Push for Australians' web browsing histories to be stored(smh.com.au)
smh.com.au
Push for Australians' web browsing histories to be stored
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/push-for-australians-web-browsing-histories-to-be-stored-20140317-34xtr.html
50 comments
That's really encouraging. I reposted your comment to Reddit [0] - is that alright?
By the way, your third link is broken. It should be:
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...
This is why defeatism annoys me. There are things we can do to fight this, and we should be doing them.
[0]: https://pay.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/20mk33/asio_and_...
By the way, your third link is broken. It should be:
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...
This is why defeatism annoys me. There are things we can do to fight this, and we should be doing them.
[0]: https://pay.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/20mk33/asio_and_...
Yeah, go for it. That is indeed the correct link.
It's funny, because I was happy to read the coverage about the overwhelming amount of letters they received regarding data retention. However I was really dumbfounded when they mailed my a physical book with the contents of the report in it, rather than just emailing a link to the PDF or something. Lo and behold, it actually turned out to be useful for me to sit down on the couch this morning and thumb through after reading this new headline about the topic.
It's funny, because I was happy to read the coverage about the overwhelming amount of letters they received regarding data retention. However I was really dumbfounded when they mailed my a physical book with the contents of the report in it, rather than just emailing a link to the PDF or something. Lo and behold, it actually turned out to be useful for me to sit down on the couch this morning and thumb through after reading this new headline about the topic.
"The techniques of the police, which are developing at an extremely rapid tempo, have as their necessary end the transformation of the entire nation into a concentration camp. This is no perverse decision on the part of some party or government. To be sure of apprehending criminals, it is necessary that everyone be supervised. It is necessary to know exactly what every citizen is up to, to know his relations, his amusements, etc. And the state is increasingly in a position to know these things."
- Jacques Ellul "The Technological Society" (1964)
- Jacques Ellul "The Technological Society" (1964)
Great quote, thanks. Never heard of him before, but definitely a man ahead of his time. Here's another cherry:
"it is a fact that excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener; they drown him. He cannot remember them all, or coordinate them, or understand them; if he does not want to risk losing his mind, he will merely draw a general picture from them. And the more facts supplied, the more simplistic the image"
- "Propoganda" (1965)
"it is a fact that excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener; they drown him. He cannot remember them all, or coordinate them, or understand them; if he does not want to risk losing his mind, he will merely draw a general picture from them. And the more facts supplied, the more simplistic the image"
- "Propoganda" (1965)
[deleted]
I'm afraid to say that in Australia the reaction to these privacy and personal rights issues has been lethargic and frankly lazy. Under some circumstances, a lowly under educated clerk with no security clearance of any kind can, with the approval of a single supervisor, access data such as metadata for a variety of reasons. The reaction of the vast majority of the population is complete political apathy.
Australia began it's modern europeanised existence as a police state, and I honestly don't think that it's evolved through law beyond that initial modality.
It has never had in it's constitution the expectations on rights of the citizen that underpin the US constitution.
It's unlikely that there'll be much resistance from the public to these proposals.
Australia began it's modern europeanised existence as a police state, and I honestly don't think that it's evolved through law beyond that initial modality.
It has never had in it's constitution the expectations on rights of the citizen that underpin the US constitution.
It's unlikely that there'll be much resistance from the public to these proposals.
You complain that the public's reaction to these issues has been lethargic and lazy, but then the rest of your post reads as an obituary of freedom in Australia.
I, for one, am sick of this defeatist attitude which I see all too often from (small-l) liberals in Australia.
Australians have fought against authoritarianism, and we need to continue to fight. We stopped the Internet filter, we pirate more than any other country, and we have Green party representatives in both houses of the national parliament.
I think a Bill of Rights is non-democratic in Westminster-judicial societies. Whereas in the US the judicial branch is somewhat accountable to the people, in the UK, Canada and Australia, the people's will is only expressed in parliament. So, if the Australian parliament amended our constitution with a bill of rights, it would be handing power from our elected representatives to our non-elected High Court judges.
Furthermore, bills of rights are only superficial in protecting rights - they are always subject to the whim of the culture and society in which they operate. Canada has a bill of rights [0] supposedly protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right, yet "discriminatory speech" is illegal (e.g. a comedian discriminating against homosexuals [1]).
[0]: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/page-1.html
[1]: http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/20/comedian-dinged-for...
Sure, "discriminatory speech" has been ruled illegal in Australia too [2], but my point is: what's the point of a bill of rights, then?
[2]: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/29/bolt-decision-irresponsi...
