17 ms·

Terror laws clear Australian Senate, enabling entire web to be monitored

224 points by endgame 12y ago

massappeal 12y ago
do not want
freakonom 12y ago
> 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.
- Istof 12y ago
  > to our existence a government that wants to stay in power
- flashman 12y ago
  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.
  - caf 12y ago
    And who, it must be said, is not a member of the government either.
    - tacticus 12y ago
      Well he is a member of the government but not the governing party (just their stooge)
      - tomcorrigan 12y ago
        Nope. He is a member of parliament but definitely not a member of government. There is an important distinction.
    - beedogs 12y ago
      He's a senator. He's part of the government, whether or not he's part of the ruling party.
- deciplex 12y ago
  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?
  - BrofessorWolf 12y ago
    See: Executive Order 9981
  - danielnixon 12y ago
    Your question reminds me of Peter Suber's excellent book, The Paradox of Self-Amendment [0]. [0] http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/ http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/
  - dublinben 12y ago
    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.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      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.
danford 12y ago
Have these programs been responsible for actually stopping any large scale terrorist attacks?
- freakonom 12y ago
  An answer that usually works: Absolutely, because there have been no large scale terrorist attacks.
  - jmadsen 12y ago
    "Why are you waving that handkerchief?" "Keeping the elephants away..." You know the rest.
    - vacri 12y ago
      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.
      - Ygg2 12y ago
        Implying that there is such a thing as just enough power.
- a_bonobo 12y ago
  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-nsametadatacollectionhasntstoppedanattack.html http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/13/review-finds...
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  No. The programs are not about terrorism at all. Check for other comments on this thread (I posted a lengthy one) for details.
beedogs 12y ago
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".
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  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-plans-use-economic-espionage-benefit-american-corporations/ 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.pdf 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 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.
tonymon 12y ago
So is time to switch from Fastmail now?
- bramgg 12y ago
  What would Fastmail do for you?
- gorhill 12y ago
  I would like to understand why you are voted down. Fastmail is in Australia, your comment seems relevant to me.
locusm 12y ago
Countdown to these laws being used for copyright prevention. Lazarus should stick to oval shaped balls.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  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.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Australia has limited movement in the copyright area anyway, due to free trade treaty requirements with the US.
  - locusm 12y ago
    They will when the US Govt lobbies for them on behalf of the RIAA. Expect a 3 strike law like New Zealand got.
transfire 12y ago
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.
chewxy 12y ago
"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?
- quink 12y ago
  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-least-likely-to-use-lower-house-vote/5746612 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 https://i.imgur.com/2TglCpg.jpg "Hellfire justice" indeed.
  - chewxy 12y ago
    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.
    - robryan 12y ago
      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.
jnbiche 12y ago
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.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  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.
  - gilgoomesh 12y ago
    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.
    - logicchains 12y ago
      As an Australian I concur with the parent statement.
    - px1999 12y ago
      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.
jpatokal 12y ago
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.
- fweabv 12y ago
  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.
  - fphhotchips 12y ago
    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.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
      Why find another way? I like to point to Geert Wilders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
- beedogs 12y ago
  This is why I will continue to vote Green (until they disappoint me.)
thomasfromcdnjs 12y ago
We are working on a grass roots campaign to raise awareness about these bills, mainly the data retention legislation which will be up for debate in the upcoming weeks. 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 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 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_volunteers_to_help_make_contacting/ 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)
- dwd 12y ago
  You might want to coordinate with GetUp in this as well as you can expect they will be mobilising on this issue.
- girvo 12y ago
  Hi Tom! I work with Sam P, heh, are you around this Sunday? I'm going to catch up and see how I can help :)
flinkblinkhink 12y ago
Labor opposition - a contradiction in terms.
daemin 12y ago
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.
bazfoo 12y ago
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: 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. Whereas the old definition[2] was: computer means a computer, a computer system or part of a computer system. Both of these seem equivalent in my eyes. If so, the horse seems to have already bolted years ago. 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.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs969_first-senate%2F0002%22 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w... [2]: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc396138654 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc3...
- XorNot 12y ago
  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".
  - bazfoo 12y ago
    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.
- robryan 12y ago
  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.
aaronmoodie 12y ago
"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
marak830 12y ago
As an Australian the first thing i thought was " youre fucking kidding me". I didnt leave Australia because of things like this, but it certainly makes me rethink returning.
- javajosh 12y ago
  Sure, but where do you go?
femto 12y ago
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-bella-vista-20140925-10m372.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-member-reports-assault-in... [2] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uniformed-australian-defence-force-member-allegedly-attacked-by-men-of-middle-eastern-appearance-in-western-sydney/story-fni0cx12-1227070513974?nk=7b2ada99cf4b7ce505f6329766400eef http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uniformed-australi... [3] http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-member-withdraws-attack-complaint-20140926-10mfgg.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-memb...
- hadoukenio 12y ago
  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.
  - grecy 12y ago
    Interestingly, if this was a staged event to create fear, it fits the definition of terrorism.
- Khaine 12y ago
  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
  - 12y ago
dubcanada 12y ago
It's amazing what people will agree too based on the idea of fear. People learn nothing from history.
hadoukenio 12y ago
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?
justin_l 12y ago
Possibly relevant (from 2012): http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/asio-boss-says-we-need-more-muslim-recruits-to-combat-terror-threats-in-australia/story-e6freuy9-1226252730137?nk=7cae6a1e81c09f1996f6c615ead5f065 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.
wazoox 12y ago
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.
- scribu 12y ago
  Could you provide a link? The only recent thing I could find was http://www.france24.com/en/20140925-france-heightened-security-terrorism-threat/ http://www.france24.com/en/20140925-france-heightened-securi...
  - mercurial 12y ago
    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-eroding-civil-liberties http://www.laquadrature.net/en/france-adopts-anti-terror-law... 2: http://en.rsf.org/alarm-over-massive-spying-12-12-2013,45606.html http://en.rsf.org/alarm-over-massive-spying-12-12-2013,45606... 3: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/orange-gives-all-of-its-data-to-frances-nsa/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/orange-gives-all-of-its-dat...
bigB 12y ago
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.
- Daneel_ 12y ago
  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.
eden-san 12y ago
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.
- slavik81 12y ago
  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
- Perseids 12y ago
  > 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/ http://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-list-bungle/ [2] http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/ http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det... - Note that this was years before her involvement with the Snowden leaks.
hadoukenio 12y ago
"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.
Khaine 12y ago
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.

