Australian Government Cracks Down on Net Users 332
The Australian Government has hastily enacted several measures overnight that should send a shiver down the collective spines of all Net users. Firstly, it passed major legislation that enables the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), similar to the CIA, to remotely tap into and alter data on any Australian's computer. APC Newswire has the story. Secondly, the Government minister responsible for IT, Senator Richard Alston, has appointed an Internet content censorship advisory board stacked with representatives who support his heavy-handed approach, critics say. Critics of Alston's agenda in the past have included the ACLU and the EFF-affiliated Australian Net-users' group, Electronic Frontiers Australia. Again, APC has the story and a commentary.
If they can do it Down Under, how long do you think it will be before similar measures come to a town near you?
If they can do it Down Under, how long do you think it will be before similar measures come to a town near you?
Re:What else would you expect from a penal colony? (Score:2)
"Thank god we got the criminals and not the Puritans".
Re:Don't worry. Be happy. (Score:1)
Not really on topic, but there is no President of Australia, the head of state is the Queen of England, their political leader is the Primie Minister (of Aus, not UK).
Re:Boycott OZ! (Score:1)
Re:Political enemies, look out (Score:1)
That would work in theory, but I dont believe that the government would give a damn if their citizens werent allowed full access to the net. They are doing it to them anyway. I believe that governments like ours and the Aussies hate the idea of the internet, because they cant control your mind there...that is the game that they are in. Take the net away while increasing legislation, and you switch from democracy to a stalinist communism, or something like that...
There seems to be an implicit assumption that a government is an evenhanded institution that would never abuse power or play favorites. Few real governments are that good, most are made up of people with agendas
Those countries are usually poor countries led by dictators. Here, its not the people in charge, nor the government in its main mass, its the people that are dragged around by big business and lobbyist groups.
Re:Remotely Alter Data (Score:2)
And it's probably done in the computer world as well...
The problem is that it's ILLEGAL to do in the physical world.. this bill basically says that if you plant "cyber" evidence, then it's perfectly legal as long as you're with the secret police.
I'm glad the last of my familty moved from Australia last year... it's not a place I'd want anyone I care about to live..
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
Law enforcement officers in the NRA? Sureyou jest! Don't you recall the fund raising letter a while back where the NRA pontificated against "jack-booted government thugs"? You remember, the letter that made George Bush publicly denounce the NRA?
It's wonderful how it's never mentioned this wasn't anything close to an official statement by the NRA. It was a comment made by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Of course, the media blew it way out of proportion.
I find it interesting how you don't mention how well funded gun manufacturers fund the NRA.
It's also interesting how people complain about the so-called influence of the gun industry on the NRA via funding, but we never attempt to discern the funding sources of grouple like the ACLU. This aside, i'm sure we'll find with both, the lion's share comes from membership dues and private donations.
And so it goes. The ACLU is worshiped for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights, while the NRA is demonized for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights.
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
But it was a nation divided. In present day, it's not the same. It's not the people v. the people now.. It would be the government v. the people, right? How many of those soldiers do you think prefer their government above their families and friends?
>This is an experimental proof that strong, quasi-mystical, beliefs in how a country should be ruled can overcome the >natural resistance to killing someone just like you.
Yes. But look at the entire picture. If a few trees fall, is the whole forest destroyed? Do a few bad apples ruin an entire crop? So if some resistance fighters were tortured and killed by their own, wouldn't the movement still continue?
The point is, the majority of soldiers (and citizens) on the defense would still have a hard time killing fellow countrymen for reasons they either don't understand or don't feel are right.. Remember those people didn't join the military to fight themselves..
Re:It's not the legislation itself... (Score:1)
Australia doesn't seem to have much interest in technology (can't think of one big Australian hi-tech firm). Perhaps it really isn't important to them, because they don't have anything they consider worth hiding, or any causes they think are worth fighting for.
A nation of sheep, eh? Must be from
Communists (Score:1)
Re:I'm ashamed (Score:1)
YOu live there? I'm sorry for ya. really. Now get out on the net, and start clamoring! 'Cause you might not be able to complain about this later (when your right to free speech gets squelched).
Link is broken (Score:1)
The link about "remotly tap into and alter data" is broken. I think this [aph.gov.au] is the correct link.
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Remotely Alter Data (Score:1)
Say they get permission to go onto someone's computer, to find something, can't find it, but decide to fake it anyway. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Referendum (Score:1)
The Monarchists had to be against it because if passed, the Queen would no longer be our head of state. There was a good old FUD campain by the Monarchists and Direct Electionists to confuse the uneducated -- statistics show that the educated and high income electorates mostly voted 'yes', while the poorer areas with less educated people voted against the proposal. Personally I reckon that says something for the 'no' cases PR campaign, but not much else.
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
That's nice in theory but does anyone remember the stink when a squad of Marines shot a young Mexican boy at the border. Apparently they had been co-opted by the Border Patrol to help law enforcement watch the border. Highly illegal but they did it anyway. And what of the stories that there were military present and partaking of the Branch Davidian mess. I won't even get into the possibility of any truth in those wacky "black helicopter" stories.
Re:Paying for sloppy legislation (Score:3)
Re:Link is broken (Score:1)
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
Used to be. Now it's illegal to use the Military for domestic law enforcement, unless drugs are (suspected to be) involved.
Re:Link is broken (Score:1)
Dman! Worked for me a second ago! I think they use some wierd session based search engine. So you can't directly link to the page.
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
Re:Link is broken (Score:2)
Nope, I think what's happening is that the server requires clients to have an existing session before you can retrieve the article. Unfortunately that means everyone has to log in and manually search for the article, as any link would contain a session ID only for one person and won't work for anyone else.
[OT] Isn't it about time we create a slashdolt login/user for annoying sites like this, as somebody suggested a few articles back?
Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score:2)
Why don't people riot over this? Why don't they do anything? This is a very disturbing question. These laws are morally outrageous and completely contrary to the basic rights that people deserve, yet they are simply accepted as is and nothing is done about it. That is the real problem. If the people (I mean the general population. I'm sure there are some who care, but they are the minority) actually cared laws like this could never be passed. But they don't.
