Terror laws clear Australian Senate, enabling entire web to be monitored(smh.com.au)
smh.com.au
Terror laws clear Australian Senate, enabling entire web to be monitored
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/terror-laws-clear-senate-enabling-entire-australian-web-to-be-monitored-and-whistleblowers-to-be-jailed-20140925-10m8ih.html
112 comments
"The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."
― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta
Incredible, even after seeing up close what America has gone through because of laws like these passed in the wake of 9/11, Australia is going to pass the same sweeping type of surveillance laws? And Australia doesn't even have the excuse of a recent terror attack.
What is going on there, Aussies? How is there enough support to pass these kinds of laws? (or is there?)
I would have thought post-Snowden this would have been out of the question.
What is going on there, Aussies? How is there enough support to pass these kinds of laws? (or is there?)
I would have thought post-Snowden this would have been out of the question.
The public believes there has been a recent terror attack because the news have been reporting stories of the "home-grown terror threat" of local ISIS supporters planning to execute members of the public.
Over 800 police were involved on raids that ended up detaining 30, and only one individual has been arrested on any terrorism-related charge. The national security threat level was raised, and the general public seems to believe that there is something to fear.
I'm going a bit conspiratard here, but it looks an awful lot like the government just invented a terror threat to gain new powers...
Over 800 police were involved on raids that ended up detaining 30, and only one individual has been arrested on any terrorism-related charge. The national security threat level was raised, and the general public seems to believe that there is something to fear.
I'm going a bit conspiratard here, but it looks an awful lot like the government just invented a terror threat to gain new powers...
It is a little spooky when you go through the numbers. Reminds me of this a little. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
There's no conspiracy theory. It is blatantly obvious what they are doing. It's disgusting.
It is a conspiracy theory, and its utterly nuts.
The people who work for our government agencies by and large are looking to protect our country. They feel they need additional powers to better protect us against the threat of islamic extremists.
Given the numbers of people going to participate in terrorist acts in Syria, there may well be valid reasons to request these powers. What makes this hard is that the data to show whether these laws are needed or not is highly classified and is unlikely to be shared with the public.
We as Australians should clearly debate whether the liberties we will lose are acceptable, even if they are only temporary.
For my perspective, I am perfectly happy to reverse the onus of proof on people who travel to known hotspots to demonstrate that they were not involved in terrorist activities.
But hyperbole and conspiracy theories do nothing to improve the level of debate, or even help advance your cause
The people who work for our government agencies by and large are looking to protect our country. They feel they need additional powers to better protect us against the threat of islamic extremists.
Given the numbers of people going to participate in terrorist acts in Syria, there may well be valid reasons to request these powers. What makes this hard is that the data to show whether these laws are needed or not is highly classified and is unlikely to be shared with the public.
We as Australians should clearly debate whether the liberties we will lose are acceptable, even if they are only temporary.
For my perspective, I am perfectly happy to reverse the onus of proof on people who travel to known hotspots to demonstrate that they were not involved in terrorist activities.
But hyperbole and conspiracy theories do nothing to improve the level of debate, or even help advance your cause
No power like this is temporary, it becomes normal in short order and eventually considered as foolish to no have had long before... All built on a foundation of lies "temporary" only in name.
> What is going on there, Aussies?
From decades of comfortable living, Australia has one of the most politically apathetic populations of any country. Nobody cares. Or, rather, only a very small minority actually cares to think about this stuff.
From decades of comfortable living, Australia has one of the most politically apathetic populations of any country. Nobody cares. Or, rather, only a very small minority actually cares to think about this stuff.
I suspect this is pretty much the answer. Whether or not the reserve bank will move interest rates on people's mortgages a quarter of a point will get far more news coverage than this.
This is not an either or scenario. As someone living in Australia I care about both things. Both effect my future.
Australia has one of the most politically apathetic populations of any country
Except about immigrants. Don't get them started on the immigrants :)
Except about immigrants. Don't get them started on the immigrants :)
The average person doesn't care about government snooping. They have a million other worries in their life. Sure, they might watch the news and see a new report on a Snowden leak, but they probably don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other, and so they'll just ignore and go on with their daily life.
I think the average person hears "new terrorism laws", doesn't hear any other words, and is happy because they think it means the government is rounding up brown people and imprisoning them for being brown.
As far as I can tell from mainstream journalism here in Australia, that's the top priority for most people. It doesn't matter if the brown people are immigrants, refugees, terrorists or locals.
As far as I can tell from mainstream journalism here in Australia, that's the top priority for most people. It doesn't matter if the brown people are immigrants, refugees, terrorists or locals.
That's definitely my experience in attempting to deal with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (trying to get tourist visas for my brown de-facto partner); and also my experience when talking to Australians outside my immediate clique.
I'm an Australian who lives/works overseas but spends quite a bit of time in Australia, and it's quite sickening to return every 6 months to a more polarised, racist, and terrified public -- and it's sure as hell not Al Qaeda, Daesh or any other external group that's causing the problems, it's the mainstream media.
I'm an Australian who lives/works overseas but spends quite a bit of time in Australia, and it's quite sickening to return every 6 months to a more polarised, racist, and terrified public -- and it's sure as hell not Al Qaeda, Daesh or any other external group that's causing the problems, it's the mainstream media.
As an Australian I concur with the parent statement.
> The average person doesn't care about government snooping.
Last week New Zealand re-elected their head office just days after government spying came to light. The majority of voters don't care. To quote another reddit thread:
> The big reveal was actually that New Zealand was conducting mass surveillance of its population when it's PM and gov't promised it wasn't.[1]
Last year New Zealand was voted 'freest country.'[2]
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2gf9p3/the_kim_do...
[2] http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.as...
Last week New Zealand re-elected their head office just days after government spying came to light. The majority of voters don't care. To quote another reddit thread:
> The big reveal was actually that New Zealand was conducting mass surveillance of its population when it's PM and gov't promised it wasn't.[1]
Last year New Zealand was voted 'freest country.'[2]
[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2gf9p3/the_kim_do...
[2] http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.as...
> after government spying came to light
It's complicated.
Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald released proof about plans for mass surveillance, but most voters were satisfied with Prime Minister Key's explanation that the plans were not implemented. If the mass surveillance system was implemented, there wasn't any evidence provided from Mr. Snowden's cache of documents.
And, like you said, the majority of voters didn't care.
It's complicated.
Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald released proof about plans for mass surveillance, but most voters were satisfied with Prime Minister Key's explanation that the plans were not implemented. If the mass surveillance system was implemented, there wasn't any evidence provided from Mr. Snowden's cache of documents.
And, like you said, the majority of voters didn't care.
They covered that in their talk. It 100% was implemented.
You can watch the talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKSDmwKcFQA
You can watch the talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKSDmwKcFQA
Really? I watched the talk, I didn't see any evidence or concrete claim that it was actually implemented. I'm 100% against surveillance, BTW.
I don't think what Snowden and the PM were saying were so incompatible - it's a word game. Sir Bruce Ferguson (ex head of the GCSB) said on RNZ that surveillance is an agent actively looking at data, so "mass surveillance" would be agents actively looking at 4.4M peoples' data. Clearly that's not happening, so John Key can claim that there's no mass surveillance here with no conflict. Snowden said he routinely saw New Zealanders' data, but the Americans can collect all that data with impunity since we're all filthy foreigners to them - there was no evidence presented that it's the GCSB actually collecting it.
This is why surveillance, like tax, needs international laws these days - domestic law is mostly irrelevant unless you're the US. In our case the US can collect our data with no issues since basically all our internet goes through there, and we can just ask them for it if we want it. Everyone can say they're not doing any wrong with no fear of contradiction, and everyone is happy.
Except us, of course, because, you know, we're being constantly monitored.
I don't think what Snowden and the PM were saying were so incompatible - it's a word game. Sir Bruce Ferguson (ex head of the GCSB) said on RNZ that surveillance is an agent actively looking at data, so "mass surveillance" would be agents actively looking at 4.4M peoples' data. Clearly that's not happening, so John Key can claim that there's no mass surveillance here with no conflict. Snowden said he routinely saw New Zealanders' data, but the Americans can collect all that data with impunity since we're all filthy foreigners to them - there was no evidence presented that it's the GCSB actually collecting it.
This is why surveillance, like tax, needs international laws these days - domestic law is mostly irrelevant unless you're the US. In our case the US can collect our data with no issues since basically all our internet goes through there, and we can just ask them for it if we want it. Everyone can say they're not doing any wrong with no fear of contradiction, and everyone is happy.
Except us, of course, because, you know, we're being constantly monitored.
"Project SPEARGUN in progress"
"Key Activities in Progress: Access ... New Zealand: Partner cable access program achieves phase 1"
"New Zealand: GCSB's cable access program SPEARGUN phase 1; awaiting new GCSB Act expected July 2013; first metadata probe mid 2013."
Yeah if you play word games the NSA isn't 'collecting' everything either. Since 'collecting' means a human inspecting the content.
Mass collection and permanent storage, automated reasoning and algorithmic processing for keywords/content/intentionality IS surveillance or at least that's a useful definition, anyway.
"Key Activities in Progress: Access ... New Zealand: Partner cable access program achieves phase 1"
"New Zealand: GCSB's cable access program SPEARGUN phase 1; awaiting new GCSB Act expected July 2013; first metadata probe mid 2013."
Yeah if you play word games the NSA isn't 'collecting' everything either. Since 'collecting' means a human inspecting the content.
Mass collection and permanent storage, automated reasoning and algorithmic processing for keywords/content/intentionality IS surveillance or at least that's a useful definition, anyway.
Surveillance aside, You do realize computers can aggregate data? It doesn't take 4 million agents to look at 4 million citizens (or 2 million, or 1 million...). The data can sit there and be deciphered any number of ways.
The word game is two sides of a coin.
The word game is two sides of a coin.
Of course I realise that - I'm just pointing out how John Key can probably say what he's saying and not be technically lying. Whether he's telling the whole truth is doubtful, of course.
But of course, it's another example of how the law lags way behind on tech matters - within 5 or 10 years an agent having to actually look at the data will be totally anachronistic. Algorithms can already find patterns more readily than humans can in many cases.
But of course, it's another example of how the law lags way behind on tech matters - within 5 or 10 years an agent having to actually look at the data will be totally anachronistic. Algorithms can already find patterns more readily than humans can in many cases.
And when they watch the news, there might be a cursory story about the laws passing, but it's so bland and brief it doesn't stick. There's other news to watch like Grand Final preparations or Brownlow fashion aftermath!
Then even if you do care, what can you realistically do?
Then even if you do care, what can you realistically do?
"You may not think about politics, but politics think about you."
The big question is why: who gains from this, where is the money flow for enacting this law? Cynically, I can't believe it's just to allow Abbott and Co to sleep more soundly each night.
Rationality is not this government's strength, and they seem to be aligning themselves on the wrong side of many issues. When you have the Rockefeller family switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy and the collapse of coal demand, the Abbott government's stance makes no sense at all.
Rationality is not this government's strength, and they seem to be aligning themselves on the wrong side of many issues. When you have the Rockefeller family switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy and the collapse of coal demand, the Abbott government's stance makes no sense at all.
That's a great question, especially in light of the fact that these laws have unanimous support from Labor. My best guess is that intelligence officials are pushing for the laws to make their jobs easier, and the politicians are afraid of ignoring their advice.
I had considered that, which points to some serious issues with what dirt on they have on politicians to give them that leverage. I wish I could ignore traffic laws as it would make the morning commute shorter, but the laws on due process are there for a reason.
As for Labor, Bill Shorten may as well be a Liberal, though I would have thought Pilbesek would have been more vocal in questioning whether it was necessary. I suspect the Royal Commission into Union funding plays heavily on the level of Labor opposition.
The Greens at least opposed it, but this legislation is a bigger threat to them along with their supporters. It will be interesting if they start branding activists as terrorists and whether it has a chilling effect on groups with serious numbers like GetUp who are a major thorn in the government's side.
They portray this as being in response to the latest terrorism news, but I suspect its drafting began at least 12 months ago.