224 points by endgame 12y ago

do not want

> 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.

Istof 12y ago
> to our existence a government that wants to stay in power
flashman 12y ago
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.
- caf 12y ago
  And who, it must be said, is not a member of the government either.
  - tacticus 12y ago
    Well he is a member of the government but not the governing party (just their stooge)
    - tomcorrigan 12y ago
      Nope. He is a member of parliament but definitely not a member of government. There is an important distinction.
  - beedogs 12y ago
    He's a senator. He's part of the government, whether or not he's part of the ruling party.
deciplex 12y ago
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?
- BrofessorWolf 12y ago
  See: Executive Order 9981
- danielnixon 12y ago
  Your question reminds me of Peter Suber's excellent book, The Paradox of Self-Amendment [0]. [0] http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/ http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/
- dublinben 12y ago
  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.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    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.

danford 12y ago

Have these programs been responsible for actually stopping any large scale terrorist attacks?

freakonom 12y ago
An answer that usually works: Absolutely, because there have been no large scale terrorist attacks.
- jmadsen 12y ago
  "Why are you waving that handkerchief?" "Keeping the elephants away..." You know the rest.
  - vacri 12y ago
    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.
    - Ygg2 12y ago
      Implying that there is such a thing as just enough power.
a_bonobo 12y ago
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-nsametadatacollectionhasntstoppedanattack.html http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/13/review-finds...
xnull2guest 12y ago
No. The programs are not about terrorism at all. Check for other comments on this thread (I posted a lengthy one) for details.

beedogs 12y ago

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".

xnull2guest 12y ago
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-plans-use-economic-espionage-benefit-american-corporations/ 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.pdf 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 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.

tonymon 12y ago

So is time to switch from Fastmail now?

bramgg 12y ago
What would Fastmail do for you?
gorhill 12y ago
I would like to understand why you are voted down. Fastmail is in Australia, your comment seems relevant to me.

locusm 12y ago

Countdown to these laws being used for copyright prevention. Lazarus should stick to oval shaped balls.

