know where that is ATM.
Moral of the story: If you live in the UK, don't bother encrypting either. They'll just get their grubby hands on it if they want to.
Re:Uh, shouldn't it be "where isn't it happening"? (Score:2)
> They'll just get their grubby hands on it if they want to.
Actually, speaking as another
Re:Uh, shouldn't it be "where isn't it happening"? (Score:3, Insightful)
But the advantage is that they have to come and ask you to decrypt. This way you KNOW that someone "intercepted" your data and read it. It's like an envelope: it's not like nobody can open it, but you get to see if it has been opened or not.
Personally, I have nothing to hide, and if police wants me to open up my data I've nothing against it, provided it works both ways, i.e. I want to know WHY they are reading my data and who will access it. This way, if it's "confidential" stuff (like my CC number) I know who to sue if anything goes wrong.
Re:Uh, shouldn't it be "where isn't it happening"? (Score:2, Funny)
encrypting either. They'll just get their grubby hands on it
if they want to."
Or generate a keypair, send an encrypted
email to your best enemy, wipe the keypair and call
the police that your best enemy is a terrorist.
Ooooops.
In fact, this could be a way to jail mutually everyone.
Remark: Don't jail me, I was joking!
--
live dream
Taking care of enemies (Score:2)
Re:Uh, shouldn't it be "where isn't it happening"? (Score:2)
well... (Score:2)
Re:Very good! (Score:3, Funny)
Anytime you hear some specific "fact" like 135 years ahead your baloney detector should go off. It sounds good, but what does it mean? Did a couple of Smart Guys looked at all this "top secret" technology and had a conversation like this?:
Smart Guy #1: Wow - look at this technology! It's really advanced.
Smart Guy #2: Yeah, It's like 150 years ahead of current technology!
#1: Yup... Hang on - look at this scoogily-boog; it doesn't have a mobius flange. I'd say this is more like 125 years ahead.
#2: Good point. It does have an inverted reverser, though. I'd say that makes it about 135 years ahead.
#1: OK then. Lunch?
Re:Very good! (Score:2)
I'm an Australian, and I don't mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, when I read the story, I didn't see that stated. I read a number of statements saying that the DSD's intelligence gathering was within Australian laws and supervised by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The DSD also reports to the cabinet and (I think) a committee on intelligence. I read that the Opposition Leader, Simon Crean, asked for an inquiry and I read that the opposition said that they now generally don't trust the DSD, but no actual facts. (Aside: Does anyone else dislike the term "unAustralian" (or whatever nationality you please)? Simon Crean used the term and it really ticks me off.)
Well, the government still has the same policy after the election. The main people saying that the government is using this for political gain are the people who don't like the government's actions, or who dislike the government generally. For all you Australians who think the government is doing this for political gain: Phillip Ruddock (immigration minister, primarily responsible for refugee decisions) is a member of Amnesty International, and has been for a long time. John Howard (Prime Minister) has demonstrated that he doesn't mind taking unpopular decisions every now and then, especially when quite a long way from an election. Have you ever considered that these two, and the rest of the government, might (a) know more about the situation than you (and their info isn't full of media bias); and (b) may have a different value system to you??? (Shock horror!)
What was said is the following: Transcripts of phone conversations between the International Transport Federation, Maritime Union of Australia and the crew of the MV Tampa were used by the government to formulate a political response... One wonders why the phone conversations were useful. I assume that if the political response was simply lies, lies, and more lies, then the actual facts probably wouldn't be that useful. I'd be interested to know exactly how the phone conversations were used, although that probably is classified information that we won't find out for another 50 years.
Re:I'm an Australian, and I don't mind... (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever considered that these two, and the rest of the government, might (a) know more about the situation than you...
I have to admit, I stop reading an article whenever I see a quote like this, and I see it all too often. Should government figures be invulnerable to criticism simply because they're part of the government, and because, at least under your reasoning, they must have not only better information, but better judgement than the rest of us? A quote like that smacks of thoughtless nationalistic bias.
Congratulations, you fit the profile for almost every negative Australian stereotype out there. Get violently drunk off your ass and you'll be the perfect poster boy for everything the world thinks is wrong with your country.
