Proof you can't trust Labor on the net filter...

[hutch]

A bit long winded but I strongly recommend you read it, follow the link and have a look at the document...I reckon this is criminal....

"The federal government has censored approximately 90 per cent of a secret document outlining its controversial plans to snoop on Australians' web surfing, obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws, out of fear the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate".

The government has been consulting with the internet industry over the proposal, which would require ISPs to store certain internet activities of all Australians - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.

All parties to the consultations have been sworn to secrecy.

Industry sources have claimed that the controversial regime could go as far as collecting the individual web browsing history of every Australian internet user, a claim denied by the spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland.

The exact details of the web browsing data the government wants ISPs to collect are contained in the document released to this website under FoI.

The document was handed out to the industry during a secret briefing it held with ISPs in March.

But from the censored document released, it is impossible to know how far the government is planning to take the policy.

The government is hiding the plans from the public and it appears to want to move quickly on industry consultation, asking for participants to respond within only one month after it had held the briefings.

The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez, wrote in her decision in releasing the highly censored document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making".

Hernandez said that the material in question related to information the department was "currently weighing up and evaluating in relation to competing considerations that may have a bearing on a particular course of action or decision".

"More specifically, it is information concerning the development of government policy which has not been finalised, and there is a strong possibility that the policy will be amended prior to public consultation," she wrote.

Further, she said that although she had acknowledged the public's right to "participate in and influence the processes of government decision making and policy formulation ... the premature release of the proposal could, more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression".

"In addition, as the matters are not settled and proposed recommendations may not necessarily be adopted, release of such documents would not make a valuable contribution to public debate."

Hernandez went further to say that she considered disclosure of the document uncensored "could be misleading to the public and cause confusion and premature and unnecessary debate".

"In my opinion, the public interest factors in favour of release are outweighed by those against," Hernandez said.

The "data retention regime" the government is proposing to implement is similar to that adopted by the European Union after terrorist attacks several years ago.

Greens Communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said the excuse not to release the proposal in full was "extraordinary". Since finding out about the scheme, he has launched a Senate inquiry into it and other issues.

"The idea that its release could cause 'premature' or 'unnecessary' debate is not going to go down well with the thousands of people who have been alarmed by the direction that government is taking," he said in a telephone interview.

"I would really like to know what the government is hiding in this proposal," he said, adding that he hoped that the Attorney-General's Department would be "more forthcoming" about the proposal in the senate inquiry into privacy he pushed for in June.

Online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs said what was released was "a joke".

"We have to assume the worse," he said. "And that is that the government has been badgering the telcos with very aggressive demands that should worry everybody."

Jacobs said that the onus was now on government to "explain what data they need, what problem it solves and, just as importantly, why it can't be done in an open process".

"The more sensitive the process and the data they want, the more transparent the government needs to be about why it wants that data," he said. "Nobody could argue that public consultation ... would somehow help criminals," he added.

"We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about people having insight into the consultation.

"This is a very sensitive and important issue. It raises huge questions about privacy, data security and the burden of increased costs to smaller internet service providers. What really needs to be debated is what particular information they want, because that's where the privacy issue rears its ugly head," he said.

According to one internet industry source, the release of the highly censored document was "illustrative of government's approach to things where they don't want people to know what they're thinking in advance of them getting it ready to package for public consumption".

"And that’s worrying."

The Attorney-General's spokesman declined to comment, referring comment to the department. The department said it had "nothing to add" to the FOI letter it provided".

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html?autostart=1

[Rabaelthazar]

The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez, wrote in her decision in releasing the highly censored document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making".

 

Eurgh. That's bloody scary talk.

[hutch]

Eurgh. That's bloody scary talk.

 

Not just scary mate...but extremely dangerous...bit by bit we loose more and more of our freedoms and rights. I'm sick to death of it....government policy is supposed to be influenced by the people...not done behind our backs...Honey, go get my gun

Edited July 23, 2010 by hutch

[Chiral]

"The federal government has censored approximately 90 per cent of a secret document outlining its controversial plans to snoop on Australians' web surfing, obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws, out of fear the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate".

All parties to the consultations have been sworn to secrecy.

Hernandez went further to say that she considered disclosure of the document uncensored "could be misleading to the public and cause confusion and premature and unnecessary debate".

"In my opinion, the public interest factors in favour of release are outweighed by those against," Hernandez said.

Jacobs said that the onus was now on government to "explain what data they need, what problem it solves and, just as importantly, why it can't be done in an open process".

"The more sensitive the process and the data they want, the more transparent the government needs to be about why it wants that data," he said. "Nobody could argue that public consultation ... would somehow help criminals," he added.

 

The Australian Democratic Dictatorship public colony..looking after you so you don't have to worry so much.

[13thdimensionconnection]

This does not bode well for the future of our liberties.

[mr me]

I'm very disappointed that the Libs have not been ripping into this policy. I've not met one person to think a web filter is a good idea.