Why are people so willing to flush their basic freedoms down the toilet? The first factor is ingorance. Your average Joe doesn't understand the issue. All your average Joe knows is that there are "bad people" on the internet and that big brother government is needed to protect the poor, defenseless children from them. No matter that these laws don't do squat for protecting the "poor, defenseless children", but they do wonders for oppressing the general population. Average Joe's attention span has been rendered far too short by sensationalism and TV to actually spend the time to determine what exactly the laws are doing. All average Joe cares is that big brother is doing something. So the end result is that the only one that big brother's actions serve to protect is big brother itself.
It disgusts me how easily people can be fooled. Sometimes I am embarassed to be a member of the human race. Honestly, people don't look for any sort of evidence so support their opinions. They just look at what everyone else is doing and decide to hop on the bandwagon. If they hear about "evil things" going on on the internet (or anywhere else) they are all too happy to get themselves into some unjustified outrage over these "evil things" regardless of how much they have been blown out of proportion or even whether or not they are true. Then they will start writing letters and going to protests about these evil things until big brother swoops in to protect them. They just love big brother. Big brother is their friend. In their minds. In reality, the only evil thing going on is big brother.
OK, I'm starting to sound very repetitive so I will stop writing now. In conclusion: I'm pissed off and I hate the government. Hey, if anyone from big brother is reading this now feel free to go after me or something. I'd make a much better martyr than I'll ever make a speaker. Maybe we can actually get the general population to give a damn about the fact that they are flushing their rights down a toilet.
Re:Civilians vs. Military, and "Rights" (Score:1)
That's nice as an empirical truth but how well does it hold up in practice. Ask the slaves, or the Jews about their "Human Rights". All the Rights in the world won't prevent massa from knocking on your door and hanging you from a tree, raping and killing your family. Where are your Rights then?
Still... (Score:1)
Basically, i guess we don't have that much to worry about, just keep on using your pgp, and keep on browsing with your OC-3 connection and i'm sure you'll notice if you're being tapped.
How free did you think you were to begin with?? --nsfmc
Is it even valid? (Score:2)
I have no direct familiarity with Australian constitutional issues (save that silly idea to add a president with political power; at least a distant figurehead queen is harmless . .
Whether expressed explicitly, as in the U.S. Bill of Rights, or through tradition, as in England, the law puts finite limits on the powers of government. THat is, there are limits on the ability of the government to pass legislation that changes the law in certain ways, and legislation that purports to do so simply is not the law.
In the U.S., this wouldn't get out of committee in Congress (though state legislatures regularly turn out attempts this stupid, and initiative processes do far worse). In Britain, I'm fairly certian that this wouldn't fly (except when dealing with wartime emergencies). I'll be sadly disappointed if the Australian system doesn't have sufficient checks & balances to handle this. Good Lord, these folks just reinvented the general warrant . . .
hawk, esq.
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
Well Michael, I spent 2 1/2 years in Sydney working for a computer company that had offices in all of the major cities so I had an opportunity to get around the country and have a first hand view. The way that the Australians treat the Aborigines is pretty pathetic. I would say your country is about where the U.S. was about a hundred years ago.
Perhaps the NRA should push for the Swiss solution of every male between 18-60 *must* own a working firearm and must do a year (or is it 2?) of national service training.
The US had a draft that lasted up until the early 70's. I myself was drafted out of college as an EE to become a Combat Targeting team member (team of 3). Later I also competed internationally in pistol competitions for the military. I, however only have a rifle for deer hunting now. But there are millions out there like me, who have the knowledge, lack the fear, and will do what is right in our minds if the time comes. I personally do not think it ever will come though, and I am thankful if it does not.
Re:my god... (Score:1)
Re:my god... (Score:1)
It's this Australian fetish with having everything done according to the rule of law. Man, I mean imagine actually having to get a warrant to spy on someone's computers systems instead of just going out and doin' it.
Another example of typical Australian bureaucratic inefficiency! I mean how is ASIO going to stay internationally competitive with the likes of the CIA if it is weighed down with laws like these?
Re:What have guns got to do with civil rights? (Score:1)
So very right, but at the same time, so very wrong. In an ideal world, you are perfectly right: a democracy is ruled by the majority(who are presumably right, kind, and just) delegating their powers to representatives(who are presumably even kinder and juster). However, in practice things don't always work out this way. Sometimes, you have what is known as "tyranny of the majority", where the majority uses their democratic power to oppress the minority. The Jim Crow laws [nps.gov] that sprang up after the Civil War typify this. Certainly this was pure democracy in action -- the legislators doing what their constituents wanted. These laws, coupled with the resurgence ofThe KKK [virginia.edu], made it very uncomfortable to be a political(and, in this case, racial) minority in much of this country for quite a time. Democracy in Action!
However, the founders of the US had thought of this, and set down the Bill of Rights [fast.net]. The Bill of Rights is specifically intended to preserve individual liberty, even at the cost of pure majority rule.
Of course, in practice, this hasn't always worked so well (see above). It seems that no matter how many times freedoms are written down, even on real paper, they can be stolen by the government and/or antagonistic fellow citizens.
Only one thing stands between the black sharecropper and the Klan, between the Warsaw Jew and the Nazis, between any oppressed minority and the pogrom. It is the one thing the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto [upenn.edu] tried desperately to aquire, the one thing that was immediately taken from free blacks in the South, the one thing that every tyrant fears: a gun.
All too often, in America and elsewhere, personal weapons have meant the difference between liberty and slavery, between life and death. Remember the words of Martin Niemoller: "In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Do you think this would have happened if every Communist, Jew, trade unionist, Catholic, and Protestant had had a gun and ammunition? Of course, one of the first things Hitler did was register, and then later confiscate, almost every priately-owned firearm in Germany.
