Oz Government to Become "Biggest Hacker in Town" 186
Wired is running a story with further information about the Australian Government authorising legalised hacking of private computer systems by its internal security organisation, ASIO.
Re:Grrrrr (Score:2)
Yes, the government is, at least in principle, accountable to the Australian people, whereas the kid is not.
I realise that many people, on /. in particular but by no means exclusively, have little or no faith in this accountability. There is a general feeling of mistrust in the government and national agencies.
A lot of this mistrust is entirely understandable. But it is, I think, important to make a point of the principle, namely that the issue is not that the govenment has more power than the individual but that they are not (sufficiently) accountable for the exercise of this power.
This is to me the real issue. You do not trust government. But listen: you are the only people who can fix this. You elect these people (I can't vote for any national parliament so I deny all responsibility :-)). Don't just complain and then stay at home on polling day. (How many people in the USA vote? 20%?)
Seriously: if we have zero trust in govenrment then civilization falls. Think about it: some form of government is needed for large scale human organisation. With the population of this planet seemingly ever-groving, the case could be made that we need more government, not less. Of course, it should a government that is truely accountable to the people.
Re:ASIO (Score:2)
One Qualification (Score:1)
I realize that quite a few democracies have failed under external pressure in sparsely populated agrarian countries, but this is usually because there is no popular force to help keep the government in place outside of the governments army. External attempts to change large industrial democracies like the U.S. or Australia are doomed to failure before they even start.
Re:Fight fire with foam - not fire (revised) (Score:3)
Re:Confessions of a corporate espionage guy (Score:1)
Or is this just only in the case when a business is being given an unfair advantage? In that case, it's OK to hurt these people when playing by a certain set of rules? Then how do you choose these rules?
Re:orwellian? (Score:1)
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
No, _you_ assign your preferences. (Score:2)
Also, it's really very rare (at least in federal politics) for a seat to go uncontested, and it's almost as rare in state politics.
Please, if you're going to whine about our political system, make sure you get your facts right. There's enough crap here on
himi
Aus gov (Score:1)
Re:Information is good (Score:1)
The other fun thing they do is when a persons files are released under the 30 year rule they can censor them to their hearts content and claim a National Security proviso with no appeal from the affected party.
It's just typical of how governments claim "protecting democracy" as an excuse to remove more freedom and democracy.
Confessions of a corporate espionage guy (Score:1)
I am now in a position to access marketing reports, detailed sales figures, and inventory records. I took a few of the reports and ROT-13ed them and added the text to a meaningless GIF file.
I opened up a web page on the many free sites on the net(under false demographic info), and put This GIF file (a little animated bullet thingie) on the site with all the other info about under-water-basket-weaving, or some such nonsence.
Now, once a month, the president of the company (where I had worked for 15 years) gets an anonymous email with a web link pointing to this little GIF.
Sometimes the best place to hide your data is in a place where everybody is looking, but nobody knows to look.
Duh (Score:1)
Re:Information is good (Score:3)
This is exactly the aspect that made me worried as well. According to the article, authorities can get a permit to break in and check the data. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from cracking their way in prior to the search and PLANTING the evidence they then find when the court order/permit allows.
As they sure as h*ll will modify the data on the computer during both processes, there is no way the victim (er, the owner of the computer) can point to what would have been changed without his knowlegde or consent. In effect, he has no ability to prove that the evidence wasn't there in the first place. ("Of course the files have been modified! How else would the police have managed to access everything on the computer?")
This may set an unwanted precedence and a disasterous example. Orwellian police states may no longer be mere horror speculations, but the standard in the 3rd millenium. I expect with utmost terror as to what countries follow the Australian Way.
Re:Grrrrr (Score:1)
I hope that when this exile is over I will feel very happy. But maybe I will just feel, well, dead?
Seriously: there is nothing wrong with murder (!) all you need is a good reason. Law enforcement and war are typical "good" reasons, but there are others (and better). Even Christian law (normally very anti-killing) acknowledges the need for a little killing every now and then.
Maybe it is not true in the States, but here in Europe the police seems to use their weapons sensibly. I don't have a problem with them carrying guns. I do not normally have a problem when they use them. They are accountable.
cant plant viruses, but trojans ? (Score:1)
Im australian, i certainly dont intend to vote for the current government in the foreseable future, they obviously have no clues on technology. (count the ways)
Ill be voting Democrats next time.
Re:And? (Score:2)
Here in the US, police have been known to plant guns on people they've shot to death in order to justify the homicide. (Yes, LAPD, I am talking to you.) No doubt, they rationalize this behavior by claiming that this improves their "security". But it's still illegal, and when they get caught, they get busted.