As for Labor, Bill Shorten may as well be a Liberal, though I would have thought Pilbesek would have been more vocal in questioning whether it was necessary. I suspect the Royal Commission into Union funding plays heavily on the level of Labor opposition.
The Greens at least opposed it, but this legislation is a bigger threat to them along with their supporters. It will be interesting if they start branding activists as terrorists and whether it has a chilling effect on groups with serious numbers like GetUp who are a major thorn in the government's side.
They portray this as being in response to the latest terrorism news, but I suspect its drafting began at least 12 months ago.
Yeah feels like it has been rammed through before there is any time for current situation that they have drummed up with the raids and terror level to die down.
Between this and zero debate on whether Australia should be committing forces to yet another Iraq war the major parties power really needs to be cut down. If they just rubber stamp each others policies in these areas and they don't rate highly enough among the public as voting issues it really makes for a scary future.
Between this and zero debate on whether Australia should be committing forces to yet another Iraq war the major parties power really needs to be cut down. If they just rubber stamp each others policies in these areas and they don't rate highly enough among the public as voting issues it really makes for a scary future.
It's the old classic: liberals (right-wing) are tough on <something!> and are the only ones who can be.
And so Labor (left-wing) are cowed into silence because they're not sure they want to fight that one out in the media (which, isn't unfair - if anything happens it's political suicide).
What you do have to remember though is no one really expected the Abbott government to be this insane. A ton of people who voted "not labor" were expecting more along the lines of he tries not to rock the boat too much. Not the "dismantle social welfare, raise fees on everything, screw the healthcare system...what I'm unpopular now? TERRORISM! TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE!"
And so Labor (left-wing) are cowed into silence because they're not sure they want to fight that one out in the media (which, isn't unfair - if anything happens it's political suicide).
What you do have to remember though is no one really expected the Abbott government to be this insane. A ton of people who voted "not labor" were expecting more along the lines of he tries not to rock the boat too much. Not the "dismantle social welfare, raise fees on everything, screw the healthcare system...what I'm unpopular now? TERRORISM! TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE!"
A prominent liberal economist (I believe Dean Baker) once portrayed the difference between "Conservative" and "Liberal" as being paternal vs maternal in regard to Government's relationship to tax payers. The maternal was more nurturing providing a base of services to enable opportunity, where the paternal way was basically "man up" and get out there and help yourself.
For corporates however, it was a different story.
For corporates however, it was a different story.
That was a great little book (and the ebook is freely available too)! http://deanbaker.net/books/the-conservative-nanny-state.htm
Came out during the Bush years...deja vu.
His ideas on copyright in that book were quite interesting as well.
His ideas on copyright in that book were quite interesting as well.
Many super funds rose on news of war as most were at least partly invested in companies that stand to benefit from war contracts. That's one flow.
Two others (media interests and large companies competing internationally for big contracts) have already been mentioned.
Two others (media interests and large companies competing internationally for big contracts) have already been mentioned.
It's not about terrorism, it's the MPAA and RIAA behind this push. In other words, it's the for the corporates.
Nope. It's about an ongoing global cyber intelligence war.
Check out my other comment in this thread for a quick rundown on some stuff to start researching.
Check out my other comment in this thread for a quick rundown on some stuff to start researching.
Is it just about corporate espionage? They seem to be doing just fine as it is with current powers.
This legislation is something else. On one hand the new term ASIO affiliate would appear to extend Australian legal coverage to anyone ASIO determines to be operating in a recognised role. This would allow for example five-eyes partners to legally spy on Australians while ASIO can deny involvement of its employees.
The other possibility is that they are scared. The world is changing and consumers are starting to feel the pinch of 40 years of eroding job security and stagnating real wages. These heightened powers would give them legal powers to monitor and disrupt any internal dissent before it has a chance to disrupt the corporate structures. Good luck to starting any grass roots campaign that seeks to change the system.
This legislation is something else. On one hand the new term ASIO affiliate would appear to extend Australian legal coverage to anyone ASIO determines to be operating in a recognised role. This would allow for example five-eyes partners to legally spy on Australians while ASIO can deny involvement of its employees.
The other possibility is that they are scared. The world is changing and consumers are starting to feel the pinch of 40 years of eroding job security and stagnating real wages. These heightened powers would give them legal powers to monitor and disrupt any internal dissent before it has a chance to disrupt the corporate structures. Good luck to starting any grass roots campaign that seeks to change the system.
No, it's political as well. Imagine knowing the talking points and agendas of politicians before an international political gathering. The Cuban Twitter program is another example of non-corporate use. Sabotage and owning of infrastructure as a deterrent is also popular.
Corporate espionage is huge, though. China is involved with enormous amounts of industrial espionage and the NSA specifies the Bureau of Commerce as a primary customer.
Definitely the second is true. "Radicalizers" are identified and quieted. PsyOps are used (for example JTRIG with NSA) to spook and discredit people. (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s...)
You may remember online porn browsing habits are collected by the NSA to discredit and blackmail leaders. Furthermore MINERVA and sister programs are used to seed and quiet dissent by serving targeted online advertisements and content. Many study the concept of "social contagion" - the idea that influencing a few key people who are key social figures can influence the behavior and beliefs of groups. PHK does a great job describing how problematic technological and incendiary political discussions are derailed (http://mirror.as35701.net/video.fosdem.org//2014/Janson/Sund...).
The defense industry hires Astroturfers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary#Astroturfing) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#Business_and_adop...) and online social network analysis is a key part of modern political tooling (http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world...) (http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-m...). It shouldn't be a surprise, as the Web makes money off of selling personal information and showing targeted content - when it isn't a state surveillance and propaganda platform, it's a corporate one. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144...)
Media manipulation is fairly common place, although it is practiced pretty carefully. (http://www.globalissues.org/article/461/media-reporting-jour...) (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times...). The Fallujah PsyOp is a great example of how US media is a victim of direct US led propaganda.
Corporate espionage is huge, though. China is involved with enormous amounts of industrial espionage and the NSA specifies the Bureau of Commerce as a primary customer.
Definitely the second is true. "Radicalizers" are identified and quieted. PsyOps are used (for example JTRIG with NSA) to spook and discredit people. (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s...)
