4 ms·

There is a second page to this, linked in the navbar on the left, but not very obvious, Countering the Illicit Use of Online Spaces: https://www.homeaffairs.gov

There is a second page to this, linked in the navbar on the left, but not very obvious, Countering the Illicit Use of Online Spaces: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-country-ministerial-2018/countering-illicit-use-online-spaces https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/national-security/five-... It reads like a parody.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
From that page... > We are also increasingly seeing the use of online spaces to spread disinformation, sow division, and undermine our democratic institutions. The proliferation of interference activities and disinformation undermines the trust of citizens in online communications and information, delegitimizing the benefits and opportunities that communications and social media platforms create. Sigh!
- crunchlibrarian 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure they're going to define it as: if it's in the interests of the US State Department then it's very good. Everything else is disinformation. This is utter insanity. Do they have nobody in the room willing to raise their hand anymore? These institutions need to be reformed, now.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    Everybody in power here has both hands full stabbing each other in the back. I'm guessing they just yell "Yeah, whatever the US ambassador says" at their staffers as their "sign off" on legislation...
    - mmjaa 8y ago
      One wonders at what point the Australian people will wake up to the fact that theirs is a puppet state. At this point, we may as well just apply for our star on the USA's flag ..
zmmmmm 8y ago
It's interesting how different the tone of the second page is to the first. The fact it is so different in tone and also so easily missed makes me think it is designed NOT to be read. Are they hoping it slips by the media but want to have it there for future reference (perhaps when introducing their next tranche of authoritarian legislation to regulate tech companies?).
markbnj 8y ago
It really reads to me like the people who wrote it still don't have the first clue how the network functions, or who has control over it. I also did not know the U.S. had a minister of anything.
angled 8y ago
A bit slow to respond, but the ASIO Act reads dimly in this context: AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION ACT 1979 - SECT 17A Act not concerned with lawful dissent etc. This Act shall not limit the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent and the exercise of that right shall not, by itself, be regarded as prejudicial to security, and the functions of the Organisation shall be construed accordingly. http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/asioa1979472/s17a.html http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/cons...

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago

From that page... > We are also increasingly seeing the use of online spaces to spread disinformation, sow division, and undermine our democratic institutions. The proliferation of interference activities and disinformation undermines the trust of citizens in online communications and information, delegitimizing the benefits and opportunities that communications and social media platforms create. Sigh!

crunchlibrarian 8y ago
I'm pretty sure they're going to define it as: if it's in the interests of the US State Department then it's very good. Everything else is disinformation. This is utter insanity. Do they have nobody in the room willing to raise their hand anymore? These institutions need to be reformed, now.
- bigiain 8y ago
  Everybody in power here has both hands full stabbing each other in the back. I'm guessing they just yell "Yeah, whatever the US ambassador says" at their staffers as their "sign off" on legislation...
  - mmjaa 8y ago
    One wonders at what point the Australian people will wake up to the fact that theirs is a puppet state. At this point, we may as well just apply for our star on the USA's flag ..

zmmmmm 8y ago

It's interesting how different the tone of the second page is to the first. The fact it is so different in tone and also so easily missed makes me think it is designed NOT to be read. Are they hoping it slips by the media but want to have it there for future reference (perhaps when introducing their next tranche of authoritarian legislation to regulate tech companies?).

markbnj 8y ago

It really reads to me like the people who wrote it still don't have the first clue how the network functions, or who has control over it. I also did not know the U.S. had a minister of anything.

angled 8y ago

A bit slow to respond, but the ASIO Act reads dimly in this context: AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION ACT 1979 - SECT 17A Act not concerned with lawful dissent etc. This Act shall not limit the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent and the exercise of that right shall not, by itself, be regarded as prejudicial to security, and the functions of the Organisation shall be construed accordingly. http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/asioa1979472/s17a.html http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/cons...