Or, another example, look at how well the US' Fourth Amendment is protecting Americans from mass surveillance. I would posit that the reason the US has maintained more freedoms than other countries isn't thanks to its Bill of Rights, but thanks to their cultural belief in the importance of liberty. (or maybe its their distrust of government oppression of liberty? I can't tell)
So, as an Australian, I have no problem with not having a bill of rights. If we become a republic, and our High Court judges are then accountable to us? Maybe. But I'll want to hear from respected law professors before making my mind up. See [3] for a good discussion, and links to reading material.
[3]: http://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/q7xhm/what_are_the_a...
Anyway, more on-topic, I do agree with you that Australians need to step up their game to fight against authoritarianism. I don't agree that what we need is a bill of rights, and I do think we still have hope as a society.
I, for one, am sick of this defeatist attitude which I see all too often from (small-l) liberals in Australia.
Australians have fought against authoritarianism, and we need to continue to fight. We stopped the Internet filter, we pirate more than any other country, and we have Green party representatives in both houses of the national parliament.
I think a Bill of Rights is non-democratic in Westminster-judicial societies. Whereas in the US the judicial branch is somewhat accountable to the people, in the UK, Canada and Australia, the people's will is only expressed in parliament. So, if the Australian parliament amended our constitution with a bill of rights, it would be handing power from our elected representatives to our non-elected High Court judges.
Furthermore, bills of rights are only superficial in protecting rights - they are always subject to the whim of the culture and society in which they operate. Canada has a bill of rights [0] supposedly protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right, yet "discriminatory speech" is illegal (e.g. a comedian discriminating against homosexuals [1]).
[0]: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/page-1.html
[1]: http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/20/comedian-dinged-for...
Sure, "discriminatory speech" has been ruled illegal in Australia too [2], but my point is: what's the point of a bill of rights, then?
[2]: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/29/bolt-decision-irresponsi...
Or, another example, look at how well the US' Fourth Amendment is protecting Americans from mass surveillance. I would posit that the reason the US has maintained more freedoms than other countries isn't thanks to its Bill of Rights, but thanks to their cultural belief in the importance of liberty. (or maybe its their distrust of government oppression of liberty? I can't tell)
So, as an Australian, I have no problem with not having a bill of rights. If we become a republic, and our High Court judges are then accountable to us? Maybe. But I'll want to hear from respected law professors before making my mind up. See [3] for a good discussion, and links to reading material.
[3]: http://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/q7xhm/what_are_the_a...
Anyway, more on-topic, I do agree with you that Australians need to step up their game to fight against authoritarianism. I don't agree that what we need is a bill of rights, and I do think we still have hope as a society.
I agree with most things you have posted in this thoughtful comment, specifically to do with the lack of need for a bill of rights in a Westminster democracy (which most people do not understand).
However, characterizing having Greens party members in parliament as some sort of measure of liberalism made me do a double-take. The Greens are many things, but small-l liberal they most definitely are not. While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young voter base, they also include many, many policies which are an anathema to people interested in freedom. They were a large backer of government regulation of the press, they have many policies which bring in serious regulation of many industries and frequently talk of population caps. They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator. There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.
Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is said and what is voted for.
However, characterizing having Greens party members in parliament as some sort of measure of liberalism made me do a double-take. The Greens are many things, but small-l liberal they most definitely are not. While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young voter base, they also include many, many policies which are an anathema to people interested in freedom. They were a large backer of government regulation of the press, they have many policies which bring in serious regulation of many industries and frequently talk of population caps. They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator. There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.
Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is said and what is voted for.
Liberalism is a really broad idea. In general, it's based on the principles of achieving liberty and equality for everyone. There lots of differing (often incompatible) views about how to do that.
> While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young voter base
I think that's a really unfair position to take on their policy here; it trivializes the effort they (in particular, Scott Ludlam) are putting into it. [0] They've fought more than just the Internet filter - Scott Ludlam has introduced a bill [1] that would end mass surveillance by Australian intelligence agencies, he's continuously made motions in the Senate to inquire about mass surveillance, and made speeches about the importance of whistleblowers in a democracy.
Look, sure, I would agree that the Greens party could do more. Ending mass surveillance and supporting Internet freedom aren't a central tenet of their platform, but that's their right (I'm not a Greens member). It's why I vote for the Pirate Party in the senate (and I would vote for them in the lower house if they had a representative in my seat). I plan to volunteer for the Pirate Party at the next election, if I'm in Australia then.
If you take issue with a party taking a particular position to appeal to a certain voter base, then you take issue with representative democracy in general.
> They were a large backer of government regulation of the press
The Australian Greens believe that:
- Freedom of the press and effective, affordable and accessible media and communications systems are integral to the functioning of a successful democratic society.