The Australian law gives the authorities a license to cook the bits on anyone's computer and serve up the results in the courtroom.
As noted in the article, this provides an avenue to challenge any digital evidence presented by the police. It only makes it harder for honest policemen to do their jobs.
Re:Australia's national security (Score:2)
Compulsory voting in India. (Score:1)
Re:new method for old crime (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:2)
Someone teach the Australian gov't how to hack, so they can play nice with everyone again...
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11].
So what else is new? (Score:1)
OZ (Score:2)
Under the new law, Australia's attorney general can authorize legal hacking into private computer systems, as well as copying or altering data, as long as he has reasonable cause to believe it's relevant to a "security matter."
Re:Australia's national security (Score:1)
I suggest using a gun. Because whenever a thread on Australia starts, it degenerates into a flamefest because some American finds out he can blame any problem in Aus on their gun gontrol. :-P
Predicting the future in Oz (Score:1)
Any use of encryption with a greater than X strength (40 bits, maybe), will require a government licence and registration. Illegal possession and/or distribution of said cyrptography will get you a stiff jail term.
Any bets?
Re:OZ (Score:1)
So if I have a co-worker I hate, I can ROT-13 his entire hard drive, call the police, and get him turned in? And he has to turn over all his public keys?
Re:Australia's national security (Score:3)
A friend of mine works in military intelligence (show you have some and spare us the "army intelligence" jokes) and while of course he did not speak directly about his work, he did say that Indonesia was a prime interest of his unit.
IMHO most of our real concerns are related to internal terrorism, of which there is not a lot but what there is has occasionally been sensational. Some nutters tried to blow up a Commonwealth Heads of Govenment meeting in Sydney in the 1970's, and there are plenty of screwball individuals and organisations around.
We basically have four parties here. The Liberal/National Coalition are currently in power. The Labor party are contenders and held government through most of the '80s and early 90's. The Democrats are a small party who at present hold the balance of power in the Senate and have the balance of power when the major parties disagree on an issue, usually resulting in intense negotiation with the government. In the recent past, a few independents have had an unjustifiably huge say in political decisions.
The harshness Internet Censorship legislation was to a significant degree a result of the Liberals' desire to get an independent with a strong anti-porn stance to vote for their tax legislation, a move which backfired in any case.
In that case, the Labor party did not oppose the legislation - no one wants to be seen as an advocate of kiddie porn. The democrats put up some resistance to their credit, but without Labore opposing the legislation theirs were token efforts at best. The same thing seems to have happened here.
WE do have another party, One Nation, a populist right wing organsation whose platform seems to be bashing our indigenous people and blaming the country's problems on single parents, the unemployed, etc., headed by a former female fish and chip shop owner with the nastiest pair of eyes I've ever seen. They'd be a real worry poitically were it not for their staggering level of ineptitude and internal bickering. I doubt they'd ever come up with a coherent policy on communications or the internet.
It's bad.. but.. (Score:1)
Re:ASIO (Score:1)
Short of armed revolution (the "cures" of which have historically often turned out to be worse than the disease) what do you suggest?
new method for old crime (Score:4)
Beside, who keeps info that could breach national security on a public server anyhow?
Re:what can I say, they aren't too smart anyway (Score:1)
And YOU call US stupid?
And? (Score:2)
This seems to me to be largely a non-issue. The article states that
The only issue to me seems to be that this is under the control of the attorney general rather than the courts. In moust countries the police or security forces have this sort of power with a court order over other information sources, e.g. letters. Why should electronic information be different?
Re:"Grrrrr" Indeed! (Score:1)
Dr. Moureau reference?
Information is good (Score:2)
If ever there was a dumb law, this is it (Score:2)
Sreeram.
Re:Australia's national security (Score:1)
Hmm. So, aside from the electronic front, what's the general gist of Australian policy re: law enforcement? Do y'all have such things as no-knock warrants, a history of government infiltrators/agent provocateurs in even remotely potentially subversive organizations, leaders whose operatives break into the files of psychiatrists who treat their enemies...
...or is your government more respectful of privacy when it does not involve a computer?
Re:And? (Score:1)
Indeed I doubt so too. But they do have a legal procedure for, say, tapping your 'phone, and I was reading the article in the same vein. You need to be able to install bugs in the telephone and, similarly, in the computer. That means altering what is there.
I read this as well, but I'm not sure I understand the issue fully. How does it work today with non-electronic evidence? If the police have previously searched your home and the later find evidence there, how do they prove they did not plant it?
It seems to me that the tracking and logging of what is being done sould be easier in the electronic world. Obviously you need proper controls in place, but you need that anyway for non-electronic information, police access and evidence.