Re:I'm an Australian, and I don't mind... (Score:3, Funny)
what a fucking jerk. people like you perpetuate stereotypes.
as an australian who lived more than half his life in the US, i feel qualified to comment on this one... in my experience, americans know little or nothing of australia. maybe that's changed since the olympics, but i don't expect so.
americans tend to either categorise australians as sheep-fuckers, because they can't tell the difference between an australian and a new zealander
cunt.
Re:I'm an Australian, and I don't mind... (Score:2)
Hey, some of us Americans have read "In a Sunburned Country," watched the Olympics and seen that movie where you all got blown up in Turkey during WWII... relax.
I mean, Australia's a very imporant country. What would 2 a.m. be without Australian Rules Football and Insanely Violent Rugby? Fosters? Outback Steakhouse? Priscilla, Ballroom and Muriel (the holy trinity of Australian filmmaking)? These are all important additions to life.
I did get laughed at heartily once by asking how long the ferry ride between Australia and New Zealand was, but hey... What's the state capital of Louisiana? Didn't think so... And there's no fucking way anyone on Earth can tell the difference between the Aussie and Kiwi accents. Sorry it's true. (Though normally the Kiwi's are the ones to get nuts about this not you guys... Sorta the way Canadians get in Europe - the kiwis need a national symbol they can tatoo to their foreheads like the 51st state does with that leaf thing. But I digress...)
Anyways, being an American abroad living here in Spain there's nothing that cheeses me off more than someone calling Americans ignorant or arrogent in general because of one idiot's remarks (like pResident Bush, for example...). There's 280 MILLION Americans and we're a Democracy (unlike Australia) and have been so for 200+ years. That means that we're free to be idiots if we want to. And since there's so many of us, there's a high percentage you're going to meet them or read their remarks on Slashdot. But in general, show some fucking respect.
And finally, if you're going to swear, get it right. That guy was an asshole (like I am right now), not a cunt.
-Russ
P.S. It's pronounced "zee".
I'm an Australian, and I *do* mind... (Score:5, Interesting)
They were spying on phone conversations to a ship which was boarded by SAS troops!
So the SAS troops in and of themseleves weren't sufficient to neutralizae any security threate posed by the Tampa?
Funny, when I read the story, I didn't see that stated. I read a number of statements saying that the DSD's intelligence gathering was within Australian laws and supervised by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Not everything printed in the newspaper is true. Conversely, not everything that isn't printed isn't true. The DSD can and does intercept anything and everything it can, but according to whatever rule book it follows: any intercepted communication where one or more parties to the communicationa are Australian and the communication is not related to a serious criminal matter or one of national security is supposed to be deleted. Of course, we trust them to do this implicitly.
In addition, conversations between the captain of the Tampa and both the compnay that owned her and the Norwegian government (under whose flag the Tampa is registered) were passed on, all while the government was trying to negotiate a solution that served its own best interest. Needless to say, the edge this would have given the government in such negotiations could have been considerable.
The main point is that intelligence is not supposed to be used for the advantage of any Australian political party (under section 2A of the Intelligence Services Act, IIRC). The idea of spooks interfering in the political process by giving one side an advantage over another (either by the simple supply of information or by engineering a certain outcome to a politically sensitive situation through the supply of information) is quite frightening.
Re:I'm an Australian, and I don't mind... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'm an Australian, and I don't mind... (Score:2)
For the sake of Democracy in Australia I sure hope it is a committee of the parliament and it includes all parties......
technoSpeak (Score:2)
I understand that the popularity of eToys, eBay, iPlanet, etc. may have this sort of thing common in trademarks, but in regular English, we like to use a dash between the "un" and whatever noun we're un-ing. For example, "un-American." Except of course if the term you're negating is generic, then you just smoosh [1] it all together like "uncircumcised."
I know I'm just an American and have little to no control over the Queen's English, but it might be nice for journalists of all nations to agree to some basics. Since the spelling of color, labor and aluminum will never be agreed upon, they might as well try to focus on general grammar, hey?
-Russ
[1] Smoosh isn't a real word.
[2] It's a joke... smile.
I'm Norwegian and I DO mind! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yes it was! The fact that the Australians boarded the ship didn't make either side of the phone calls less civilian! the only millitary presence on that ship was australian commandos who, according to norwegian media, were rather shocked at the conditions among the refugees*, and to what they had to do.