- Australia must have an independent regulatory framework for media, communications and advertising.
- Net neutrality is important for an open internet.
- Documents placed in the public domain by government should be accessible with free non-proprietary software, and public data should be made available in open, inter-operable formats.
- The government should lead by example and embrace open source and open standards.
That said, if you believe that government is anathema to liberty (I don't), you would consider any law relevant to any part of the press as being "regulation". I think these aims of the Greens make sense (mostly):
- Diversity of both opinion and ownership of media across Australia and a strict limitation on the number of media outlets an individual entity can own or control.
- Truth in political advertising legislated.
- Individuals protected from defamation actions designed to stifle participation in public debates.
- Effective regulation of the digital games industry to ensure children are not exposed to excessive violence or sexual content.
My support of that last aim wavers on the meaning of "effective regulation". I do support a rating system for games to help parents choose, but I wouldn't support censoring anything outright (I don't think the Greens would, either).
> [the Greens] frequently talk of population caps
Source?
> They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator.
I really don't care. I only care about their policies and their actions - and I mostly agree with them.
> There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.
It's really useful to be able to come to terms with views that differ to your own. Your version of liberty isn't the only version of liberty.
In my opinion, the Greens are far and away the most liberal major party in Australian politics. They may not align with your view of "true liberty", but that doesn't mean they're not liberal. They very clearly support liberty (in words and actions), certainly more so than Labor or the Liberals/Nationals. The Pirate Party agrees with me here: the Greens are at the top of their preferences.
> Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is said and what is voted for.
There are a few policies of the LDP that I support, that few other parties care about. I support abolishing most federal departments and reforming the constitution to give states legal autonomy, because I believe smaller governments are more democratic and less susceptible to corruption. I support privatizing Australia Post, electricity generation, and bus and ferry transport, because those industries are open to competition, and their profit motives align with the public good. They do have a lot of policies supporting liberty that I agree with.
Unfortunately, I think their beliefs in how to achieve a free and equal society are, quite plainly, bonkers. I think there are lot of industries where the profit motive does not align with the public good (education, health, media, prison, military), or where competitiveness is intrinsically nonexistent (rural telecommunications infrastructure, metro train transport). I would always support private competition in those industries, but I think it's important to have publicly-owned offerings to provide a lower-bound in service and quality.
Furthermore, I believe there are government regulations that directly decrease liberty, but indirectly increase liberty much more. Workplace regulations (minimum wage, discrimination, safety, training), gambling, international trade (to some extent), banking, and drugs (control, not criminalization) fall into this category.
On taxation: I believe we should tax our super-profitable industries so that we can share the wealth we have now with future generations, and so that they don't create an imbalance in the rest of the economy.
A major reason I support the Pirate Party is that their entire process is really inclusive: they have a well-maintained wiki, an updated blog, and an active IRC channel. Their policy development process is open and democratic. They're like the Labor party of the 21st Century.
In contrast, most other political parties' processes are closed and private - including the LDP. It's unfortunate that for all the LDP's espousing of liberty and direct democracy, they don't seem to keen to create a democratic environment for their own party.
[0]: http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/prism
[1]: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislati...
[2]: http://greens.org.au/policies/media-communications
> While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young voter base
I think that's a really unfair position to take on their policy here; it trivializes the effort they (in particular, Scott Ludlam) are putting into it. [0] They've fought more than just the Internet filter - Scott Ludlam has introduced a bill [1] that would end mass surveillance by Australian intelligence agencies, he's continuously made motions in the Senate to inquire about mass surveillance, and made speeches about the importance of whistleblowers in a democracy.
Look, sure, I would agree that the Greens party could do more. Ending mass surveillance and supporting Internet freedom aren't a central tenet of their platform, but that's their right (I'm not a Greens member). It's why I vote for the Pirate Party in the senate (and I would vote for them in the lower house if they had a representative in my seat). I plan to volunteer for the Pirate Party at the next election, if I'm in Australia then.
If you take issue with a party taking a particular position to appeal to a certain voter base, then you take issue with representative democracy in general.
> They were a large backer of government regulation of the press
The Australian Greens believe that:
- Freedom of the press and effective, affordable and accessible media and communications systems are integral to the functioning of a successful democratic society.
- Australia must have an independent regulatory framework for media, communications and advertising.
- Net neutrality is important for an open internet.
- Documents placed in the public domain by government should be accessible with free non-proprietary software, and public data should be made available in open, inter-operable formats.
- The government should lead by example and embrace open source and open standards.
That said, if you believe that government is anathema to liberty (I don't), you would consider any law relevant to any part of the press as being "regulation". I think these aims of the Greens make sense (mostly):
- Diversity of both opinion and ownership of media across Australia and a strict limitation on the number of media outlets an individual entity can own or control.
