Australians! Let us all rise up against data retention No one likes being watched. The moment another eye sets upon us, we seize up. All our fluid actions become forced, unnatural and overthought. We dream up all sorts of ridiculous schemes that might allow us to hide in plain sight as we wait impatiently for that gaze to move elsewhere. Could we find clothing that blends in with …
Nice to see you've ignored everything that has been learned about mass surveillance, and are willing to bend over at the mention of the scary ISIL/pedo menace. I hope you have 55 gallons of lube ready.
Pesce isn't panicking, he's conciliatory. But the "civilized" days when the state could be trusted are gone. There can be no cooperation. Let the state retain a heap of encrypted bits.
I agree ...
These kids ... do not remember Germany 1931 ... nor do they bother to read about it. Computers were not around then ... however the collection of data helped kill millions. Wake up and smell the on slot of all governments using information gathering to force their agenda. Its funny how governments use FUD ... fear Uncertainty and Doubt .. they pass bills that take away all your rights and freedoms .. look at Canada .. now look into BillC51 ... it is not funny any more how the .01 percent of the population can whip the dog.
But "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" (I'm saving adding scare italics for my next level of hyperbole).
Personally I was in Gatwick when they busted the "liquid bomb" gang (held up all flights) and two streets away when they blew up the bus on 7/7. I also remember a panic Science Museum evacuation as a child when those Sinn Féin IRA chaps were taking one of their London summer vacations in the '70s and I was about 300m away when the same lot blew out the Arndale in Manchester on one of their northern tours.
Am I prepared to sign on for wholesale government snooping and data hoarding in order to lessen the possibility of a repetition of those experiences? No.
The fundamental duty of any generation is to protect the principles that it stands for, not necessarily to protect the lives or safety from harm of every citizen at any cost.
I still fly, use public transport and visit museums and shopping centres. Logic suggests that my opposition to such government snooping (if heeded) increases the statistical probability of my sudden, violent death. So be it. I've come pretty close already.
Exactly Lysenko.
I grew up under the veil of the IRA threat, and my wife under the threat of the RAF in Germany (Rote Armee Fraktion, not the flyboys). Neither of our families let it impact their daily lives. We were aware that attacks could take place, but we pretty much ignored it, unless we saw something suspicious.
On 9/11 I was staying at the Marriott in Frankfurt, which is on the approach path to the airport. Many guests switched hotels to local, German ones. Most of the Brits stayed were they were and drank a toast to the dead in the bar that evening.
Accepting increased surveillance means that the terrorists have accomplished their first goal, they have impacted our lives in such a way, that we can no longer live a free life.
Yeah. Growing up in the '60s there were still bomb sites, and pill boxes and tank traps. Skip to the '80s, the day after Bishopsgate I was riding a motorbike, trying to negotiate the diversion at London Wall. Got stopped at a road block late one night heading for The Economist. Stopped for a fag in a side road off the Brompton Road one afternoon and realized I was standing at the side of the MacDonalds where a bomb had recently gone off.
Meh.
Of course, what worried me - and many of my generation or older - back then, were that, because of this constant repressed panic, kids didn't go wandering like we used to, just a group of us exploring the locale, walking a couple of miles into the countryside, walking a mile to school. Playing in said bomb sites. As if the resultant diminishing fitness wasn't bad enough, what concerned us more was the diminishing worldliness, the increasing apprehension at life that must surely come from it. And, I guess, it has.
That brings back memories as well, playing in old WW2 bomb craters as a kid (they were overgrown and had trees growing in them by the time I came on the scene). And I've played in a few pill boxes in my time and the air raid shelter under my old primary school...
I used to walk about 2.5 miles to school every day, unless it was absolutely chucking it down, then I'd walk about half a mile to a friend's house and his mum would drive the rest of the way.
Country rides out to my uncle's farm, about 20 miles away. When I was 12 or so that was fine. You wouldn't dream of letting your kids do that these days.
Thanks for rekindling my childhood memories, Pheasant Plucker.
The problem is, it never stops with the now-incarcerated pedophile. Soon after, even MORE data is needed to go after more pedos/terrorists/boogeyman du jour. And in the effort to find boogeyman x, data on the law abiding is increasingly ingested into these programs, usually without any transparency.
