Oz Round Table
The Oz Round Table boards => The Round Table => Topic started by: *r3830* on June 13, 2010, 08:55:07 PM
-
Yet another attempt for Big Brother to intrude into our privacy!
Govt Wants ISPs To Record Browsing History
http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm (http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm)
-
I read about this the other day. I haven't read into it a lot just yet, but my first reaction was if you are operating within the law, what does it matter? They can already track us by a number of means, and I daresay that they already do track our computer activity to a degree - now they are just trying to legitimize it.
would it be possible for them to monitor the activity of every single isp address? something like 6 million were created last year alone. Perhaps they will have filters in place that only tracks certain movements such as those involved in terrorism or peadophilia?
On the whole, I try to act in a reasnoably lawful way, so can't see them getting too much from tracking me that they don't already know. Can't see why the average citizen with nothing to hide would really have anything to worry about.
What are they gonna bust me for? spending my whole day on chat boards instead of studying? Meh - husband already does that!
-
I think it highly likely the Government referred to in this article wont be the government for much long
-
Well, it's sort of akin to leaving your front door open at home - and allowing (no choice) anyone to enter and do as they like. I have a problem with that.
Perhaps the best example..... being all law abiding citizens.... would it be unreasonable for ALL of us to supply a DNA sample to the authorities? We're lawful... so, nothing to worry about....and wouldn't a national database make crime solving so much easier? Or - could the sample be used for less than lawful means? ie: we found you're DNA at a robbery site..... where were you on..... Actually - with that sort of evidence - why would lawyers be necessary? If the government legislated this requirement - I would have a problem with that too. But - I do believe it will come, as did the Australia Card through alternate means.
Any ISP can monitor the traffic of its users. This forum would have the same abilities for users here.
Reasonably lawful doesn't cut it - if someone for whatever reason is working on digging up dirt on another individual.
What are they gonna bust me for? - Well, how about your political interests / beliefs / involvements..... or the other people who you interact with online who are perhaps less lawful.... Would you have been happy to have Ivan Milat on your facebook friends list prior to his history being known? Possibly - you were associated with the person? [hypothetical of course!] ) How about your personal correspondences to others - or the external monitoring by a stranger of your kids? And - how about the stifling by a third party of your freedom to read - or share an opinion?
I see a few problems with this.
And BNWT - I seriously DO hope you are right! I will certainly be doing my bit!
-
But see trainman, I can't see how we can stop it. Once they get the idea into their heads, they'll push it around until we have been desensitized to the idea and then slip it in.
What do you believe is their specific motive for doing this? More control? of what? They have already made sure that I am perfectly trackable by giving me a birth number, a medicare number, a tax number a marriage number - kind of like that pact little kids make - cradle to grave - if they suspected me of anything, they can already track me.
Ok, in the interest of a discussion, lets look at the positives of this kind of thing.
lets start with drugs. Lets say there was a filter that alerted them to anything to do with drugs. Without even touching on the people who do this for a living, lets think about kids. If my son wrote something about drugs on his facebook page, or googled how to make them - they might be able to intervene before he gets addicted. Moving up the scales, wouldn't it be a whole lot harder for the drug dealers/makers to organize their businesses? This has to be a good thing.
Is there also a possibility that the ability to electronically monitor will require less man hours - thus reducing costs and freeing them up for something like education or health?
I can see a lot of benefits -
-
Just another push to make us a clone of china.....
-
we are a clone of China already .... and tomorrow is a Pubric Horiday !!!!!
-
(http://cousinavi.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ror.jpg?w=468&h=383)
-
I do agree yibs - but this is how they operate. Their responsibility is to reproduce an amenable workforce. With globalization, this has exploded beyond the realms of their capabilities. Back in the days before the industrial revolution, they could control us easily by controlling what we knew and what we had access to. With the expansion of market capitalization and the explosion of urbanization, they lost some of the control in reproducing the workforce.
however, with globalization, it has become impossible to reproduce a workforce for Australia because the combination of the cyber highways and the amount of knowledge that we have access to makes it possible for Australians to work overseas without leaving their homes.
For Australia to support itself, the govt needs to make sure that all of our intellectual resourses are not exported.
-
we are a clone of China already .... and tomorrow is a Pubric Horiday !!!!!
In the next 12 years, the biggest language in China will be English
-
You mean Engrish ?...LOL
-
But see trainman, I can't see how we can stop it. Once they get the idea into their heads, they'll push it around until we have been desensitized to the idea and then slip it in.
Vigilance is an important thing! Complacency allows these things to become realities. At the moment - people across the country and the world can share information - the Global Warming debate for example. If the outrage couldn't have been communicated - we'd be signed up to that now.
What do you believe is their specific motive for doing this? More control? of what? They have already made sure that I am perfectly trackable by giving me a birth number, a medicare number, a tax number a marriage number - kind of like that pact little kids make - cradle to grave - if they suspected me of anything, they can already track me.
Yes - we are all trackable. The new push IMO is to limit what people can share with each other...... further control in other words. And what Yibs says
Ok, in the interest of a discussion, lets look at the positives of this kind of thing.
lets start with drugs. Lets say there was a filter that alerted them to anything to do with drugs. Without even touching on the people who do this for a living, lets think about kids. If my son wrote something about drugs on his facebook page, or googled how to make them - they might be able to intervene before he gets addicted. Moving up the scales, wouldn't it be a whole lot harder for the drug dealers/makers to organize their businesses? This has to be a good thing.
Drugs.... OK. My kids know they have an open door to speak at any time regarding any matter - with either their mum - or me. We encourage these discussions in the privacy of our own home. WE also provide the monitoring function as parents. For mine, strangers have no place in this unless invited. The alternative to this situation is that kids don't talk about these things. Then they are in trouble. How about if the person who discovered your son writing these things on facebook decided that you were an unfit parent and chose to remove him from your care?
Drug dealers don't need internet access. They have pre-paid mobile phones which do the job so much better.
Is there also a possibility that the ability to electronically monitor will require less man hours - thus reducing costs and freeing them up for something like education or health?
I can see a lot of benefits -
-
Hi Loco !... I see Google pulled out of china for this very reason... forced censorship....
-
Is there also a possibility that the ability to electronically monitor will require less man hours - thus reducing costs and freeing them up for something like education or health?
I can see a lot of benefits -
Please disregard the above bit from last post! It was off-page at posting! ;D
-
I am greatly concerned of the prospect for abuse of this information - but the fact remains that there is nothing stopping ISPs from capturing this information RIGHT NOW.
The amount of information flying around is truly astounding. An email passing from one side of the world to another can easily pass through a dozen servers or more - try running a TRACERT on a domain name and see for yourself. Each of these routing points has the potential to capture information. The only reason why they won't is because the volume is so incredible.
I would expect the one thing that has not been clearly defined is the ACCESS that is to be granted to this information. ISPs currently keep some information that is only accessible for internal control or by court order - because it is privileged. I would hope this principle would be maintained.
As for the argument of necessity, I am finding it difficult to dismiss this easily. The fact of the matter is that the technology has enabled advanced levels of communication in ALL forms of dealing - whether email, eCommerce and banking or crime, terrorism and defamation. The fact that there IS a trail that can be followed, provided the details are captured, enables a far more precise and effective effort in tracking down not only the major parties involved, but also associated parties and interconnections. With data already stored on computer, searches, reports and a variety of other techniques can be just fired up against a wealth of possibilities. Every piece of straw in the haystack will be numbered and finding the needles will be relatively easy when you can instruct the computer to check each piece one-by-one and sit back with a coffee, while you wait for the answer.
There is also the matter of speed - for a number of reasons. First is the fact that, sometimes, major 'events' can be organised and executed in a very short timeframe, due to the speed and efficiency in coordinating an effort, utilizing this technology, so an appropriately efficient means of interception is necessary. Another is the simple time cost of investigators - payroll budgets are but one of several very real constraints.
Where I have a concern is the accessibility to this information held by ISPs.
Anything recorded on the OZRT for example is protected under privacy legislation and Admin could get into serious trouble for any failure to comply - but what we are facing with this 'data capture' is that it will be protected by who...? The 'Trust us' government?
Now that troubles me.
-
How are you Yibs..... Looking well again!
-
Yep good Loco.... you been well ?....
-
Herro Roco how are you
-
The 'Trust us' government?
And therein lies the problem! Good post Brums!
I'm good Yibs. Mainly afternoon shifts of late. Devastating to the social life.... or would be if I had one. At least there are good people here to speak with. Makes the night worthwhile. Lat time I saw you, you were suffering with a bad dose of the flu. Had a couple of Rums for ya. Hope that helped.
AHHHHHH I see my flen Smee!
-
I Had a shocking flu Loco, knocked me around for a week at home, I'm OK now sort of... still got a cough... Ubb's must be away fishing, haven't see him for days... Hope he sends me a trout when he gets back...
-
I read somewhere here that Ubbs was going away fishing and coming home Monday night. I hope he took an ice saw with him.
-
I read somewhere here that Ubbs was going away fishing and coming home Monday night. I hope he took an ice saw with him.
Nah he'd just blow a hole in the ice with his gun.. LOLOL
-
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr326/hollybygolly04/ice5.jpg)
-
The problem with being pro-active, which is what I am seeing is in some people's thinking, is that are you really being pro-active or just paranoid.
I'm a curious bugga. I like to understand how things work. The internet has made that so much more satisfying - but how do you judge my motives?
If I look up how it was possible to maufacture an nuclear device at home - am I doing it
- because I want to build one?
- because I want to idolise the risks my terrorist hero took in his attempt to blow up something?
- because I wanted to understand the alternative solutions to the OH&S issues?
- because I was curious how it could be done?
- because I was looking for a new security device for the nuclear family and clicked on the suggestion eBay's 'Best Match' gave me .... ?
How would you be if your genius family member had an idea for a cancer cure, a room temperature superconductor or a hyper-drive for space travel and started burrowing through all manner of material ... and in troop the 'Thought Police'? You can kiss goodbye to creative thinking, innovation, discovery and invention.
The variations on the misuse of such information are enormous beyond comprehension.
.... and what is worse is the prospect of the Minister Conroy's of the world seeking justification. Is that not the ultimate concern ..... when a politician says 'Trust me' ?
-
Brum6y, I agree with your post. Pro-active / paranoid..... both possibly intertwined to a point, but how about we also add realist to that thought?
I remember reading about an Internet monitoring software out of the US. From memory, the Echelon system. This software was trained to pick up keywords, such as bomb... plutonium and the such - then capture these things for more detailed analysis. Now that was years ago. Goodness knows what may exist now.
One of my biggest enjoyments with the net is, as you describe, to search for answers to different things. I've researched such things as drug manufacture in the past - particularly when that dreaded 'Ice' chemical hit our shores. Someone interpreting my google searches - without knowing anything about me would probably have a panic attack at times...... but the net is the biggest interactive encyclopaedia going.
The variations on the misuse of such information are enormous beyond comprehension.
And that can happen so easily to any of us. Not paranoia - but a reality.
-
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr326/hollybygolly04/ice5.jpg)
Smee! That's a chilly looking icehole you have there! ;D
-
Smee! That's a chilly looking icehole you have there
are we still speaking with Chinese accent here ?