If you trust the police for non-electronic evidence (and I relize that this is a big, big if for many slashdotters), then why not for electronic information?
Okay, okay... (Score:1)
Well I can assure you they do not, and this will be a complete law in practice soon.
So what can I do to stop people getting into my computer? And don't tell me to run linux, because I'm a designer for a living and hence can't live without photoshop.
Re: Australian Electoral System (Score:3)
The combination of compulsory voting (fines imposed if you dont) with a preferential system means that while you vote for a conservative party, if your candidate has no chance of winning, your vote is passed onto that parties next preference.
This is an extremely effective mechanism of freezing out any alternative that the two major parties both dislike enough to exchange preferences over. So while a voter may tick that Liberal box, the vote may end up counting towards the Labor count.
In many electorates, where one side's pollsters feel its not worth spending the money to put up a candidate, no candidate is put up. Independants generally lose their seat after a term, after whatever issue pushed them into parliment has faded from public memory.
In fact in Victoria we have three independants committing to voting with the government, which really bends the definition of independant past breaking point.
And as for the federal senate with its broken proportional representation, leading to situations where one religous nut, who got a fraction of the votes needed in a larger state can dictate tax and censorship issues to a government with the backbone of a limp squid....
There's a good reason most Australian's distrust politians, have more respect for lawyers, and expect more honesty for real estate agents. In the vote on the referendum, (lost mainly because of a scare campaign over "the politican's republic") we had government ministers on TV saying dont vote for this republic, it gives too much power to politicians (a lie), and I'm a politican, and you cant trust us.
Re:Okay, okay... (Score:1)
Don't ever connect it to the internet. Keep it with you always.
Then you should be fine. They can still see what you are doing, but they'll have a hard time getting in to it without you knowing, which was what you asked for.
...on changing data... (Score:1)
* Hiding traces of surveillance, and
* Anything that's "reasonably incidental"
Dunno 'bout the judges down there, but "reasonably incidental" o'er here usually wouldn't be interpreted as "massive falsification of evidence"; more like the disruption caused by the electronic B&E method itself.
Best icon for Australia (Score:1)
The best icon would be the southern cross, as expressed on the Eureka flag:
http://www.ausflag.com.au/flags/eureka.html
How to stop the bad guys (Score:1)
Maybe we should sick prorams like this onto the tralls of abusive corporate CEOS (read: sweatshop kings) and corrupt politicians themselves, once we have sufficient [shrug] reason to suspect them. Imagine exposing their corruption to the law and the masses simultaneously once it becomes so obviously visible that it is impossible to deny...what a way for geeks to engineer social change!
Biggest Hacker in Town Runs Site on NT (Score:1)
It isn't a reliable indication of the level of skill present there, but it does make me wonder...
bBob
Re:thank God for the USA! (Score:1)
Australia is a democracy. We have a constitution - not a Bill of Rights. Voting is compulsory. We end up with inept politicians. You, living in a country which elected both Reagan and Clinton for two terms each, should know all about that.
Not all our politicians just swallow and smile. There are and continue to be voices of dissent in Parliament. This was a bad decision, but I'm not sure it was arrived at undemocratically.
Do they have any Universities or Law schools down there? Maybe if someone went to a quality law school, and was also a citizen of Australia, they could file a suit against the government just like they do in the "First World" Western countries.
We have good universities and law schools here, and very good lawyers, for example Geoffrey Robertson, who unfortunately for Australian techno weenies seems to selfishly regard international human rights abuses as more important than ASIO's shenanigans and the government's ineptitude.
You can more or less buy a qualification in Australia (though not from the better universities), but it's by no means as easy as it is in the US.
The US has more lawyers and litigation than anywhere else, and I can't see how that has improved things, more the reverse.
Re:Hold on a second... (Score:1)
I know this quote has been used a lot, and apologies in advance for not being able to remember who said it:
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither."
Warning: Quote most likely mangled.
-RickHunter
--"We are gray. We stand between the candle and the star."
--Gray council, Babylon 5.
Re: Australian Electoral System (Score:2)
FBI *does* have black budgets. (Score:1)
http://mediafilter.org/mff/usdomcovops1.html
Read it and weep.
For the senate you can vote by party . . . (Score:1)
Sure, senate ballot papers can get ridiculous, and that's why they introduced party votes (that may not be the correct term for them, but they do work as you've said) - at some point it got so that the number of invalid votes in the senate was becoming disproportionate due to people making mistakes, so they had to simplify it.
But the two systems are _completely_seperate_. Just because you can vote by party for the Senate doesn't mean you can for the House of Reps, and the mere fact that it's possible in the Senate doesn't mean that you have to.