Maybe I'm just another crazy American obsessed with guns. Maybe this time, for real, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, government is really kind and benevolent. Maybe you will put your faith in them, and vote, and hope that this time, they won't take away quite so many of your rights.
And maybe, it will be because you have no other choice.
-----------
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
You are aware of the school shootings *stopped* when a teacher retrieves a shotgun from his car, right? Or did the media not mention 'em to you?
Those details include:
* Most teachers over here haven't had firearms training, and probably wouldn't want it. Hence, many of them might be worse than useless.
* The Israelis aren't messing around with handguns, but are instead armed for bear.
Re:People, we're witnessing governments' last stan (Score:1)
It's so easy to say 'censorship is bad.' Yet with the Internet being in it's relative infancy, anyone can post anything. Total drivel (This is my cat's homepage). Hate mongering. Pornography.
Also, don't expect to see anything terribly violent happen anytime soon. Despite your conclusion being generally logical, remember that Karl Marx had very logical arguments that claimed Communism would just sweep the world because of the oppression of people during the late stages of the Industrial Revolution. Also, the Internet, by and large, still doesn't have enough daily penetration into peoples lives for your scenario to play out. A net underground would be an easy thing to crack down, the way that information is both so free (if it's easy for you to find it, it's easy for it to find you).
There, my rant is done. Note that my opinions may or may not be stated, I was more or less playing a Devils Advocate.
Re:What Basic Freedoms? (Score:1)
someone along those lines - it might restore a modicum of your faith in your species.
Like Ghandi who was shot dead, and the Dalai Lama who is now living in exile? Not much encouragement there.
Re:Paying for sloppy legislation (Score:1)
Well you can be required under s3V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to give your name and address, but I don't know of these other powers of the NCA and the Feds. Could you point me in the direction of the source of this power. (ie the relevant provisions of the relevant act).
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Also, if you think the amount of 'crazies in the US is disturbing, try israel, iran, iraq, turkey, greece et al. The difference is that in a lot of these countries, leaders have done a good job of propogating hate and denial and target particular groups.
What I do not condone, is the use of a violent means to promote self-righteous behavior while masking it as a means to promote freedom and liberty. Unfortunately the world isn't so perfect. I do, however, find it refreshing that there are some societies in the world where paranoia is generally unfounded and we can more or less live in peace.
Re:but...CAN they do it ?? (Score:1)
Hmm, this guy is a politician. How about making this big block O' noise on his hard drive into records about defrauding the taxpayer? Watch him leave in disgrace. This other guy is a theology professor, maybe he would like a disk chock full of porn. Tenure might keep him around, but he would be left to stand in the corner and be ignored. Silencing political opponents is even better than killing them. They lose credibility, and their followers wont have a martyr to rally behind.
The state could make your cyphertext into whatever has the greatest political fallout. Now, your lawyer can argue your case on technical merits and probably win. However you can still have your reputation damaged beyond repair.
-BW
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
To think they are the same is a kneejerk simplification. Think a bit more before responding. I'm quite happy in my Australian city knowing that my neighbour or the local gangs of kids don't have easy access to automatic weapons.
I'm yet to meet an intelligent Australian or American who believes complete freedom to own whatever armoury people want is a good idea. Most Americans don't realise what a laughing stock the USA is with their 18th Century attitude to firearms which they protect so fiercely whilst having such an appallingly high crime/death rate using weapons!
Perhaps the NRA should push for the Swiss solution of every male between 18-60 *must* own a working firearm and must do a year (or is it 2?) of national service training.
Maybe it's just me, but when I'm in the US (fairly often) I feel the average US citizen is much more worried about being shot that being sexually assaulted by someone who looks at porn on his PC.
Like when I was in Washington last year and was told "Whatever you do, don't go to the bad side of town, it's not safe." So I'm educated about the massive crime rate in the nations capital. So please, criticise the recent Net laws, but don't lecture us on firearms. (And I won't mention the appalling racist hierarchy that is openly maintained in the US)
Why is it that the "land of the free" is such a dangerous, unsafe place compared to "close minded" societies like Australia?
Re:remotely changing data??! (Score:2)
'sides, they could always try for physical access, or park a TEMPEST van outside your flat and wait until you do enter some passwords. Assuming you're not using some kind of physical OTP S/key-like smartcard.
Re:Paying for sloppy legislation (Score:1)
Assuming the records pertain to a federal offence (or to an offence in NSW), it ought to be possible to get it into evidence. Computer based records could be adduced under any of the various provisions of s48(1)(b), (c),(d) or (e) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth & NSW). This is because 'document' is defined for the purposes of the Act as including anything, inter alia, " ... from which sounds images or writing can be reproduced with or without the aid or anything else"
Depending on the circumstance, computer records might be excluded, prima facie, by the hearsay provision of the Act (s59). (It won't of course if the 'record' is the actual thing you are not allowed to have). However there are many exceptions which would allow the production of the evidence, for instance if it is a 'business record' (s69), if it is a record you yourself made (s66(2)(a)) &c.
Can anyone prove my files are really mine?
Well I guess, since these would be records which "purport to have been produced" (s48(1)(b)(ii)) by your machine, it is likely that the prosecution would put the question to you, whether these actually were your documents. Being under oath you would, of course, answer truthfully, would you not? :P
Absoultely correct (Score:1)
There are a heck of a lot of people who will argue until they're blue in the face that there is no relation between the two, but remember what Mao said:
Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power rows out of the barrel of a gun."
It applies to more than just Communists.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
My 2 cents (Score:1)
Re:This is scary. (Score:1)
In the twentieth century, however, the examples of Nazi Germany, Cuba, Russia and Yugoslavia show us that the popular militia is almost always on the side of the totalitarian power.
Thus the second amendment to the US consititution, protecting the right of the unpopular militia to own firearms as well. Your point is well made, but flawed, in that a state that reserves the right to decide who is allowed to possess a firearm will inevitably produce the "popular militia" (as the state will only allow those who agree with it's political views, and thus pose no risk to the state, to possess firearms.)
