If you can't bite, don't show your teeth - Yiddish proverb
|
|
|
Aussie government censors its snooping plans
THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT has censored almost 90 per cent of the document that outlines its plans to snoop on its citizen's web browsing habits.
Obtained under a freedom of information (FOI) request, the 18 page document is mostly blacked out because the government believes it may result in a "premature unnecessary debate", perish the thought in a democracy.
The extent of censorship is so great that one can skim through pages without finding a single letter of text that has been spared from the censor's brush. It's not surprising that the proposal has been met with heavy criticism given that Australian Internet service providers (ISPs) had been asked to store "certain aspects" of users' activities.
According to the Attorney-General's department legal officer Claudia Hernandez, the release of the document wasn't a good idea, "In my opinion, the public interest factors in favour of release are outweighed by those against." Hernandez cemented that viewpoint by saying that Aussies getting a sneak peak at the document could "more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression". Of course releasing a document that has had 90 per cent of its content concealed surely won't arouse suspicion at all.
While there really isn't much to read in the document courtesy of Hernandez and her cronies, Blighty gets a mention. Trying to justify why it should snoop on its citizens, the document says that, "The UK experience has also shown the availability of information can be of great benefit providing exculpatory evidence, allowing police to rule out a person from an investigation, and to Coroners in determining circumstances leading up to death." Death from web browsing? Just how immersive can 3D monitors become?
One thing's for sure, given the Aussie government's zeal to keep things under wraps for as long as possible, the proposal is likely to raise one heck of a fight once it does become public. µ
Share this:
Share
Hi All,
I just don't understand why the opposition have not jumped onto this. Tony seems to just say anything to get a political point. Maybe both sides are trying to do the same thing.
Arhh
Election looming therefore:
Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em bullshit.
Once "mandate" given, bend 'em over and give 'em a jolly rogering.
History always repeats. Nothing new under the sun!
What next?
Mandatory phone wiretapping?
Postal service reading all your mail?
(Wait, this probably already happens)
I hope people start waking up and make sure that governments know we will not stand for this shit.
If this country had a democracy, the government would not be able to prevent public debate, let alone be so blatant about it.
The funny thing about democratically elected representatives is that they are somehow unable to "tell" their electorate whether or not a debate is necessary, for the fear of getting voted out would be far too great.
Mind you, if the "shelved" net filter is anything to go by, I wouldn't be too worried just yet. My main concern that Australia will continue to sleep, and that one day we really will have a Big Brother society.
PS: Who voted for these idiots anyway?
GET FUCKED AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT!!!
GET FUCKED JULIA SATAN GILLARD!!!
GET FUCKED NEW WORLD ORDER!!!
Of course this wont get published because there is NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THIS COUNTRY!! FUCK YOU!
Lawrence provided the link to the AppleInsider article, namely:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/22/users_report_bluetooth_connectivity_quality_issues_with_ios_4.html
...which lists all the user complaints in an "Apple-friendly" publication (the point of the article above).
Posting complaints about each and every article which dares to point out flaws in Apple products runs the risk of the poster being identified as a (possibly paid) Apple shill (or just another brainwashed Jobsian). What is "getting old" is the number of flaws being discovered in a device initially sold as "perfect and revolutionary" by Jobs, who now is apparently denying most of these problems and sending out a $0.50 plastic case to the users he "cares about".
If articles like this can persuade people to not throw their good money away on a flawed device just to line Jobs' pockets, I think these articles are providing a valid service (more valid than uncritical support of defective products, for example).