As for our Constitution . . . You do realise that the Constitution _purposely_ says nothing about "the people of Australian"? When they were writing the thing they were trying to create a federation of states, and the constitution reflects that - it's all about how powers are divided up between the states and the federal government.
What you have to realise also is that when they wrote that constitution they were expecting to have it reviewed (a la the Constituional Convention) on a regular basis (like every ten or twenty years). Part of the reason why our Constitution is the way that it is is because we haven't changed it as we've changed over time.
The other reason it's the way it is stems from the fact that our constitution is only really relevant to political power distribution - since it's so irrelevant to just about everything else, we've made a point of making everything else up as we go along. All our personal rights and obligations and so forth are founded either in laws made by various parliaments or in common law as laid down by the courts. And you know what? That works. It works a damn sight better (for most things) than the US system of making all their rights stem from the constitution - which they then don't change any more often than we do. If you think our constitution is almost irrelevant to the real world we live in, you might try considering a constitution that actually enshrines people's `right' to bear arms, just in case they need to overthrow their democratically elected government! If that isn't stupid, I don't know what is.
Sure, the US constitution also does things like define rights to privacy and so forth, but whoopdedoo! Do they have such a wonderful society, merely because they happen to have their `fundamental democratic rights' written down on some pieces of paper somewhere? No. Australia is, in many, many ways a far better place to live than the US, and part of the reason is because we _don't_ get our rights from a piece of paper someone wrote two hundred years ago. Our rights are constantly being redefined, according to what _we_the_Australian_people_ agree is important. That's Democracy at work. If you don't like it, then you can bugger off to some tinpot little dictatorship where you can have fun writing a constitution for the revolutionaries. Have a go at it and see if you can do a better job!
himi
Re:I won't be sending my e buisness to Au (Score:1)
We don't want it.
In fact, we don't want any type of commercial internet business at all!
That's because commerce is destroying the net.
It was better when it was a bunch of hackers who could only type a line at a time.
More Info (Score:1)
Re:Australia Icon (Score:3)
Funnily enough, I think this would be rather symbolic of the Australia-related stories on Slashdot. We don't even say shrimp - we say prawn... The shrimp on the barbie icon would be an ironic play on the fact that we are so misrepresented overseas - and our government only exacerbates the situation.
I don't know a single person who agrees with any of our recent technology legislation. That includes people who don't have a huge understanding of the ramifications of the changes made. Most of it was put through for the benefit of other bills - mostly related to the current conservative government's tax scheme.
Sadly, most of the media focus on government decisions in the previous few months has been focussed on the republic issue. Even then we were caught with our pants down.
There is only on party in Australia who have any idea of the importance of our technology sector: the Australian Democrats. At the last election, they were essentially given control of senate decisions on partisan issues.
There is hope...
Re:ASIO (Score:1)
The Australian government better keep it's tentacles down under, because if I catch them reaching across the water to my machine, I will have to create an international incident.
--Nimbus Qrygg, The One True Qrygg
OS > Religion;
orwellian? (Score:2)
Re:orwellian? (Score:1)
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.
Re:And? (Score:2)
On the other hand, it would not be that difficult -- given time -- to, say, install a variety of cracking tools and documents, and reams of stolen information in my personal computer.
There are already my prints on the keyboard, and obviously I use it; thus, it would be difficult to prove that I did *not* install that, barring extenuating circumstances like the fact that my connection is neither fast nor always-on -- and thus they would have to take care to choose a time when I *was* dialed in, and to not go overboard with the data that I supposedly downloaded. If they set it up to allow incoming connections, they wouldn't even necessarily have to prove that I was in my apartment, since they could argue that I accessed it remotely.
Re:It's bad.. but.. (Score:1)
Re:new method for old crime (Score:3)
Me wonders how many copies of OpenBSD this story is going to sell???
Not in a Democracy. (Score:1)
As I see it (and I'm not a political theorist, but I think my ideas are valid), the basis of a democracy is that everyone in the democracy has equal power, and no one can deprive anyone else of their power. That's the fundamental basis, everything else stems from it. (That may not be what the political theorists say, but it's what I've observed from living in a democracy and watching other democracies in action)
Governments only come into democracies because having power distributed so completely is not very efficient for running countries (and countries do need to be run - they need police, they need infrastructure, they even need armed forces, generally). So, what happens is people agree to delegate their power to some group of people who then use it to do the stuff that can only be done for the nation as a whole. Voila! We have a Government.
The point to note is this: _all_ the power that the government wields (in a true democracy) is power delegated to it by the people. This is important, because it implies that if the people decide they don't like what their government is doing, they can take their delegated power back, and thus remove power from the government.