You may remember online porn browsing habits are collected by the NSA to discredit and blackmail leaders. Furthermore MINERVA and sister programs are used to seed and quiet dissent by serving targeted online advertisements and content. Many study the concept of "social contagion" - the idea that influencing a few key people who are key social figures can influence the behavior and beliefs of groups. PHK does a great job describing how problematic technological and incendiary political discussions are derailed (http://mirror.as35701.net/video.fosdem.org//2014/Janson/Sund...).
The defense industry hires Astroturfers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary#Astroturfing) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#Business_and_adop...) and online social network analysis is a key part of modern political tooling (http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world...) (http://mprcenter.org/blog/2013/01/how-obama-won-the-social-m...). It shouldn't be a surprise, as the Web makes money off of selling personal information and showing targeted content - when it isn't a state surveillance and propaganda platform, it's a corporate one. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/937b06c2-3ebd-11e4-adef-00144...)
Media manipulation is fairly common place, although it is practiced pretty carefully. (http://www.globalissues.org/article/461/media-reporting-jour...) (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times...). The Fallujah PsyOp is a great example of how US media is a victim of direct US led propaganda.
Sorry, typo. I meant not
Glenn Greenwald, Snowden and Julian Assange spoke eloquently about how NZ made international promises to get surveillance bills passed years in advance of bringing it to a vote. When a country manipulates its people (like Australia is doing now) to get them to vote a certain way, you're seeing an awful lot of the "Republic" in the term "Republican Democracy".
Other readers, please see my other comment in this comment section about the Snowden Leaks and the NSA wrt terrorism and how the contents of the leaks combined with other sources unilaterally refute the idea that the intelligence apparatuses are being used for (or indeed are even useful weapons for) counterterroism.
Other readers, please see my other comment in this comment section about the Snowden Leaks and the NSA wrt terrorism and how the contents of the leaks combined with other sources unilaterally refute the idea that the intelligence apparatuses are being used for (or indeed are even useful weapons for) counterterroism.
Everyone I know is opposed to most of what's going on here; but the approval rating of the government is going up in response to a few hyperinflated terrorist threats - so that's pretty disturbing.
The funny thing is that the country is so safe and free from terrorism, that when we finally do have a couple of deaths from an attack, we're going to lose our collective marbles and demand even tougher laws.
Here's a good one: A few hours before the legislation came before parliament, but early enough to get extensive media coverage, a member of the Australian Defense Force reported being attacked outside his house, whilst in uniform, by men of "Middle Eastern" appearance [1]. The "beheading" bogey was even worked into the story [2]. The next day, he withdraws the complaint [3]. To what extent was this an influence on the vote in parliament?
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-member-reports-assault-in...
[2] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uniformed-australi...
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-memb...
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-member-reports-assault-in...
[2] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uniformed-australi...
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-memb...
I hate to tell you but its probably true. During 2008, Defence Force Personnel were told to not were passes or uniforms in public when not necessary as there were threats and some staff were attacked in Brisbane
Your conspiratorial tone is sickening, given you lack of proof. The circumstances are suspicious, but they also coincide with browning tensions, with ISIS, beheadings and forces being sent to the middle east
Your conspiratorial tone is sickening, given you lack of proof. The circumstances are suspicious, but they also coincide with browning tensions, with ISIS, beheadings and forces being sent to the middle east
The evidence is strongly against it being true, given that the ADF is apologising for the allegation and the officer's conduct is being investigated.
The ADF might well be an innocent party, given that it was ASIO that stood to benefit from the legislation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-26/adf-sailor-withdraws-s...
The ADF might well be an innocent party, given that it was ASIO that stood to benefit from the legislation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-26/adf-sailor-withdraws-s...
Yeah, that is all a bit strange.
But Defence forces being attacked for being in uniform is not unprecedented, even excluding Lee Rigby there have been several incidents http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/europe/03frankfurt.h... and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htm...
But Defence forces being attacked for being in uniform is not unprecedented, even excluding Lee Rigby there have been several incidents http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/europe/03frankfurt.h... and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.htm...
Shouldn't scare tactics to get laws passed be classified as some sort of defrauding the public?
Edit: Did writing that comment now put me on some sort of list? Semi-sarcastic, but semi-afraid. Chilling Effect is best Effect.
Edit: Did writing that comment now put me on some sort of list? Semi-sarcastic, but semi-afraid. Chilling Effect is best Effect.
Interestingly, if this was a staged event to create fear, it fits the definition of terrorism.
I was ashamed to be an American when the PATRIOT Act passed and when it was reauthorized.
And today, I get to be ashamed to be an Australian, too.
There's no need for these laws, and they'll be abused to do anything but "fight terrorism".
And today, I get to be ashamed to be an Australian, too.
There's no need for these laws, and they'll be abused to do anything but "fight terrorism".
It's not about terrorism. Never was. That's just how the deep state sells it to voters.
If you look at the Snowden documents (and leaks by others) you'll see essentially nothing other than the international nature of the programs. For example, you'll remember from the Snowden leaks that the NSA hacked the Brazilian oil company PETROBRAS to help American oil companies win offshore oil drilling locations. The hacking of Merkle's cell phone was a big deal because it revealed that the US had information from Germany _during the Eurozone crisis_! Stuxnet was used to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
The US also faces the same sort of pressure from other countries. This year alone the DoD was hacked, Wall Street, NASDAQ and JP Morgan were hacked and hundreds of defense contractors were hacked - all with foreign attribution. Israel's Iron Dome designs were hacked by China.
Take a look at the NSA program HACIENTA, which "is used to port scan entire countries" and which uses other compromised (civilian) computers to disguise attribution.
Look at The Intercept reporting (where Glenn Greenwald is right now). He speaks at length about how the US uses NSA operations to benefit the global bargaining posture and competitiveness of US companies. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments...
And take the Inspector General's report from the Boston Bombings - a great example of how and when the NSA domestic programs would be used if they were about terrorism. The NSA is hardly mentioned. The Inspector General investigates the failings of the FBI. (http://info.publicintelligence.net/IC-IG-BostonBombingReport...)