As to "ordinary". Well, yes, I suppose such conversations could leak embarrasing facts about the situation and the conditions on board, and that the government was therefore justified in wiretapping in order to prepare for the PR blow this would be... or?
*that's what the australians called them. But to the captain they were mainly people saved from a sinking ship.
A trend because of immigration and 9/11 (Score:5, Interesting)
The backlash against immigration started well before 9/11 but the terrorist attack intensified this backlash. I think that this is happening -- though to a lesser extent so far -- in both the U.S. and in Europe. Surveillance has increased dramatically and will continue to increase.
I think that this is going to lead to massive investment in surveillance by many countries all over the world not just in the West. Governments across the globe will engage in surveillance at levels way, way above anything we have ever seen in history.
Paleolithic
Re:A trend because of immigration and 9/11 (Score:3, Insightful)
If an immigrant has no respect for our immigration laws, why would they respect any other laws?
This comment is peculiar considering Australia's history as a penal colony. Indeed, one of Australia's national heroes [abc.net.au] was an outlaw.
You'd think that Australia is a test case to prove that the wretched of the earth can form a free and prosperous society when they are no longer persecuted for being poor.
So? Just Stop Communicating (Score:5, Funny)
No one's forcing you to communicate with other people, just like no one's forcing you to use Windows...
(If you can't detect the sarcasm in the above statements, you really shouldn't be roaming the Web without a guardian)
Stop communicating in easily interceptable ways (Score:2)
Control of power (Score:3, Insightful)
Under normal circumtances (at least here in Holland) a judge has to aprove a tap to prevent abuse of these powers. Was this tap cleared by a judge? This would it make much worse since the control mechanism that SHOULD contol abuse. If not than it's clear that the people who caried out this tap doesn't care for a clearancy.
I don't know what more damaging. A mislead judge or some people that tap into private conversations without a warrent!
Re:Control of power (Score:2)
There are story's (ettienne U. ) of unofficial taps & phones lying next to to the phone so the police by accidenct could listen in to homes.
No officially we are not doing this in holland. 8)
Re:Control of power (Score:2)
Near as I can tell from the article, the "tap" was part of a military operation, involving foreign nationals. Not quite the same thing as eavesdropping on everyday telephone calls.
Australia's Not That Powerful... Hmmm... (Score:2)
With the power and money of the United States, I'm starting to wonder if this whole "Middle East" area is really just a set of Hollywood sound stages. And if they aren't, then Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are most certainly super-advanced molecular AI programs that have been created using a combination of Martian and Plutonian alien technologies.
Or if their aims are closer to the ones that the Australians chose (political gain), then these "homosexuals" and "fetuses" are most certainly a right wing fabrication that has reached a global scale through the use of flamboyantly dressed male holograms and "sonogram" machines that are actually just downloading black-and-white video images from the global satellite network code named "Holy Satellite System of Wonder, Goodness, and Jesus".
Instead of "It's a joke. Laugh.", I think I should use, "It's a joke. Calm down. Please."
Re:Australia's Not That Powerful... Hmmm... (Score:2)
Shiny side in or out?
Re:Australia's Not That Powerful... Hmmm... (Score:2)
These countries, taken together, are the members of the so-called UKUSA agreement, which is an agreement to pool intelligence assets. As a Brit, I get a nice warm feeling knowing that NSA people in Maryland are reading my e-mails. I hope Americans like the idea of GCHQ people in Cheltenham reading theirs. We're all part of one big happy spied-upon family, really we are.
I for one am glad the people's police are watching me.
It's a kind of governmental sickness. (Score:3, Interesting)
What is happening in Australia is a kind of sickness, a governmental sickness. There are people who like to sneak around, rather than have a real connection with others. If they can attach themselves to a government that believes in, or accepts, secrecy, they find that they have endless money, and they can do whatever they like. Given the nature of secrecy, and the nature of bureacracy, there is never true accountability in a secret bureacracy.
Angry people often like to cause trouble if they can avoid being held accountable. Secret troublemaking by government is a dream job for these people.
Secret agencies in the U.S. are much bigger troublemakers than those in Australia. The article, What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com], has links to about 600 pages from major news sources that tell the story. For example, there is a section about a secret agency of the U.S. government that trained Arabs to be terrorists. Also see the sections, To understand the present conflict, consider the past, and Understanding the CIA.
reality check (Score:2)
Is water wet?