That's why governments get freaked out by elections - they know that they are at risk of losing their power, if the people decide to delegate their power to someone else.
The upshot of this is that in a democracy the only threat to the nation is going to be external - since everyone has the same amount of power and can't take power away from anyone else, and since the government is entirely reliant on the people for it's power, the only thing you have to do to retain you `liberty' is to make sure you vote. Make sure you participate in choosing where your power goes.
I suppose you could say that's a form of `eternal vigilance', but it's from an entirely different viewpoint to the one that you're espousing. Your argument seems to be that you have to keep on watching that all powerful government to make sure that it doesn't try to take away your liberty (though if the government really is all powerful, how are you going to stop it?). Whereas my argument is more one of good housekeeping - make sure you help decide who gets your power for this term of office, because if you don't the idiot down the road will . . .
Note that I'm not saying anything about external threats to a nation - that's why I said democracies often need armed forces. Also, it is possible for the people of a nation to choose to give up their power en masse - that's pretty much what happened in Germany before WWII. Interestingly, though, that's also pretty much what the British population decided to do during the war - they handed their power over to Churchill's War Cabinet for the duration. The difference between Germany and Britain there was that the Germans gave their power to an insane megalomaniac, whereas the British gave their power to a farily responsible group. Also, the Germans don't seem to have reserved the right to take their power back - they gave it up wholly to one man, rather than to the people who just happened to be leading their country. The British, on the other hand, gave their power to the Government, rather than to Churchill, so that the power remained with the nation rather than an individual.
In any case, my argument is basically that governments in a democracy are not something to be feared - the people of the democracy can take power away from the government without needing to fight them. The case of the US War of Independance was an _external_ threat - another nation imposing it's will. You can't extrapolate from that case to the case of a democratically elected government.
himi
I may not have been a political theorist before, but I'm perilously close now . . .
At least the Aussies admit to it! (Score:1)
In most countries, they would deny having done such actions and in some they'd just kill you for suspecting a national security breach.
At least the Aussies admit to being willing to investigate you to no end if you have enough evidence stacked against you.
The US is a bit Mickey Mouse with a H&K MP5 behind his back.
HOSTS.DENY anyone? (Score:1)
In school I was taught that australia was founded by criminals. I am glad to see they are keeping the tradition alive.
aus hacking allowed of citizens pc's (Score:1)
flamebait? - sm5114304400 (Score:2)
Australia was used initially as a dumping ground for the less than desirables by the British. Discovered by Cpt James Cook [pacificcoast.net] (b27 October 1728 in Marton, England - d14-Nov-1799, Hawaii), Australia was also settled [virtualaustralia.com.au] by free settlers concurrently.... the link goes on to explain...(my emphasis)
- Captain Cook's account of his discovery aroused much interest in England but Britain did not try to colonise Australia until its American colonies achieved independence. On 13 May 1787, the first fleet of 11 ships sailed from England under the command of Capt. Arthur Phillip. They reached Botany Bay on 18 January 1788 with 1530 people, 736 of them convicts.
So it was not until the Boston Tea Party that the Brit's deceided to look for another dumping ground for their criminals. Another site, Convicts of Australia [murdoch.edu.au] goes on to say....- 1718-1783 About 50,000 British criminals were transported to colonies in America.
Australian convicts just happened to put to good use as a good source of cheap labour, building infrastructure, harvesting crops and rum. Though branded criminals, a lot of poor old souls got a life ticket to Van Deimans Land (Tasmania [tas.gov.au]) for crimes such as stealing bread, forging, etc... and anything else convenient the British could think of. That and the fact that the prison ships moored off the British coast had filled to capacity.1775-1783 AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE - hostilities with Britain brought transportation to a halt.
1783-1787 British prisons and hulks began to over-flow.
For those with a history bent that above urls above are a great read. For the writer above, surely you where aware of these facts, so dont bother.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
They can change information according to when the feel neccessary!! thats kinda strange! I am not sure if that would even be cracking in hte normal sense of the words!! or maybe i am just on too little sleep!!!!!
So the govt. could make changes to say a mafia persons records and then bust them for
tax evasion ? ? ?
Re:Grrrrr (Score:2)
Local or Remote (Score:2)
A local hack would imply that the police enter your premise and sit down at your computer. A remote hack implies that the police connect to your computer while you're surfing on the Internet.
I can see this rankling a lot of Slashdotters who fear Big Brother, but remote access is really not different than what anybody anywhere on the world can do. I mean, you system is either vulnerable or hardened against intrusion. On Linux, if you simply remove all unnecessary network services in inetd.conf and install simple packet filters like ipchains [rustcorp.com], then there isn't much the police are going to be able to do. Similarly, on Windows you can install Network ICE [networkice.com] which will not only block them, but also alert you to exactly what [networkice.com] they are trying to do.