They go hand in hand. (Score:2)
China and Russia are excellent examples of this. To do business, one must bribe, bribe, bribe. Be it the local crime bosses or the bureaucrats, it doesn't really matter. Neither place has the tradition of political rights which will hold the politician's feet to the fire--and keep them mostly honest.
You are correct in stating that economic rights are being rolled back. The same goes with political rights--and in many cases they really are the same.
Take the simple right to vote. Many share holders vote as well as many citizens. Are Chinese citizens not shareholders in their government, and do they not deserve a say in how it is run?
For the folks comfortably placed in the West, we are very lucky to be able to have the freedom to enjoy the wealth we earn. For example, in some countries one cannot legally drink alcohol. Alcohol is common at parties, but afterwards one gets home by avoiding the police at all costs. It is an unpopular rule but the citizens cannot voice their opinions by secret ballot. Civil rights prevent (well slow) motivated extremists from gaining and staying in power.
With rulers which are unaccountable, the average citizen finds money is tougher to earn, tougher to keep, tougher to spend. What then, is the benefit of wealth accumulation?
-B
Re:First the U.K., then Australia, then... ? (Score:1)
Re:What have guns got to do with civil rights? (Score:2)
Well, your example of Australia doesn't seem to be supporting your argument lately. I think we'll keep our guns over here in the US, thanks.
If you are living in a democracy, then nothing and no one can ever take your democratic rights away.
That is completely niave. There are lots of ways a democracy could crumble, both from internal and external reasons. Although everyone hopes it will never be necessary, it seems best to have some insurance in the long run.
Take your pick: either you need guns, the US isn't a genuine Democracy and your 2nd Amendment is the foundation of your Civil Rights
We need guns, the US isn't a pure democracy (it is a republic, technically), and the 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights, and it along with the Consitution are certainly a foundation of our civil rights.
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Interestingly, it certainly seems to work for the Swiss. They have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. I've been to Switzerland, and I have to say that the Swiss are very nice, polite people. Its an often overlooked example of widespread access to firearms not necessarily causing any sort of social ills.
Frankly, people like to blame guns for the level of violent crime in the US, and it doesn't wash. The US has higher levels of non-gun violent crime than most of the rest of the world too. However, it is worth noting that violent crime in the US is generally in decline despite the fact that most of the gun control laws on the books are nuisance measures, and the fact that the government has done an absolutely pathetic job of enforcing the laws already on the books. Interestingly, the violent crime rates in Australia and the UK are rising, including their gun related crime, despite near total prohibition of firearms ownership.
Re:I'm ashamed (Score:1)
The replublic model would have been a bit better actully than the system is now
Kiwis Can Do Something (Score:1)
If you weren't thinking of voting, do. Go and vote for some libertarian bunch like the Greens and do the only thing that you can legally do in a democracy to change the government.
There is also a vote on reducing the number of MPs. Don't support the cut! Less MPs means less representation for you. If they're too expensive, cut their damn wages.
Vik
Re:Civilians vs. Military, and "Rights" (Score:1)
Maybe in a more civilized future there would be other ways besides base violence to keep the government in check, or replace it. Whoever can destroy a thing, controlls a thing (Dune). There are, or will be soon, things besides life and death that can be controlled, that would provide leverage. How valuable is information nowadays?
Just a thought.
Re:Pretty bad legislation (Score:2)
Apple ]['s in prominent positions 'round the office, say...
"Yes, officer. That's my computer. And that one, and that one, and that one, and..."
A question for you (Score:2)
Really. Think about it honestly, just briefly.
Honest. Goverment employees are still human, and therefore fallible, last I checked.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
In the Digital Age your Data is your Home (Score:2)
So no, in Austalia your right to privacy in the digital domain have just been vaporized
Democracy is... (Score:2)
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
Re:Civilians vs. Military, and "Rights" (Score:2)
It holds up only as long as you have the means to protect your rights. As the origional post on this thread mentioned, this means guns.
Check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control [magi.com],
and read this interview [jpfo.org] with a Holocaust survior.
-----------
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Surely I don't jest. The NRA is a big supporter of law enforcement, as long as they act within the law, the constitution and the bill of rights. The NRA doesn't speak out against law enforcement, only against excesses comitted by law enforcement agencies or individuals. It is a gross mischaracterization by the media that the NRA is anti law enforcement or that the rank and file of law enforcement agencies are opposed to the NRA.
I occasionally go to gun shows in my area. A good example is that the NRA booth is usually manned by at least one uniformed local police officer.
Don't you recall the fund raising letter a while back where the NRA pontificated against "jack-booted government thugs"?
Have you ever seen the video footage of the Waco incident? Tell me what those BATF agents had on their feet. Many law enforcement officers I have talked to hold about the same opinions about the federal agencies (specifically the BATF, FBI and DEA) as I do. I think they are way out of control and need to be brought into line, and a vast number of the rank-and-file law enforcement officers out there do too.
You remember, the letter that made George Bush publicly denounce the NRA?
Uh, and you are saying this is necessarily a bad thing? George Bush, while better than Clinton, wasn't exactly a great friend of freedom.
Re:NOW is the time for /.'ers to raise the voice.. (Score:2)
Britain is proposing some really extreme anti-crypto laws (you would have to turn over the key to any encryted data you had or
prove you don't know the key. Proving you don't have it is virtually impossible, so if someone sends you an email containing a bunch
of gibberish then anonymously reports that you're into child porn/terrorism you could go to jail).
But on the other hand Germany is sponsoring development of GPG.
Germans sudden move to sponsor GPG has cirtanly changed my attitude towards them to the better. However I was refering to a situation some - ohh - a year ago, maybe, where Denmark (I am really Danish by nationality, allthough I live in France for the time being) signed some EU-thingie (law, bill, whatever). I have lost track of that (and a quick search didn't help me), but it was something which should be equivalent to the US-regulations on crypthography.