-
Loco, you just triggered a thought....
What if you were suspicious of an illegal drug manufacturing setup - and went to research exactly what was necessary to set up a backyard lab..?
By finding out how certain things were done, you could be on the lookout for those signs - or things that could substitute - and get some good intelligence that you could pass over to the police, which they could easily verify and effectively act on.
Just a thought - but it would be unfortunate to have them crashing down your door when you were trying to make their job easier and your neighbourhood safer...
-
Smee, you just triggered a shaking of the head...
-
are we still speaking with Chinese accent here ?
:lmao: NO! that one is strictly ingrish! ;D
-
... ok ... with a wry smile.
-
Just a thought - but it would be unfortunate to have them crashing down your door when you were trying to make their job easier and your neighbourhood safer...
And that's exactly where misinterpretation could get one into serious strife..... for all the wrong reasons.
A friend who works at Coles told me a story about a shoplifter. This character (who they haven't been able to pinch) only stole one thing.... Ibuprofen tablets. Boxes and boxes of the stuff. It used to be Pseudoephedrine (Speed manufacture) and in more recent times, Codeine. (hence the new laws in May on this substance) I searched long and hard in an attempt to discover whether this new chemical could be substituted in some manner in the manufacture of a drug. That included emails to medical authorities and practitioners..... and many others who I thought may have been able to help. Couldn't find an illicit use for it. But - anyone monitoring the questions that I was asking could have immediately interpreted me as being of interest in the matter.
-
Surveillance state near, warns Australian Pirate Party
http://apcmag.com/surveillance-state-near-warns-australian-pirate-party.htm (http://apcmag.com/surveillance-state-near-warns-australian-pirate-party.htm)
-
Plan to keep search history angers internet freedom fighters
If you know the details of someone's online reading and viewing habits you can learn a great deal about them; their politics, their interests, their sexual inclinations, even the state of their marriage.
"It would be like the Government listening in on everybody's telephone conversations or opening everybody's mail. It's contrary to the kind of society we enjoy in Australia, where we enjoy freedom as citizens, unless we run into trouble with the law," he said.
"This puts everybody into the guilty until proven innocent basket."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/11/2925299.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/11/2925299.htm)
-
I think ubbs said he was going away for some archery
trainman, do you really think they would take my kids off me because I was deemed an unfit mother because they were enquiring about things? surely they would accept that kids are curious? we have an open door policy in our house too, but I doubt that any of mine would ask me how to make drugs - I think they know that this would be one of those no go areas.
However, i do understand where you are coming from, i just wish that this was happening in a week when I had more braincells spare to really get my teeth into the discussion. For now I have a few exams this week - so unfortunately its only superficial input from me
-
Peg,
It's a possible scenario. I know that you are a WONDERFUL mum..... but would a stranger have the same knowledge of you?
I think they know that this would be one of those no go areas.
Kids are curious.... even when they are in their 50's! Most of the chemicals manufactured in drug labs are built around potentially explosive ingredients. They are dangerous to make - and can be deadly to use. Simple explanation that generally satisfies kid's questions.
-
Maybe now is not a good time to tell you that one of my kids is right into chemistry - has his own set up in the garage........
However, all of his requirements are purchased through school - so he has to justify to them what he wants and why (because my knowledge stops at the text book basics). They authorize his order before sending me the account for approval.
anyway, best I get back to the hermeneutics of my sociology text and try and disect this epistemologically mixed up world....
(Hey did that sound impressive?)
-
Peg - The real concern is not for issues that are black and white, it is for the grey areas.
In particular, at what shade of grey things change from benevolent to malevolent. Wherever you draw that line, there are two insurmountable problems:
The first is that you will NEVER get universal agreement on where that line should be drawn.
The second is that there is every justifiable concern that the line will be moved - and moved towards the 'white' end of the scale.
As an extremely simple example, in NSW there is a road rule about traversing roundabouts, which states that you indicate you are leaving a roundabout by using your left blinker - because it is, technically, a left turn out of the roundabout.
Some roundabouts are 50 metres across and can have vegetation in the middle, obscuring full vision. Requiring people to indicate when they are exiting such a large roundabout is quite reasonable... it is almost identical to making a left turn into a side street - and you would get a large proportion of drivers who would concede that point.
Then you have roundabouts that have a small concrete mound in the middle of what otherwise could be a straghtforward cross-intersection. A lot of drivers would argue that using a blinker to indicate exiting such roundabouts as stupid - and I will accept that such an opinion is not without merit.
But - if we were to differentiate between big and small roundabouts for using or not using a blinker to exit, where do you draw the line? What happens if someone assesses the size of a roundabout as small, but it was classified as big? There are many issues on not only making a call, but on the assessment and interpretation.
In this case, the road rules stipulate one action for all situations, but if a second one was to be introduced, the above issues become real.
The same logic applies to private information. As it stands now, there are clear guidlines that apply - but if there is any opening up of access, then there will be a war of words, assessments and interpretations.
If all of the potential concerns could be identified and categorically addressed to the satisfaction of the voting public, then there might be some comfort - but the simple fact is, that such assurances are impossible. The determinations of this scenario and that situation will follow a path through the courts and develop over time in the same manner as legal precedents. There is just no possible way to write the bible on this and have it set in concrete.
.... and even if you did, somebody would want to Conroy change it.
-
Chemistry is a classic area.
Chemicals are used every day in many ways - you just can't make the world 'safe' from chemical assault.
What you can do is educate people as to the signs to look for in making a fertiliser bomb, so they can alert the authorities of suspicious purchases ... but then you are also telling those who didn't know such a thing was possible.
(Sometimes I cringe at the reports the media publish in the name of 'news' - I'm sure there are people who have been given ideas that they just would not have come up with on their own.)
-
yeah a bit like on the sports news , if they want to show the score but the game is going to be replayed later they say look away now if you dont want to know the score .......
When showing news stories on illegal activities , they should say anyone who might consider indulging in illegal activities in the future look away now !!
problem solvered !!
-
Smee .. always the thinker.
But I don't know if that one should get you committed or commended....
-
ok ... let me know later
-
I was just thinking, is there a chance that this proposed ISP tracking is for taxation purposes? There are a lot of people selling things via the internet, perhaps many whose profits may not be being declared. Is this a prelude to attatching an ABN number so that there is greater accountability to sources of revenue?
-
I sincerely doubt it, Peg.
They would need to monitor content to work out whether you were buying or selling or just browsing on eBay, for example - and that is just not on.
There are other ways of monitoring that sort of thing with existing facilities, but even those are not always cost-effective.
Remember that while the ATO is responsible for protecting government revenue through all forms of relevant taxation, they must still operate on a commercial basis. It is pointless to spend $10,000 chasing a $1,000 debt - unless you can recover multiple amounts or you wish to set an example. They operate on 'the best bang for your buck' basis and that will include electronic monitoring where the data is self-evident - such as interest earned on bank accounts.
Monitoring internet traffic in an attempt to glean anything like that is just too huge an ask.
IMHO.
-
Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html)
The federal government is hiding controversial plans to force ISPs to store internet activity of all Australian internet users - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.
Political opponents and other critics of the scheme have described the draft policy as "alarming" and accused the government of going "on a fishing expedition for as much data on the public as they can get". One ISP executive has described the plan as "a nanny state gone totally insane"
-
Get a load of this.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Toxic net filters 'shelved until after election'
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/toxic-net-filters-shelved-until-after-election-20100618-ykvj.html?autostart=1
-
Thankyou for posting that article BNWT.
Shelved until after the election.... undoubtedly beside the ETS legislation. BUT.... NEITHER of these things are going away!
Isn't damage control a wonderful thing to watch.
-
Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed
One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world".
He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean".
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/obama-internet-kill-switch-proposed-20100618-yln6.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/obama-internet-kill-switch-proposed-20100618-yln6.html)
-
Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed
One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world".
He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean".
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/obama-internet-kill-switch-proposed-20100618-yln6.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/obama-internet-kill-switch-proposed-20100618-yln6.html)
I must say how very disapointed I am in Obama. He seems more interested in organisating compensation over the oil spill rather than fixing the problem. This is just rediculous - its been almost 2 months now - I dont know the answer but I also dont have the smartest people in the world phoning/emailing me with their solutions.
I am very disappointed that he did not close Guantanamo within the year that he promised.
But now this takes the cake - I think the power has gone to his head. What happened to freedom of speech in the USA.
This sounds more like something China would do
-
I live with this crap. I listen to conservative talk radio all day, everyday.
I know a lot.
Glenn Beck is on the topic right NOW!
The socialist radicals have taken over, and there is NO LAW.
They set a fine example of how I can go off and totally throttle all the Genuine ButtHeads in town...and get away with it, and a clear conscience.
-
I reckon Obama and Tiger are the same bloke !!!!
Tello have you ever seen them in the same room at the same time ???
-
Geeeeeez smee..... That's a worry! Who was the girl they were with? ;D
-
Glenn Beck is on the topic right NOW!
Glenn Beck...... hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa the guy is an utter wackjob.
-
Google runs to US over Australian filter
"Google is deeply concerned by Australia's plans to introduce a widely scoped, mandatory ISP filtering regime. We have voiced our concerns publicly and with many groups including the US State Department," Google spokesperson Lucinda Barlow told ZDNet.com.au today.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/google-runs-to-us-over-australian-filter-339302479.htm (http://www.zdnet.com.au/google-runs-to-us-over-australian-filter-339302479.htm)
-
'Secure your PC or lose the net'
A prominent cyber-security consultant, Alastair MacGibbon, who is a former director of the AFP's Australian High Tech Crime Centre and eBay's former security chief, has called for the proposal to be taken a step further by forcing ISPs to monitor the security of users' machines and block them from connecting if their browsers, security and operating system software are not up to standard.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/secure-your-pc-or-lose-the-net-20100622-yuf5.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/secure-your-pc-or-lose-the-net-20100622-yuf5.html)
As Tello would put it FLOCK EBAY - and FLOCK this MacGibbon fella as well!!
-
Glenn Beck is on the topic right NOW!
Glenn Beck...... hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa the guy is an utter wackjob.
Oh yeah, well.... FLOCK YOU!
-
'Secure your PC or lose the net'
A prominent cyber-security consultant, Alastair MacGibbon, who is a former director of the AFP's Australian High Tech Crime Centre and eBay's former security chief, has called for the proposal to be taken a step further by forcing ISPs to monitor the security of users' machines and block them from connecting if their browsers, security and operating system software are not up to standard.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/secure-your-pc-or-lose-the-net-20100622-yuf5.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/secure-your-pc-or-lose-the-net-20100622-yuf5.html)
As Tello would put it FLOCK EBAY - and FLOCK this MacGibbon fella as well!!
I read the article and had some fundamental issues.
Then I read the comments. The issues I had were covered - multiple times.
Except one.....
With the facilities available, why do the authorities not direct their energies into pursuing the sources of these internet problems rather than try to stitch up everyone who might be targeted?
For "privacy" reasons? As if this proposal of theirs doesn't push that boundary already.
