Australian Government and Cracking 93
D-Fly writes "The
Australian government is trying to withdraw
from public view
a secret report which, among MANY other interesting things,
recommends that laws be changed so that Aussie spy agencies
can legally "hack" (their terminology) their way into
private computer systems. I recommend that you read the report. It reflects a lot of the same motivations and goals you would see among US intelligence services. It's just that you rarely see this kind of stuff go public."
Government Back Orifice (Score:1)
Authority should be created for the AFP, the NCA and ASIO to alter proprietary software
so that it performs additional functions to those specified by the manufacturer. Such an
authority, which clearly should be subject to warranting provisions, would, for example,
enable passive access to a computer work station of a LAN
They want to hide trojan horses like BO in proprietary software!
Guess what they think of Open Source...
BTW it's a good time to read Reflections on Trusting Trust [acm.org] By Ken Thompson
Be paranoid
Hey, Idiots - the point was about practicality. (Score:1)
Whether or not this is a good thing is a totally separate issue. Whether or not the gummint was in the wrong at Waco or Ruby Ridge is irreveant to the point. The guns didn't give the Davidians the ability to fend off the gummint, and they didn't give the Weaver's the ability to either.
No matter what you've got in your gun rack, the gummint's got bigger stuff like tanks and missles, and so on. Regardles of if this is morally wrong, it happens to be true. Your guns are not going to defend you against the government unless there are a hell of a lot of you banded together - in which case you don't need the guns and passive resistance will work too (and make it easier to take the moral high ground).
Why don't you guys admit the truth - that you aren't stockpiling guns to fight the government - you are doing it to fight other ordinary citizens that you don't like.
not bright... (Score:1)
Have you noticed the kind of hardware that the military is packing these days? Do you really think that even an assault rifle and a case of grenades would do you one bit of good if they decided to come after you and any other gun-toting buddies you have? They could kill you before you ever saw them if they really wanted to. The probably wouldn't in most circumstances, but if the government decided to forcefully make you comply with some law that you don't agree with, do you really think that local groups of gun owners could make a difference? Nope.
Guns are fine for self-defense, but the whole thing about an armed population being insurance against a corrupt government is a bunch of bs now. It might have worked 50 or 100 years ago, but not today. The only hope you could have is that the soldiers in the military would revolt as well. Other than that, you're screwed.
Volkswagen! (Score:1)
Daniel
Not relevant? (Score:1)
shit (Score:1)
--
shit (Score:1)
--
Yeah, but this is Australia! (Score:1)
dont forget international farnarkeling and 'XXXX' beer....15 people, you must be one of those techo-hillbillies I keep hearing about, dung dung DUNG dung DUNG dung dung....(banjo sounds to the to the tune of delieverence)
Sensibly written, but suppressed (Score:1)
Because he has such a good grasp of the issues, he said things in his report (which, need I remind anyone, was written for PUBLIC RELEASE) which the Government didn't like, e.g.: Key Escrow is fundamentally broken and short keys are manifestly inadequate.
As a result of writing down what everyone outside the Government knows is obvious, but which the Government can never be seen to admit if it wants to be able to justify its short key and export control policies, Walsh got his report suppressed.
It's good for us that the Government here isn't actually very good at anything, and their attempts to suppress the report have failed utterly. It's almost comical how many times they've got it wrong, really. Someone in the Attorney Generals' dept must be feeling pretty stupid by now.
-----
Kosovo (Score:1)
Notice how successfully they are fighting against even a two-bit country like Serbia.
A word from a fellow Aussie about our government (Score:1)
Our Prime Minister, John Howard... Can't do SHIT!
To be perfectly honest I don't care about this sorta thing because there is no way it is going to happen. Many people don't realise how FUCKING INCOMPETEND our government is.
I mean... I am currently attending a Public High School. I have a Kremlin sitting on the drive at the school.
Kremlin allows encription of CAST-128, IDEA etc. encription, I can encript what I like, send it to anyone in the world from a goverment satillite and no one in australia really is going to do anything about it.. They don't care.
There is ONE thing that is really important to australians...
If you live in Victoria: VB
If you live up north: XXXX
Don't believe me? There was a gas shortage in Victoria late last year, the WHOLE STATE was without gas for a week or two. When the government fixed it, Carlton United Brewrys (makers of VB) had the gas for a day or two before ANY OTHER COMPANIES. INCLUDING THE FORD FACTORIES!
Australia is a great place to live.