AU Liberal party actually deeply conservative (Score:5, Informative)
As for you libertarians who seem to think liberals are the greatest threat to freedom, who are the ones currently taking away US freedoms in the old excuse of national security? It ain't the liberals anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
3 definitions of "liberal" (Score:4, Informative)
19th Century: Best expressed by J.S. Mills. Sort of what Americans now call "moderate libertarian":
- Capitalist, free-market economics.
- Mills probably never heard of labor unions, and certainly wouldn't have approved of them.
- Distrust of government balanced against recognition that some government is necessary. Mills: "That government is best which governs least."
- Representative democracy with quite limited governmental powers. (In the US, this depends largely on the Supreme Court, the legislature and executive both being notably lacking in self-restraint and respect for the Constitution... British liberalism substituted the hereditary House of Lords for the Court, and tradition for a written Constitution, and so far it seems to have worked out no worse than over here...)
- Heavy emphasis on individual rights, except where they conflict with the free market.
- Some public works projects are acceptable (like roads), but gov't should stay out of anything that can be done by competitive commercial concerns, or by private charities.
Late 20th & 21st century American "liberals": Moderate socialists. Sometimes not so moderate. Example: Ralph Nader
- Regulated capitalist economy with many socialist trimmings.
- Pro union
- Distrust of big business. Also tends to regulate small business to death...
- Schizoid attitude towards government -- when it comes to arresting criminals or the national defense, gov't is bad, but when it comes to welfare, business regulations, zoning, public schools, or social agencies checking up on how you raise your children, gov't magically becomes good.
-Representative democracy with some limits on governmental powers.
- Heavy emphasis on individual rights, except where they conflict with the "liberals" favorite gov't regulations.
- Almost everything should be a public work. If the regulated and heavily taxed economy can't employ everyone, the gov't should hire them. If necessary, to dig holes and fill them up again...
- Does not believe that honest citizens can or should defend themselves.
(Don't let my ridicule of 21st century liberals fool you -- conservatives are even more schizoid. But that would get too long and too far off topic...)
British or Australian late 20th - 21st century liberals: What we call "conservatives" in America
Re:AU Liberal party actually deeply conservative (Score:2)
One thing I've noticed is that everytime a major US newspaper publishes something about the Australian Liberal party that invovles large amounts of money, the AU$ drops compared to the US$. If the liberal party isn't named, then logic seems to hold and if the spending is good for Australia, the AU$ rises and if its bad, the AU$ drops like it should. If the liberal party wants to get the exchange rate back to
Downer == Shaved Monkey (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, and I apologise to the shaved monkeys.
Never let the facts... (Score:2, Interesting)
Puhleease !!
Spying on a foreign registry vessel in international waters which had been directed not to enter Australian territory, but which then did enter in some sort of Norwegian Invasion. If comm intercept ability does not exist for occasions such as this, then why does it exist at all?
Oh, BTW, of course this happens everywhere, but moreso. Especially in the US where people are "told" they are "free" and don't have the education system to question the fact. Try making a few phone calls or sending a few emails about how you're gonna sh**t the pr*s*dent, and see who comes knocking at your door. And that's without the external threat of a Norwegian ship invading your sovereign territory under duress from a bunch of Iraqi queue-jumpers with designer luggage stuffed full of cash (no exageration).
Wasting Governent Time (Score:2, Interesting)
Just a few thought to be added to:
1/Encrypt with an easy to decypt password (I am not important enough for them to try very hard
2/Send lots of slightly altered binaries/gifs back and forth with your normal mail
3/Browse the hacking/conspiracy/revolutionary web sites
4/Use hushmail.com and/or PGP
5/Talk about unibomber/trade center type conspiracies on the phone
6/Use emacs spook command
7/Mention project echelon and Operation Vengefull
8/Try not to get too wrapped up in this stuff yourself as they are probably not watching you (much).
9/Send around this type of posting..
10/Make conversations over insecure channels based on previous secure channel eg face to face conversations that would not have been likely to be taped
11/Base insecure communication conversations on shared belief systems and/or shared knowledge (for example literary references) that would take some effort for the eavesdropper to resolve.
12/Make insecure communications ambiguous so that the other side of the conversation may work out the really meaning (or demand clarification), the eavesdropper cannot resolve ambiguity by cross examining..