Aside from the procedural difficulties, I can't see - as one example - why they couldn't insist that proxy servers maintain records of usage - that could be made available when tracking illegal activity, spam and the like. Blacklist those that don't comply at the ISP level. They already do that for 'problem' sources of email.
This is like trying to make everybody wear a bullet-proof vest to safeguard against a repeat of Port Arthur.
Grabbing the wrong end of the stick in my opinion.
-
Glenn Beck is on the topic right NOW!
Glenn Beck...... hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa the guy is an utter wackjob.
Oh yeah, well.... FLOCK YOU!
LOL Tello, no offense intended if your a Glen Beck fan but the guy is clinically insane, he has incited people to riot, his beliefs are right out of the Tin Foil Hat brigade, he talks racism and hate speech, but what can you expect from Fox news, anyone interested just google "glen beck crazy" LOL
-
What's wrong with tinfoil hats???? ;D
-
What's wrong with tinfoil hats???? ;D
A high percentage of the **brains found underneath them.
** Yeah, I know there will be challenges to the use of that term in this context.
-
I actually dont mind Glenn Beck - some of his opinions are not mine - but some are
-
Here is another real - government instituted threat to freedoms: Went very quite for a time..... but it's back now.... anyone heard of any biker massacres lately??
Police apply to ban Hells Angels
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/06/2946355.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/06/2946355.htm)
Take the outlaw bikers hype out of this...... This legislation was written in a blanket form. It is simply a matter of inserting the name of the organisation / club in the title. Furthermore, it can be used on any group of people - Churches, Sporting Clubs..... etc... Whoever may be the flavour of the day. It represents a serious threat towards anyone in the community.
-
Hi Loco.
I dont know what its like anywhere else in Australia, but in the city (yes were are a city) I live in we dont have a problem with any type of gangs really. Its too quiet for them.
However the coffin cheaters did have a clubhouse here for a couple of years, it was just up the road from my grandmothers, and the road has mostly elderly people on it. Its also one of the main roads leading from the nightclubs to the rest of the city. So there would always be a few young people (drunk/stoned) roaming the street - doing all sorts of crap. Once the coffin cheaters moved into the street - it all stopped. It was a huge turnaround. My grandmother also told me that they were actually quite polite to her and most of her neighbours said the same thing, as they always said hello if they were out the front.
We also have a fabulous pub just out of town that a lot of coffin cheaters go to - and when they are there - there is less trouble.
I myself am not too keen on Bikie clubs - but over here at least - they aren't the problem
-
I think the bikies are smart enough, as the saying goes, to not to crap in their own nest...
I used to work in a place that had a bikie clubhouse in a small industrial unit four doors down the street. They had space in their forecourt for four or five cars and this space sat empty nearly all week. Since street parking was highly competitive, I sometimes could not find a place to park in the morning, so I approached the guys and asked. I was directed to the club president who was fine with me parking there - except on Fridays, when they had club meetings. I then asked about parking there Friday morning, since I could usually find a space in the street sometime during the day and he wasn't too worried - so long as I was out of the way before anyone got there.
This worked fine. If a bikie dropped in during the week, my presence was OK. Once I couldn't get to my car in time on a Friday and the guys had started rolling up for their meeting - so when I could get away, I dashed down to move my car. They were leaning on it, but just like you or I would - not doing any damage and when they saw me come to my car, a couple of the members apologised to me. Being a 1989 Ford Falcon, I wasn't really concerned and I just said as long as they didn't bend any panels or scratch the paintwork I wasn't worried.
Around the period the club moved out there were 3 notable events:
- a visit from the police, who approached very quietly. Several vehicles, a couple of dozen 'tactical response' guys in full gear, a number of uniformed officers and several detectives ... but nobody was home.
- a council order had been posted for 'unauthorised use' of the premises
- someone had rammed a vehicle through the roller shutter and torched the place
These events had little impact on the rest of the people in the street... but while the bikies were there, there weren't any other issues.
-
I've respectfully borrowed this article from the United Motorcycle Council website.
http://www.unitedmotorcyclecouncil.com/ (http://www.unitedmotorcyclecouncil.com/)
NSW Enters Dark Ages
Legal comment by Wayne Baffsky Barrister for UMCNSW
“NSW Police today announced they intend to seek a declaration against the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC).
This is the first step in a process under the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act which culminates in obtaining ‘control orders’ against the individual members.
If Control Orders are obtained then members will be banned permanently from having any contact, of any kind, with each other, even if they are family members and even if they work together as many do. It can also mean that some members will have to resign their jobs or close their businesses and will not be able to support their families.
The United Motorcycle Council of NSW (UMC NSW) has been trying to make the public aware of the many dangers with this piece of legislation. These dangers range from the power of the Attorney-General to appoint judges and then rescind the appointment at any time, to the fact any group of two or more people could be targeted by the Act, to the real problem with the use of so-called criminal intelligence.
The use of criminal intelligence is the most dangerous part of this legislation and other legislation which contains similar provisions. When the Commissioner uses criminal intelligence in the Supreme Court the members of the HAMC and their legal representatives must not be in the court. As they are not in court they will not know what has been said and they will not be able to explain it or contradict it.
As this kind of evidence is often hearsay or hearsay upon hearsay it has no probative value. Most often this kind of evidence is just rumour or innuendo, most often from people with a bone to pick. It is the least probative of any kind of evidence. It allows the police to say absolutely anything they like without any fear of being contradicted and all the HAMC can do is hope the Supreme Court can see through the charade.
The UMC NSW opposes any criminal behaviour and would not support any group if that group were a front for organised crime. However, we will support the HAMC as they oppose this draconian piece of legislation. We will support the HAMC because it is the interests of all the people of NSW not just motorcycle clubs. And we will support the HAMC so ultimately NSW does not enter its own dark age.”[/i]
Keep in mind..... TODAY it's about bikers.... tomorrow it could be ANY group in the community!
-
I think that as with a lot of laws - it might sound ok on paper - but there aren't enough police to enforce the ones we have now.
-
Hi there Loco.
I can see where you are coming from but you are drawing an unrealistic, "long bow" there to think you could interchange a church or sporting club into the same legislation. You could never accumulate the same amount of evidence against these organisations that the State/Federal Police, NCA, could produce against these "organised criminals" People have quoted examples of how friendly they were, or the good they have done for their immediate vicinity. Those examples are NOT a true example of these people, and if you think for one moment you could park in a rebels carpark with a hells angel sticker on your bumper you have an unreal knowledge of who these people are. They do not abide by our laws, rules, or social conscience. Attending childrens hospitals, long rides for charity, etc... serve nothing but their own purpose. They are thugs, standover men and the worse of the worse of our citizens.
-
1. I was only directing my comments on the fact that these gangs are NOT going to trash the area they have their clubhouse in - otherwise they'd be hunted out in very short order.
2. Their attitude to the general public is, from what I can glean is mainly indifference - unless you want to interfere with anything they are doing. Rival gangs, however, are a completely different kettle of fish.
3. I don't have ANY club affiliations or stickers or any such thing on my car - to suggest that in this context is utterly idiotic and clearly missing the point I was making.
4. I have no misgivings about the nature of the activites many of these gangs are involved in - and have nothing postitive to say - other than they know better than to crap in their own nest. I am in no way disillusioned and know full well that it is an act, but one they need to abide by if they want ANYWHERE to call 'home'.
5. I am also well aware of the difference between 'bikers' and 'bikies'.
As for loco's 'long bow' - his point (as I understand it) is that the legislation is so broadly defined that there IS NO impediment to a church group (or whoever) being outlawed OTHER THAN the supporting evidence. The fact that such supporting evidence would, in all expectation, be near to impossible to obtain is their only saving grace.
-
Drawing a long bow golden? I don't agree.
When the Commissioner uses criminal intelligence in the Supreme Court the members of the HAMC and their legal representatives must not be in the court. As they are not in court they will not know what has been said and they will not be able to explain it or contradict it.
So.... how is this justice? Whatever happened be the right to address your accuser? Did you note that even legal reps aren't able to be present? Which raises the next point...
It allows the police to say absolutely anything they like without any fear of being contradicted
The Police become the judge, jury and executioner! There is no avenue to defend yourself. And an appeals process? How does one appeal a matter that is not disclosed to them in the first place..... on what grounds?
.....banned permanently from having any contact, of any kind, with each other, even if they are family members and even if they work together
New law = Family no longer allowed to be together. Legislated!
They do not abide by our laws, rules, or social conscience.
In a free country - none of us should be as over legislated as we are. Of course, our Politicians always abide by our laws don't they?
Thankyou Brum!
-
Hi Loco and Brumby.
Points 1, 2, 4, 5, of Brumbys post is agreed I thought?
Point 3 is NOT IDIOTIC. If any of these people were threatened by your presence or you were an unknown threat, you would not be allowed to continue what you were doing. They allowed you to park there? would it have been the same scenario if it was a japanese motorbike? as an example, or a sticker/affilliation with a rival, as an example. They made the rules you abided by them and must have felt some concerns? Just like waving to nanna is nothing more than "not shiiting in their own nest"
As for loco's 'long bow' - his point (as I understand it) is that the legislation is so broadly defined that there IS NO impediment to a church group (or whoever) being outlawed OTHER THAN the supporting evidence. The fact that such supporting evidence would, in all expectation, be near to impossible to obtain is their only saving grace.
Supporting evidence is my point??? where is this for the under 12 netball team?? or the Nuns? Do you see them bashing people to death in airports because they don't LIKE each other? Do they have shootouts at hotels?
Real life calls for about an hour, I will come back, and address other points, it wasn't meant as a hit and run.
-
The use of criminal intelligence is the most dangerous part of this legislation and other legislation which contains similar provisions. When the Commissioner uses criminal intelligence in the Supreme Court the members of the HAMC and their legal representatives must not be in the court. As they are not in court they will not know what has been said and they will not be able to explain it or contradict
NO IDEA at all why this point is made? Of course the police aren't going to disclose their "intelligence", not only police but military as well. Do they need to advertise in triplicate that on the 1st of next month the police will raid their heavily fortified clubhouse? or the SAS will attack the Taliban at a certain time? Shows no understanding of surveillance, information gathering knowledge or techniques.
Or are you saying the judge they present this to is corrupt?. I would have thought they are possibly the most learned people in the land, who have spent their life understanding and interpretting the law/constitution. To have NO faith in them or the principles they are bound by is concerning. I thought they were independent and utterly without compromise. They are the corner stone to our whole lWestminster legal system.
-
Golden, you have gone off on a tangent here.
I approached these guys as a neutral.
I approached these guys as a neighbour.
I approached these guys with the knowledge that the property was theirs to use and that I was asking a favour of them - as a common courtesy.
If I had any qualms about some part of my presence being offensive, then I probably would have steered well clear. My approach - or lack thereof - is just the same as if I knew the owner was possessive and paranoid who would just shut the door in my face.
I would expect a negative response from ANY occupant if I approached with some attribute that was basically offensive... but I didn't. Why you bring up ANY issue that would be offensive to the rightful users of the property is why I called this comment idiotic, because it was totally irrelevant.
