We are working on a grass roots campaign to raise awareness about these bills, mainly the data retention legislation which will be up for debate in the upcoming weeks.
The campaign will focus on allowing constituents to easily contact their representatives via calls, emails, facebook and twitter.
There are a bunch of open issues but your best bet is to join us at #ausprivacy on freenode to get a better idea of what needs to be done and where we are at.
2) Legislator Dataset
We have a large majority of the contact details for legislators thanks to OpenAustralia.org but there are quite a few missing still. So for those who can't help out with development, we would love help finding missing contact information. I have already wrote a call for help on Reddit -> http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/2hhh2m/call_for_v...
3) Press/Media
If you are a journalist or influential person/company who is interested in promoting the campaign, please shoot me an email(can be found in my HN profile)
"The truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."
― Alan Moore, V for Vendetta
Incredible, even after seeing up close what America has gone through because of laws like these passed in the wake of 9/11, Australia is going to pass the same sweeping type of surveillance laws? And Australia doesn't even have the excuse of a recent terror attack.
What is going on there, Aussies? How is there enough support to pass these kinds of laws? (or is there?)
I would have thought post-Snowden this would have been out of the question.
The public believes there has been a recent terror attack because the news have been reporting stories of the "home-grown terror threat" of local ISIS supporters planning to execute members of the public.
Over 800 police were involved on raids that ended up detaining 30, and only one individual has been arrested on any terrorism-related charge. The national security threat level was raised, and the general public seems to believe that there is something to fear.
I'm going a bit conspiratard here, but it looks an awful lot like the government just invented a terror threat to gain new powers...
From decades of comfortable living, Australia has one of the most politically apathetic populations of any country. Nobody cares. Or, rather, only a very small minority actually cares to think about this stuff.
The average person doesn't care about government snooping. They have a million other worries in their life. Sure, they might watch the news and see a new report on a Snowden leak, but they probably don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other, and so they'll just ignore and go on with their daily life.
The big question is why: who gains from this, where is the money flow for enacting this law? Cynically, I can't believe it's just to allow Abbott and Co to sleep more soundly each night.
Rationality is not this government's strength, and they seem to be aligning themselves on the wrong side of many issues. When you have the Rockefeller family switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy and the collapse of coal demand, the Abbott government's stance makes no sense at all.
Glenn Greenwald, Snowden and Julian Assange spoke eloquently about how NZ made international promises to get surveillance bills passed years in advance of bringing it to a vote. When a country manipulates its people (like Australia is doing now) to get them to vote a certain way, you're seeing an awful lot of the "Republic" in the term "Republican Democracy".
Other readers, please see my other comment in this comment section about the Snowden Leaks and the NSA wrt terrorism and how the contents of the leaks combined with other sources unilaterally refute the idea that the intelligence apparatuses are being used for (or indeed are even useful weapons for) counterterroism.
Everyone I know is opposed to most of what's going on here; but the approval rating of the government is going up in response to a few hyperinflated terrorist threats - so that's pretty disturbing.
Here's a good one: A few hours before the legislation came before parliament, but early enough to get extensive media coverage, a member of the Australian Defense Force reported being attacked outside his house, whilst in uniform, by men of "Middle Eastern" appearance [1]. The "beheading" bogey was even worked into the story [2]. The next day, he withdraws the complaint [3]. To what extent was this an influence on the vote in parliament?
I hate to tell you but its probably true. During 2008, Defence Force Personnel were told to not were passes or uniforms in public when not necessary as there were threats and some staff were attacked in Brisbane
Your conspiratorial tone is sickening, given you lack of proof. The circumstances are suspicious, but they also coincide with browning tensions, with ISIS, beheadings and forces being sent to the middle east
It's not about terrorism. Never was. That's just how the deep state sells it to voters.