- Truth in political advertising legislated.
- Individuals protected from defamation actions designed to stifle participation in public debates.
- Effective regulation of the digital games industry to ensure children are not exposed to excessive violence or sexual content.
My support of that last aim wavers on the meaning of "effective regulation". I do support a rating system for games to help parents choose, but I wouldn't support censoring anything outright (I don't think the Greens would, either).
> [the Greens] frequently talk of population caps
Source?
> They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator.
I really don't care. I only care about their policies and their actions - and I mostly agree with them.
> There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.
It's really useful to be able to come to terms with views that differ to your own. Your version of liberty isn't the only version of liberty.
In my opinion, the Greens are far and away the most liberal major party in Australian politics. They may not align with your view of "true liberty", but that doesn't mean they're not liberal. They very clearly support liberty (in words and actions), certainly more so than Labor or the Liberals/Nationals. The Pirate Party agrees with me here: the Greens are at the top of their preferences.
> Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is said and what is voted for.
There are a few policies of the LDP that I support, that few other parties care about. I support abolishing most federal departments and reforming the constitution to give states legal autonomy, because I believe smaller governments are more democratic and less susceptible to corruption. I support privatizing Australia Post, electricity generation, and bus and ferry transport, because those industries are open to competition, and their profit motives align with the public good. They do have a lot of policies supporting liberty that I agree with.
Unfortunately, I think their beliefs in how to achieve a free and equal society are, quite plainly, bonkers. I think there are lot of industries where the profit motive does not align with the public good (education, health, media, prison, military), or where competitiveness is intrinsically nonexistent (rural telecommunications infrastructure, metro train transport). I would always support private competition in those industries, but I think it's important to have publicly-owned offerings to provide a lower-bound in service and quality.
Furthermore, I believe there are government regulations that directly decrease liberty, but indirectly increase liberty much more. Workplace regulations (minimum wage, discrimination, safety, training), gambling, international trade (to some extent), banking, and drugs (control, not criminalization) fall into this category.
On taxation: I believe we should tax our super-profitable industries so that we can share the wealth we have now with future generations, and so that they don't create an imbalance in the rest of the economy.
A major reason I support the Pirate Party is that their entire process is really inclusive: they have a well-maintained wiki, an updated blog, and an active IRC channel. Their policy development process is open and democratic. They're like the Labor party of the 21st Century.
In contrast, most other political parties' processes are closed and private - including the LDP. It's unfortunate that for all the LDP's espousing of liberty and direct democracy, they don't seem to keen to create a democratic environment for their own party.
[0]: http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/prism
[1]: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislati...
[2]: http://greens.org.au/policies/media-communications
Well so far it hasn't happened. In fact it hasn't even reached the point where it might be seriously turned into law. I'd say it's getting the exact level of reaction it deserves, since we keep winning on the issue.
People will get more active when it looks more likely to go before parliament.
People will get more active when it looks more likely to go before parliament.
Yes, we should be more like the 'free' US, what with their frequently paramilitarised police and 'free speech zones', law-enforcement drones and police kicking down doors because "I smelled pot", and an incarceration rate five times higher with people doing considerably longer sentences (despite the consitutional requirement for no excessive punishment).
Australia is not the bleak wasteland you paint it as, and it's not a police state. Using this kind of hyperbole does no-one any favours. Do you really think that Australians fear their neighbours like the people in East Germany did? The PM recently said that the government broadcasting agent should not be so negative about the government and should be more like it's cheer squad. He was pilloried by the private press for saying such a thing.
I'm interested to know what privacy and personal rights you think the US has that Australia doesn't. The US has 'bear arms', true. It has slightly greater private freedom of speech, but in practice slightly worse freedom of speech for the press.
As for the content of the constitution, that's not the way we do law. Just because the US shoves every silly thing into their constitution (or at least tries to), it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist for us if it's not in our constitution. We have shitloads of law outside the constitution. Hardly surprising, since in the US, you only require politicians to amend the constitution, but in Australia, you need to hold a referendum. And even in the US, the vast bulk of nattering about the constitution is just grandstanding - a law is a law. Being in the constitution simply makes it harder to repeal. Not being in the constitution doesn't make it any less legally binding, just easier to strike down.
Australia is not the bleak wasteland you paint it as, and it's not a police state. Using this kind of hyperbole does no-one any favours. Do you really think that Australians fear their neighbours like the people in East Germany did? The PM recently said that the government broadcasting agent should not be so negative about the government and should be more like it's cheer squad. He was pilloried by the private press for saying such a thing.