Yeah, but this is Australia! (Score:1)
HOME AND AWAY
NEIGHBOURS
AHHHH!!!!
PLEASE ACCEPT OUR DEEPEST APOLOGIES!!!
AUSTRALIA IS NOT REALLY LIKE THAT!!!
As a representitive of 100% of the intelligent Australians I would like to say:
I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE MY TEETH EXTRACTED ONE BY ONE WITH PLYERS AND NO ANSTHETIC THAN WATCH THOSE SHOWS!!!
Standing Armies (Score:1)
This guy's a wanker (Score:1)
firearms? (Score:1)
Stupid Aussie's Shouldn't have turned in your iron (Score:1)
Standing Armies (Score:1)
> means of oppressing the populace.
Bullshit. That's way too generalised. There are a hell of a lot more factors involved than that. In Indonesia, I'd say certainly. But in Australia absolutely not. I cannot think of an example of the military holding it over Austrlaians in our history, although there was a short period of marshal law when some extremists bombed a conference in the 70s that the PM was at.
As an earlier post said, the moethod by which armies are constructed is important.
And don't give me any of that 'by the people' crap either. Give us real arguments.
Totalitarian Gov't of Australia... (Score:1)
:User Bio
:Reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer
I imagine the Philadelphia Inquirer is at the forefront of quality journalism in the United States, would I be right? Right up there with The Times and The Australian Financial Review?
I don't mind Americans. But those who write this sort of crap about our government can go to hell.
Study some Australian politics before you start pushing this sort of crap:
> semi-legal constitutional coup at the behest of
> the American CIA in the 70s.
I can't begin to know where the hell you got this from. The governor general who sacked Whitlam was a pacifist leftie. Do you think he'd take orders from the CIA? As for being semi-legal, that's rubbish. What was at *best* semi-legal was Whitlam continuing to hold the ranks of governemnt when he did not have the numbers to pass supply (basically the annual budget, although it's a bit more complicated) and keep the government running.
The royal governor has a responsiblity as our constitutional safeguard. Like the British, we have some powers that are unwritten (called 'conventions' - although unlike them wer have a written constitution). It is accepted that while the governor general is a largely symbolic role, there are time when the role comes in to play to keep bastards like Whitlam from betraying our constitution in times of uncertainty.
It's always good to note that at the resulting federal election, the Liberal/National coalition won one of (if not the) biggest victory ever in Australian politics and the Labor opposition was crippled with not very many seats in parliament at all for almost the next decade.
Whitlam did a lot of bad to this country and we were all better off after his glorious departure, although the debt of his legacy (blowout in social services bankrolled by massive loans, a cowardly policy towards Indonesia with regard to East Timor) is a lingering stench.
As for involvement by the CIA: Go to hell! We run our country quite fine without the involvement of your mob. How arrogent to assume our governor general could give a damn about what the CIA wanted!
Yeah, but this is Australia! (Score:1)
A word from a fellow Aussie about our government (Score:1)
And as for Howard not being able to do shit, I seem to remember seeing him at one of MarkW's greatest games admiring the action and drinking VB. You've got to respect that.
This means war (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure Fraser did declare a period of marshal law for a few hours following the Hilton bombing while he and foreign diplomats were clearing out with the help of the military. I'm suspiscous of your claims of an ASIO frame up, though. I have greater faith in the motives of our security agencies than in the words of what you describe as an inconsistent low life.
But I'm open to pursuation
As for the scrap metal business: I'll recognise they're bastards, but this is some distance from having a military that's 'oppressing the populace'. It's also some distance for a real justification of abolishing the military.
Here's something to get you worked up: I believe that it is good to have military force working to defend democracy. At the same time, I believe the Vietnam war was fought in all the wrong ways and nearer the end calls were made for practical political rather than idealogical ends.
I need far more of your documented evidence than that.
Flame me baby.
More examples (Score:1)
Idiot. Guns are archaic symbols of a low-technological era long gone. Having a gun affords you 0.000001% more leverage than not having a gun. On the other hand, having a brain gives you a 100% advantage.
firearms? (Score:1)
Nazi Germany made guns illegal and bad things happened.
On the other hand, dozens of other countries made guns illegal and really good things happened. So, by pointing out facist Germany as an example, you point out the exception, not the rule.
not bright... (Score:1)
Have you noticed that America has escaped the curse of a politicized military?
Have you noticed that all military personnel are ultimatelly responsible to the commander in chief, and he is responsible to only the constitution of the United States?