In fact, it is quite the opposite to the point I was making! These clubs can present an amiable side - especially when they wish to maintain an amount of agreeability with the neighbours of their clubhouse. THIS is what I was talking about - NOT rocking up and giving them a one fingered salute.
For Pete's sake, if you rocked up to ME when I was in a bad mood and did something as blatant as that I'd probably deck you for being an arrogant jerk.
As for the under 12 netball team, the legislation allows for them to be declared a criminal organisation .... and, if they do - you'll never be able to access the 'evidence' used to do that.
On this, we are talking PRINCIPLE. Nobody expects the under 12 netball team to be declared a 'criminal organisation' - but it is possible. IN PRINCIPLE, the law ALLOWS it.
Understand this - this is in no way diminishing the need for such a tool in the cases that have you fired up - I think ALL of us feel pretty much the same - but once created, such tools can be used for lesser situations and THIS is the concern about the law as it stands.
The tool is in place. Abuse of this tool is now comparatively easy - especially when the right of reply is removed, to allow 'uninhibited' testimony. Now you might say "That sounds reasonable" considering the nature of the people against which such things are being witnessed - but such unfettered capacity has no inherent balancing component...
... much like eBay's (now) one-sided feedback system.
The argument with this legislation is NOT with its ability to deal with those groups for whom it was crafted and justified - but for the potential of its abuse.
-
Yes Brumby, and thats why I said to Loco I understood where he was coming from. I do NOT agree that the police can produce "supporting evidence" to an unbiased and independent judge to allow that. They will never gather that evidence against a sporting team, church, etc if they are engaging in their normal day to day activities nor would they spend their budget and resources attempting to do that.
-
It allows the police to say absolutely anything they like without any fear of being contradicted
The Police become the judge, jury and executioner!
SENSATIONALISM! The police are bound by the same rules of evidence as anyone else, in fact often more so, they are not judge, jury and executioners, this is rubbish. These people are working hard in difficult situations to protect all of us. How many examples do you want of their absolute dissapointment at the constraints they are under.
-
.....banned permanently from having any contact, of any kind, with each other, even if they are family members and even if they work together
New law = Family no longer allowed to be together. Legislated!
So they set their alarm for early morning, ride single file off to work, to earn a dollar to support their law abiding family...pffftt thats your difference between a bloke who enjoys riding a bike and a member of a bikie gang..
-
As for the argument of maintaining security of intelligence gathering, I don't disagree - but the assumption here is that it must be taken as gospel. If a jaded investigator just 'knows' so and so is the truth and sets up an entrapment, but this part is omitted in the presentation of evidence, then there will not be anyone to challenge it.
As for the judiciary, I know they are bound by the law and that is something which can cause wrong verdicts.
...and if you say 'poppycock' to that statement - then sit down and read - you are about to get a lesson in the law........
Some years ago, one of my sons did a paper round on the weekends and, at the end of one Sunday morning's work, he was held up at knifepoint by two other kids. The one with the knife demanded he hand over the money - but he refused. The demand was repeated and he refused again. Then the knife wielding thief grabbed the money bag - but my son grabbed it right back. WHY? - you ask. Quite simple really ... my son knew the other kids - the one with the knife was in one of his classes at school and he had a pretty good idea of what he was like.
Anyway, he went back to the newsagent and told him what had happened. His mum and I were called and we shot straight down there to make sure he was OK. We then discussed the situation and reported it to the police.
Statements were made and charges laid. In time, the case came up at court for the knife wielder - he had pleaded 'not guilty' - but his accomplice had pleaded 'guilty' and was awaiting sentence.
Now comes the interesting bit......
Just prior to the formal commencement of proceedings, the judge asked what the focus was on the defence - to which the answer was: 'the knife'. There was no argument about the theft, identity or anything else - just whether there was a knife involved. Robbery is bad enough, but armed robbery was a BIGGY - and this kid was up on a charge of "armed robbery in company".
So the case began - EVERYONE knew there had been a robbery and the kid who did it was the one in court - the prosecution, the defence, the judge - EVERYBODY.
Then my son gave evidence. He did quite well considering and related the story quite well, responding to counsel's questions, except for one brief event. He missed the part where the thief grabbed the money and he grabbed it back. And that was it - the case was lost. Without the thief having taken possession of the money, for however brief a period, there was no robbery. The prosecutor tried to jog his memory, but the rules of evidence are very very clear on that sort of thing - a BIG no-no. It's called 'leading the witness'. Needless to say, the defense jumped on every hint of it and the judge warned the prosecutor.
In summation, the judge made it very clear why she came down with the 'not guilty' verdict - and I have to thank her for making it clear, although I had worked it put for myself. Interesting, too, was the fact that she was more than convinced that a knife was involved - apparently my son gave quite credible and consistent evidence on that score.
So there we have it - the guilty kid, proven to have used a knife, walks away scot free and his hapless accomplice, who basically just stood there, gets sentenced. The prosecution knew it, the defence knew it, the judge knew it - EVERYBODY knew it, but the kid walks free.
-
In just the same way, I can expect those who perform legal gymnastics to be able to present an angle to a judge in such a way that will force their hand in delivering the 'desired' outcome, by following the law.
I presume there is no argument as to how bizarre some decisions that get handed down are seen to be - and without the right of reply, there is no independent point of balance.
-
Now don't get me wrong .... I have the greatest respect for law enforcement and appreciate the job that they do. I also appreciate that there are many situations where their best efforts at bringing criminals to justice fall flat because of situations like that of my son's giving of evidence - or some smart-ass legal gymnast - and that frustrations will abound.
The concern is that there could be a temptation to 'fast path' some element of an investigation or evidence preparation in a case - and without there being some means to contain this temptation, abuse is possible.
The statements made by loco and I are no more than 'devils advocate' perspectives - but unless you can respond with more than 'self regulation will work because we're the good guys and you can trust us' you aren't making any points ... and those who fundamentally distrust authority will still have valid grounds for complaint.
-
There is one further issue, too.....
And that is this: Now that there IS such a tool in place, will it be 'augmented' through 'refinements' of the legislation and/or further 'interpretation' of the law?
Is this just the thin edge of (a rather powerful) wedge?
Do we trust our politicians to not get 'adventurous' and take this law into other directions?
The truth is, while there is a place for this legislation, we must maintain vigilence to ensure it remains appropriate and used wisely.
If not, you may yet have cause to ask: "What happend to the under 12's netball team?"
-
Thanks for all those replies. Aren't you just supporting my argument though??
You say your son went before a competent court. You didn't cover the points of proof to have the alleged offender convicted, so he walked. Doesn't this show the court is not corrupt? and is bound by the rules placed before them?
To think the police and politicians are going to manipulate a judge to have an under 12 netball team declared a criminal organisation is an argument that is "out there" , I don't think the average law abiding Australian would even consider that as a threat to their freedom.
-
The court was not corrupt, indeed, but the fact of the matter is that, through a simple device the true course of justice was put off course - and that no matter how well the true course has been shown and admitted all round, the mechanics of the process demanded one result, but the facts known to all clearly defined the opposite.
Such are the concerns with this legislation. Once the mechanics are understood, the purpose (or spirit) of the law can be subservient to the letter of the law and, in the situation of my son's case, the true and fair outcome can be derailed by a similarly trivial device.
You may laugh at the 'under 12 netball team' example - but what you are totally missing is that the legislation ALLOWS for that to happen. Let me put it this way - the under 12 netball team HAS NO MORE PROTECTION from this legislation than 50 gun-toting Hells Angels on a rampage. The ONLY difference is, that getting the evidence to deal with the Hells Angels will (allegedly) be easier.
This is the point being made - about the legislation itself. The legislation allows for it to happen to ANYONE.
But let's look at where it could go...
Well, we start off with the Hells Angels, since they are in the news on this very matter. Now it must be said that there has, at this time, been no judgement against them under this legislation, but for the sake of argument, let us say that they are the first group to be declared a 'criminal organisation'. Now, presuming their departure from the scene does not leave a power gap, resulting in an all-out war of the remaining gangs, with extensive collateral damage - what next? If the presumption is that the Hells Angels were the baddest of the bad - then the degree of 'badness' in our society will fall. This means we will be more sensitive to the levels of 'bad' left behind and our tolerance will also drift down as well. If I were to equate this with noise pollution - once we stopped the freight trains, we would notice the semi-trailers - and then be complaining about them.
So, in out new 'social order' we encounter our next tier - and deal with them.
This is now purely hypothetical...:
Now we come across a true criminal family... Mum spends her days shoplifting and dad does nighttime burglary. Uncle has his dope growing out the back and takes care of a little 'protection' business. Grandpa takes care of the fencing of goods and looks after the books while grandma does a little bit of forgery and the regular con-artist outings where she is teaching her twin grand-daughters. Meanwhile the teenage sons are out stealing cars and maybe holding up the odd servo for some ready cash so they can go out on the town. It might be that they have not fallen before the strong arm of the law, because of a combination of factors - including minimising risks, keeping a low profile, having a keen awareness of their environment and a 'sixth sense' about things, a little bit of luck and a damn good lawyer on side, but their contribution to the crime scene well known by the local police.
Along comes this legislation, and the police now have a means to 'deal' with this family in a way they never had before. There is no doubt in anyone's mind (in officialdom) that they would be rendered almost ineffective by breaking them up, since there was a high degree of intra-family support for each others' 'activities'. So they put together a case, present it and the judge agrees - so another 'criminal organisation' is declared and the family is broken up and, according to the legislation, they have no means to challenge or even be informed of the 'evidence' that has caused the decimation.
While the detail of these examples may be erroneous, the possible trend is the point I want to illustrate. The application of the legislation can become more comfortable on a lessening degree of 'badness' - and while it may not have reached the under 12 netball team, it's a lot closer than it was first passed into law. On the 'black and white' scale, the pointer has moved down into a 'less black' area - so things are starting to become grey. Therein lies a problem - where do the 'grey areas' change from 'black' to 'white'?
In the legislation, there is no provision for defining this. It is purely a subjective assessment that can, and will, drift in line with the current societal norms.
However, you may shout from the rooftops that it will never get that bad - and I might be inclined to agree with you - but will I hazard a guess that our reasoning will differ.
(While I may not be accurate in assigning this point of view to you, Golden, I present it from the impression I have gleaned from what you have said. If I am patently wrong, I apologise, but I present the point as one approach...)
You may passionately declare "They're the good guys - they wouldn't do anything nasty. They will just be looking out for us and whatever they target will be deserving of that attention." My response to that would be this: If this is the approach the populace takes - blind faith - then there will be every reason for those with the power, to exercise it as they see fit. Can you imagine what politicians would do if they knew they could get away with anything? It's bad enough as it is now.
My reasoning why things will never get that bad is that there will be people watching - such as it demonstrated here in this thread - and that the powers that be will know this. They will need to be very sure of their actions because if they try and 'push the envelope' beyond what the population considers reasonable, there will be increased pressure to curb or limit these powers which could make it harder to deal with real problems in the future. The pressure will be political - since its the politicians who drive the legislative processes and the electors who drive the politicians.
As I said before, I have every respect for law enforcement, but vigilance will serve society whereas blind faith can imprison it.
-
We could always put it to a survey! and use the random sample accuracy calculator :lol:
Whats tommorrow nights subject?