If you look at the Snowden documents (and leaks by others) you'll see essentially nothing other than the international nature of the programs. For example, you'll remember from the Snowden leaks that the NSA hacked the Brazilian oil company PETROBRAS to help American oil companies win offshore oil drilling locations. The hacking of Merkle's cell phone was a big deal because it revealed that the US had information from Germany _during the Eurozone crisis_! Stuxnet was used to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
The US also faces the same sort of pressure from other countries. This year alone the DoD was hacked, Wall Street, NASDAQ and JP Morgan were hacked and hundreds of defense contractors were hacked - all with foreign attribution. Israel's Iron Dome designs were hacked by China.
Take a look at the NSA program HACIENTA, which "is used to port scan entire countries" and which uses other compromised (civilian) computers to disguise attribution.
Look at The Intercept reporting (where Glenn Greenwald is right now). He speaks at length about how the US uses NSA operations to benefit the global bargaining posture and competitiveness of US companies. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments...
And take the Inspector General's report from the Boston Bombings - a great example of how and when the NSA domestic programs would be used if they were about terrorism. The NSA is hardly mentioned. The Inspector General investigates the failings of the FBI. (http://info.publicintelligence.net/IC-IG-BostonBombingReport...)
"We focused our review on the entities that were the most likely to have had information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the bombings – the FBI, the CIA, DHS, and NCTC, which maintains the U.S. government’s database of classified identifying and substantive derogatory information on known or suspected terrorists. We also requested other federal agencies to identify relevant information they may have had prior to the bombings. These agencies included the Department of Defense (including the National Security Agency (NSA)), Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, and the Drug Enforcement Administration."
The report on the failures to anticipate/stop the Boston Bombers barely mention the NSA. This is because the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Counterterrorism Center are in charge of counterterrorism, not the National Security Agency.
"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
(Nothing to do with terrorism.)
Lots of news recently has called out Executive Order 12333's role in defining the goal and the means of intelligence capabilities. EO 12333 was passed in 1981. The Five Eyes, the key partnership of the NSA, has its origins in the 40's and ECHELON and other leaked programs (eg CARNIVORE/PREDATOR) predate 9/11 by decades.
The Snowden leaks disclose a list with over thirty countries with competing digital intelligence programs.
The NSA is not about terrorism. Never was. Never will be. The NSA and CSS are the intelligence arm of the United States. Austrilia's programs are similarly not about terrorism. Digital communications play a huge role in global communications and corporate and international power.
That's not to say there no domestic component to the programs. Domestic programs are also useful to track and disrupt radical ideas and organization within the country (MINERVA), and can also be used to incite discontent in other nations (look up the USAID Cuban Twitter program). Countries are able to manipulate the appearance of consensus within citizens of nations and in this way actually affect this consensus. (Look at the GCHQ programs leaks with BIRDSONG/BADGER/GATEWAY/SLIPSTREAM/ETC.) They also are used to monitor, detect and perform forensics on breaches from other countries.
There's so much to say, but I'll leave the comment with this. Digital communications are so insecure that the attackers always win. Always. And digital communications play a huge role (next to satellite and radio communications) in modern espionage and sabotage. If you just play a defensive game, you lose. The US feels it needs these capabilities. There's a sort of cyber cold war. Every country will lose if it decides not to play. So it doesn't really matter whether we want these programs or not as citizens - no vote is going to disarm nations at cyberwar.
"The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence," Palmer United Party Senator Glen Lazarus said, speaking out against Senator Ludlam's amendment.
I do not understand it. How can people say such things about one of the greatest inventions of the human species, that allowed us as a species to understand one another better?!? What goes in their mind when they say things like this?
Glenn Lazarus is a former rugby footballer, who was nicknamed 'the brick with eyes'. He's basically a warm body whose election was paid for by a political party founded by a billionaire miner who - the miner - has hardly been present in the House of Representatives when it comes to votes other than to vote for climate change legislation repealing one of the lowest carbon taxes in the OECD and - go figure - a mining tax. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/clive-palmer-is-mp-lea...
He's also building the Titanic II. Nevertheless, this wasn't the stupidest thing heard in the Senate this week, which would be Chris Back's "Some people may be distressed to know maleness is actually suppressed femaleness".