The state needs to realize that "freedom isn't free" is not only an injunction on what citizens need to give to keep their freedom, but its also puts limits on what the state can do in trying flex its muscles at the people.
@Marketing Hack
It's a perfectly self-perpetuating system - a wonderfully slippery slope.
If the new powers do result in some extra arrests or a foiled 'terror plot' then that proves that invasive breaches of privacy are effective and fully justified so that is perfect reason to grant yet more power.
If, on the other hand, the new powers are not effective, it's because they are not deep and broad enough - if they get more then that will work. For sure this time. Really.
Win-win!
The point glossed-over, however, is that it doesn't matter if it works or not. The question is always one of whether it is worth giving up our freedoms and privacy for some measure of safety.
As I have always maintained, giving up some freedom for a good measure of safety is a sensible choice. Thus laws - they limit our freedom to, for example, drive our cars as fast as we want, down whichever lane we want. That's not a very important freedom - in my opinion - and giving it up yields a much safer and obviously more workable transport solution.
Some freedoms, however, are so important that there is almost no conceivable benefit that could justify giving them up. In those instances, it is not a matter of efficacy so it simply doesn't matter how many 'terrorists' and 'pedophiles' it is claimed will be foiled and caught.
We could prevent speeding if we passed laws that required all cars be fitted with GPS trackers that could track all movements and measure speed and correlate with the limits on each road, enabling police to issue automatic fines. Even better if we linked everyone's bank account to the police servers so they could just automatically take your money. Perhaps have remotely controlled kill-switches that enable police to shut down any vehicle they chose, which would prevent repeat-offenders driving at all. Better still, you could fit all cars with biometric ignitions, linked to a police database, allowing them to prevent any given person from driving any car.
And wow - you've just stopped all car theft!
No more police chases, no more speeding, no more running red lights, no more failing to give way at a round-about, no more crossing double lines, no more parking in no-standing zones - with enough technology and monitoring you could prevent nearly all traffic offences automatically.
Let's do it - I'll be the first to sign up to have my fingerprints and retinas scanned for the central repository and my car fitted out with the police-issue GPS. Sure, I'll be tracked everywhere I go and punished ruthlessly if I break any traffic laws but at least no one will be able to steal my car! And I'm a careful driver anyway; I'm not doing anything wrong so I've got nothing to worry about, right?
Laws must be effective to be justified, but being effective is not enough by itself. Almost all laws have some cost to them and a good law is tipped heavily towards the benefits outweighing the costs. Unfortunately, where these surveillance laws are concerned, our politicians and law enforcement and spy agencies vastly inflate the benefits and massively downplay, misunderstand and ignore the costs.
'Speak[ing] truth to power' is great but only accomplishes anything if 'power' listens and accepts the truth.
There are two main problems. The first is that both our political options in Australia (as in the US) are on the same page about this. If both parties go to an election with the same policy, how does one vote against it?
The second problem is that there are people and groups out their speaking their truth to those in power and it is at odds with what those of a more technical bent claim as the truth. And, as it happens, 'power' is more inclined to believe them than us.
Indeed, the very genesis of this and similar policies is that our political leaders accept - nearly unquestioned - what they are being told by those groups. And so they continue to believe what they are told regardless of how many technical experts and privacy advocates and legal scholars and academics and ordinary people - the electorate - tell them.
The only way to avoid this is if Labor make it a firm policy that they will categorically not do this if elected next time around. Abbott is already on uneasy ground inside his own party and so any sudden (further) drop in his popularity may be enough to force some changes. But, while Labor maintains - as it did when it was in government - the exact same position on this, there is no ability for the people to really get their message to hit home.
It has been said that 'money talk' and that you should vote with your wallet/feet. The same goes for our political leaders. They want to be in power so the only language they understand is the threat - or reality - of losing that power. So, until there is some way that supporting these far-reaching and invasive spying powers carries a threat of losing political power, they are unstoppable.
Protest all you like. March and yell and write letters and have academics go on television. It won't do any good. Companies don't change bad practices unless they will cause them to lose money and politicians won't change bad policies unless they will cause them to lose an election.
"The first is that both our political options in Australia (as in the US) are on the same page about this. If both parties go to an election with the same policy, how does one vote against it?"