13/Use an (Arabic or Irish) (accent or language), [though speaking Irish in an Arabic accent or speaking Arabic in an Irish accent might really confuse].
I thought encrypting everything too much might make it too hard for them to track you and not fire off enough warning signals in their (automated) monitoring center..
So basically I want to put a message [the president will be shot within the next month] inside a lightly encrypted message so when they
decrypt it [maybe automatically] they think they have some information of value, or that they have to act upon, if they act you know they have read your message. Alternatively put in a really good original joke (they are hard to come by [whats brown and sticky? -- a stick] [standards of humour may vary]) and see if it gets back to you through the government listener. These are the two standard cryptography 'red book' methods of seeing if your communication channel is compromised.
I am not a good shot so I'll have to get someone else to do it.
Turloch
'There is a place for everyone in this struggle no matter how big or how small. Let us increase our strength and the strength of our analysis by finding a place for them all.' Bobby Sands
PGP key follows
--
YeP I HaVe NOT BoTHereD To GEt PGp -- yet
FYI (Score:2)
It is probably not common knowledge to those of you not in Australia, but the governement's "tough" handling of the Tampa issue* practically won it the federal election last year.
* - The Tampa issue in a nutshell:
Watergate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Watergate (Score:2)
Learn more From this webpage [derechos.net]:
COINTELPRO is an acronym for the FBI's domestic "counterintelligence programs" to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's conducted between 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations.
These people would spread FUD via a deep-dark secret purposeful conspiracy. The FBI actually became involved in destroying people and political movements. Murder, Sabotage, Agent Provocateurs, Misinformation and Criminal-Implicating (framing) were regularly used.
These people are at it again: here [thirdworldtraveler.com] and here [www.tao.ca] and here [saraolsondefense.com]
Wow Slashdot sounds like that rag Indymedia now... (Score:2)
This is the type of journalism that I would expect from a website like Indymedia. Too bad Slashdot is adopting it.
NSA admitted as much after 9/11 (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought "HUH?!?!?!? Did they just admit that they randomly record cell phone calls of private citizens without a warrant?" Sure as heck sounded like it to me. I remember there being a little bit of noise about the statement at the time it was made. I remember just how vile it sounded to me and surprised that the statement didn't get much attention. I suppose in those days following, the vast majority of Americans were more than willing to give up any amount of privacy if it meant the bad guys would get caught (and I'm not sure it's terribly different now... 5 months later).
I've been looking for an article or something referencing that statement from the NSA, but I can't put my finger on one. Can anyone help?
-S
Re:NSA admitted as much after 9/11 (Score:2)
Re:NSA admitted as much after 9/11 (Score:4, Interesting)
There is _plenty_ of RF Scanning gear that was sold commercially before the EPCA came into effect that is still in private and corporate hands that can listen to the cellular portions of the 800MHz band.
Different countries tackled this problem different ways. So far, I have yet to hear of a truly effective solution.
Canada tackled the problem this way: If it's in the air, and you can pick it up and listen to it, no problem. BUT... you may not disclose the information to other individuals or organizations for personal gain.
Honestly, both laws are ineffective in controlling listening and use of cellular radio traffic in unethical ways.
The real solution would have been to respond to citizens *and* the cellular industry with this: "If you want privacy, encrypt the traffic, otherwise you should assume you are being monitored by the very people you don't want listening to your conversation."
Why wasn't this done? Because at the time, Louis J. Freeh, then director of the FBI during the Clinton administration had a serious burr up his backside about people being able to encrypt data. The whole "clipper chip" fiasco was being pushed as a solution, and neither the industry nor the customers swallowed that.
Like anything... it ended up a mess, and we're left with that legacy today. So... don't be too surprised when the NSA makes the comment that they were pouring through logs of thousands of cellular calls in the area. They're a government agency, and are probably exempt from the provisions of the EPCA that forbid citizens from monitoring cellular traffic.
Re:NSA admitted as much after 9/11 (Score:3, Informative)
[snip]
There is _plenty_ of RF Scanning gear that was sold commercially before the EPCA came into effect that is still in private and corporate hands that can listen to the cellular portions of the 800MHz band.
You're talking about old-style cellular, which most people are moving away from except as a fallback. The rules have changed now.