I mean, anybody who runs such countermeasures regularly sees attempts against their machines. Why get into a tizzy over the government doing what Russian hackers/crackers are doing to you anyway? Indeed, the Russian hackers are likely to be much more intelligent than government drones.
In any event, I've got countermeasures on my system. This means that the most likey outcome is that bungling investigators would tip me off to the investigation, not compromise my machine.
(I guess my reaction is atypical: my geek distaste for l-users who can't configure their system outweighs my geek distrust of authority :-)
Re:orwellian? (Score:1)
Remarks like this are part of the problem! (Score:1)
I know that Slashdotters don't take this kind of post seriously. We know that people who write this stuff all over the net are just mainly a bunch of script kiddies (or not even that) who talk big.
However, I don't know, are the mass number of computer users scared of this type of person, making them willing to let their governments pass anti-privacy laws? Not that there aren't skilled crackers, but there are a lot more people who go around CLAIMING they can compromize your system than can actually do it.
So I'm thinking, people acting like big shot crackers might actually be helping these laws come to be, because people are willing to give up their online privacy so that their governments can track down these "dangerous computer criminals."
Just a thought. ^_^
Remember the fundamentals (Score:3)
The key question is does this new law infringe on the constitution (or whatever they call their basic national laws) of Australia? If it does, then it is wrong and will hopefully be ruled unconstitutional. If it does not, then okay. If the ppl don't like it, then they need to change their constitution.
The same holds true in the US. Remember all the brouhaha over COPA? Ultimately, the high courts started telling Congress that they passed unconstitutional laws.
Some ppl have stated that the gov is doing the same thing as script kiddies. Well, here in the US, law enforcement agencies have been given court approval to break into private property to play listening devices; for instance, this was used in the 80's against New England organized crime. Additionally, wiretapping by the gov is okay if its has court approval. Private wiretapping (like secretly recording telephone conversations) is illegal in many states. Linda Tripp is learning this lesson right now.
Shouldn't this be in the Dumb Laws section? (Score:1)
Re:orwellian? (Score:2)
Well, yes, we do. When one is speaking about governments or large corporations, there is a modified Murphy's Law in effect. If the potential for abuse exists, someone will do it, eventually. And the higher the person with the potential to abuse is in the power structure, the less likely it is that the abuse will ever be stopped once it begins. Accept this as fact now, and you'll save yourself a lot of headaches.
Re:Local or Remote (Score:3)
This apparently works well against drug dealers and such. Encryption passwords are captured and reported back to Washington, and then they break into the encrypted email. If they can't get the target to install the Trojan, they get access to his computer somehow and pop it in. Would Netice help in a case like this? I would think you'd want to use something like ZoneAlarm. But these guys are so unsophisticated, they think the Internet is magic and they're invisible once they install PGP or something.
Win98 reboots a good thing then? (Score:1)
The feature Windows really needs is a
Are people angry? Indifferent? . (Score:2)
I agree that this is not *too* interesting. After all..
"This just brings ASIO's powers in line with new technologies," she said. "It doesn't give them increased powers at all."
And I think this is a direct result of Echelon. Remember, Australia just outed the U.S and Britain for their own activities in citizen monitoring. I doubt they are still getting the and same info they were a few months (years?) ago? So basically they took it upon themselves. The same end result, I guess...
Like the sig says says, monitoring ALL the information would not be a happy task. Just don't act conspicuouly, you scientologists, libertarians, and illuminati, SLASHDOTTERS UNITE!!!
(err, whatever. I could tell you about the real-time demographic information that is available based on the sound of your name and your zip code, this is private corporations monitoring your info, and my guess is they have more money to spend on it than the government does, more quantity than quality tho, and the government has access to this info but not vice-versa.)
Re: Australian Electoral System (Score:2)
You have to turn up. You can vote informally. You're in fact free to right "You can all go to hell" on your ballot paper.
Re:Hold on a second... (Score:3)
If the NSA is doing this, they are in rather deep trouble. It is illegal for the NSA to gather information on US Citizens. The ECPA (Electronic Communications and Privacy Act) also contains a lot of restrictions on what sorts of things can be intercepted, by who, and how. If the NSA has been intercepting stuff like email and reading the content without obtaining court orgers they can be hit by some pretty stiff penalties under the ECPA too.