I'm interested to know what privacy and personal rights you think the US has that Australia doesn't. The US has 'bear arms', true. It has slightly greater private freedom of speech, but in practice slightly worse freedom of speech for the press.
As for the content of the constitution, that's not the way we do law. Just because the US shoves every silly thing into their constitution (or at least tries to), it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist for us if it's not in our constitution. We have shitloads of law outside the constitution. Hardly surprising, since in the US, you only require politicians to amend the constitution, but in Australia, you need to hold a referendum. And even in the US, the vast bulk of nattering about the constitution is just grandstanding - a law is a law. Being in the constitution simply makes it harder to repeal. Not being in the constitution doesn't make it any less legally binding, just easier to strike down.
Also, two entire states in America just legalized cannabis completely, Australia does not share land borders with its neighbors, and the US Constitution requires no "cruel or unusual punishments" which is different from "excessive."
Those are just three points to the generalized rubbish you've posted in support of whatever argument you're making. I don't say this to be mean but to cut to the quick and point out you're not posting anything particularly insightful when you gloss over inconvenient realities in either Australia or America.
Those are just three points to the generalized rubbish you've posted in support of whatever argument you're making. I don't say this to be mean but to cut to the quick and point out you're not posting anything particularly insightful when you gloss over inconvenient realities in either Australia or America.
Two entire states have legalised cannabis? Cool. Australia doesn't have stop-and-frisk anywhere, and certainly doesn't have politicians proudly calling for support of the practise. That's a pretty fundamental abuse of freedom right there, that for no reason, an authority can just stop you and search your person. Yes, there is police harassment like anywhere, but it's not codified into law and openly defended by politicians. As for 'unusual' punishments, excessive sentencing is a 'cruel or unusual' punishment.
My point was that the US is not the bastion of freedom that it's PR suggests. I was pointing out the US Bill of Rights still doesn't prevent these abuses from happening, as people seem to mythologise that document. I've mentioned in other threads that the level of freedom between the two countries really isn't that dissimilar - it's just that the idea that the US is the paragon of freedom above and beyond its contemporaries just simply is not true.
Anyway, I mentioned two things about Australia that you are apparently debunking: that we don't edit the constitution in the normal process of politics, because it requires a referendum to do so; and that we don't fear our neighbours like people in East Germany did. I said "Australia is not a bleak wasteland" and you say I'm glossing over reality? I wonder if you've ever been here, or if you merely think The Road Warrior is a documentary? If you happen to be Australian, then you've got a massive dollop of cultural cringe going on.
It's certainly not a police state as the OP put forward, and neither is the US or the UK.
My point was that the US is not the bastion of freedom that it's PR suggests. I was pointing out the US Bill of Rights still doesn't prevent these abuses from happening, as people seem to mythologise that document. I've mentioned in other threads that the level of freedom between the two countries really isn't that dissimilar - it's just that the idea that the US is the paragon of freedom above and beyond its contemporaries just simply is not true.
Anyway, I mentioned two things about Australia that you are apparently debunking: that we don't edit the constitution in the normal process of politics, because it requires a referendum to do so; and that we don't fear our neighbours like people in East Germany did. I said "Australia is not a bleak wasteland" and you say I'm glossing over reality? I wonder if you've ever been here, or if you merely think The Road Warrior is a documentary? If you happen to be Australian, then you've got a massive dollop of cultural cringe going on.
It's certainly not a police state as the OP put forward, and neither is the US or the UK.
This is not unique to Australia. It could happen here in the U.S. Here's a story I wrote in 2010:
FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited / "The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years..." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html
Other proposals that have circulated around DC officialdom have included mandatory data retention requirements aimed at social networks, sites that accept photo uploads, domain name registries: http://news.cnet.com/Politicos-mull-data-retention-by-Web-ho... http://news.cnet.com/Congress-targets-social-networking-site...
Of course these proposals are being advanced by politicians and bureaucrats who have only the vaguest glimmerings of an idea of how the Internet works (and even less of an appreciation for the limits the Constitution places on the federal government).
FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited / "The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years..." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html
Other proposals that have circulated around DC officialdom have included mandatory data retention requirements aimed at social networks, sites that accept photo uploads, domain name registries: http://news.cnet.com/Politicos-mull-data-retention-by-Web-ho... http://news.cnet.com/Congress-targets-social-networking-site...
Of course these proposals are being advanced by politicians and bureaucrats who have only the vaguest glimmerings of an idea of how the Internet works (and even less of an appreciation for the limits the Constitution places on the federal government).