What was really amazing was, that signing that "thing" on behalf of Denmark was done by some administrator - not by an elected politician, and without any previous and public debate. Most people, interrested in this field (such as yours truely) didn't hear about this thing until after it had been decided.
Another astonishing example of governments pulling some law out without involving neither technical experts not informing us - the people....
Re:Encryption in Australia (Score:2)
Re:A question for you (Score:2)
Government employees are no more stable, responsible, etc., than any other person, so as long as they have firearms, others should as well.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
This is scary. (Score:3)
Sadly, there are too many politicians and shortsighted people here in the US that want to bring us the same restrictions on freedom. It seems clear that if the 2nd Amendment is circumvented or eliminated that the 1st Amendment will fall shortly thereafter.
Re:Hey, doormat (Score:2)
We'll start by inventing a practical assembler technology and forming an underground movement to give everybody in the world access to it. Free assembler technology means virtually infinite resources, which means that everything upon which our current economic model is based upon comes tumbling down. As the human species becomes economy-less, it also gradually becomes politics-less (this is a process we can try to speed up). "Social" crime and violence vanishes, and there is no longer a need for law per se. As governments break, we then make a massive effort to make people conscious of their own freedom - people no longer have economic shackles holding them down, and they should be able to do whatever they want without having Big Brother always breathing down their necks. What this really means is that it no longer is valid for any group of people to try to hold a monopoly on authorized violence (which is the best definition of a government). We also spread the idea of self-regulation - eternal vigilance to guarantee one's own freedom. As life conditions improve drastically, people have no need for a government per se, but only corporations to take care of their bureaucratic needs - life insurance, etc. Because there are no governments and everybody is free, corporations are no longer able to gain power in ways that harm consumers (directly or indirectly). So we have anarchist capitalism.
It's a nice idea, and the only thing upon which it really depends to work is the technology. We'll see what happens in the long run.
The last fellow to proclaim himself independent of the law lived in a compound in Waco, TX. Last I looked, he died, his followers died, and just to be sure, two dozen children died in a fire.
Wow. You know, you're right. Two dozen children died, so we should stop trying to free ourselves from tyranny. Because that's the fate of everyone who attempts to break free - or who questions the morality behind the idea of government.
Maybe you should research the histories of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. They were killed, their children killed, their homes and farms burned.
Again, is that supposed to scare me or what?
Vigilance? You don't know the meaning of the word.
I don't? Please enlighten me - how do you know that? Are you by any chance familiar with me? In fact, have you ever heard of me except for this post? So how did you come to the conclusion that I don't know the meaning of the word "vigilance"? Probably by the same means through which you found that I am a doormat. Oh well.
Eternal Vigilance (Score:4)
We here in the united states must continue to be on the watch for such legislation sneaking through congress as riders on legitimate bills or as hastily enacted voice vote bills.
I think people in australia should be rioting in the streets over this, especially over the legalization of "altering data" on any users computer. What? We dont have enough evidence to convict this guy? Just plant some evidence on his computer, no problem. After all, he must be guilty or we wouldnt have accused him.
The question is, what would we do if such legislation was enacted here? Would we riot in the streets? Or more likely, would we just start a thread on slashdot and rant for a day or so? The second is much more likely, and worst of all, this is exactly what they want you to do, if you burn yourself out after a day, theres nothing left to keep the protest going. Americas collective attention span is so short that even the most dire problems come on their radar screens after its too late, or darn near ( y2k, global warming, Ozone hole, these are all fixed right, after all i havent heard anything about the last two in awhile, and the first one our government says is fixed, which is exactly what they would say whether it is or not). So, rather than ranting, why dont we come up with some suggestions of what to actually do if and when this actually happens here. Even if it doesnt, its always good to b prepared for any contingency.
EFF and the ACLU are about the most essential agencies out there protecting our freedoms. I hope that all slashdoters out there who enjoy their freedom give them a donation, or beter yet, join them.
Re:Link is broken (Score:3)
Alright, here's my nano-HOWTO for getting to the page referenced above:
Hope this will help whoever's looking for the stuff. :-)
The democracy is dead, long live the democracy (Score:2)
The worse part is that as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) you already have a law that destroy one of your fundamental rights, if not in the letter of the law, at least in the way it is applied.
The law: The DMCA (DIgital Millenium Copyright Act, or maybe with another order for the words)
The right: being considered innocent until proven guilty.
When you can have your free speech reduced without going to court then you ARE told guilty without going to court, and you MUST go to court to prove yourself innocent.
And the most outcry I have heard is in some
I have a qestion about the DMCA anyway. There was a
Anyway, with the censoring laws in Australia (and this new law), the DMCA in the US, the cryptography law in the UK that deny you the right to remain silent (not passed yet though) I wonder how many violation of human rights will occur in these country in the next few years.
Does the Australian Government not want hi-tech? (Score:3)
Another important question -- does this infringe any copyright laws in .au? What if the government was paid off by some large corporation that knew someone in .au was developing the next killer app and they abused the system into allowing them full access to what is on the other company's servers?
Perhaps it's time for someone to start a business in a small country with a very small government where hi-tech companies can headquarter themselves and keep all development servers (the island would need really really fat net pipes to everywhere). That way .au companies can circumvent the possibility of (il)legal search and seizure.
Oh Sure... (Score:2)
On a related note, I think if Bill Gates or Ross Perot wanted to own an MX Missile and had the money for it, more power to 'em.
Some laws are just plain wrong (Score:3)
They'll probably realize that soon enough (Score:2)
It's definitely time to look at setting up some international encrypted VPN's. If worse comes to worse, you can even get sneaky and transfer data (Encrypted or otherwise) in IP packet sequence values or some of the other unused headers of the IP packet.
Re:First the U.K., then Australia, then... ? (Score:2)
james
Political enemies, look out (Score:5)
It wouldn't be very hard to put some poorly encrypted child porn on an enemy's computer, modify the logs, then bust them. Even should they win the case in court it's not likely they'd ever be able to win political office again after the reputation damage. Of course there are millions of more subtle ways to damage an enemy thru their data.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that a government is an evenhanded institution that would never abuse power or play favorites. Few real governments are that good, most are made up of people with agendas.