Congress as well as civil liberties organizations are really putting some heat on the NSA right now. EPIC is suing because of disclosure requirements that the NSA has not met under our FOIA - goverment agencies are required to disclose internal documents when requested unless they can prove that there are some sound reasons like national security not to. Congress also has an investigation going which the NSA has refused to provide testimony for - Congress' response was to cut funding for the NSA legal department by 33%. This is the ultimate check and balance that Congress holds over the executive branch in the US.
There were some incidents like this in the 60's with the CIA which is also forbidden to gather intelligence within the US. The results were not pleasant for those guilty of this.
The FBI has the right to gather information of US citizens - but the FBI does not have black budgets, and they are generally required to be much more open about their activities than the NSA or CIA. Ultimately any information that the FBI can present in a court in the US has to pass a variety of tests under the Unreasonable Search and Seizure provisions in the Constitution, too.
Re:ASIO (Score:2)
Why do they hate to call it Orwellian? (Score:3)
Frankly, this solidified my decision: I won't ever move to Australia. I'll grant, I don't like the US government. But at least they pay lip service to the rights of the citizens (and occasionally respect them); this law simply stomps all over Australians' rights without even a shred of subterfuge. Same with all the censorship laws there, many of which go into effect in less than a month. And then there's the other Net-related fiascos going on there...
By the way, earlier in this thread someone noticed that ASIO's Website had a "test page." This poster feared that ASIO was using it as a tool in their Big Brother scheme. I read it a bit differently (seeing as there was nothing in the page source that indicated the possibility of sending data).
I don't even think they have a proper Website. All that page was missing was that inane yellow diamond with the animated digging man inside it and it would have exactly mirrored the perpetually in-progress page of a typical technologically-illiterate person. I honestly think they're that clueless about technology; even more so than the US government (which is itself pretty damn bad). They fear it, fear it with such intensity that they'd do anything to crush it.
Oh, one last point: isn't this getting dangerously close to becoming a human rights violation? The situation there seems to be getting out of control; someone needs to bring them back into line and remind them who really runs the show.
Re:OZ (Score:2)
Want my public keys?... I think you meant "private".
Hold on a second... (Score:3)
Look, our (I'm Australian) govenment has done some pretty bad stuff lately, but I don't think this one is too bad.
So, they made a law that lets them (basically) monitor your computer use if they get a court order.
What's wrong with that? Sure, I don't like EACELON (sp) but this is totally different. That is indiscrminate wire tapping. This is focused on people who are breaking the law.
I don't like the idea of someone searching my computer, or my house. However I dislike even more the idea that the govement that is supposed to protect us cannot because the law forbids it from searching a criminals house (or computer)
At least, now, it is out in the open, and not against the law. Where there is law, there are proceedures, and appeals, and checks & balances.
Do you really think the NSA doesn't do this, too? What are the checks and balances there?
What?!?! (Score:2)
No. Since the police carry guns we can no longer criticize citizens who carry guns.
Or, more accurately: If the police were allowed to kill people without cause (in the name of "the people," of course), then, yes, we would be kind of out of order if we criticized other murderers.
The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization.
The state's only legitimate power derives from the consent of the governed. How many governed are going to consent to this kind of madness?
I, for one, am going to start boycotting Australia. These things are happening everywhere to some degree, but they are completely out of hand Down Under.
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
Hmmm... well there goes that argument. (Score:2)
Okay.. I was wrong.
That will teach me to skim read & post.
Re:Win98 reboots a good thing then? (Score:2)
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org].
Re:Fight fire with foam - not fire (revised) (Score:2)
Trust me: the focus of all politics everywhere has always been on the wielding of power. (With the "categorical declarations are subject to a small but trivial degree of error" caveat.)
Bribery and corruption has always been a second-order effect that is often mistaken for the problem. People who primarily want money instead of power will not go into government unless the government has expanded itself to the point that you cannot make money outside of government.
People who want to do good and benefit the people are no exception -- they either aren't involved in politics, or they need to accumulate power to impose their vision of the good of the people. In fact, they can be even more tyrranical about it -- because they know they are doing the Right Thing.
Politics and government is entirely about power, always has been (everywhere), and always will be (everywhere). Which is why eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
ASIO (Score:5)
Fight fire with foam - not fire (Score:2)
Fight fire with foam - not fire (revised) (Score:5)
In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)...
By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody".
> The new powers are contained in a bill passed by
> Australia's parliament late last month (the
> Australian Security Intelligence Organization
> Legislation Amendment 1999).
This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power.
** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED **
Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system.
-nullity-
"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"
The cures for the ills of democracy... (Score:2)
--Al Smith
Govener of New York In the '20s I think.
HE was refering to things like sweatshops that were covering new york at that time.