Do not make the mistake of assuming that the military is separate from the people, or from the constitution. It would be extremely extremely difficult for the military to ever turn on the people because of this.
Anonymous Dimwit (Score:1)
As an Australian working in the US (hey, someone has to do the work
Here's some stats (albeit around 1994ish)
USA
Population: 254,250,000
Gun Deaths: 38,317 (0.15 per 1000)
Gun Homocides: 17,971 (0.07 per 1000)
Australia
Population: 18,173,600
Gun Deaths: 596 (0.033 per 1000)
Gun Homocides: 85 (0.0047 per 1000)
If I lived in a country where I felt that I needed firearms in case the government went sour, I'd imigrate. If you really need "iron" then I suggest you use it on yourself and stay the hell away from the rest of us. Here's some more tidbits.
- U.S. has the highest gun related death rate among children and youth in comparison with 25 industrialized countries, 16 times more than all these 25 countries combined. (Center for Disease Control, Feb. 7, 1997)
- In America, in just two days, more people die by handgun than in one year in Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, Australia and Japan combined. (Center to Prevent Handgun Violence)
- Homicide rates (per 100,000 pop.) in the U.S., for males age 15 to 24 for 1992 are 37.3, the next highest rate is only 4.3 in Italy, followed by Israel 3.7, Ireland 1.8, Germany 1.1, France 0.9, England & Wales 0.6,and Japan 0.5. (CDC Report, Jan. 1995 from WHO & NCHS)
- During the 8 years of the Vietnam War, 58,000 American soldierswere killed. More people die by guns in the U.S. every 2 years now.
- Every 20 minutes, an American is shot to death.
This is not to say there's not a shitload of decent, inteligent Americans who also have to put up with this morons like you
Heard of Gandhi, anyone? (Score:1)
Ever heard of Gandhi, people? I don't believe in militant rebellion. There are always better ways, especially in a modern society like the U.S., to fight the government.
I mean, honestly, with today's weapons, even if it's possible to fight militaristically against the U.S. Armed Forces, there'd be a helluva lot of bloodshed, which could be avoided by non-violent rebellion.
Subject to warranting provisions (Score:1)
If they were allowed to modify anything they wished, that's one thing. But compromising privacy after obtaining an court-approved warrant is not very different from compromising privacy via a warranted wiretap, etc.
I'm still not necessarily for it, but I'm just pointing out that if it's only legal after getting a warrant, I would not be immediately against it.
China (Score:1)
I was born there, moved to the US when I was 6, but have visited a couple of times.. and I can tell you that it is hardly the hellhole the American media portrays it to be. In terms of commerce, China in many respects is even more freely capitalistic than the US.
But more importantly, remember those 1989 student protests in Tiananmen Square? I can tell you that they had a DEFINITE effect in convincing the government to be progressively more and more liberal in its policies.
And I don't it's so bad for the policies to change gradually.
Even the student leaders of that protest agree that no one wants China to "go democratic" the way the Soviet Union did.
Re: ENTRY is subject to warranting provisions (Score:1)
It seems to me that the article is saying that, with a warrant, the cops could modify that SPECIFIC COPY of the software.. like installing a bug, not installing bugs in ALL software.
I'm not certain of which the article was talking about, but I would be in favor of the former, though not the latter.
Worker protection? (Score:1)
Of course, most US citizens are only concerned about "worker protection" when the workers are American.
US companies exploit people in other countries routinely.. perhaps the worst, even.. and those who protest it are all too often seen as troublemakers.
I recall a quote from one major US company after being complained to about its treatment of workers in other countries (forget which it was, alas), who said "Well, that's unfortunate just the state of the global economy at the moment." Bull.
Re:Middle of the Road (Score:1)
>police carry them?
Well, they don't in London!
I don't know how well that is working, alas, but the concept does exist.
I do actually agree with most of what you said. M.A.D. certainly was an interesting situation, but it was rooted in the fact that both countries were fanatical enough to consider the use of nuclear arms in the first place!
What we need to work toward is a world where we wouldn't even contemplate such a thing, making M.A.D. useless.
What bothers me are terrorists.. And by terrorists I hereby loosely define them as a small group of people not representing the views of a large group. That is, a small group of wackos are going to have the ability to inflict serious casualties, and even MAD can't save us then.
firearms? anal-retentiveness (Score:1)
1) Most soldiers did not want to fight in vietnam, they went there to "serve their country"
2) The US could not separate enemy from friend, so they started killing pretty much ALL of the "gooks"
3) They were trying to OCCUPY a land in an enviroment and climate which they were not used to at all.