How will Australian corporations feel about the government being able to access all their records, and modify them if they so wish? What sort of power will people leaving government and joining private industry have due to having had access to this information? There could be some lobbying power if businesses can be convinced this is not in their interests either.
Does this imply that information temporarily stored on Australian servers is subject to Australian government control even if the source and destination of that data are in other countries? This is of international concern if so.
It would be nice to blackhole all addresses in Australia for a day or so to express the net's displeasure at this legislation. And if they read or change data as it merely passes thru Australia, I'd support making it permanent until they stop. It's a clear and present danger to the integrity of the net.
Re:Open wide (Score:2)
No, no, no!
You're supposed to spread 'em, and LIKE IT! Or else.
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
You're bluffing, I don't believe you. Besides,
(1) The government would be happy for you to disconnect from the net: another malcontent made powerless.
(2) You can get the same result by closing all ports, running no servers at all, reading e-mail in a pure ASCII text reader, and browsing the web with something that does NOT understand Java or Javascript.
Kaa
Don't worry. Be happy. (Score:2)
Examples?
A censorship group includes homosexual terminology, words such as "gay" and "lesbian", as words that should be filtered out by xyz. Homosexual organizations, including people who are not homosexual but support the organiztions, will make tons of noise, and heads will roll, killing off said legistlation and censorship groups because, in reality, there is only one right way to do it. Parental supervision.
When the President of Austrailia learns that not only a lower government agency is reading his mail and watching his child-porn-net-browsing habits, but that regular joe citizen can also do it by cracking software or leaked software from the agency, heads will roll once again.
My point is, radical change leads to radical mistakes.
my view (Score:5)
1) The bill allows for intrusion of a computer system and removal of any relevant data.
2) It doesn't allow for trashing of the computer system.
3) It does allow for bugging and tracking of people or equipment.
4) It allows for the "use of any force that is necessary and reasonable" to enter your premises for bugging you.
If you come under the scrutiny of the security services under this law, expect someone to hack your system, break into any premises that yo frequent, copy the hard disks of your computer systems, fit a tracking device to your laptop or your shoes, and bug the telecoms systems that your use.
It's a *really* bad law in my opinion. It's too wide ranging, and leaves too many things open for abuse. I know that the security services need wide ranging rules to allow for "odd" situations, but in the past, if they were careful not to break the law. This law allows for so much that they can do anything, and it's legal.
Now they have the full force of the law behind them, so if you catch them, you can't do anything, but they can do anything they want to you.
This law even allows for spying:
27B Performance of other functions under paragraph 17(1)(e)
If:
(a) the Director-General gives a notice in writing to the Minister requesting the Minister to authorise the Organisation to obtain foreign intelligence in relation to a matter specified in the notice; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of advice received from the relevant Minister, that the collection of foreign intelligence relating to that matter is important in relation to the defence of the Commonwealth or to the conduct of the Commonwealths international affairs;
the Minister may, by writing signed by the Minister, authorise the Organisation to obtain the intelligence in relation to the matter.
So, in theroy, anyones computer could be available it you annoy the aussies enough.
It's frightening that a government can think about passing a law that will allow thier security services to declare cyberwar against people that they don't like.
This law allows for total information gathering. Under this law anywhere you go, anything you say, anything you record on your computer systems, EVEN IN A FOREIGN COUNTY will be recorded.
Re:The Gathering Storm (Score:3)
He also went into a whole tirade about free trade and how, what we are presented with as free trade, is not really free trade but free flow of capital which is highly detrimental as it essentially releases these 'individuals' into the global eco-political arena with no responsibilities, ethics or mandate.
Both of these concepts are new entities formed in the last 50-75 years. I wish i remember the title of this lecture, it was really awesome listening. Gotta love public radio while we still have it.. you may or may not agree but its still interesting thinking from a brillant man.
Re:The Gathering Storm (Score:2)
But I wouldn't be so happy about living in Canada. I knew a wonderful Canadian woman once, and one of the few disagreements we had was about freedom. She really believed (and still believes, as far as I know) in government serving the public interest, and told me it's a common Canadian attitude. Bad in many respects as the situation in the US is, at least we have a large number of people who really distrust government, period. I think that helps counterbalance the censors, even though eternal vigilance is still unfortunately necessary.
D
(I gotta get back on Fight-Censorship
----
NOW is the time for /.'ers to raise the voice... (Score:3)
Seriously speaking, I think we see more and more of these "issues": Censorship, govermental approved and required intrusions (and now even legal modifications) without the peoples knowing, requirements of "backdoors" to the government in cryptography, restricions on publication (americans call it 'export' and 'matter of national security') of cryptography etc. etc. etc.
The Australians do it.....(obviously)
The Americans do it.....
The Europeans do it.....
Or if they haven't yet passed laws or bills, they are about to and have such in the process. Gee, I am told that if you are in France, using 'ssh' is in fact forbidden......That makes me a criminal, since I dislike the idea of transmitting cleartext root-passwords on any network.
This is an issue, which in my mind is more and more beginning to turning into a "people of the world" vs "the collective governments of the world".
My guess is, that unless action is taken SOON, then it will be too late. As soon as one major country/government makes precedense, preventing others from following will be hard. Remember, people, that the issues at stake are ultimately - as many others have pointed out - the "freedom of speech" and the "right for privacy".
I think it is time for action. The question is WHAT action can/should be taken? And how? Take this as an "Ask Slashdot", btw....I would like to hear more knowledgeable peoples take on this....
Slashdot represents - in my mind - an opportunity to unite briliant minds across the world. Slashdot COULD become a MAJOR GLOBAL POLITICAL PLAYER on such issues - if used in the right way. After all, I the average Slashdotter (whos posts get a score >0) is equiped with a cirtain level of technical expertise and common sense.
I'd say "slashdotters unite" - let's figure out how to play the game right, and prevent insanity of government control, restrictions and supervision.