-
The Police become the judge, jury and executioner!
SENSATIONALISM! Do you really think so? Try this word.... REALITY!
The police are bound by the same rules of evidence as anyone else, in fact often more so
Agreed - but on the basis of a "fair trial", this evidence is open to cross-examination. But...... under this new law, there is no opportunity for cross-examination by the defence. You state that judges work on facts and evidence presented.... without an opportunity to 'test' the evidence.... what is the judge left with? The one sided "facts and evidence" of the Police? Now that most certainly is a fair outcome for all involved! I, too used to believe that all Police Officers were fine upstanding pillars of the community.
Brum.... The devils' advocate role sees things from a different perspective. I'm not a biker - but I don't see the risk of this legislation being exclusive to unlawful groups. Were someone to decide that pedophilia placed children at risk..... and that the major offenders were priests in churches, all that would be needed was secret police intel to bring about the closure of a church, and the vilification of all its members. By the same rules, the church would have no defence - or valid appeals process.
This thing is wide open to abuse..... for any number of purposes.
-
Gillard to stick with web filter despite disquiet
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/gillard-to-stick-with-web-filter-despite-disquiet-20100707-100qe.html
-
ok I think Ive got it ! ..... who is going to tell the Hells Angels to change their name to the Under 12 Girls Netball team ? and to get rid of their leathers and wear pleated skirts
-
I was doing some further reading. Just came across proposed changes to a number of acts... including Dangerous Weapons and Firearms. Interestingly, the major changes appear to be in denying access to the accused person.... by inclusion of the phrase "criminal intelligence". So much for putting the cards on the table. Eg - a complaint made by someone regarding the ownership of a firearm...... you're licence may be revoked or cancelled - and no explanation is required to be given.
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D2010%20AND%20no%3D40&nohits=y (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D2010%20AND%20no%3D40&nohits=y)
-
I have no problem with that. I dont believe any citizen needs a firearm. The only people I want to have guns are the Police and the Armed forces, and possibly farmers.
People who belong to shooter clubs etc should not be allowed to take a weapon home - they should be locked away at the club.
I have strong feelings on this subject, my stepfather was a police officer for over 20 years - he was shot at twice.
My Brother worked at a Commonwealth Bank that was held up and shots were fired.
Brendon Abbott held up one of the banks in Mandurah - 500 metres from where my grandmother lived. he was armed and prepared to use it.
-
I have no problem with that.
Mandurah..... It doesn't matter what laws are introduced, they only apply to law abiding people. The crooks remain exempt in any case.
I do have a problem with the erosion of our freedoms. Although, life would probably be soooooo much easier if we all had someone to act on our behalf. Think of it - no need to think any more for yourself..... whoops, sorry - we've just withdrawn thinking, so there is nothing to think about.
Cars kill a lot of people each year. Should they be banned? How about we cancel all drivers licences - because, potentially, every driver who drinks may drive under the influence. That's called being proactive..... makes sense doesn't it.
There is precedent for such a change..... it occurred and affected all firearm owners across this country due to the illegal actions of one misguided, mentally ill person in Tasmania. But - it was a popular move!
Thank goodness for all these things at times of looming elections! I promise I won't laugh when our politicians, seeking re-election, stand and assure me that I am now safer because of their enlightened reforms.
-
Hi Loco - i disagree with you comparing cars to guns. Yes cars kill a lot of people - but that is not what they are designed for.
Guns on the other hand are designed to kill or maim. People may argue that a gun may be for protection - but unless you are prepared to pull the trigger - they offer no protection at all.
I applaud anything the government can do to stop people from having guns and ammunition.
-
Struth Mum, what are you saying? Guns never killed anyone or anything, it's the lunatic holding the firearm who does the killing.
The gun buy back was off track. All the honest responsible shooters handed in their firearms but, the crooks didn't.
Talking about censoreship, all reference to vegetables should be censored.
-
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7558517/govt-delays-internet-filter-plans/
-
I'm walking away from this thread, (not other threads) , because you are arguing for argument sake. I think you see me as a weak target. As I understood it posters on this forum are allowed to express a view, even an opposing view. We don't have to agree. I don't want your leftist, civil libertarian, political propaganda pushed down my throat. To resort to calling people idiotic, an arrogant jerk, or sit down and I'll give you a lesson in law, is offensive. Especially from a moderator. Your arguments are ridiculous. You are trying to tell us all that the sunday school is going to end up in Guantanamo Bay, it is ludicrous, and if you can't see that is "drawing the long bow" so be it. You have conceded you have no trust in the police, legislators, judiciary or the constitution, I stand by my view that is concerning. I doubt I'll enter your political threads again, but I may just agree with you next time, because I'm prepared to think for myself, express an opinion, learn and even apologise when wrong.
-
One last point, I always thought the "green stars" above someones avatar meant they were a moderator. I was wrong and am mistaken. For that I apologise.
-
Golden. The green stars only indicate that the person is an original member. Those members with green stars have no more authority than a new member with one gold star.
On another note as a person who spent over thirty years in Law Enforcement I could make some very salient comments in relation to firearms on this thread but, I choose not to.
I respect all the differing opinions & beliefs expressed here, I don't necessarily agree with all of them but, I do respect them.
-
Golden. The green stars only indicate that the person is an original member. Those members with green stars have no more authority than a new member with one gold star.
On another note as a person who spent over thirty years in Law Enforcement I could make some very salient comments in relation to firearms on this thread but, I choose not to.
I respect all the differing opinions & beliefs expressed here, I don't necessarily agree with all of them but, I do respect them.
Those comments weren't directed at you Ubbie or Jane,
I'm just not going to sit here and read posts about how their politicians are going to pass unjust legislation so the police can manufacture substantial evidence aginst the u12 netbll team and go before a corrupt judge who will declare them a criminal organisation or follow the rules before him is ridiculous. It is "out there" thats my opinion. My opinion wasn't respected so I bit back..
-
Struth Mum, what are you saying? Guns never killed anyone or anything, it's the lunatic holding the firearm who does the killing.
The gun buy back was off track. All the honest responsible shooters handed in their firearms but, the crooks didn't.
Talking about censoreship, all reference to vegetables should be censored.
Or the child that gets hold of it.
But you are kinda correct (imo) its not gun that kills - its the bullets (what a smart arse I am)
I just dont like guns.
-
Never a problem Golden, I didn't think so but, I thought I should let you know about the green stars etc.
-
Yeah, fair enough Mum. If a child gets hold of a firearm the owner should be severely punished by the law for allowing it to happen.
In NSW firearm security (in the home) is very strict.
-
Ubbie - its the same here - but not all owners are vigilant unfortunately. And gun licences take into account the persons mental health when issuing the licence but there are no follow up check ups. Like that mother in Rockhampton that shot her child - she had never had a mental health issue (according to our shonky media), but she was clearly unstable at the time she shot her child.
I remember watching Bowling for Columbine - and one of the opening shots was in a bank that offered a free gun when you opened up a bank account. They even had a firing range in the back. That scares the crap out of me.
I just dont like guns and never will
-
You are trying to tell us all that the sunday school is going to end up in Guantanamo Bay, it is ludicrous, and if you can't see that is "drawing the long bow" so be it. You have conceded you have no trust in the police, legislators, judiciary or the constitution, I stand by my view that is concerning. I doubt I'll enter your political threads again, but I may just agree with you next time, because I'm prepared to think for myself, express an opinion, learn and even apologise when wrong.
You are trying to tell us all that the sunday school is going to end up in Guantanamo Bay
And.... that could well be right..... I believe Guantanamo Bay is coming to Australia in the near future.
You have conceded you have no trust in the police, legislators, judiciary or the constitution
Have I missed something? Conceded no trust in the Police? Now, where was it mentioned that I have no trust in ALL Police? I believe I stated that once I believed ALL police to be pillars of the community. I now know that to be different..... as I work between the Police and the judiciary.... so my perspective is quite probably very different to yours. Where you mention legislators..... aren't these people politicians? Politicians are placed by votes aren't they? And the constitution..... if you are unable to see the threats that presently exist to a number of articles of our constitution...... internet filtering (censorship) being quite a topical example at the moment... "for we are young and free legislated. Perhaps for the benefit of clarification.... trust is tempered by caution.
However - ANYONE is free to air their thoughts here, and while the discussions may become quite active, it's not about stifling anyone else's views, opinions or thoughts. If ANYONE wishes to participate they are welcome. But just a suggestion..... this is a chat forum. While we may express differing views - there is no value in taking these things personally...... nor is there any intent to do so.
-
No way would we ever have a Guantanamo Bay here - we dont like the fact that the US does, and we are not happy that it is still operating. Gitmo is a big ugly boil on the backside of the US of A. We treat our Prisoners so much more humane than that - We dont do waterboarding or other methods of torture. And if we did I would not be a Proud Australian - I would be a disgusted Australian - as would many others here I think.
I like our country the way it is, and if the government want to introduce laws to help keep this country the wonderful place it is to live in - then I say go ahead - Please do. Because I know that no only will they have to convince the oppostition that its a good idea - they will have to convince us. Because most of us know how to contact their local Mp by email, and tell them what we think.
I dont think most law abiding citizens have anything to worry about. WE dont care if there is a filter that stops Child Porn being accessed - we want it. I dont care if I cant access websites that encourage Jihad or how to build a weapon. I dont care if I cant access a meth amphedimine recipe. In fact if the government can do this - then I say well done.
The government is also not doing this overnight - they have left plenty of time for public consultation - so its not like they were trying to hide behind the goal posts
When they get it wrong - its up to us to tell them - so they can review and change the situation. They do it all the time.
-
Golden, I do appreciate what you are saying about how ludicrous it would be having the under 12 netball team declared a 'criminal organisation'.
When presented as an open statement, the normal expectation is of a group of innocent pre-teen girls whose worst traits would be pulling hair or tripping opponents.
This is simply making black and white comparisons based on the stereotypical view of a familiar sports group.
But what if the circumstances were not so clear... nor so innocent?
Step back to my 'criminal family' scenario - and let us examine the twin granddaughters, who just happen to be members of the under 12 netball team.....
With such a delightfully innocent group of girls getting together on a regular basis, the 'criminal family' has arranged for 2 other girls (from families of drug customers) to be members of the same team. Very simply - the granddaughters turn up at training or matches with their 'team coordinated' sports bags carrying a couple of kilos of uncle's crop inside and the 'customers' players simply pick up the "wrong" bag to take delivery.
Would this under 12's netball team be a candidate for being declared a 'criminal organisation'? Under the legislation as it stands, the answer cannot be 'No'.
Now... let us further suppose that all this is 'common knowledge' to the local police and a sting operation is set up to nab them - but the "criminal family's" sixth sense replaces the normal merchandise with a kilo of a different kind of hemp, that is only good for weaving an 'earth friendly' carry bag. The sting operation goes off flawlessly ... all the photos, recordings, observations, notes, research falls into place, but the key piece of evidence - the drug haul - is anything but. Weeks of work gone down the tubes ... all for want of a bit of 'weed' in the right place. The temptation to cut a corner here would be very real - and all you would need is for one person who knew the system well enough to know how cut that corner and jaded enough to be motivated in doing it and the course of 'justice' is directed down a path it has no right to travel.