I use GSM on the 1900 MHz band. I know that my conversations have several layers of encryption and are transmitted over a spread-spectrum link with the cell. I know that breaking the encryption is difficult, and intercepting the transmission has never been accomplished even under laboratory conditions. I have *every* expectation of privacy for the radio leg of my call.
OTOH I know they can tap my call at the cellular company's switch. The cell company is not supposed to allow this without a court order. So, I damn well expect a well-behaved law enforcement agency to go to an ordinary judge and talk the judge into issuing a clear warrant ordering my phone to be tapped before it can happen.
If the NSA were to be going around recording my calls randomly, I would want them crucified for it.
Why is this a suprise? (Score:2)
Hell, I wouldn't be suprised to find that Bin-Laden was paid to do his dasterdly deed just so Bush could bomb the crap out of the middle east like "dear ol' dad". (Note to the gun jumpers here... this is a hypothetical statement.. please look it up before screaming, ranting and running around with your arms in the air.)
Your Govt, is watching you, your employer is watching you, and your nosey neighbor is watching you. and only YOU have control of that, you can decide to cut the flow of information to them at a price.
Most people find the price is too high or too inconvienent, or just couldnt care less.
Re:Why is this a suprise? (Score:2)
Some do. They get caught, more so in the US. Look at Gary Condit, Clinton, lets see what unfolds from Enron && Bush. You know they got lots of money from that. I wont say more at this point it will just be interesting to see what unfolds.
"Hell, I wouldn't be suprised to find that Bin-Laden was paid to do his dasterdly deed just so Bush could bomb the crap out of the middle east like "dear ol' dad"."
Or to just increase his popularity or something. I have wondered that my self. I'm glad that I am not the only one that has questioned weather or not the Bush Administration knew about that or that they knew something was going to happen. I don't think they knew that it would be that disasterous though.
"Claim" != "show" (Score:2)
The story is interesting, and quite believable, but let's be clear here... it doesn't show anything.
Terrorism (Score:2)
Can the U.S. gov't sue Australia for this? (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
But getting caught at it looks like carelessness...
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
And finally, trying to cover it up really put the icing on the cake. After the Democratic Convention and the Eagleton affair, Nixon could have molested children on live network TV and still beat McGovern. He certainly could have come out and taken responsibility for one little burglary and still won by a land-slide. And if he had done that, no one in Congress would have dared to mess with him.
Re:Sovereignty (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sovereignty (Score:2)
So the government used its own intelligence-gathering arm to get as much information on the situation as possible, before making decisions. And this is bad, uh, how? Its well founded that it was spying and intelligence that helped prevent the cold war turning into WWIII. The Cuban missile crisis proved how invaluable intelligence is in a crisis.
To compare the TAMPA issue with Cuban missile crises, or any other crises is totally incomprehensible. Where is the national security risk when it comes to some refugees coming into the country? They weren't the first and they certainly weren't the last. The issue with the DSD supplying information in this case to the government (disregarding the disgusting term used by Crean of UnAustralian) is that it was a misuse of government policy.
Notice that none would have compained if ASIO was involved, because it is within their mandate to monitor internal security risks. The DSD is solely mandated to monitor International communications where there is a threat to Australian scurity.
Has the government done the right thing? No. I believe the whole TAMPA thing is a sham. Remember the allegations they raised that refugees were throwing their kids into the water? Allegations that were denied by the Navy! Besides, if the TAMPA was dangerous, why is it allowed to come back to Australian ports? [smh.com.au]
Re:Sovereignty (Score:2)
The "Cold War" was an effort by the Plutocratic West to destroy a political movement that it was threatened by. Without sifting through the McCarthy inspired Ignorance and Misinformation that is rampant in most of the West [politicalcompass.org], I will spare you the explanation of What is Communism / What is Socialism and get on to the point.
WWIII, or the 'threat' of WWIII was more an effort of propaganda to justify and fuel Anti-Communist sentiment. Remember: Rich / Powerful people abhor the concept of Communism/Socialism -- it is the WORST thing they can image. The Cold-War was the manufactured 'defence' to this Communist "Threat". Communists (or Socialists) arent 'coming' - they had no more reason to attack - as in military strike - the USofA. The Cold-War was an effort to justify black-ops and squelch legitimate Political Movements... let alone domestic and foreign assassination, sabotage and general undermining of the Enemy.