I will end by saying as Evita does in Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical "Evita":
"...true power is YOURS, not the government, unles it represents the people!"
Somehow I feel that there are many governments who do not - at least on this issue.
(Sorry for being emotional on this. But I am deeply concirned over the current development)
Encryption in Australia (Score:3)
Also, do the laws give the government permission to break into your computer, or do you have to install software that opens the door for them. If the later, ugh, seems like a big security risk. *I* wouldn't want to store my company's financial data on a computer where I have to have a backdoor that lefts government (or criminals using the backdoor) come in and snoop around. Conversely, if they merely have permission to break in, I would be doing everything in my power to prevent it. If the Feds can get in, so can criminals or just nosey people.
Canada still seems friendly to privacy issues, but it scares me because the more countries that adopt measures like this, the more likely our government is to jump on the bandwagon.
Dana
Re:Net Censorship (Score:2)
D
----
I'm ashamed (Score:2)
Let's not overreact (Score:4)
The worst thing an advocate of freedom can do is to discredit the cause by not having his facts straight.
The link to information on the proposed legislation is stale, does anyone have a newer one?
I searched for "ASIO data" and my only hit was a piece of testimony from April about cryptography.
It seems to me that the "Right to remotely access and alter" data on private computers can cover a lot of ground, running from policies that many people would find reasonable to highly unreasonable policies. A lot depends on what the legislation says about the scope of those rights. A carte blanche is obviously a bad thing, and if that is whasis being granted I'd say we should treat Austrailia as a pariah government the way we did South Africa. But how about the equivalent of a wire tap with judicial overview?
Example: suppose a person can credibly be shown to be taking part in a conspiracy to commit a bombing; the extent of the conspiracy is not known, however. In such cases, a court might grant a wiretap or bug, which would involve modifying some of a subject's property in a way that the tap was invisible. Likewise, suppose the persons were believed to be using the internet with strong encryption to coordinate the bombing. Perhaps the court could authorize putting BO2K on the user's computer to capture keystrokes. The intelligence agency may not have such a legal right, and I'd say that the fact they feel the need to get legal authority to do such things is a good sign. I'd doubt very much that the CIA or NSA would let a little thing like illegality stop them.
So, a lot depends on exactly was is being granted. Anyone have any facts to offer?
People, we're witnessing governments' last stand. (Score:2)
Re:this vs regular wiretapping? (Score:2)
This australian law allows for easy access to all computer data, including wire tapping.
Re:Encryption in Australia (Score:2)
Last I checked, pretty good (much better than the US). The SSLeay (now OpenSSL) and Cryptix projects were both started there. Kind of an odd contradiction, really... unless, of course, they're planning on making some, uh, alterations (read: reversals) to their encryption laws soon (which would not suprise me much).
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Do you even know anything about the NRA? Or are you just repeating third party disinformation spread by the anti-freedom media? Interestingly enough the media likes to talk about protecting the 1st Amendment (which should be done), but they don't seem to think that it should apply to the NRA.
Re:Oh Sure... (Score:2)
Unfortunately america is full of uneducated lunatics. And unfortunately those people tend to group in militia.
I think you are mistaking your right of free speech and your right to form a political party with the right to form a private army. Hitler, a german guy, did both in the thirties and the results were very bad for individual freedom.
"(NOTE: I AM NOT IN A MILITIA, NOR DO I EVER INTEND TO JOIN ONE.)"
Good for you, but a lot of other people are and I don't symphatize with any of them. I would sleep a lot better if their guns were taken away from them. People in militias are people who are plainly to stupid and ignorant to join a political party and use their constitutional right to change the system in a civilized way. Stupid people and guns is a deadly combination. Usually in a civil war intellectuals and smart people are the first to die when militia take control (look at places like Serbia and Rwanda if you don't believe me).
My government (in the netherlands in case you wonder) should protect me from this kind of people, that's what I vote for and that's why I pay my taxes.
Re:keep cool (Score:2)
I don't understand your point.
You agree that the Australian regulation is ignorant and inept, then seem to be trying to justify it on the basis that there is evil in the world.
Laws have been around for a very long time, and we already have of the ones we could ever need. Very rarely is it really necessary to invent new laws, when a law that is properly drafted in the first place (and is enforced by judges who aren't afraid to LART a few loophole-seeking lawyers) will often serve. How many things are there on the Net which are immoral now, were already illegal outside the Net yesterday and have actually had their illegal status appreciably changed by this new law ? If something is already illegal to do, then you don't need anew law to cover it, just because it happens in a new place.
Whenever governments are let loose with a lawbook, they write in new laws which reduce personal freedom in favour of government control, and at little benefit to the general population. We already had the means to punish many of the crimes that "occur on the Net" and if we needed any more, then it certainly wasn't a draconian ruling of this magnitude.
Re:NOW is the time for /.'ers to raise the voice.. (Score:2)
This is both true and false.
Some previous government (right-wing, I think) had passed a law putting strict constraints on cryptography. The current government (left-wing, or "socialist" if you prefer) is removing those restrictions, and actively promotes the use of cryptography.
So far, they lifted the limit on encryption without authorization from 40-bit to 128-bit. They couldn't go further legally - the executive branch just can't say "hey, the law says that there should be limits on encryption technology, but, hey, we issue an executive order saying not to care about it". They are proposing a law which would shred the remaining restrictions - and perhaps give some legal power of digital signatures. Alas, parliament is currently overloaded due to silly foot-dragging tactics by the right wing. How intelligent.
[And to contradict another myth: France does not regulated in which languages Web pages are written, except when they are from government agencies (understandable) and when they constitute an advertisement (you must put a translation nearby; this is because of litigations on misleading advertisement. Any other claim is myth.
People that want to verify can always check official legal codes on http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
Don't trust what the press says!]