As I understand it you Australians are required by law to vote? Does that mean you are compelled to endorse one of the candidates presented, or can you legally enter a vote of "none of the above"? Or maybe "write in" a vote for a candidate who isn't actually standing (I think some places in the USA allow this?). Honest question. I'm British so the issue doesn't arise here in the same way.
I can't speak to Australia's laws on this but in the States, many times, the write-in is used in lieu of "none of the above". Unfortunately, no one takes those votes seriously. If 60 million people voted and 50 million wrote in their own names the guy with the most votes (maybe for this example) 6 million, would win. Is it a win? Nope.. the plurality didn't vote for him even though he got the most votes.
There's been a lot of talk over the years about "none of the above" but it never gets very far as those in power want to stay in power. A "none of the above" majority would put their jobs and power in peril.
@mark
One thing I wondered about the time: I seem to remember reading a few opinion polls before the Bush\Gore run off that Clinton was still more popular than either. Now, irrespective of whether that is true, if a plurality of voters had written in Clinton, would the authorities have been obliged to actually count them or could they simply throw them away? I know there is a 22nd Amendment issue in that specific case, but that is a SCOTUS matter. What I've never been clear on is whether there is a legal duty to tally the write ins *just in case* there is a significant electoral mandate buried within them.
I believe that they are counted. They may not be published as usually there's a smattering of "Mickey Mouse", "Bozo the Clown" types. But the vote would have to be counted since there is a space for it on the ballot. However, in the US, presidents are not elected by direct majority. See Wikipedia for Electorial College. A BS way of doing it, IMO. At any other level, if a write-in gets the majority, they're elected.
@Lysenko
We can 'donkey' vote - some of the more artistic among us even draw donkeys. We have no legitimate way, however, to signal 'none of the above' such that it gets counted and registered as a stat that our politicians can see and take note of.
What some people - myself included - do in instances where neither party is desirable (i.e. always) is to vote for one of the smaller parties. These votes make their way to one of the major parties anyway so I try to choose the one that has policies best aligning with my position and whose vote will go to whichever of the two parties is currently the least reprehensible.
For example I will definitely vote 'Greens' next election as they are opposed to these surveillance powers and are the third-largest party so actually have some clout in parliament and thus can add their input to policies and at least gain some concessions. They preference Labor so that will help unseat Abbott or at least send a message that this policies do not have so much of a 'mandate' as he might wish to profess. Not that I particularly like Labor but if they get in by aligning with the Greens then that gives them (the Greens) more away and thus more input into these laws.
It's the only way I know to tell the two parties that they are both wrong because it is a stat that is visible and can have real ramifications for them when they find they have to compromise.
In the end, the major parties don't really care about 'donkey votes' - they only care if someone makes a legitimate vote against them. I plan on voting against the Coalition when I get the opportunity and I plan on making that vote count as much as possible but I certainly don't want to give Labor some some kind of endorsement. Of course, not every seat has a suitable representative, but I am lucky that mine does. I've met him and he is a good guy; very down-to-earth, lived in my electorate for yonks and has many of the same values that I do. If only enough people voted for him to get him in.
That's really the only way to get this done - vote Greens. I am not a member and I am not thrilled with all of their policies and I don't believe they would make a great government. BUT, they can act as a normalising force. They are the only one of the large parties that actively oppose these invasive laws so even if you don't like their environmental policies or think they are a bunch of socialist hippies who never really grew out of their undergrad days sitting on the uni lawns wearing Che Guevara t-shirts, you have to decide what's more important.
It's far easier to roll-back any 'green' policies they might get through (as proven by the Coalition) than it will be to roll-back these powers, once they are given.
So, essentially what you need (unless this is itself illegal) is an appropriately registered "anti-party", represented in all constituencies whose constitution and manifesto is to represent by its existence and votes the electoral will of all voters who wish to register an explicit and positive rejection of the political platforms of all other candidates. Essentially a: "None of the Above" party.
Does something prevent that? Other than the issue of funding, which applies to any minority party.
"It's far easier to roll-back any 'green' policies they might get through..."
...but of course those 'green' policies are helping to save the world and the people who live in it, so that probably wouldn't be desireable. I'd rather allow the reef to be saved and Australia uphold the UN charter of human rights if it also meant draconian surveillance measures were not implemented.