Edit: Yes, I already know there's a TV show just waiting to be written out of the daily tales of Australian politics. No need to tell me. But the media here, controlled like politics by Rupert Murdoch, isn't going to be the one to do it.
You want to see the cover of the best selling newspaper on that day? Here it is: https://i.imgur.com/2TglCpg.jpg "Hellfire justice" indeed.
You could have said exactly the same two things about nuclear fission sixty years ago. In the bombs that will destroy us, in the power plants that will revolutionize us.
(That the bombs never destroyed us, and the power plants weren't everything we hoped, is not important)
> The internet, while a tool which has revolutionised the way we live, work and operate, has also revolutionised the way sinister and criminal behaviour is orchestrated and undertaken across the world. The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence because of this. Therefore we must give ASIO and ASIS increased powers, capability and reach to do what must be done to protect, maintain and advance our safety and security.
As a person in the IT industry within Australia, I speak to normal average people every day about these things. In the last 2 days I have spoken to many people about these new laws, and the general consensus is THEY DON'T CARE, just plain and simple. Your average person has many more problems to deal with other than the government spying on them. We do not have "free speech" here in Australia, so most people don't really see this as a big problem. Bear in mind this is a country where healthcare is pretty much free, our wages are extremely high compared to most countries, and our welfare and pension system is reasonable. No matter what bitching and moaning people do, the government has "generally" looked after us (though our current PM is beginning to change that). On top of this the government and mass media are collectively running a scare campaign on terror, so people just look at the news and go "Yep, that makes sense". Having said that I do not agree with any of these laws, but there is very little I can do about it myself. I didn't vote for the current government, and my local member of parliament is part of the opposition anyhow, so as a single person its pretty much game over.
I'm right here with you bigB. I voted Greens, since they seem to have more common sense than either side. The current government is an embarrassment to Australia, both historically and politically. We used to be proud that we were free - it's part of the first sentence of our national anthem. This isn't the only poor decision the current government has made; they also scrapped our carbon tax and destroyed our fibre optic internet just as it was being rolled out. Truly a terrible government, with no sight of the future.
Not to be too ad hominem, but the man who said this is a former rugby league player known as "the brick with eyes" and not generally well-known for his national security expertise.
What if most people support these laws? What happens when a democracy decides to vote away its own freedom? Should it be somehow prevented from doing so?
Are there any good pointers to where the amendments have actually expanded surveillance capabilities? I've been going through the amendments and comparing them to the original bill, but so far I'm finding a lot of rewording.
For instance, the definition of computer[1] that is being suggested to allow monitoring of the entire internet is:
computer means all or part of:
(a) one or more computers; or
(b) one or more computer systems; or
(c) one or more computer networks;
(d) any combination of the above.
Whereas the old definition[2] was:
computer means a computer, a computer system or part of a computer system.
Both of these seem equivalent in my eyes. If so, the horse seems to have already bolted years ago.
Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. How does one talk to your local MP when the details of the proposed legislation are so muddy?
This is similar to the other metadata legislation where they neglected to provide an exact definition of what metadata is.
Computer system I think could reasonably be though of as a local network. Whereas in [2] they are being more explicit to head off any issues with something wider.
There is really no pressure on them to limit the scope of this, it doesn't surprise me that they would go for the widest possible definition and then reign it in if there is an resistance.
Those seem in no way equivalent. The old definition pretty clearly refers to 1 computer. You could certainly argue that several hosts represented 1 computer, but a judge would throw it out.
The new definition plainly allows "one or more computer networks" which means literally the entire internet since it's just "one or more computer networks".
Just shows you that for Australia to regain a functioning government, it will take us to elect someone other than LNP or Labour who will undo the damage.
> On the other side of the ledger, Mr Irvine admitted that the debate about civil liberties and intelligence gathering was a valid one to have.
> "I believe however that the vast majority of Australians expect their governments to take all necessary actions to protect their community and further the national interest," he said.