While pretty well all people working in law enforcement will experience these frustrations and temptations from time to time, I do believe the vast majority will not succumb - but you only need one person in the right place at the right time to make a diabolical difference.
...and under this legislation there will be no knowledge of the details of the case, no defence, no cross-examination nor, indeed, any opportunity to view, let alone challenge, the evidence.
Does the under 12's netball team deserve to be 'declared' under these circumstances?
Now let's take a step further back and presume the 'criminal family' has been extremely clever and have NEVER used the under 12s netball team for any actual drug distribution, but have played up this situation as a misdirection - a focus for police attention in an area right away from the real movement of drugs.
Let's say the sting goes ahead, just as before, and again nets a kilo of bag weaving hemp that gets 'substituted'.
Under this legislation, the under 12's netball team has exactly the same story from the prosecution side - with absolutely no input from the defence side. As a result, if the case presented in any of these scenarios is adequate for the declaration of the under 12's netball team, then it will be adequate for ALL of them - since there will be no means to test the evidence.
As you can see from the scenarios I have presented, the amount of 'deliberate manufacturing of evidence' does not have to be as sensational as you make out, Golden, nor does it need a great conspiracy to be carried out - and certainly the judiciary does not need to be corrupt in any way, shape or form to hand down the decision sought ... because the whole purpose of presenting the 'evidence' in a particular way is to channel a judges thinking to the desired verdict. By knowing what the law dictates a judge must do in this situation and that situation, the prosecution will try to present the details of a case in such a way as to pave a path - and there will be no defence to balance those efforts.
Now I don't know whether the exact criminal scenario I have presented will be one to which the legislation under discussion would be applied in real life, but presuming it were, the two variations I described would, in a normal court of law, be dismissed.
I will also declare that I have no direct knowledge of any misbehaviour on the part of any law enforcement officer, but I can accept that there are issues from time to time on this subject.
However, if you cannot see that these situations are possible then it follows that your view is one that holds every single person working in any and all law enforcement services, totally above reproach.
I must, with respect, say that this is an extremely naive view.
-
No way would we ever have a Guantanamo Bay here
If we did - you would quite likely never know. The government isn't exactly going to publish a 'guest' list and the month's movie schedule for everyday Aussies to peruse.
I dont think most law abiding citizens have anything to worry about. WE dont care if there is a filter that stops Child Porn being accessed - we want it. I dont care if I cant access websites that encourage Jihad or how to build a weapon. I dont care if I cant access a meth amphedimine recipe.
The criminals will have even less to worry about. They will get around it before the government signs off on the ad telling us that it's all up and running.
In fact if the government can do this - then I say well done.
That's the trouble - they can't. Those that want to get around it, will. Just like if somebody wants to steal your car, they will. Anti-theft devices merely make your car less attractive - not unstealable.
The government is also not doing this overnight - they have left plenty of time for public consultation - so its not like they were trying to hide behind the goal posts
Maybe, maybe not. One of the arts of being a politician is misdirection. For example, they will focus your attention on two goal posts with a cross-bar making you think the game is rugby ... until they start playing with a round ball. You then take a wider look and notice the two extra posts either side and suddenly realise its a game of International Rules - but, bad luck, you've bought your tickets - so just enjoy the game.
That's the other thing, too. Once a 'facility' has been implemented, all the hard work has been done ... and this immediately eliminates a counter argument of 'significant cost' for any further 'enhancements'. Slightly more invasive steps can be made - each one justifiable for its 'minimal' intrusion - until you have progressed so far from the original, that the difference is incomprehensible, let alone justifiable.
When they get it wrong - its up to us to tell them - so they can review and change the situation. They do it all the time.
"When they get it wrong - its up to us to tell them" - that is where I see Loco coming from. Not that the idea behind the legislation is wrong - far from it - but that the nature of the legislation as it is written leaves the gates wide open for abuse.
-
No way would we ever have a Guantanamo Bay here
If we did - you would quite likely never know. The government isn't exactly going to publish a 'guest' list and the month's movie schedule for everyday Aussies to peruse.
I think we would know about it - because people will talk. A facility like this will need staff, they will need to have food brought in for them, they will need doctors etc. And you can suggest that the Army/Airforce will do all this - but someone will notice. I am sure that they also have to allow inspectors by Amnesty International or similar.
I dont think most law abiding citizens have anything to worry about. WE dont care if there is a filter that stops Child Porn being accessed - we want it. I dont care if I cant access websites that encourage Jihad or how to build a weapon. I dont care if I cant access a meth amphedimine recipe.
The criminals will have even less to worry about. They will get around it before the government signs off on the ad telling us that it's all up and running.
Of course they will - but for how long - eventually some will get caught, and those websites flagged.
In fact if the government can do this - then I say well done.
That's the trouble - they can't. Those that want to get around it, will. Just like if somebody wants to steal your car, they will. Anti-theft devices merely make your car less attractive - not unstealable.
But harder to steal than those with no anti theft devices
The government is also not doing this overnight - they have left plenty of time for public consultation - so its not like they were trying to hide behind the goal posts
Maybe, maybe not. One of the arts of being a politician is misdirection. For example, they will focus your attention on two goal posts with a cross-bar making you think the game is rugby ... until they start playing with a round ball. You then take a wider look and notice the two extra posts either side and suddenly realise its a game of International Rules - but, bad luck, you've bought your tickets - so just enjoy the game.
That's the other thing, too. Once a 'facility' has been implemented, all the hard work has been done ... and this immediately eliminates a counter argument of 'significant cost' for any further 'enhancements'. Slightly more invasive steps can be made - each one justifiable for its 'minimal' intrusion - until you have progressed so far from the original, that the difference is incomprehensible, let alone justifiable.
When they get it wrong - its up to us to tell them - so they can review and change the situation. They do it all the time.
"When they get it wrong - its up to us to tell them" - that is where I see Loco coming from. Not that the idea behind the legislation is wrong - far from it - but that the nature of the legislation as it is written leaves the gates wide open for abuse.
And like all laws - it will get tweaked all the time.
I just think that instead of going worst case scenario - lets wait and see. I am sure that some of the contributors to this law have a good idea on how to make this work. After all its not the Politician that does the hard work in setting things up - its the smart people that work for them.
-
Fair enough MM - but lets not wait become complacent either.
The 'clever' people are driven by the politicians, who will want to see their aspirations embodied in law - and since the politicians are driven by our votes, it is up to each of us to take an interest in things as they unfold - not to wait until everything is done and dusted and we turn around to find some obscene juggernaut ripping through society.
The problems are several - but, in my opinion, those of greatest concern come from areas where ignorance exists and/or hidden agendas abound.
Close behind are those areas where new areas of law are defined with no historical precedent (in law) upon which to guide the construction of legislation. It is no secret that lawyers can, and often do, find twists and turns in law that allow them to win a case that defies cursory logic - so a brand new piece of legislation is a prime opportunity to analyse a labyrinth of possibilities and develop a variety of strategies to achieve the objectives of the protagonist ... and sometimes these can deliver outcomes which are contrary to the spirit of the law that gave rise to it.
It is as true now as it was when first uttered: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson
I also liked another quote of his that I came across:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
That one also works on this side of the Pacific.
-
Good morning Loco, Brumby and MM.
I'm heading off for a few days mulesing, and am about to walk out the door. A couple of quick thoughts....
You are fantastic people to chat with and you're the reason I like the forum. Your posts make me think. They make me form an opinion or say to myself, what are my beliefs on whatever the subject is. It stimulates otherwise inactive grey matter.
Brumby. I hadn't read your other post about having some dramas. Poor timing on my behalf. Don't let whatever comes out of my clap trap distract you from your tasks at hand. I've said it before, you are a highly intelligent person and a wealth of information on many and varied subjects. That shines through for everyone else on the forum to see.
Anyway, I'll close the door on the way out... please have a great weekend.
OOOPPPSSS Nearly forgot to pack my pink OZRT S/L/L T-shirt. ;D
-
Hope the job went well Goldy....
Good morning everyone else..just wanted to say "me too, goldy" on the "stimulates otherwise inactive grey matter"....I don't get time to watch what is going on the world much but late at night I can duck in here and see what the intelligent people are up to!
I love it.
Westie :ivanhoe:
-
I think I have a pink one somewhere...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Brum..... I LOVE THAT TSHIRT! If a message could be added to the back...... The Ten cents payable for any unkind words, snickers, or naughty words will go towards the Breast Cancer Foundation..... I, for one will proudly wear it to the Pub!
Mandura,
I went to WA (including Mandurah) in 1971 and again in 1973. It was such a wonderful place that mum and I nearly moved over there. Work was difficult to find - and the wages at that time didn't compare to Sydney. The people were friendly, and Perth itself represented to me, the biggest country town type environment I had seen. What was very evident was the WA opinion of Sydney. The people were concerned about the influence from the other side of the continent. There was talk at the time of secession and the introduction passports for entry. There was a strong belief - what happens in Sydney, will, over time, make it's way here. I haven't been to WA since that time, but I understand that there are similar problems there that afflict every state in the country. The same viewpoint describes what happens here.... due to the influences of the US. Kids wearing caps and carrying Boom boxes, and a crime rate that continues to grow.
We had a poll a while ago, on "Global Warming". The results serve to demonstrate a thought: If I may, I'll use this as an example here:
No debate needed, the science is settled. Global warming is upon us and we'd better do something quick to reduce our carbon footprint. - 5 (17.2%)
Yes, I tend to believe what the majority of scientists and world governments are saying, that we need to take action - although in the light of recent revelations, it does need more research. - 2 (6.9%)
I'm really not sure - If it is true, then we need to do something quickly, but if it is based on flawed science, then heads need to roll. - 5 (17.2%)
No, I don't believe in this global warming stuff, it's being all blown out of proportion. - 6 (20.7%)
No, global warming is all a huge con, the science is flawed and corrupt, there's something very sinister behind it all. - 11 (37.9%)
Total Voters: 28
At point 1. (17.2%) People who believe that they are being accurately informed by their government on the need of action. Without question.
At point 2. (6.9%) People who would probably have supported point 1.... had it not have been for the contradictory evidence that came from the skeptics.
At point 3. (17.2%) People who came to question the differing views of both sides of the argument. "If it is true" becomes an important concern here - but then, there will be ramifications if the people discover that they have been misled by others in positions of trust.
At point 4. (20.7%) This point may have been impacted by the predicted costs associated with the ETS - or it may have been that people had found access to greater level of information representing both sides.... particularly that not presented by the media.
At point 5. (37.9%) I was very surprised by this result. Personally, I thought this would be a minority group. There are issues of distrust in this result. That may be due to the evidence presented, the talk of an NWO, The World Bank, or, closer to home - a concern of being railroaded by our own government into something that our country and its people could little afford - based on flimsy, questionable evidence - and the need to lie by one side in order to sell its position. And the lies by the way, came from the government supported side of the fence!
Please Note: The above is only my interpretation of the data. Their is no criticism intended towards anyone as to their views - or how they cast their vote. We all think differently - and that is truly, a good thing!