A different way (Score:2)
Re:First the U.K., then Australia, then... ? (Score:2)
jsm
Re:Pretty bad legislation (Score:2)
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
It might seem that way, but unless the US military was willing to take significant casualties and/or unleash weapons of mass destruction against the civilian population (IE start bombing civilians), in fact the military would stand no chance against a motivated, armed guerilla populace. One only has to look to such examples as Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Chechnya as examples of how traditional armies don't always fare well against entrenched people on their home turf. And as far as the populace goes, the people of those countries are/were way behind the people of the US, where it is estimated that around 80 million of the 270 million population own at least one firearm. And when it comes right down to it, the US military would suffer wide scale defection and low morale if they were required to fire upon people who might be their friends, neighbors or family members. It isn't so easy to kill people who are so like oneself as it is to kill people who are easily identified as enemies (because they look different, speak a different language or are wearing a different uniform).
Isn't the government in Oz Freely Elected? (Score:2)
I grew up in the 60's and let me tell you, it is quite possible for citizens to have a big impact on government.
What are you waiting for? If you do not take political action you have only yourselves to blame for how you are governed.
Oh, aand if you need ideas on how this works, grab a copy of Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobediance" and give it a careful read.
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
This is arguable at best for Nazi Germany and absolutely false for Cuba and Yugoslavia.
In Nazi Germany, weapons were removed from the population by the Allied powers as part of the Versailles settlement. And if disastrous mistakes hadn't been made in the Weimar Republic, Hitler would not have come to power. (In any case, your argument seems to presuppose widespread popular opposition to the Nazis in Germany, which there was not).
In Cuba, they were ruled by a dictator (Batista) with guns allowed, then they had a revolution, fought with guns, then they were ruled by a dictator (Castro) with guns not allowed. That's been a pretty unfortunate rock to be stuck to this century (rum and salsa excepted), but clearly has nothing to do with firearms policy.
In Yugoslavia, Tito took power at the end of the Second World War, following on directly from a monarchy. And indeed, under Tito, Yugoslavia was a fairly free country (albeit a one-party state). It was not a bad place to live at all. And despite compulsory registration, gun ownership in Yugoslavia was widespread, as has been tragically proved over the last ten years.
Your general attitude to government is one I share, but statements like this don't do much to advance it.
jsm
Re:This is scary. (Score:2)
Define "civillian firearms" with enough time and the right tool I can convert SEVERAL different target rifles into the functional equivalent of their military counterparts. I don't do this because it's illegal and only would endanger my right to own them, BUT if the need were great enough in the future I'd be forced to do so.
But nonetheless you are mistaken. Look at Afghanistan, Look at Vietnam, the two most powerful military forces on the planet couldn't stomp underequipped native people into defeat.
Have you ever heard of a little place called Waco Texas? The Branch Davidians had a 50 caliber rifle. With the proper ammunition there aren't many things that a 50 cal can't shoot through. The 50 caliber is a legitimate hunting rifle that is used for long distance BIG GAME hunting.
BTW, it is illegal to use the Military for domestic law enforcement.
LK
As an Australian... (Score:2)
The whole IT industry here is fed up the gills with this crap and we've run out of ideas on how to stop the insanity.
A clarification of terminology (Score:2)
ASIO is *not* the equivalent of the CIA. ASIS, the Australian Security and Intelligence Service (acronym expansion slightly uncertain here), is the Australian equivalent of the CIA. ASIS, and the CIA, are (legally anyway) not involved with domestic intelligence. They spy on other countries, in other words, not their own citizens.
ASIO are a highly secretive, but quite small, organisation that is mainly involved with counterintelligence (ie making sure that local diplomats stick to diplomatic activities rather than spying) and tracking "internal security threats". Over the years these have historically included Communists (which seem to scare the bejeezus out of Americans, and Australians of an earlier age, but seem pretty laughable to me), and Vietnam war protesters. Not surprisingly, the political left has disliked ASIO for quite some time. It was only in the 80's that they came to accept the perceived need for an intelligence agency (and when you've got a country of 200 million people that seems to be de facto run by a rather nasty army across 100 miles of water from you, a foreign intelligence service comes in handy).
I should make clear that this is more dumb legislation from a minister who seems to make only dumb legislation. He's the one responsible for the net censorship laws (which didn't achieve their desired goal - get a tax bill past a particular Senator), he's mandating an extremely dumb HDTV broadcasting standard that no-one else in the world will use, and now this. Technologically savvy Australians are counting the days until Senator Alston gets the boot, either by election or by his own party.
Repealing the Bill of Rights (Score:2)
Yes the prohibition amendment was repealed... with another amendment. No, it wasn't a legal precedent, it was simply an application of the rules in the Constitution providing for amendments:
Artivle V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The Bill of Rights is nothing more (or less) than the first 10 Amendments because it wasn't even in the Constitution at first. It was a list of 11 (yes 11!) laws which were proposed to insure that the people would be protected just a bit more from the governement. 10 of them passed through this process to become part of the Constitution and the 11th fell short of the 2/3 of the States and sat around unratified but ratifiable(sp?) for 200+ years until several years ago the requisite 34th State (don't remember which) ratified it:
Amendment XXVII
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
The Bill of Rights legally have a status identical to all other amendments, and thus all other parts of the Constitution, making them subject to amendment (and, yes, repeal). What sets the Bill of Rights apart is this almost worshipful attitude most Americans have towards them (which you displayed to a small degree
I reccomend you read up a little on the relevant documents:
The Constitution [house.gov]
The Amendments [house.gov]
There are also 1 or 2 papers and books and articles and such which have been written about these documents if you want to brush up on the background.
Chris
Where is your outrage, Australia? (Score:2)
Censorship, the removal of citizen-owned guns, and now complete digital search, seizure, and alteration is "legal" Down Under. Must your backs be against the firing squad wall before you dobies realize that you are setting yourselves up for a one-way ticket to complete dictatorship?
My company will never invest in Australia or locate equipment there while you continue to exhibit such insane tolerance for your politician's bleeding-heart policies.
The public good is not served if Australian citizens have no way to curb their government's actions. Wake up!
Re:my view (apology) (Score:2)