"We focused our review on the entities that were the most likely to have had information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the bombings – the FBI, the CIA, DHS, and NCTC, which maintains the U.S. government’s database of classified identifying and substantive derogatory information on known or suspected terrorists. We also requested other federal agencies to identify relevant information they may have had prior to the bombings. These agencies included the Department of Defense (including the National Security Agency (NSA)), Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, and the Drug Enforcement Administration."
The report on the failures to anticipate/stop the Boston Bombers barely mention the NSA. This is because the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Counterterrorism Center are in charge of counterterrorism, not the National Security Agency.
Or go to the NSA's own mission statement. (https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml)
"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
(Nothing to do with terrorism.)
Lots of news recently has called out Executive Order 12333's role in defining the goal and the means of intelligence capabilities. EO 12333 was passed in 1981. The Five Eyes, the key partnership of the NSA, has its origins in the 40's and ECHELON and other leaked programs (eg CARNIVORE/PREDATOR) predate 9/11 by decades.
The Snowden leaks disclose a list with over thirty countries with competing digital intelligence programs.
The NSA is not about terrorism. Never was. Never will be. The NSA and CSS are the intelligence arm of the United States. Austrilia's programs are similarly not about terrorism. Digital communications play a huge role in global communications and corporate and international power.
That's not to say there no domestic component to the programs. Domestic programs are also useful to track and disrupt radical ideas and organization within the country (MINERVA), and can also be used to incite discontent in other nations (look up the USAID Cuban Twitter program). Countries are able to manipulate the appearance of consensus within citizens of nations and in this way actually affect this consensus. (Look at the GCHQ programs leaks with BIRDSONG/BADGER/GATEWAY/SLIPSTREAM/ETC.) They also are used to monitor, detect and perform forensics on breaches from other countries.
There's so much to say, but I'll leave the comment with this. Digital communications are so insecure that the attackers always win. Always. And digital communications play a huge role (next to satellite and radio communications) in modern espionage and sabotage. If you just play a defensive game, you lose. The US feels it needs these capabilities. There's a sort of cyber cold war. Every country will lose if it decides not to play. So it doesn't really matter whether we want these programs or not as citizens - no vote is going to disarm nations at cyberwar.
If you look at the Snowden documents (and leaks by others) you'll see essentially nothing other than the international nature of the programs. For example, you'll remember from the Snowden leaks that the NSA hacked the Brazilian oil company PETROBRAS to help American oil companies win offshore oil drilling locations. The hacking of Merkle's cell phone was a big deal because it revealed that the US had information from Germany _during the Eurozone crisis_! Stuxnet was used to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
The US also faces the same sort of pressure from other countries. This year alone the DoD was hacked, Wall Street, NASDAQ and JP Morgan were hacked and hundreds of defense contractors were hacked - all with foreign attribution. Israel's Iron Dome designs were hacked by China.
Take a look at the NSA program HACIENTA, which "is used to port scan entire countries" and which uses other compromised (civilian) computers to disguise attribution.
Look at The Intercept reporting (where Glenn Greenwald is right now). He speaks at length about how the US uses NSA operations to benefit the global bargaining posture and competitiveness of US companies. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments...
And take the Inspector General's report from the Boston Bombings - a great example of how and when the NSA domestic programs would be used if they were about terrorism. The NSA is hardly mentioned. The Inspector General investigates the failings of the FBI. (http://info.publicintelligence.net/IC-IG-BostonBombingReport...)
"We focused our review on the entities that were the most likely to have had information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the bombings – the FBI, the CIA, DHS, and NCTC, which maintains the U.S. government’s database of classified identifying and substantive derogatory information on known or suspected terrorists. We also requested other federal agencies to identify relevant information they may have had prior to the bombings. These agencies included the Department of Defense (including the National Security Agency (NSA)), Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, and the Drug Enforcement Administration."
The report on the failures to anticipate/stop the Boston Bombers barely mention the NSA. This is because the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Counterterrorism Center are in charge of counterterrorism, not the National Security Agency.
Or go to the NSA's own mission statement. (https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml)
"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
(Nothing to do with terrorism.)
Lots of news recently has called out Executive Order 12333's role in defining the goal and the means of intelligence capabilities. EO 12333 was passed in 1981. The Five Eyes, the key partnership of the NSA, has its origins in the 40's and ECHELON and other leaked programs (eg CARNIVORE/PREDATOR) predate 9/11 by decades.
The Snowden leaks disclose a list with over thirty countries with competing digital intelligence programs.
The NSA is not about terrorism. Never was. Never will be. The NSA and CSS are the intelligence arm of the United States. Austrilia's programs are similarly not about terrorism. Digital communications play a huge role in global communications and corporate and international power.
That's not to say there no domestic component to the programs. Domestic programs are also useful to track and disrupt radical ideas and organization within the country (MINERVA), and can also be used to incite discontent in other nations (look up the USAID Cuban Twitter program). Countries are able to manipulate the appearance of consensus within citizens of nations and in this way actually affect this consensus. (Look at the GCHQ programs leaks with BIRDSONG/BADGER/GATEWAY/SLIPSTREAM/ETC.) They also are used to monitor, detect and perform forensics on breaches from other countries.
There's so much to say, but I'll leave the comment with this. Digital communications are so insecure that the attackers always win. Always. And digital communications play a huge role (next to satellite and radio communications) in modern espionage and sabotage. If you just play a defensive game, you lose. The US feels it needs these capabilities. There's a sort of cyber cold war. Every country will lose if it decides not to play. So it doesn't really matter whether we want these programs or not as citizens - no vote is going to disarm nations at cyberwar.
"The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence," Palmer United Party Senator Glen Lazarus said, speaking out against Senator Ludlam's amendment.
I do not understand it. How can people say such things about one of the greatest inventions of the human species, that allowed us as a species to understand one another better?!? What goes in their mind when they say things like this?
I do not understand it. How can people say such things about one of the greatest inventions of the human species, that allowed us as a species to understand one another better?!? What goes in their mind when they say things like this?
Glenn Lazarus is a former rugby footballer, who was nicknamed 'the brick with eyes'. He's basically a warm body whose election was paid for by a political party founded by a billionaire miner who - the miner - has hardly been present in the House of Representatives when it comes to votes other than to vote for climate change legislation repealing one of the lowest carbon taxes in the OECD and - go figure - a mining tax. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/clive-palmer-is-mp-lea...