I'm curious as to what it is about Australia that makes these obscenely invasive schemes tenable to the public. It's clear that surveillance agencies in representative governments all over the world want and pursue these kinds of capabilities, but almost none are brazen enough to advocate for them openly. Even fewer can do so and reasonably expect a nonzero chance of success.
Australia generally ignores most of what happens in parliament feeling they have other things todo which are better as it normally feels like we have elected five year olds to run our country.
Why do you think this is? I mean, assuming you think this is more the case in Australia than it is in other places.
I'm a little concerned that the RSPCA has warrantless access to my browsing history already. Aren't they a volunteer organisation that promotes animal welfare?
That jumped out at me too. I have no idea why they are included in this. Are they going to start trawling access records looking for "animal cruelty how to"?
Let's all just start spamming the fuck out of Australia.
Australian citizens should be equipped with tools to just spam the fuck out of their own ISPs, with absurd useless requests, as a form of civil disobedience.
Did I say the words "spam-the-fuck-out-of-it" enough in this post? No? SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF THAT SHIT.
Doesn't matter if they've performed analysis on the total possible consumible bandwidth, per subscriber, per ISP, and budgeted storage allocations times a hundred.
JUST SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING AT ALL TIMES. FUCK THIS BULLSHIT. DON'T BEHAVE.
Australian citizens should be equipped with tools to just spam the fuck out of their own ISPs, with absurd useless requests, as a form of civil disobedience.
Did I say the words "spam-the-fuck-out-of-it" enough in this post? No? SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF THAT SHIT.
Doesn't matter if they've performed analysis on the total possible consumible bandwidth, per subscriber, per ISP, and budgeted storage allocations times a hundred.
JUST SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING AT ALL TIMES. FUCK THIS BULLSHIT. DON'T BEHAVE.
Very relevant: http://flagger.io/
> Flagger is a browser add-on that automatically puts red flag keywords (like bomb, Taliban and anthrax) into the web addresses you visit. Install Flagger and help us send a message: government surveillance has gone too far.
> Flagger is a browser add-on that automatically puts red flag keywords (like bomb, Taliban and anthrax) into the web addresses you visit. Install Flagger and help us send a message: government surveillance has gone too far.
From most Australians I've spoken to, it won't take much spam action on their parts to exhaust their (expensive) Internet plans' (very small) data caps.
$59.99 for unlimited ADSL2+ - not really that expensive
There's no such thing as unlimited residential internet in Australia.
Not for $59.99 anyway - and from what I found, it is $79.99 with TPG, as you have to bundle your home phone with them. Also note the ~Limited coverage availability at selected ADSL2+ with Home Phone enabled exchange areas. Which would relate to the fact that they have to be exchanges that TPG owns, which you'll find is predominantly exclusive to Sydney (http://www.tpg.com.au/maps/).
Even with all of this, TPG is notorious for having poor service and high contention.
Not for $59.99 anyway - and from what I found, it is $79.99 with TPG, as you have to bundle your home phone with them. Also note the ~Limited coverage availability at selected ADSL2+ with Home Phone enabled exchange areas. Which would relate to the fact that they have to be exchanges that TPG owns, which you'll find is predominantly exclusive to Sydney (http://www.tpg.com.au/maps/).
Even with all of this, TPG is notorious for having poor service and high contention.
TPG is the only ones i know of at that price point, and they don't exactly over provision their internal network
Has anyone else pondered what would happen if knowledgeable people were to help Australians perform a civil protest in the form of a resource consumption attack?
Even with data caps in place I'm sure one could perform quite a few requests/second continuously for an entire month.
Multiply that by (hundreds of?) thousands of protesters and the logging system could be overwhelmed. Especially considering such a system would likely be badly implemented by the lowest bidder.
Even if it were not overwhelmed, the requests could be tailored to trigger as many false-positives as possible.
Even with data caps in place I'm sure one could perform quite a few requests/second continuously for an entire month.
Multiply that by (hundreds of?) thousands of protesters and the logging system could be overwhelmed. Especially considering such a system would likely be badly implemented by the lowest bidder.
Even if it were not overwhelmed, the requests could be tailored to trigger as many false-positives as possible.
Are you suggesting to commit computer fraud in an attempt to break government security systems, thereby giving terrorists and pedophiles free roam?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not? Lol.
How many cases have their been where they had a suspect and not having the last 2 years browsing history allowed the suspect to avoid conviction?
I really wish they provide some data like this even if it is anonymized or whatever. It would possibly make it less instantly repugnant if they could actually point to even a handful of cases where not having this data directly lead to a loss of life or similar.
If any Australian developers are interested in campaigning and raising awareness against these policies, visit http://taskforce.is and send me a message - Thomas
It seems as if english speaking countries are on a race to the bottom to see who can get to 1984 first. It's hard to see if this is just incompetence or the creepy fantasy of power-hungry thugs.