So lets stop bitching about this and do something. I know both parties are having trouble getting people to run for office. So how about some folks consider running for your State Leg or Congress. Even if you don't win you might get stuff taked about.
Re:flamebait? - sm5114304400 (Score:2)
damn, that's all I need a yank with a sense of humour
Re:Information is good (Score:2)
No, the problem is not that they can access information. The problem is that they can modify the information. That's what's scary, because there's nothing that would prevent a Australian authority from changing your files so that it becomes "evidence" against you.
Play nice? In an ideal world, yes... but remember, human beings are inherently corruptible. Given enough power, the temptation to abuse will always be there. And quite frequently, that step is taken.
Grrrrr (Score:2)
This article really p*sses me off.
With the same argument I guess that since the police carry guns we can no longer critizise violent murderers? This is just plain silly and pathetic.
The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization. It is right to watch the way the state uses those powers carefully, but this article is just paranoid. There are (apparently) issues with the new law, but the journalists seems to have largely missed them.
To suggest that the police are cracking computer systems "for fun" is childish.
A little of column A, a little of column B (Score:2)
Others will be annoyed at the concept the government can plant evidence on an unsecure system and then legally destroy the evidence of planting it. Rather irksome. Rather hard to prove.
GOV - "Yes we have records showing that we broke into the system and changed data, but all we did was change some access logs, etc. All that kiddie porn on his system was there before, and those 12 copies of Office2K and those 20 gigs of MP3s. All were located on the system in question"
ATRNY - Then how do you explain that this computer was a kiosk in a Burger King? With no keyboard or mouse?
GOV - Obviously Burger King is involved in a kiddie porn/warez/mp3 ring and must be stopped.
The test page shows their competence, in a way (Score:2)
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 2.0 Mac">
Come on. Some supposedly-advanced computer intelligence agency had to use Pagemill to get something that said "ASIO - Test page" in a big font? Oooh, I'm scared of them now!
Re: Australian Electoral System (Score:2)
The combination of compulsory voting (fines imposed if you dont) with a preferential system means that while you vote for a conservative party...
I have vaguely heard of this before. Doesn't India have something similar? Compulsory voting, anyway. The right to speak includes the ability to not speak, the right to vote should operate the same way.
I'm curious, though. What is the state of the Australian Constitution? Do you even have one, or do you have something more similar to the British system of laws upon laws upon laws, back to the Magna Carta or so? Does the premise of judicial review exist Down Under? Could an appeal of some kind to the court system get this law ousted (the parties obviously aren't going to do it, legislatively)? An independant judicial system seems to be one of the few saving graces in America right now.
Re:new method for old crime (Score:2)
Re:Australia's national security (Score:4)
Also, Australian gov't likes to send lots of it's troops to help out whoever it thinks are it's friends. Whenever the US finds a cause, Australia backs it. Sure, our army is quite insignificant by comparison, but it's assumed that alliances with the US and Britain would be of some use if we were attacked.
On a slightly unrelated note, shouldn't we have "Australia" icons on the slashdot main page! Surely there's enough articles for a seperate section
I won't be sending my e buisness to Au (Score:3)
Sometimes people break into computers and break the law.
Sometimes people break into computer and they ARE the law.
Which would you prefer?
This is a Good Thing (Score:2)
Re:new method for old crime (Score:2)
And if they do manage it a few hacks, the rest of the world will just firewall off Australia, as the RBL would do if the government legalized SPAM.
Clueless.
Re:The cures for the ills of democracy... (Score:3)
A textbook example of this is Adolph Hitler (hey, I don't like the guy, but he makes a good example here). In 1923 he decided that the democratic German government was corrupt and traitorous, and attempted an armed revolution to overthrow it. Can you guess what happened? The people wouldn't support him. Like most people in a democracy, they wanted the government changed, not eliminated. Hitler was caught and imprisoned for treason after the revolution was crushed by German police forces.
After Hitler's release from prison, he again went to work on changing the government, but from the inside. He ran for office himself, and set up many of his supporters to run for various other offices. He used the democratic system to put himself and his supporters in positions of power, and then eliminated the system to keep himself there. By 1933 he had achieved through legislation and propoganda what had failed so miserably when attempted by force. While the Nazi reign was horrible, it does provide a great example of the power of working within the system.
So I agree with the original poster. If you really want to change the system, you need to put some effort into it. Sometimes that means voting, sometimes that means participating in the campaigns of people you support, and sometimes that means running yourself. Our (U.S.) system was designed to put a large amount of power in the hand of the people, but if the people aren't willing to use that power, it's worthless.
Kick Ass! (Score:2)
From the ASIO website... (Score:2)
Suddenly, I'm not afraid of the Internal Security down under...
SocMeth