He's also building the Titanic II. Nevertheless, this wasn't the stupidest thing heard in the Senate this week, which would be Chris Back's "Some people may be distressed to know maleness is actually suppressed femaleness".
Edit: Yes, I already know there's a TV show just waiting to be written out of the daily tales of Australian politics. No need to tell me. But the media here, controlled like politics by Rupert Murdoch, isn't going to be the one to do it.
You want to see the cover of the best selling newspaper on that day? Here it is: https://i.imgur.com/2TglCpg.jpg "Hellfire justice" indeed.
He's also building the Titanic II. Nevertheless, this wasn't the stupidest thing heard in the Senate this week, which would be Chris Back's "Some people may be distressed to know maleness is actually suppressed femaleness".
Edit: Yes, I already know there's a TV show just waiting to be written out of the daily tales of Australian politics. No need to tell me. But the media here, controlled like politics by Rupert Murdoch, isn't going to be the one to do it.
You want to see the cover of the best selling newspaper on that day? Here it is: https://i.imgur.com/2TglCpg.jpg "Hellfire justice" indeed.
Yeah, I'm aware. PUP and Clive Palmer went from being the punchline of the Chaser boys' jokes to something seriously wrong in a very short period of time.
Amazing what you can do with almost limitless campaign funding.
Hopefully on some issues they aid in voting the government down but it is really rolling the dice.
Hopefully on some issues they aid in voting the government down but it is really rolling the dice.
I say this in all seriousness- can't it be both?
You could have said exactly the same two things about nuclear fission sixty years ago. In the bombs that will destroy us, in the power plants that will revolutionize us.
(That the bombs never destroyed us, and the power plants weren't everything we hoped, is not important)
You could have said exactly the same two things about nuclear fission sixty years ago. In the bombs that will destroy us, in the power plants that will revolutionize us.
(That the bombs never destroyed us, and the power plants weren't everything we hoped, is not important)
Here's the quote in a bit more context:
> The internet, while a tool which has revolutionised the way we live, work and operate, has also revolutionised the way sinister and criminal behaviour is orchestrated and undertaken across the world. The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence because of this. Therefore we must give ASIO and ASIS increased powers, capability and reach to do what must be done to protect, maintain and advance our safety and security.
Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
> The internet, while a tool which has revolutionised the way we live, work and operate, has also revolutionised the way sinister and criminal behaviour is orchestrated and undertaken across the world. The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence because of this. Therefore we must give ASIO and ASIS increased powers, capability and reach to do what must be done to protect, maintain and advance our safety and security.
Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
As a person in the IT industry within Australia, I speak to normal average people every day about these things. In the last 2 days I have spoken to many people about these new laws, and the general consensus is THEY DON'T CARE, just plain and simple. Your average person has many more problems to deal with other than the government spying on them. We do not have "free speech" here in Australia, so most people don't really see this as a big problem. Bear in mind this is a country where healthcare is pretty much free, our wages are extremely high compared to most countries, and our welfare and pension system is reasonable. No matter what bitching and moaning people do, the government has "generally" looked after us (though our current PM is beginning to change that). On top of this the government and mass media are collectively running a scare campaign on terror, so people just look at the news and go "Yep, that makes sense". Having said that I do not agree with any of these laws, but there is very little I can do about it myself. I didn't vote for the current government, and my local member of parliament is part of the opposition anyhow, so as a single person its pretty much game over.
I'm right here with you bigB. I voted Greens, since they seem to have more common sense than either side. The current government is an embarrassment to Australia, both historically and politically. We used to be proud that we were free - it's part of the first sentence of our national anthem. This isn't the only poor decision the current government has made; they also scrapped our carbon tax and destroyed our fibre optic internet just as it was being rolled out. Truly a terrible government, with no sight of the future.
> The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence
This is true, where "our" refers to domestic spy agencies and the governments that consume their output.
Hence these laws.
This is true, where "our" refers to domestic spy agencies and the governments that consume their output.
Hence these laws.
Not to be too ad hominem, but the man who said this is a former rugby league player known as "the brick with eyes" and not generally well-known for his national security expertise.
And who, it must be said, is not a member of the government either.
He's a senator. He's part of the government, whether or not he's part of the ruling party.
Well he is a member of the government but not the governing party (just their stooge)
Nope. He is a member of parliament but definitely not a member of government. There is an important distinction.
What if most people support these laws? What happens when a democracy decides to vote away its own freedom? Should it be somehow prevented from doing so?
This is a classic example of the tyranny of the majority, and why government of any kind, democratic or not, is illegitimate. Any institution that wields power over you will eventually deprive you of your freedom against your will.
And without a government, i.e. without some entity with a monopoly on force, what happens then? Do I have to do battle on the streets every time I buy groceries or go to work?
I guess in the end, democracy or not, you get the government you deserve. Australians voted these guys in, they tolerate their actions, and many Australians will applaud them. If it all goes well, great. If not, I won't have much sympathy for them.
This is not an attitude I like to have, mind you, because I find that wherever I see tyranny in the world, I believe that to some degree - sometimes a lot, sometimes only a little - the victims of that oppression had it coming.
I guess in the end, democracy or not, you get the government you deserve. Australians voted these guys in, they tolerate their actions, and many Australians will applaud them. If it all goes well, great. If not, I won't have much sympathy for them.
This is not an attitude I like to have, mind you, because I find that wherever I see tyranny in the world, I believe that to some degree - sometimes a lot, sometimes only a little - the victims of that oppression had it coming.
Your question reminds me of Peter Suber's excellent book, The Paradox of Self-Amendment [0].
[0] http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/
[0] http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/
See: Executive Order 9981
> to our existence
a government that wants to stay in power
a government that wants to stay in power
Are there any good pointers to where the amendments have actually expanded surveillance capabilities? I've been going through the amendments and comparing them to the original bill, but so far I'm finding a lot of rewording.
For instance, the definition of computer[1] that is being suggested to allow monitoring of the entire internet is:
Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. How does one talk to your local MP when the details of the proposed legislation are so muddy?