>The federal spying agency is supported by the Northern Territory Police, Victoria Police, Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission and Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, who all say they are in support of a data-retention regime.
Just once I'd like to see a law-enforcement agency somewhere in the world and do the unexpected: come out for individual liberty, and against invasive data practices. It would be remarkable because this data represents leverage that the cops can use against, well, anyone, and so to give it up as a matter of principle would be a laudable position.
Another interesting thing about this quote is that it so blatantly gives lie to the notion that any of this power is used, or is even intended to be used, for national security. No, this data is going to be used by cops on the street. It's going to be used as leverage, and as an insurance policy: if they beat you up, they do a background check and see if you did something wrong. If you did, they offer to reduce charges on those grave offenses if you agree not to charge the department with brutalizing you. If it wasn't for all that data, where would the poor old police have the leverage to strike such a deal? They'd have to go to all the trouble of actually getting warrants and seize your data, which is of course an undue burden on the police. Much better to have it all stored and waiting for use.
Just once I'd like to see a law-enforcement agency somewhere in the world and do the unexpected: come out for individual liberty, and against invasive data practices. It would be remarkable because this data represents leverage that the cops can use against, well, anyone, and so to give it up as a matter of principle would be a laudable position.
Another interesting thing about this quote is that it so blatantly gives lie to the notion that any of this power is used, or is even intended to be used, for national security. No, this data is going to be used by cops on the street. It's going to be used as leverage, and as an insurance policy: if they beat you up, they do a background check and see if you did something wrong. If you did, they offer to reduce charges on those grave offenses if you agree not to charge the department with brutalizing you. If it wasn't for all that data, where would the poor old police have the leverage to strike such a deal? They'd have to go to all the trouble of actually getting warrants and seize your data, which is of course an undue burden on the police. Much better to have it all stored and waiting for use.
Wow. Do they have any idea why librarians refuse to keep records of who check out what book? This is a billion times worse.
Is there any legal protection for users' reading lists in libraries? Because it would be wonderful if someone could set up a legal online library which would extend such protections onto the internet.
You bring a point I hadn't thought of yet: aside from illegal downloading, you can't buy an ebook anonymously.
See also Julie Cohen's 1996 paper on this problem:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=17990
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=17990
[deleted]
That's not all they're proposing, but also to be able to decrypt everything, from both users and companies:
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/375286,attorney-generals-new-w...
It's almost like Australia was watching UK, and all of the sudden they realized UK is getting too far ahead of them in becoming a totalitarian state, and they can't let UK win the race! If it wasn't so sad and terrifying, it would almost be fun to watch which of the two becomes a police state the fastest.
Unfortunately, potentially millions of lives will be affected by increasingly more draconian laws in these countries, whether they realize it or not (like with censorship, when it becomes hard to know what you're missing out on, because you don't know what's been censored).
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/375286,attorney-generals-new-w...
It's almost like Australia was watching UK, and all of the sudden they realized UK is getting too far ahead of them in becoming a totalitarian state, and they can't let UK win the race! If it wasn't so sad and terrifying, it would almost be fun to watch which of the two becomes a police state the fastest.
Unfortunately, potentially millions of lives will be affected by increasingly more draconian laws in these countries, whether they realize it or not (like with censorship, when it becomes hard to know what you're missing out on, because you don't know what's been censored).
Democracy rapidly disappears at this point. Parties can use the data to identify areas of the population who are unlikely to vote for them and target them with robocalls and false mailings that instruct them their voting poll address has changed, or the date for voting has changed in order to prevent them from voting at all. Blackmail is also an option, so is discrediting opposition when you have access to watch them 24/7.
By the time anybody figures out shenanigans went down nothing will come of it because everybody involved will deny, and any elections authority that could have investigated will be gutted, de-funded and dissolved to make sure nothing comes of it. If irregularities are recognized then they will simply put together a bullshit reform package, call it the 'Fair elections act' and it will be anything but fair
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-would-dise...
By the time anybody figures out shenanigans went down nothing will come of it because everybody involved will deny, and any elections authority that could have investigated will be gutted, de-funded and dissolved to make sure nothing comes of it. If irregularities are recognized then they will simply put together a bullshit reform package, call it the 'Fair elections act' and it will be anything but fair
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-would-dise...
I think you don't understand the Australian voting process very well. Australians are not as accepting of robocalls as Americans are (and with mobile phones becoming the norm, robocalls get expensive); the voting date is hard to fake since everyone has to vote at the same time and there are media blitzes about the date itself; and polling addresses are meaningless, because if you don't go to one of the ones for your electorate, you can go into a polling station anywhere in the country and record a vote, it just takes marginally longer. If you try and make it so that voters have to queue for 8 hours to lodge a vote in order to marginalise them, people will give up and go to another polling station. People here complain bitterly if they have to wait an hour to vote.