This matter has been shelved until after the election. It is present government policy, that WILL be introduced if the present government is returned.
The same applies to Internet Filtering.
Insofar as telling our government that we don't like something..... the listening only appears to occur immediately prior to the pending election. All governments feel rather "bulletproof" in their first terms..... so telling them is one thing - them listening is another.
And like all laws - it will get tweaked all the time.
That's true.... but in which direction will the tweaks take it?
I just think that instead of going worst case scenario - lets wait and see. I am sure that some of the contributors to this law have a good idea on how to make this work. After all its not the Politician that does the hard work in setting things up - its the smart people that work for them.
I just think that instead of going worst case scenario
I'm not putting views of worst case scenario. The purpose was to warn of a potentially serious threat to people's freedoms.
lets wait and see -
The view of Switzerland, a neutral country, prior to German Occupation in WWII
Liberal: We will NEVER have a GST! There was! Labor: We will WIND BACK the GST! They didn't!
Correct me if I'm wrong.... but wasn't an undertaking made by our government to accept a number of prisoners from Guatmo? That is what I meant by Guantanamo Bay coming here in the near future.
....its not the Politician that does the hard work in setting things up - its the smart people that work for them.
As guided by the vested interests of lobby groups - and friends of government.
And one other thing, while I think of it..... One alternative to freedom is imprisonment! Loco ;D
-
MUCH has been written about the Government's proposed "'clean feed" internet censorship regime. But it isn't until you delve into the policy's unintended consequences that some of its biggest problems come into view.
Shamefully for the Government, these consequences are entirely predictable for those with a solid grasp of how the technology works.
A growing mountain of criticism rightly targets the policy's cost, its likely performance impact, the impossibility of its meeting required reliability standards, its expense, and the fact that its compulsory nature violates a Labor Party election promise.
But further gems of controversy have attracted little attention, and deserve to be brought to light. None are particularly complicated; all are damning.
If you don't like the new censorship regime and want to get around it, you can. If internet users avail themselves of free access to what those in the networking game call an open VPN (virtual private network), their traffic would become opaque to the Government and immune from the effects of the censorship system. Accessing a VPN is as simple as installing a free browser plugin, and requires no technical knowledge.
Related Coverage
* Filtering is not censorship, says Conroy NEWS.com.au, 13 Apr 2010
* Banned web list to stay secret Perth Now, 29 Mar 2010
* US slams internet filter plan Perth Now, 29 Mar 2010
* Censorship's dangerous path Courier Mail, 19 Dec 2009
* Filter to block offensive websites Herald Sun, 16 Dec 2009
So, where would that leave us?
To begin with, it would leave us in the same situation we were in before - with uncensored, unfiltered internet access - only several hundred million dollars poorer. (roughly 45 million as a STARTUP) All we would have to show for the money spent on the censorship system would be the inevitable slowdown it would cause.
However, the effects of widespread VPN use run deeper than this.
Subscribers who intended to violate copyright would flock to VPN technology as the new censorship regime drew more attention to VPNs' ability to provide anonymity. In addition to "relocating" internet users - mainly to a new U.S. jurisdiction - VPNs also encrypt network traffic.
This has some profound effects on criminality and law enforcement. A natural side effect of the implementation of mandatory Government censorship would be to encourage criminals to use VPNs, because the kinds of network activity these people intend to carry out would be inhibited by the censorship system, leaving them with little alternative.
Once they were encrypting their traffic, the telecommunications interception warrants used by law enforcement would be useless. A police officer cannot do anything productive with an encrypted data stream - it holds no value as evidence. It is virtually inevitable some criminals would go free for lack of evidence against them once the government firewall was in place.
It would be bad enough if the Government's policy stopped at merely protecting criminals, but the Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy's proposed "clean feed" would go a step further by actually helping them find illegal material.
The minister's aim is to have every internet service provider in Australia carry out mandatory censorship using a blacklist of prohibited content supplied by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Blacklist a 'Yellow Pages of Evil'
The blacklist would need to be distributed to several hundred ISPs, and would be accessible to several thousand technical staff. The information security implications of this are obvious. Taking such a sensitive, secret resource and distributing it to thousands of people guarantees that the blacklist would eventually leak.
When it leaked, it would be published on the internet. If the list is even half as accurate as the minister claims it will be, the effect of that publication will be to make what has beeen dubbed "The Australian Federal Government's Yellow Pages of Evil" available to every child-exploiting abuser on the planet, directing criminals in all corners of the world to a smorgasbord of illegal content.
The Labor Government would need to explain why it thought that unknowable quantities of "collateral damage" all over the world was an acceptable price to pay for Australian internet censorship.
Of course, that somewhat alarming outcome is predicated on the trustworthiness of Senator Conroy's claim that only the most outrageously illegal material would be blocked. A diligent enquirer might wonder whether that is true.
In a Senate Estimates Committee hearing on 20 October, 2008, Senator Conroy confirmed that ACMA's existing prohibited online content list would form the basis of the mandatory "illegal material" censorship scheme. The problem is the ACMA-prohibited online content list doesn't actually restrict itself to illegal material. and don't think they wont hesitate to block OTHER sites they feel we as adults should not be viewing, illegal or NOT.
In addition to the illegal material Senator Conroy would like to ban for adults, the list also contains material the Office of Film and Literature Classification has refused to classify, but which may still be legal to possess (if not to sell, hire, exhibit, or import) in Australia, as well as material rated X18+, also R18+ material not protected by an adult verification service, and some MA15+ material. Material in these categories is mostly legal in Australia.
The ACMA-prohibited online content list also contains a class of material that hasn't been examined by the OFLC, but which, in the opinion of ACMA bureaucrats, "would be" classified into one of the categories of prohibited content.
But because the blacklist is secret, unaudited, and specifically exempted by legislation from the Freedom of Information application process, the OFLC would never get a chance to check the accuracy of these classifications - unless they downloaded the list once it was leaked. That brings us to the most pernicious of unintended consequences: nobody would know (at first) what had been banned.
Our society accepts that it is up to the courts to determine what is illegal. We do not then expect faceless public servants to be the real arbiters of an internet content blacklist. Yet Senator Conroy, who has established a remarkable track record of being wrong in this area, expects Australians simply to take his word for it when he says that "illegal material is illegal material".
IT is clear that a great many Australians disagree, despite Senator Conroy's hysterical accusations that to do so is to endorse child pornography. In a nation that has enjoyed uncensored access to online services (including those that predate the internet) for over three decades without ill effect, imposing a national censorship regime such as the one proposed by Senator Conroy is a radical act requiring radical justification.
We are over a year into this debate, and still none of these concerns has been addressed. It time for the Labor Government to abandon this policy. To the Government I ask: "Please, won't somebody think of the adults?"
As a side note: The "clean feed" is in fact opposed by interpol for the exact reason that it makes child pornographers harder to catch.
Just to put this in context, Google and Microsoft search engine Bing logged the trillionth-that is a one followed by 12 zeros-web page address in 2008. One trillion unique addresses, with several billion added every day. Google conservatively estimates that they have logged about 0.004 per cent of the five million terabytes of data on the net. This thing is already vast and I think the proposition that you could take a list, even with a classification scheme as vague as ours-this ‘refused classification' bracket-and somehow plug everything that would be deemed to be refused classification is quite ABSURD.
-
Really good to see you Liisa, and thankyou for clarifying this 'thing'.
Our society accepts that it is up to the courts to determine what is illegal. We do not then expect faceless public servants to be the real arbiters of an internet content blacklist. Yet Senator Conroy, who has established a remarkable track record of being wrong in this area, expects Australians simply to take his word for it when he says that "illegal material is illegal material".
Now aren't there some parallels there - that being government expectations on people to simply take their word on matters.... all matters!
-
Loco - boy has Mandurah changed since you were here lol. It is still beautiful, and the people here are still very friendly. (well we do tend to call tourists, terrorists but in a semi joking way).
I do think some Waussies are a little weary of the eastern states - only because for years we were the "money maker" for the country - yet we missed out on our share of the wealth. I know I certainly am very upset with the federal government - for allowing uranium to be mined here - you see we dont want that. And although it cant be shipped out of any of our ports at the moment - we expect that to change - without our input.
And now the federal government has given the greenlight to an oil rig platform at Margaret River - now I dont know anyone that even knew it was being considered. And I for one - am spitting chips.
It sometimes feels like our opinions dont matter to the federal government - as long as our state keeps the rest of the country afloat.
I have a thread on the fountain about the margaret river platform - its a link to a letter to julia - I hope everyone has a look and sends her a letter. For those that dont know Margaret River - its a lovely spot - beautiful beaches - great surf - great wine and delish chocolate.
-
Mandura,
Are you telling me that the town is no longer on tankwater.... and they've dropped the bounty payable on swallows? Goodness! Things have changed!
It sometimes feels like our opinions dont matter to the federal government - as long as our state keeps the rest of the country afloat.
Yes - I can completely understand that thought! Were it not for the Iron Ore out of WA - The global crisis would have clobbered us much harder.... right across the country. Were the people over there happy with the Gillard outcome on the Mining Tax?
I have a thread on the fountain about the margaret river platform - its a link to a letter to julia
I'm going to find that one.... and offer support towards it! Thanks for the advice on it. Haven't seen the news in quite some time.
-
Loco - We have Alcoa near us - so lot of mining jobs in this town, and a lot of flyins flyouts too working up North or Boddington Gold Mine (mmmm gold).
No one I talked to really cared - we think the mining companies dont care about us as a community either. Lead dust escaping into the town of Esperance - when they were supposed to build a smelter - but didn't - and they knew for a very long time. Thank goodness for the birds dying - or this matter would have been swept under the rug.
Building a Nickel Mine near Ravensthorpe then closing it down - after the townspeople invest in businesses to support the extra workers, because BHp had promised they were going to be there a long time - but shut overnight.
We have let the Mining Industry get away with so much over here - most of us are sick of them. They make killer profits over here - yet they dont really do anything extra to give back to us. Just look at who are the richest people in Australia - mining entrepreneurs, and most of them make money in WA.
We knew that mining would not really suffer - they are making too much money to split. I think a lot of us are wondering why it is now only applying to some minerals - why not gold - why not uranium - why not all of them.
-
Back to topic.... briefly. I received this link earlier today. Id does make interesting watching. I don't know the presenter too well - but I'd imaging Tello does. See what you think!
Internet Censorship Alert! Alex Jones exposes agenda to 'blacklist' dissenting sites
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG--42sjAvA&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG--42sjAvA&feature=related)
-
Don't know who this guy is, but he's an Aussie with the same message.
How to fight internet censorship in Australia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXSvzvQC5v0
Warning - he uses the 'F' word twice ... but 'appropriately' (if it ever really is...)
-
Don't know who this guy is, but he's an Aussie with the same message.
How to fight internet censorship in Australia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXSvzvQC5v0
Warning - he uses the 'F' word twice ... but 'appropriately' (if it ever really is...)
This guy is legendary - some of his stuff is so funny
-
Interesting reading.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/no-clean-feed/ (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/tags/no-clean-feed/)
Add your name to the already 127,414 others that are opposed to the "clean feed".