[1]: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
[2]: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc3...
For instance, the definition of computer[1] that is being suggested to allow monitoring of the entire internet is:
computer means all or part of:
(a) one or more computers; or
(b) one or more computer systems; or
(c) one or more computer networks;
(d) any combination of the above.
computer means a computer, a computer system or part of a computer system.
Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. How does one talk to your local MP when the details of the proposed legislation are so muddy?
[1]: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
[2]: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc3...
This is similar to the other metadata legislation where they neglected to provide an exact definition of what metadata is.
Computer system I think could reasonably be though of as a local network. Whereas in [2] they are being more explicit to head off any issues with something wider.
There is really no pressure on them to limit the scope of this, it doesn't surprise me that they would go for the widest possible definition and then reign it in if there is an resistance.
Computer system I think could reasonably be though of as a local network. Whereas in [2] they are being more explicit to head off any issues with something wider.
There is really no pressure on them to limit the scope of this, it doesn't surprise me that they would go for the widest possible definition and then reign it in if there is an resistance.
Those seem in no way equivalent. The old definition pretty clearly refers to 1 computer. You could certainly argue that several hosts represented 1 computer, but a judge would throw it out.
The new definition plainly allows "one or more computer networks" which means literally the entire internet since it's just "one or more computer networks".
The new definition plainly allows "one or more computer networks" which means literally the entire internet since it's just "one or more computer networks".
It seems to me that the explicit separation (and vagueness) of 'compter' and 'computer system' seems intended to have the latter cover networks. But perhaps you're right.
This wouldn't be so depressing if it was just Abbott and the Liberals ramming changes through, but no, Labour voted in favor as well. Sigh.
Just shows you that for Australia to regain a functioning government, it will take us to elect someone other than LNP or Labour who will undo the damage.
Agreed, but who?
The Greens? Not likely. The "Green" bit scares too many people. The Dems? Ha! PUP? Oh god no. Other crazy minor parties? See: crazy minor party.
The reason we elect Liberals and Labor (apart from institutional momentum) is that they're the least despicable and dysfunctional. Besides, look at precedent. The last major move in politics was PUP getting seats in parliament for the 3(?) dumbest stooges I've ever seen. Essentially proving that you can buy seats in our parliament.
No, if we want to effect change we need to find another way. Possibly that means joining the major parties and attempting to effect change from within, or perhaps that means more protesting to increase awareness. I don't really know.
The Greens? Not likely. The "Green" bit scares too many people. The Dems? Ha! PUP? Oh god no. Other crazy minor parties? See: crazy minor party.
The reason we elect Liberals and Labor (apart from institutional momentum) is that they're the least despicable and dysfunctional. Besides, look at precedent. The last major move in politics was PUP getting seats in parliament for the 3(?) dumbest stooges I've ever seen. Essentially proving that you can buy seats in our parliament.
No, if we want to effect change we need to find another way. Possibly that means joining the major parties and attempting to effect change from within, or perhaps that means more protesting to increase awareness. I don't really know.
Why find another way? I like to point to Geert Wilders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders
The Dutch parliament is the same size and the Australian parliament. In about 5 years they went from a new party to the 3rd largest in the Netherlands. They are still the 4th largest. And these guys seem a little bit wacky. Why can't we get a third party (or the Greens) elected?
The Dutch parliament is the same size and the Australian parliament. In about 5 years they went from a new party to the 3rd largest in the Netherlands. They are still the 4th largest. And these guys seem a little bit wacky. Why can't we get a third party (or the Greens) elected?
This is why I will continue to vote Green (until they disappoint me.)
Possibly relevant (from 2012):
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/asio-boss-says-we-need-more...
> On the other side of the ledger, Mr Irvine admitted that the debate about civil liberties and intelligence gathering was a valid one to have.
> "I believe however that the vast majority of Australians expect their governments to take all necessary actions to protect their community and further the national interest," he said.
> He said ASIO has no plans for a "grand expansion" of its spy network but said it would need to lift recruitment to meet the demands or cyber terrorism as well as traditional forms of terror.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/asio-boss-says-we-need-more...
> On the other side of the ledger, Mr Irvine admitted that the debate about civil liberties and intelligence gathering was a valid one to have.
> "I believe however that the vast majority of Australians expect their governments to take all necessary actions to protect their community and further the national interest," he said.
> He said ASIO has no plans for a "grand expansion" of its spy network but said it would need to lift recruitment to meet the demands or cyber terrorism as well as traditional forms of terror.
Apparently you seemed to have missed it, but France passed a similar law one week ago, adding to it the ability to forbid residents from leaving the territory. This is the general trend toward final abandonment of democracy. Dark times to come.
Could you provide a link? The only recent thing I could find was http://www.france24.com/en/20140925-france-heightened-securi...
It's not final yet, it still needs to go through the Senate. More details here [1]. It's different from the Australian law, as it's more focused on administrative (as opposed to judicial) censorship rather than spying. It's obviously bad too.
Sadly, the judicial arsenal for no-oversight spying on telecommunication is in place since 2013 [2], as part of the Military Programming Law. Not that the DGSE would wait for a law to do something like this anyway [3].
1: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/france-adopts-anti-terror-law...
2: http://en.rsf.org/alarm-over-massive-spying-12-12-2013,45606...
3: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/orange-gives-all-of-its-dat...
Sadly, the judicial arsenal for no-oversight spying on telecommunication is in place since 2013 [2], as part of the Military Programming Law. Not that the DGSE would wait for a law to do something like this anyway [3].
1: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/france-adopts-anti-terror-law...
2: http://en.rsf.org/alarm-over-massive-spying-12-12-2013,45606...
3: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/orange-gives-all-of-its-dat...
If we are to believe the foremost principle of democracy, that the government is the people. And the people are to give up their privacy for the sake of security, then so too the government has no right to privacy for the sake of its security. Indeed, a secret government with a people lacking security in their effects, is a government that will soon discover is has no security of its own from its own. For it has separated itself and made its own people the enemy.
I think that the bill has been poorly drafted. I don't think that ASIO are interested in monitoring the entire internet. To me, I think the intent was to allow ASIO to monitor a home network with one warrant, given the prevalence of people having multiple computer devices.