> He said ASIO has no plans for a "grand expansion" of its spy network but said it would need to lift recruitment to meet the demands or cyber terrorism as well as traditional forms of terror.
Apparently you seemed to have missed it, but France passed a similar law one week ago, adding to it the ability to forbid residents from leaving the territory. This is the general trend toward final abandonment of democracy. Dark times to come.
If we are to believe the foremost principle of democracy, that the government is the people. And the people are to give up their privacy for the sake of security, then so too the government has no right to privacy for the sake of its security. Indeed, a secret government with a people lacking security in their effects, is a government that will soon discover is has no security of its own from its own. For it has separated itself and made its own people the enemy.
I think that the bill has been poorly drafted. I don't think that ASIO are interested in monitoring the entire internet. To me, I think the intent was to allow ASIO to monitor a home network with one warrant, given the prevalence of people having multiple computer devices.
I do hope that the government tighten some of the definitions within the bill, rather then relying upon courts to narrow the interpretation.
Is this bill allowed to be retroactive? If so, this is what they will get Assange, or the next Assange with. Consider the Australian arm of WikiLeaks (including the party) closed for business.
Which now concerns me. Will WikiLeaks Party members be put on a list just like the ASIA targetted communists during the cold war?
[+] [-] thomasfromcdnjs|11 years ago|reply
The campaign will focus on allowing constituents to easily contact their representatives via calls, emails, facebook and twitter.
Here is the campaign mockup -> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByT3WMbCYAEsFcA.jpg:large
We also have an animation in development to more easily explain in laymen terms the repercussions of the proposed legislation.
For anyone inspired enough to want to help out there are a few roles to fill.
1) Website development
https://github.com/stopthespies/website
There are a bunch of open issues but your best bet is to join us at #ausprivacy on freenode to get a better idea of what needs to be done and where we are at.
2) Legislator Dataset
We have a large majority of the contact details for legislators thanks to OpenAustralia.org but there are quite a few missing still. So for those who can't help out with development, we would love help finding missing contact information. I have already wrote a call for help on Reddit -> http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/2hhh2m/call_for_v...
3) Press/Media
If you are a journalist or influential person/company who is interested in promoting the campaign, please shoot me an email(can be found in my HN profile)
[+] [-] dwd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] girvo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronmoodie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jnbiche|11 years ago|reply
What is going on there, Aussies? How is there enough support to pass these kinds of laws? (or is there?)
I would have thought post-Snowden this would have been out of the question.
[+] [-] broodbucket|11 years ago|reply
Over 800 police were involved on raids that ended up detaining 30, and only one individual has been arrested on any terrorism-related charge. The national security threat level was raised, and the general public seems to believe that there is something to fear.
I'm going a bit conspiratard here, but it looks an awful lot like the government just invented a terror threat to gain new powers...
[+] [-] enneff|11 years ago|reply
From decades of comfortable living, Australia has one of the most politically apathetic populations of any country. Nobody cares. Or, rather, only a very small minority actually cares to think about this stuff.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dwd|11 years ago|reply
Rationality is not this government's strength, and they seem to be aligning themselves on the wrong side of many issues. When you have the Rockefeller family switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy and the collapse of coal demand, the Abbott government's stance makes no sense at all.
[+] [-] xnull2guest|11 years ago|reply
Other readers, please see my other comment in this comment section about the Snowden Leaks and the NSA wrt terrorism and how the contents of the leaks combined with other sources unilaterally refute the idea that the intelligence apparatuses are being used for (or indeed are even useful weapons for) counterterroism.
[+] [-] Libbum|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] femto|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/national/adf-member-reports-assault-in...
[2] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/uniformed-australi...
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-defence-force-memb...
[+] [-] Khaine|11 years ago|reply
Your conspiratorial tone is sickening, given you lack of proof. The circumstances are suspicious, but they also coincide with browning tensions, with ISIS, beheadings and forces being sent to the middle east
[+] [-] hadoukenio|11 years ago|reply
Edit: Did writing that comment now put me on some sort of list? Semi-sarcastic, but semi-afraid. Chilling Effect is best Effect.