Missiles going to Cuba was not a pre-cursor to attack, it was more-of-the-same military posturing that was taking place all over the world. America ran the risk of precipitating a war by playing 'Tough-Guy'. They got lucky they didnt start a war over it. Missiles in Cuba were of equal threat to the US as Missiles elsewhere were to the USSR. Why is military posturing / threat by the US somehow 'acceptable or justified*'???? Believing so shows bias and a pre-disposition mis-represent the situation.
*I am a pacifist; I think both USSR and USA were committing heinous acts. I also believe War is perpetrated on The People by a powerful elite (in every nation-state). We should do away with Nation-States and do away with all National Armies That will really brand me a lunatic, Im not, just an idealist because I refuse to believe we aren't capable of solving the world's problems.
The Cold War was about containing communism (Score:2)
News flash: the Soviet Union oppressed and slaughtered millions of its own people, and openly espoused a worldwide process of revolution -- really a form of imperialism -- to bring the whole world under their control.
The Cold War was a response to this. The West did make mistakes, go overboard, and make some nasty allies at times, but they never did anything to compare to the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, and their successors.
If you can't see any differences between the Soviet Union and the free Western democracies, you need to read more history.
I also believe War is perpetrated on The People by a powerful elite (in every nation-state). We should do away with Nation-States and do away with all National Armies That will really brand me a lunatic, Im not, just an idealist because I refuse to believe we aren?t capable of solving the world's problems.
Why will doing away w/ nation states and having a world gov't. solve anything? You would prefer one global elite ruling us all, to a bunch of different elites in different parts of the world?
Not exactly (Score:2)
Anyway, the Cuban Missle Crisis was pretty hypocritical on our part, considering that we had missles in Turky that could hit the USSR in the same time it would take to fire from Cuba. It wasn't about protecting americans, it was about protecting America's "First strike ablity".
Cold War and Superpowers (Score:2)
Bang on! There's an old socialist saying about war: "a gun is a stick with a worker at each end". And the US"S"R no more served the worker than the US did, of course.
Re:The Facts (Score:2, Interesting)
Australian Embassy
No 13, 23rd Street,
Khalid Islambuli Ave,
Tehran 15138
Iran
tel +98 (21) 872 4456
tel +98 (21) 872 0484
Australia does not have diplomatic posts in Iraq or Afghanistan but does in neighbouring countries. It is normal for small countries not to have an embassy in every country in the globe.
The fact remains that the illegal immigrants travel half way around the world to Indonesia - through many countries where they could seek asylum if they were that desperate, shred their personal documents so they can not be identified, and sail to Australia. If they were geniunely not economic refugees, they wouldn't take such a calculated move to get into Australia illegally. They could go to neighbouring Pakistan for example, where Australia does has an consulate and a high commission, and appeal to enter legally there.
Of course, you don't even need to apply to an Australian embassy. You only need apply to the United Nations Refugee Agency [unhcr.ch] (UNHCR) for placement. They facilitate the legal placement of refugees to Australia.
and you think other peoples are any different? (Score:2)
Yes, the West needs to do more, in particular since Western culture and Western politics are so dominant now. Yes, the harm that the West is doing is probably bigger in magnitude than that of any society before it because it has been magnified by technology. But, in terms of corruption and goals, Western society isn't any worse than most other societies have been traditionally. In fact, if anything, the West is more aware of the problems and actively, rationally, and consciously trying to address them, something that cannot be said of most of the societies that preceded Western societies.
Re:Australia confuses me (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, this story is about an incident that is probanly common place everywhere else in the world, is inconsequential to most Australians, and the comment by the story submitter is highly imbalanced and inflammatory.
Other stories have included Australia's broadband offerings. Yes we have sucky providers just like everywhere else in the world, but we have good ones too.
Our censorship laws are a joke, more for the fact that they have no impact on daily lives and it is as if they were not there at all. Australia hasn't lost its civil liberties because the laws were just a lot of hot air at the time for politicians scoring points. Unlike the DMCA in America, our bad laws are toothless tigers that never rear their ugly heads.
On the other hand, Australia has good consumer protection laws. The ones that see DVD region modding not only legal, but encouraged (many DVD players are sold region free, or with instructions to do so)
Yup... we ain't the only ones. (Score:2)
None of your a trolls (Score:2)
The fact that someone dissagrees or is wrong dosn't make them a troll.
IIRC (Score:2)