I do hope that the government tighten some of the definitions within the bill, rather then relying upon courts to narrow the interpretation.
I do hope that the government tighten some of the definitions within the bill, rather then relying upon courts to narrow the interpretation.
Is this bill allowed to be retroactive? If so, this is what they will get Assange, or the next Assange with. Consider the Australian arm of WikiLeaks (including the party) closed for business.
Which now concerns me. Will WikiLeaks Party members be put on a list just like the ASIA targetted communists during the cold war?
Which now concerns me. Will WikiLeaks Party members be put on a list just like the ASIA targetted communists during the cold war?
It's amazing what people will agree too based on the idea of fear. People learn nothing from history.
Of particular note with this issue is that both major parties (The Liberals in Government, and Labor in Opposition) voted for this legislation.
It appears to me that regardless of who of the major parties was actually in power something like this would have come in.
It appears to me that regardless of who of the major parties was actually in power something like this would have come in.
"The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence," Palmer United Party Senator Glen Lazarus said.
For a second there, I thought I was reading about North Korea.
For a second there, I thought I was reading about North Korea.
Personally I just don't understand why everyone worries so much about all these surveillance announcements.
People contribute with personal data to help increase the security of a nation. I don't consider that as an act of spying from government, I call that "Crowd Funding" from the people, for global security.
But well, I'm an optimist and I assume there are doing this for the right reasons.
People contribute with personal data to help increase the security of a nation. I don't consider that as an act of spying from government, I call that "Crowd Funding" from the people, for global security.
But well, I'm an optimist and I assume there are doing this for the right reasons.
> But well, I'm an optimist and I assume there are doing this for the right reasons.
Even if the laws were made with good intentions, they are not implemented by perfect human beings. If you get on the US No-Fly list just because of a clerical error, you will have to fight in court for years to get off [1] because the administration does not want to admit mistakes. Laura Poitras, an investigative journalist, was repeatedly "randomly" searched and detained on airports, without any formal charge, because her documentations are inconvenient to those in charge [2]. IIRC, GHCQ employees stored nude images of those they were surveying in the "Optic Nerve" program for their private collections (I couldn't find source for that, though, so take it with a grain of salt).
The general pattern to observe: The combination of power and secrecy fosters abuse.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-list-bungle/
[2] http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det... - Note that this was years before her involvement with the Snowden leaks.
Even if the laws were made with good intentions, they are not implemented by perfect human beings. If you get on the US No-Fly list just because of a clerical error, you will have to fight in court for years to get off [1] because the administration does not want to admit mistakes. Laura Poitras, an investigative journalist, was repeatedly "randomly" searched and detained on airports, without any formal charge, because her documentations are inconvenient to those in charge [2]. IIRC, GHCQ employees stored nude images of those they were surveying in the "Optic Nerve" program for their private collections (I couldn't find source for that, though, so take it with a grain of salt).
The general pattern to observe: The combination of power and secrecy fosters abuse.
[1] http://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-list-bungle/
[2] http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det... - Note that this was years before her involvement with the Snowden leaks.
Imagine if we gave this sort of power to a 1960s government. It would be very effective for identifying and convicting homosexuals and communists.
Those specific groups are safer today, but humans as a species haven't changed. We will almost certainly abuse that power against some other marginalized group, whether we mean to or not.
Moreover, this sort of thing has historically been abused for the suppression of dissent. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Those specific groups are safer today, but humans as a species haven't changed. We will almost certainly abuse that power against some other marginalized group, whether we mean to or not.
Moreover, this sort of thing has historically been abused for the suppression of dissent. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Countdown to these laws being used for copyright prevention.
Lazarus should stick to oval shaped balls.
I don't think anybody in power cares about copyrights at all.
Copyright protection is just a great excuse for enabling widespread eavesdropping and history rewriting. But there is no reason to run it the other way around.
Copyright protection is just a great excuse for enabling widespread eavesdropping and history rewriting. But there is no reason to run it the other way around.
Have these programs been responsible for actually stopping any large scale terrorist attacks?
Depends on what you define as responsible.
The NSA's bulk data collecting has been cited as the investigation's initiating factor in 4 out of 225 terrorism-related investigations, that's 1.7%. Is 1.7% worth it? I guess the Australian government said yes.
Source: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/13/review-finds...
The NSA's bulk data collecting has been cited as the investigation's initiating factor in 4 out of 225 terrorism-related investigations, that's 1.7%. Is 1.7% worth it? I guess the Australian government said yes.
Source: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/13/review-finds...
No. The programs are not about terrorism at all.
Check for other comments on this thread (I posted a lengthy one) for details.
Check for other comments on this thread (I posted a lengthy one) for details.
An answer that usually works:
Absolutely, because there have been no large scale terrorist attacks.
Absolutely, because there have been no large scale terrorist attacks.
"Why are you waving that handkerchief?"
"Keeping the elephants away..."
You know the rest.
"Keeping the elephants away..."
You know the rest.
The thing is that they have been doing just fine with their current powers - there is no need to expand them. I have no doubt that actual terrorist plotting has been countered by ASIO, but I also have no doubt that ASIO clearly already have enough powers to do their job appropriately.
Implying that there is such a thing as just enough power.
Labor opposition - a contradiction in terms.
do not want
The campaign will focus on allowing constituents to easily contact their representatives via calls, emails, facebook and twitter.
Here is the campaign mockup -> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByT3WMbCYAEsFcA.jpg:large
We also have an animation in development to more easily explain in laymen terms the repercussions of the proposed legislation.
For anyone inspired enough to want to help out there are a few roles to fill.
1) Website development
https://github.com/stopthespies/website
There are a bunch of open issues but your best bet is to join us at #ausprivacy on freenode to get a better idea of what needs to be done and where we are at.
2) Legislator Dataset
We have a large majority of the contact details for legislators thanks to OpenAustralia.org but there are quite a few missing still. So for those who can't help out with development, we would love help finding missing contact information. I have already wrote a call for help on Reddit -> http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/2hhh2m/call_for_v...
3) Press/Media
If you are a journalist or influential person/company who is interested in promoting the campaign, please shoot me an email(can be found in my HN profile)