If someone did try the voting date switcheroo and succeeded in stopping a sizeable portion of people from voting, the most likely outcome - apart from the scandal - would be that the Australian Electoral Commission would call for a repeat of the voting for that electorate. By-elections happen all the time; it's not something that would be procedurally unusual.
Blackmail is still an option though, and still a good reason to oppose the law.
If someone did try the voting date switcheroo and succeeded in stopping a sizeable portion of people from voting, the most likely outcome - apart from the scandal - would be that the Australian Electoral Commission would call for a repeat of the voting for that electorate. By-elections happen all the time; it's not something that would be procedurally unusual.
Blackmail is still an option though, and still a good reason to oppose the law.
Too late to edit, but for clarity "everyone has to vote at the same time" is meant to be emphasis on 'everyone', rather than 'same time', since voting is mandatory. Since all voters have to show up rather than just those who want to, it's harder to mislead more people.
In a strange way, it's good that people don't get to vote. With voter apathy and declining turnout in many countries, might as well encourage people to stop voting.
Let voter turnout drop to single digit percentages. It would be hard for anybody to claim that the elected person had any kind of mandate. The news headlines would be farcicial, "Prime Minister elected, wins 55% of the popular vote, on 7% turnout"
Of course in Australia they currently fine you if you don't vote. Perhaps in future they'll make it a criminal offense and put people in prison for not voting!
Let voter turnout drop to single digit percentages. It would be hard for anybody to claim that the elected person had any kind of mandate. The news headlines would be farcicial, "Prime Minister elected, wins 55% of the popular vote, on 7% turnout"
Of course in Australia they currently fine you if you don't vote. Perhaps in future they'll make it a criminal offense and put people in prison for not voting!
The fine is a token amount ($20 - $50), although failure to pay results in the loss of your Drivers License. [1]
Considering the voting debacle in Western Australia (where a Senate result was declared with just a 14 vote margin, despite the Australian Electoral Commission admitting to losing 1375 ballot papers), I think there are some Australians debating whether they should participate in future elections.
[1] http://www.elections.wa.gov.au/vote/failure-vote [2] http://delimiter.com.au/2013/11/18/wa-likely-vote-senate/ [3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/court-of-disputed-retu...
Considering the voting debacle in Western Australia (where a Senate result was declared with just a 14 vote margin, despite the Australian Electoral Commission admitting to losing 1375 ballot papers), I think there are some Australians debating whether they should participate in future elections.
[1] http://www.elections.wa.gov.au/vote/failure-vote [2] http://delimiter.com.au/2013/11/18/wa-likely-vote-senate/ [3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/court-of-disputed-retu...
They fine you if you don't attend, You can drop a blank or invalid ballot paper
[deleted]
This is hardly a draconian law. It's an unwanted, unpleasant law, sure, but 'draconian'? You make it sound like a nightly 8pm curfew.
Seems like a good time invest in Australian VPNs...
Australia makes, in some of its data retention programs, a case for a distinction between "storing" and "temporarily retaining" information. This is certainly the case with the EU/Australian agreement over here: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/information_on_pnr_agreem...
The problem is that when one wing of government 'temporarily retains' something, local intelligence agencies will tap the cables and keep it forever.
The problem is that when one wing of government 'temporarily retains' something, local intelligence agencies will tap the cables and keep it forever.
"tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts"
One of the main reasons it didn't end up going further was likely due to the fact so many Australians wrote to the inquiry expressing their concerns [1]:
"The Committee received 240 submissions and 29 exhibits. Three submissions were received in largely identical terms from some 5,300 individual members of the public. These submitter's expressed opposition to the reform proposals, particularly the proposed mandatory data retention proposal."
The part you will be interested in is "Chapter 5 - Data Retention" [2]. In it, the committee came to the conclusion that there wan't enough information provided in the terms of reference to make a proper judgement. However they talk about how it is of obvious interest to the law enforcement agencies, and obvious problem to civil libertarians. They commented on how it is up to the government to choose how to make a decision and take into account these two opposing views.
This is actually the first time I participated in a democratic process, beyond voting, and was pleasantly surprised to find out (only this morning during a more detailed read through the report) that they quoted my submission! [2 (Box 1)].
It is sort of the opposite to voting, where you feel "how can I make a difference". If you take the time to write in to such an inquiry, then it is highly likely that your opinion will get taken seriously.
[0] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...
[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...
[2] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...