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 (http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442)
Partners on this campaign to save the net:
* Amnesty International Australia
* Australian Lawyers Alliance
* Australian Network for Art and Technology
* Civil Liberties Australia
* Human Rights Coalition
* Human Rights Council of Australia
* Human Rights Law Resource Centre
* Libertus.net
* National Arts and Cultural Alliance
* Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
* Public Interest Law Clearing House
* Somebody Think of the Children (ironic)
This level of Government censorship is a serious threat to our democratic values, read the facts below:
What is the scope of the prohibited material?
The Government has proposed a two-tiered system. The first tier will be mandatory for all
internet users in Australia, and will block a range of "prohibited" material. The second tier will be
available to families who wish to limit access to a broader range of content.
The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen
Conroy has suggested that the mandatory filter should block access to "prohibited" material,
as defined by the Broadcasting Services Act 1992
In essence this would block anyinformation categorised X-18 rated by ACMA
Also being considered for inclusion on the blacklist however, are gambling sites (the suggestion of Senator Xenophon) and all
pornography (the suggestion of Senator Fielding).
It is easy to see how the blacklist can
quickly become a greylist – a process made even more dangerous by the fact that ACMA"s
secret list of prohibited material is not subject to oversight, appeal, or review.
It"s worth noting that the banned material – material "refused classification" by ACMA is legal
to view and own, it is just not legal to distribute.
The debate around this internet filter should not be stifled by accusing those that challenge
the scheme of an interest in access to child pornography. The scope of the mandatory filter is
far broader than child pornography alone.
Will the filter accidentally block legitimate material?
Yes. In addition to the broad range of content that will be intentionally blocked under the
scheme, trials conducted by the Austraian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in
July 2008 show that an I4SP level filter will accidentally block huge numbers of legitimate
sites. The best technologies tested accidentally block one in 50 sites; the worst, one in 12
sites.
The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, Estimates, 20 October 2008 (Canberra):
Sen. Conroy: […] I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.
Sen. Ludlam: No. That is why I was interested in asking about the law enforcement side of it as well.
Sen. Conroy: No, we are working both angles at it. We are just trying to use technology to enforce the existing laws.
Sen. Ludlam: I am just wondering if I can put these questions to you without being accused of being pro child pornography.
Will the filter be effective in blocking material that the Government deems inappropriate?
The protection of our children is vitally important and we must ensure that they are not exposed to inappropriate material on the internet. But the filter technologies tested so far will only affect one third of internet traffic, because they do not apply to peer file sharing networksor email. In fact, users can very easily avoid these filters entirely using VPNs, proxies or anonymising software.
Do other western democracies have a similar scheme?
Senator Conroy has said that a number of western democracies already have a similar scheme in place. In fact, as Senator Conroy later admitted, no western democracy in the world has introduced mandatory server-level filtering. In countries where it has beenintroduced – countries such as Saudi Arabia, China and Iran – the schemes have not effectively done the job for which they were designed. In each of these countries, the filter can
avoided. No country in the world goes as far as dynamically analysing web traffic in real time, as Australia is proposing.
Evidence from Saudi Arabia suggests that the central filtering system currently blocks a list ofmore than 12 million addresses, slowing internet access by as much as half, with up to 10 percent of prohibited sites still getting through.
Will the internet become more expensive?
The scheme makes it mandatory for ISPs to provide internet filtering. The government has set aside $44 million over four years, but in 2004 a Government-commissioned report found that the cost of mandatory ISP level filtering would cost around $45 million in the first year, and $33 million every year after that. Because the filter will involve technical and administrative costs for ISP, these costs will be likely be passed on to consumers. Additionally, while larger ISPs may be able to absorb some of these costs, smaller ISPs (who exert competitive pressure on prices) are at serious risk of becoming financially unviable if such a scheme is introduced
Will the proposed scheme slow down the internet?
The last round of testing found some internet filters will make the internet up to 87% slower, which is bad for access to information, and terrible for e-commerce. The Government has invested over $40 billion in the development of a national high-speed fibreoptic broadband
initiative – an initiative that will be undermined by this ISP-level filter.
What measures can be taken to protect our children from inappropriate internet content while avoiding the worst features of the ISP-level filter?
The previous Government spent $84.8 million on a scheme to provide free PC-based filtering to all Australian families. This scheme is far superior to the ISP-based filtering proposed by the Government.
• It allows parents to track and monitor their child"s access to the internet, and thus intervene concerning harmful content that couldn"t be picked up by an ISP filter;
• It won"t slow down the internet or interfere with online commerce;
• It will cost less to run, as no additional outlay is required, and there will be no burden to consumers or small businesses.
We believe taxpayer funds would be better spent educating parents about this existing PCbased filter.
Importantly, we should also be making sure that the Australian Federal Police's Online Child Sexual Exploitation Team has the resources needed to reduce child exploitation/abuse on the internet; many reports indicated these police taskforces are drastically underfunded...........
-
Maybe its just the approach that's wrong.... let's get this thing in with some emotive blackmail..... that'll do it!
The comments are worth a read as well.
Jessi Slaughter and the 4chan trolls - the case for censoring the internet
http://www.news.com.au/technology/jessi-slaughter-and-the-4chan-trolls-the-case-for-censoring-the-internet/story-e6frfro0-1225894369199 (http://www.news.com.au/technology/jessi-slaughter-and-the-4chan-trolls-the-case-for-censoring-the-internet/story-e6frfro0-1225894369199)
-
Maybe its just the approach that's wrong.... let's get this thing in with some emotive blackmail..... that'll do it!
The comments are worth a read as well.
Jessi Slaughter and the 4chan trolls - the case for censoring the internet
http://www.news.com.au/technology/jessi-slaughter-and-the-4chan-trolls-the-case-for-censoring-the-internet/story-e6frfro0-1225894369199 (http://www.news.com.au/technology/jessi-slaughter-and-the-4chan-trolls-the-case-for-censoring-the-internet/story-e6frfro0-1225894369199)
A point in case Loco lol, Politicians will use every inane excuse in the book to promote their "15 minutes of fame" I mean what is a bandwagon if you can't jump on it right? It is absolutely ludicrous to assume an internet filter which would take the average low knowledge user a maximum of 1 minute to circumnavigate would be of any use whatsoever.
So which is it? A filter to stop and block (LOL) Pr0n sites and child exploitation sites as per their announcement OR a filter to prevent IM's, MSN, Twitter Facebook, Utube etc (we all know that is impossible and there would be public outrage if they tried.
Already due to filters and laws in place we cannot access certain sites/videos etc, I am sure some of you have at one time seen the message 'sorry you are not able to due this content from your region', I know I have and it was only a comedy routine.
This is how DANGEROUS to civil liberty and rights these sort of Bills are, already (and it has not even been implimented) it has gone from a "innapropriate site" filter to a severe infringement on our rights, anyone seeing a scary pattern emerging? what next
NO internet unless you have a certificate stateing you have permission to use it for research purposes only...utterly ridiculous.
Anyone who advocates such a thing should think long and hard, apathy does no one any favors.
Scare tactics used against the uninformed and uneducated will always work..right?...right? Politicians KNOW this, they reap votes from people that do not understand and who are spoon fed Spin and half truths, they are simply a means to an end and politicians LOVE them.
Regarding 4chan targetting this girl....4chan have long been known to actively seek out ways of being controversial....by ..any...means, once again this highlights the lack of PARENTING NOT the need for a filter..
Protecting children from the internet and society in general is called Parenting, I'll say it again.. PARENTING, the government is NOT a babysitter.
-
This is how DANGEROUS to civil liberty and rights these sort of Bills are....... what next
What next? Well, I'll offer some thoughts on that - just my opinion of course....
Recently there was a rather interesting discussion on the 'rights to associate' - as legislated by the "Criminal Organisations Act". It was initially sold to the community under the guise of 'Anti-Biker' legislation..... which in real and simple terms.... it isn't. But... the fear factor played was a good one - people are frightened by bikers - so a large percentage of the population said "Great - lets have it, that'll keep us safe - and get these rogues off the street!" The next organisation added to the title.... well, it could be anyone! (My preference would be the ALP..... but that's just me!)
So, under this thing are limitations on where one can work, who they cannot associate with.... which equals both family and friends, how one may attire themselves.... etc - all on the basis of withheld information that the accused has no access to. Did I mention the right to a fair trial - including the right to challenge the accuser?
OUTCOME = PUSH THESE ORGANISATIONS UNDERGROUND! At least, government can pat each other on the back for a job well done!
Internet filtering seems intent on limiting the availability of information and thus, communication - between people - or across the world. What a wonderful tool for any government, introducing changes that they do not want discussed. It's a pity that this wasn't introduced earlier - as we'd now have a Carbon Tax (ETS) inplace, and people suffering additionally under this burden. When the negative information finally did manage to get out..... no government would be about to withdraw or review a newly introduced tax. And.... many organisations saw this as a real money spinner. The costs associated with an ETS had already been factored into the charges that the population were going to have to pay - well prior to the event. How wonderful is the use of the word terrorism in making the public see the benefits offered by their government! Fear strikes again!
It seems that the new government policy is to micro manage everything that each of us do. Under these circumstances - peoples' rights are a burden that only serve to get in the road. Simple solution = to remove these rights.
As mentioned earlier.... the above is just my take on what is happening. Time will tell!
-
I pinched this item from the Election Thread. Many thanks bnwt!
And people ask me why I feel it difficult to trust politicians!
No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html?autostart=1
-
I opened the pdf of the actual documents and it is unbelievable, even with reading between the many heavy lines obscured with black marker is frightening enough.
-
G'day Liisa..... Can you believe it! These people are OUR elected representatives. And they speak of special interest groups!
.......to stop 'premature unnecessary debate' Therein lies the reason to censor the net..... to stop ANY debate!
-
And..... Along Similar Lines....
Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy
The federal government is hiding controversial plans to force ISPs to store internet activity of all Australian internet users - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/web-snooping-policy-shrouded-in-secrecy-20100617-yi1u.html)
-
"The Attorney-General's Department has been holding consultations with industry about implementing a "data retention regime", similar to that adopted by the European Union after terrorist attacks several years ago."
What are the experiences/concerns from those in the EU?
-
Why The Filter Won’t Work, A Technical Story
Excellent article. Very interesting read. The expense of setting up such a filter must be immense and knowing it is so unworkable and hence will ultimately fail, makes it all the more infuriating when you think of all the worthwhile things our tax payer’s dollars could be spend on instead.
Simon Reidy July 14, 2010 at 1:28 PM
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/why-the-filter-wont-work-a-technical-story/ (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/07/why-the-filter-wont-work-a-technical-story/)
-
A look at Obama's Internet kill switch plan
Now if the President wanted to extend this cyber emergency beyond 4 months, then he would need to get a form of congressional approval to do so, but you can see the concern here. Private businessmen being told that their business can be shutdown by the President on his own for 4 months, then be possibly extended?
http://www.helium.com/items/1876554-a-look-at-obamas-internet-kill-switch-plan (http://www.helium.com/items/1876554-a-look-at-obamas-internet-kill-switch-plan)
-
Sorry...
-
thats ok cupcake
no need to apologise