[+] [-] beedogs|11 years ago|reply
And today, I get to be ashamed to be an Australian, too.
There's no need for these laws, and they'll be abused to do anything but "fight terrorism".
[+] [-] xnull2guest|11 years ago|reply
If you look at the Snowden documents (and leaks by others) you'll see essentially nothing other than the international nature of the programs. For example, you'll remember from the Snowden leaks that the NSA hacked the Brazilian oil company PETROBRAS to help American oil companies win offshore oil drilling locations. The hacking of Merkle's cell phone was a big deal because it revealed that the US had information from Germany _during the Eurozone crisis_! Stuxnet was used to destroy Iran's nuclear program.
The US also faces the same sort of pressure from other countries. This year alone the DoD was hacked, Wall Street, NASDAQ and JP Morgan were hacked and hundreds of defense contractors were hacked - all with foreign attribution. Israel's Iron Dome designs were hacked by China.
Take a look at the NSA program HACIENTA, which "is used to port scan entire countries" and which uses other compromised (civilian) computers to disguise attribution.
Look at The Intercept reporting (where Glenn Greenwald is right now). He speaks at length about how the US uses NSA operations to benefit the global bargaining posture and competitiveness of US companies. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments...
And take the Inspector General's report from the Boston Bombings - a great example of how and when the NSA domestic programs would be used if they were about terrorism. The NSA is hardly mentioned. The Inspector General investigates the failings of the FBI. (http://info.publicintelligence.net/IC-IG-BostonBombingReport...)
"We focused our review on the entities that were the most likely to have had information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the bombings – the FBI, the CIA, DHS, and NCTC, which maintains the U.S. government’s database of classified identifying and substantive derogatory information on known or suspected terrorists. We also requested other federal agencies to identify relevant information they may have had prior to the bombings. These agencies included the Department of Defense (including the National Security Agency (NSA)), Department of State, Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, and the Drug Enforcement Administration."
The report on the failures to anticipate/stop the Boston Bombers barely mention the NSA. This is because the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Counterterrorism Center are in charge of counterterrorism, not the National Security Agency.
Or go to the NSA's own mission statement. (https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml)
"The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."
(Nothing to do with terrorism.)
Lots of news recently has called out Executive Order 12333's role in defining the goal and the means of intelligence capabilities. EO 12333 was passed in 1981. The Five Eyes, the key partnership of the NSA, has its origins in the 40's and ECHELON and other leaked programs (eg CARNIVORE/PREDATOR) predate 9/11 by decades.
The Snowden leaks disclose a list with over thirty countries with competing digital intelligence programs.
The NSA is not about terrorism. Never was. Never will be. The NSA and CSS are the intelligence arm of the United States. Austrilia's programs are similarly not about terrorism. Digital communications play a huge role in global communications and corporate and international power.
That's not to say there no domestic component to the programs. Domestic programs are also useful to track and disrupt radical ideas and organization within the country (MINERVA), and can also be used to incite discontent in other nations (look up the USAID Cuban Twitter program). Countries are able to manipulate the appearance of consensus within citizens of nations and in this way actually affect this consensus. (Look at the GCHQ programs leaks with BIRDSONG/BADGER/GATEWAY/SLIPSTREAM/ETC.) They also are used to monitor, detect and perform forensics on breaches from other countries.
There's so much to say, but I'll leave the comment with this. Digital communications are so insecure that the attackers always win. Always. And digital communications play a huge role (next to satellite and radio communications) in modern espionage and sabotage. If you just play a defensive game, you lose. The US feels it needs these capabilities. There's a sort of cyber cold war. Every country will lose if it decides not to play. So it doesn't really matter whether we want these programs or not as citizens - no vote is going to disarm nations at cyberwar.