@keybasher
I agree - both those policies are good policies in my view. I'm simple acknowledging that there are people who absolutely won't vote Greens because they dislike their environmental policies. My argument to those people is that even if voting Greens means that your electricity prices go up, that's an acceptable compromise for avoiding another (nearly irreversible) step down the road to a total surveillance state.
At least it is for me.
@Lysenko
Yes, voting is compulsory in Australia. However, voting is secret. In effect, it means that one has to turn up and get one's name crossed off the list. So whatever is done to the ballot in the voting stand can not be prosecuted - since it is private.
The number of spoiled/informal votes is vastly under-reported, since the political junkies have a vested interest in revealing how disconnected they are to those they hold in contempt - being the the productive part of the population.
Also I seem to recall that Trokhim Denisovich Lysenko was one of Stalin's Ukrainian henchmen who had a number of theories that were contradicted by evidence, and he effectively marginalised the study of Genetics in the Soviet Union. He is probably responsible for the deaths of quite a few people.
"Also I seem to recall that Trokhim Denisovich Lysenko was one of Stalin's Ukrainian henchmen who had a number of theories that were contradicted by evidence, and he effectively marginalised the study of Genetics in the Soviet Union. He is probably responsible for the deaths of quite a few people."
Protégé more than henchman - at least using Beria as a henchman benchmark.
Lysenko's real "talent" was distorting clearly observable reality to conform to preconceived political dogma. In his case it was Marxism\Leninism. Were he alive today he would probably be promoting his brilliant theories about how we can eliminate: paedos, terrorists, copyright thieves [sic] and win the war on drugs ....and being lauded by the politicos of today for his insight and genius.
My intention, whether successful or not[1] is ironic.
[1] Obviously "not" if you :
"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
"Swear to uphold the ConstitutionCorporations of the United States"
Declare "War" on concepts (terror) and inanimate objects (drugs)
...or just believe that plants can be persuaded to act cooperatively by reciting Lenin's speeches at them.
Well, in the U.S. there actually are major pols who are against the surveillance state, and even guys who could run for President. Rand Paul probably has real religion on this issue (though Barak Obama talked a good game on reducing Bush-era surveillance, and then he turned it up a notch or two once he actually got into the White House). There are probably other Republican candidates who can be trusted to dial things back. My bet is Hillary Clinton is in the same place that Obama is though.
@Lysenko:
No, we don't have the option of voting 'None of the Above' (although there are groups campaigning for such an option - can you imagine anelection result of an overwhelming 'I don't trust any of these buggers to make decisions on my behalf?' Now THAT would make the bastards in Canberra take notice!).
Any attempt to make a comment, or add a candidate to the voting form is automatically classified as spoiled, so our options are to endorse a lying, thieving weasel or have our vote discounted. It goes without saying that the numer of 'spoiled' votes is never reported in case it makes people think.
And don't get me started on the bloody incomprehensible 'preferences' paper!
Democracy worldwide has been undermined by voting for the least worst.
Voting in a system that does not, will not, or cannot represent your interests is giving legitimacy to a system that does not deserve it and will use that legitimacy against you. Which explains the increased desire to force people to vote, to be, you know, patriotic.
There is no reason why *any* putative 'democratic' election should not include a mechanism for removing a candidate from contention, as well as for supporting a candidate.
I favour the 'non of the above' route, whereby NOTA votes are counted just as for the candidates - and if NOTA wins, that's who is returned. Voting should never be compulsory, but in such a system, a non-vote automatically counts as a NOTA.
The whole democracy thing is actually debased by two-party states (or worse, by one-party states) where people see little point in voting because they can't vote for the fellow they want with an chance of seeing him elected. Here in the UK we have the delightful system that while we can vote for the chap(ess) we want, because his views are aligned with ours - but the minute he's elected he is required to toe the party line *whether or not he agrees with those particular views*.
Come this year's election, if the candidates can be bothered knocking on the door, the first question is going to be "What is your stance on bulk telecoms data collection?".
or maybe we hide in tech, maybe everybody hangs a old wireless modem out window & we create a open "onion-tor" wireless network, see's all, remember's nothing, but links wireless modems that share network, that if enough Australian's "hang a modem out window", (wonder if you can get a solar panel/battery kit for that?), that could spread over country-side, distributing shared files, maybe even use a clod drive to view it's shares database ? A few VPN access point's to internet & it could grow, Maybe ...