4) guns and heavy artillery do not do well when you're fighting in thick forests
5) There was popular opposition to the war back home, and politicians had their votes staked on it.
now.. the reasons why these reasons DO NOT apply in the US.
1) the US population is for the most part, materialist lazy complacent slobs. They wouldnt really care if a military dictator came to power if they got their hot-pockets and prime-time teevee.
2) Hitler had popular support in germany when he came to power. He provided an easy solution to complicated problems. Jews were a minority, and they were discriminated against already. He raised it to a new level, and gave the people what they wanted - a "strong" germany. If something like nazi germany were to happen in the US, the people would be WITH the establishment for the most part, and the people who would be WITH them would include the "republicans" and "conservatives", gun lovers, etc.
The thing is, these kind of people come to power WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE. If the people dont support the regime, it wont stand. In Russia, the russians believed in the socialist system, so they kept Stalin up. In Germany, the people believed in Hitler, so they kept him up.
In cuba, the people DID NOT side with the establishment - a ragtag army of 100 managed to take power from Batista - even when they were opposed by the Unied States itself. Do you think the majority of people in Cuba during Batista's reign had firearms? (hint: answer = NO!) Castro's revolution was funded mainly from the oustide. They won because they had the popular support of the people.
Your hopelessly inane arguments against gun control are just that.
-Laxitive
Yeah, but this is Australia! (Score:1)
No silly (Score:1)
This seems sensibly written. (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, the sections deleted fall into two categories:
This is true. There isn't much that they can do about it, and they know it, but they'd rather not proclaim this to the masses at large, because a large fraction of the criminal population is lacking in common sense and won't clue into the need to use this for a while if left alone. That still leaves the competent criminals, of course.
I tend to agree that this might be the only practical way to monitor encrypted communications and so gain incriminating evidence. However, I have doubts about it being worth the cost in practice (it's too easy to abuse this power, which means that eventually the intelligence agency would). The fact that the Australian government was reluctant to release this information shows that they know how well this would fly with the public.
Anyone reasonably competent could figure out the above on their own, so it's not really secret. What this document says to me is that the agency writing it _was_ reasonably competent, and realizes that it's up the creek.
firearms? (Score:1)
Open Source or Open Kimono. (Score:1)
Modified software != regular software. Size, at least, will change. Anybody now nervous about security (not just criminals) is now clued to compare files.
Solution:
The ONLY way to get away with this would be to have M$ modify all of their O/S's, then just activate it on suspect systems.
If the aussies have written public papers on it, it's already happened.
So the feds and M$ (they wrote it, remember?)have access to all files touching their O/S's.
Hmmmmmm... One can't help but think of the "lost portions of source code" for Windows. Betcha a nickel that this ridiculous claim isn't challenged by the feds -- which means that the [if broweser = Netscape then infinite loop;] sections are going to get "lost" too.
Did all you Micro$laves remember to update your NT service packs?
Start looking, crackers & kiddies! The ultimate BO is already installed, you just have to find the keys! Who'll be first?
Is cracking this a good job for Distributed.net? What fun!
Who would have dreamed it? Open source is the only way to have privacy. Simply amazing.
Stupid Aussie's Shouldn't have turned in your iron (Score:1)
I know... becuase you're an ignorant moron who thinks that because they're an American they're so wonderful. Well let me assure you that the Yanks don't do everything right. Take the Gulf War for example. The Yanks killed more of their own soldiers than the enemy did. You've got to love a country that is proud of killing their own people.
Yeah.... just the sort of country I want to live in..
*sarcasm_mode=y*
Well guys... Cya. I'm going to take part in a drive-by shooting.
*sarcasm_mode=n*
Paranoid (Score:1)
Since I have seen the way other countries and peoples live I get a little irritated when people here in the United States complain about government this and Government that and really do not realize how good we do have it. Yes our government has problems, but so do everyone elses even yours I am sure. If these people who complain so loudly would turn their attention to Washington, they might just be surprised!
*snickers* (Score:1)
does that mean that they're breaking into a "nominated computer system" to secure evidence that they just broke in?
*snorts* stupid! sounds just like something a government would do....
Oh GREAT !!!!! (Score:1)
Let's just hope this isn't happening allready in the U.S.