[+] [-] chewxy|11 years ago|reply
I do not understand it. How can people say such things about one of the greatest inventions of the human species, that allowed us as a species to understand one another better?!? What goes in their mind when they say things like this?
[+] [-] quink|11 years ago|reply
He's also building the Titanic II. Nevertheless, this wasn't the stupidest thing heard in the Senate this week, which would be Chris Back's "Some people may be distressed to know maleness is actually suppressed femaleness".
Edit: Yes, I already know there's a TV show just waiting to be written out of the daily tales of Australian politics. No need to tell me. But the media here, controlled like politics by Rupert Murdoch, isn't going to be the one to do it.
You want to see the cover of the best selling newspaper on that day? Here it is: https://i.imgur.com/2TglCpg.jpg "Hellfire justice" indeed.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|11 years ago|reply
You could have said exactly the same two things about nuclear fission sixty years ago. In the bombs that will destroy us, in the power plants that will revolutionize us.
(That the bombs never destroyed us, and the power plants weren't everything we hoped, is not important)
[+] [-] davidjohnstone|11 years ago|reply
> The internet, while a tool which has revolutionised the way we live, work and operate, has also revolutionised the way sinister and criminal behaviour is orchestrated and undertaken across the world. The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence because of this. Therefore we must give ASIO and ASIS increased powers, capability and reach to do what must be done to protect, maintain and advance our safety and security.
Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
[+] [-] bigB|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Daneel_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonymon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gorhill|11 years ago|reply
Fastmail is in Australia, your comment seems relevant to me.
[+] [-] bramgg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freakonom|11 years ago|reply
This is true, where "our" refers to domestic spy agencies and the governments that consume their output.
Hence these laws.
[+] [-] flashman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deciplex|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Istof|11 years ago|reply
a government that wants to stay in power
[+] [-] bazfoo|11 years ago|reply
For instance, the definition of computer[1] that is being suggested to allow monitoring of the entire internet is:
Whereas the old definition[2] was: Both of these seem equivalent in my eyes. If so, the horse seems to have already bolted years ago.Frankly I have no idea where to go from here. How does one talk to your local MP when the details of the proposed legislation are so muddy?
[1]: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
[2]: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00613/Html/Text#_Toc3...
[+] [-] robryan|11 years ago|reply
Computer system I think could reasonably be though of as a local network. Whereas in [2] they are being more explicit to head off any issues with something wider.
There is really no pressure on them to limit the scope of this, it doesn't surprise me that they would go for the widest possible definition and then reign it in if there is an resistance.
[+] [-] XorNot|11 years ago|reply
The new definition plainly allows "one or more computer networks" which means literally the entire internet since it's just "one or more computer networks".
[+] [-] jpatokal|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fweabv|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beedogs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justin_l|11 years ago|reply
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/asio-boss-says-we-need-more...
> On the other side of the ledger, Mr Irvine admitted that the debate about civil liberties and intelligence gathering was a valid one to have.
> "I believe however that the vast majority of Australians expect their governments to take all necessary actions to protect their community and further the national interest," he said.
> He said ASIO has no plans for a "grand expansion" of its spy network but said it would need to lift recruitment to meet the demands or cyber terrorism as well as traditional forms of terror.
[+] [-] wazoox|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scribu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] transfire|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Khaine|11 years ago|reply
I do hope that the government tighten some of the definitions within the bill, rather then relying upon courts to narrow the interpretation.
[+] [-] hadoukenio|11 years ago|reply
Which now concerns me. Will WikiLeaks Party members be put on a list just like the ASIA targetted communists during the cold war?
[+] [-] dubcanada|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daemin|11 years ago|reply
It appears to me that regardless of who of the major parties was actually in power something like this would have come in.
[+] [-] hadoukenio|11 years ago|reply
For a second there, I thought I was reading about North Korea.
[+] [-] marak830|11 years ago|reply
I didnt leave Australia because of things like this, but it certainly makes me rethink returning.
[+] [-] javajosh|11 years ago|reply