Even though the title says Austrailians... this applies the world over.
If we can't trust the State, why should the State trust us? In the US, at least, the founding documents cover that pretty well. The State should be watched and not trusted. But the State should trust the people who give the power to be the State for in the people lie all the power.
Current politics and government have perverted that to our probable doom as a free society. With the State doing the watching and mistrusting everyone, they, through their laws and actions, have taken the power from the people.
However, there are people who will willingly give up not only their freedoms but also give power to the government for the illusion of security and safety.
Do I have an answer.... no. Just very sad that the world has come down to this.
Yes we should look at Jefferson as a role model:
* he had a taste for young flesh - Sally Hemmings was 14 years old when he started to sleep with her
* she was also his chattel and had no rights
* she was also the half-sister of his wife - so he was also committing incest
* he owned lots and lots of slaves
* he freed a total of 5 or 6 slaves on his death - his children from this chattel slaves
* Sally Hemmings was not freed and she died enslaved.
Jefferson also had many other charming qualities, such as his religous bigotry which would be best described as Taliban-like.
When this man spoke about freedom, he was speaking about freedom for the ascendant White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men, which included the freedom to punish slaves in whatever manner deemed fit. This included beatings, amputations and deaths. So no security or freedom for them.
So, a man of his times not now. Even such as he can have good ideas - you don't have to swallow all his beliefs.
Still, to misquote; the tree of Liberty is maintained by the blood of patriots - interpret that how you will
Mines the one with the Magna Carta in the pocket
re AC on Jefferson.
According to what I've been able to check, Sally Hemings was 16 or 17 (opinions differ) when Jefferson slept with her. This was usual at a time when some girls married at age 14.
At the time the pair got it together they were in France, where slavery had been abolished. She had all the usual rights of a female of the time, and only relinquished them when she agreed to return with Jefferson to Virginia.
Jefferson was a widower at the time, and there was no blood relationship between him and SH, so there was no incest.
SH was freed by Jefferson's daughter.
So your argument against Jefferson consists of a) errors and b) generalizations.
I do believe that slavery is wrong and the American elite of the time were appalling hypocrites, but given the quality of your research rather disqualifies you from having a credible opinion
Oh, and BTW, the usual spelling is 'Hemings' not 'Hemmings'
"Even though the title says Austrailians... this applies the world over."
This article was written for our Australian/APAC audience in mind, but I felt it was worth extending to our wider readership so I opened it up to everyone to see.
For context, Australia's leaders are considering retaining people's communications metadata.
C.
". . . I opened it up to everyone to see."
Personally, I don't think the articles should be filtered by where you're connecting from. When you do that you inevitably start throwing around phrases like 'relevant content' and pretty soon you're sounding far too much like an advertising company.
If it was up to me, I'd have different sites for this kind of ranking and filtering of stories but if you connect to the 'main' site, you get everything; unfiltered and in an order untainted by geolocation. Why not let people choose whether they want to have stories from other locations buried or not?
Or is that already the case and I am too daft to see it?
The powers that be, in whatever country you care to name will never step away from trying to extend their powers over their citizens personal,private even intimate data.
They can't, their mindset doesn't allow the idea that they can never win this type of arms race.
They have...
Australia Australian Secret Intelligence Service
Australian Signals Directorate
Defence Intelligence Organisation
Canada Chief of Defence Intelligence
Communications Security Establishment
Canadian Security Intelligence Service
New Zealand Directorate of Defence Intelligence and Security
Government Communications Security Bureau
New Zealand Security Intelligence Service
United Kingdom Defence Intelligence
Government Communications Headquarters GCHQ
The Security Service MI5 Security intelligence
Secret Intelligence Service MI6
United States Central Intelligence Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency DIA Defense Intelligence
Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI Security intelligence
National Security Agency
Multiply that a hundred fold to cover the rest of the worlds governments.
They have money,power and like the five eyes network; links to other intel organizations around the world.
And what do we, poor Joe public have.
We have EVERYONE ELSE.
100/1, 1000/1, 10000/1 doesn't even begin to cover the difference in resources between the two sides.
They brought a gun, we brought an Orbital Ion Cannon.
Sorry guys, It'll take a while but you've already lost.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