marcosdumay 12y ago
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.
- vacri 12y ago
  Australia has limited movement in the copyright area anyway, due to free trade treaty requirements with the US.
- locusm 12y ago
  They will when the US Govt lobbies for them on behalf of the RIAA. Expect a 3 strike law like New Zealand got.

transfire 12y ago

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.

chewxy 12y ago

"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?

quink 12y ago
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-least-likely-to-use-lower-house-vote/5746612 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 https://i.imgur.com/2TglCpg.jpg "Hellfire justice" indeed.
- chewxy 12y ago
  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.
  - robryan 12y ago
    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.

jnbiche 12y ago

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.

w1ntermute 12y ago
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.
- gilgoomesh 12y ago
  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.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    As an Australian I concur with the parent statement.
  - px1999 12y ago
    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.

jpatokal 12y ago

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.

fweabv 12y ago
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.
- fphhotchips 12y ago
  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.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 12y ago
    Why find another way? I like to point to Geert Wilders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
beedogs 12y ago
This is why I will continue to vote Green (until they disappoint me.)

thomasfromcdnjs 12y ago

We are working on a grass roots campaign to raise awareness about these bills, mainly the data retention legislation which will be up for debate in the upcoming weeks. 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 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 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_volunteers_to_help_make_contacting/ 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)

dwd 12y ago
You might want to coordinate with GetUp in this as well as you can expect they will be mobilising on this issue.
girvo 12y ago
Hi Tom! I work with Sam P, heh, are you around this Sunday? I'm going to catch up and see how I can help :)

flinkblinkhink 12y ago

Labor opposition - a contradiction in terms.

daemin 12y ago

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.

bazfoo 12y ago

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: 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. Whereas the old definition[2] was: computer means a computer, a computer system or part of a computer system. Both of these seem equivalent in my eyes. If so, the horse seems to have already bolted years ago. 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.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs969_first-senate%2F0002%22 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w... [2]: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc396138654 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc3...

XorNot 12y ago
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".
- bazfoo 12y ago
  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.
robryan 12y ago
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.

aaronmoodie 12y ago

"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

marak830 12y ago

As an Australian the first thing i thought was " youre fucking kidding me". I didnt leave Australia because of things like this, but it certainly makes me rethink returning.

javajosh 12y ago
Sure, but where do you go?

femto 12y ago

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-bella-vista-20140925-10m372.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-member-reports-assault-in... [2] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uniformed-australian-defence-force-member-allegedly-attacked-by-men-of-middle-eastern-appearance-in-western-sydney/story-fni0cx12-1227070513974?nk=7b2ada99cf4b7ce505f6329766400eef http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uniformed-australi... [3] http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-member-withdraws-attack-complaint-20140926-10mfgg.html http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-memb...

hadoukenio 12y ago
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.
- grecy 12y ago
  Interestingly, if this was a staged event to create fear, it fits the definition of terrorism.
Khaine 12y ago
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
- 12y ago

dubcanada 12y ago

It's amazing what people will agree too based on the idea of fear. People learn nothing from history.

hadoukenio 12y ago

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?

justin_l 12y ago

Possibly relevant (from 2012): http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/asio-boss-says-we-need-more-muslim-recruits-to-combat-terror-threats-in-australia/story-e6freuy9-1226252730137?nk=7cae6a1e81c09f1996f6c615ead5f065 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.

wazoox 12y ago

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.

scribu 12y ago
Could you provide a link? The only recent thing I could find was http://www.france24.com/en/20140925-france-heightened-security-terrorism-threat/ http://www.france24.com/en/20140925-france-heightened-securi...
- mercurial 12y ago
  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-eroding-civil-liberties http://www.laquadrature.net/en/france-adopts-anti-terror-law... 2: http://en.rsf.org/alarm-over-massive-spying-12-12-2013,45606.html http://en.rsf.org/alarm-over-massive-spying-12-12-2013,45606... 3: http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/orange-gives-all-of-its-data-to-frances-nsa/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/20/orange-gives-all-of-its-dat...

bigB 12y ago

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.

Daneel_ 12y ago
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.

eden-san 12y ago

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.

slavik81 12y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Perseids 12y ago
> 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/ http://www.wired.com/2014/02/no-fly-list-bungle/ [2] http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/ http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det... - Note that this was years before her involvement with the Snowden leaks.

hadoukenio 12y ago

"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.

Khaine 12y ago

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.