[botanika]

This article is biased fear mongering. Don't panic

[Chiral]

You'd be surprised how many people don't even have a clue any of this is happening, I work in media and so far 100% of the supposed "hi tech savvy young people" there don't know what I'm trying to tell them.

[hutch]

This article is biased fear mongering. Don't panic

 

Biased fear mongering by whom...Me, the SMH or Ben Grubb? I hope your right mate but there is definitely and agenda out there to take more control of Australian citizens. Now I remember this bloke by the name of Adolph...he had this grand vision for the future...convinced a shit load of people that his ways were for the best..Not only did he say don't panic but he said "moving forward together"(it was in German but)...now thats scary

[Magicdirt]

It's about time we caught up with some of the more "progressive" countries like China and Iran, all we need now is state executions.

Maybe we need our own Red Square where we can go and stand up for our rights too.

[botanika]

Biased fear mongering by whom...Me, the SMH or Ben Grubb? I hope your right mate but there is definitely and agenda out there to take more control of Australian citizens. Now I remember this bloke by the name of Adolph...he had this grand vision for the future...convinced a shit load of people that his ways were for the best..Not only did he say don't panic but he said "moving forward together"(it was in German but)...now thats scary

 

The article. I don't support a strict internet filter either BTW. The government and key private interests are sure to have a variety of agenda's for such a proposal. The document in question, however, is not even named in the article let alone put into context with the entire process. Its title is 'Carrier-Carriage Service Provider Data Sheet, Consultation Paper'. The article suggests the document is 'secret' but it only reads it 'is provided in confidence and not to be distributed outside your organization' further more adding 'no decisions have been made by the government in relation to this proposal'. Nothing out of the ordinary for departmental affairs. The document has no marks of official secret classification or any evidence of what the ISP filter proposal in its entire finalized form, prior to public consultation, will look like. The document is 90% blacked out and many claims are made why it is censored but even if you could see all of the document it would only confirm government discussion not decision. The statement from the GA's legal officer outlines that the document is 'un-finalized, likely to be amended and could create a misleading and confusing impression if released prematurely'. The document itself specifies its intent 'to stimulate discussion...used to inform government consideration'. The SMH article creates exactly what the document was heavily censored for in the first place: a 'missleading and confusing impression'. It makes claims but proves little. It's kind of like building approvals; It doesn't matter so much what your neighbor and their architect 'secretly' discuss or consult, your objection is effective when your neighbor actually lodges a DA with formal intent to build. I can't say whether the government has our best interests at heart with this issue but the article doesn't do anything to persuade me either way. We need to see finalized policy.

Ultimately though data collection and the management of the information age is not going to be without control both from governments and industries. Too much money and intelligence data to be had. Liberty sells but who's buying?

Edited July 25, 2010 by botanika

[botanika]

It's about time we caught up with some of the more "progressive" countries like China and Iran, all we need now is state executions.

Maybe we need our own Red Square where we can go and stand up for our rights too.

 

Caught up? In many ways we exceed them. Look at our parliament house - its an underground bomb shelter and the parliamentary triangle is about as totalitarian as you can get. One axis leads to defence, one axis leads to industry. Our parliament house symbolizes our country neatly. Our wealth and leadership underground in a mine, while on top are the tourist luring aboriginal motif's, Banjo Paterson poems and furry kangaroo's.

Edited July 25, 2010 by botanika

[hutch]

The article. I don't support a strict internet filter either BTW. The document in question, however, is not even named in the article let alone put into context with the entire process. Its title is 'Carrier-Carriage Service Provider Data Sheet, Consultation Paper'. The article suggests the document is 'secret' but it only reads it 'is provided in confidence and not to be distributed outside your organization' further more adding 'no decisions have been made by the government in relation to this proposal'. The document has no marks of official secret classification or any evidence of what the ISP filter proposal in its entire final form, prior to public consultation, will look like. The statement from the GA's legal officer is not scary at all - it outlines very succinctly that the document is 'un-finalized, likely to be amended and could create a misleading and confusing impression'. The document itself specifies its intent 'to stimulate discussion...used to inform government consideration'. The GA's legal officer is correct because the SMH article creates exactly what the document was heavily censored for in the first place: a 'missleading and confusing impression'. Its kind of like a building approval, It doesn't matter so much what your neighbor and their architect 'secretly' sketch around with on some loose bits of paper, your objection is effective when your neighbor actually lodges a DA.

The ISP filter has a lot of potentially contentious issues and I don't deny the seriousness of those issues or action against them. This particular article just seems like news-filler to me and we need to see finalized policy that we can accurately address and shape instead of censored version 1. consultation drafts. Ultimately though data collection and the management of the information age is not going to be without control both from governments and industries. Too much money and intelligence (as in AIC) to be had. Liberty sells but who's buying?

 

Now lets see..on one hand we have a new citizens assembly to nut out the climate change issue and develop a new policy with consensus "Moving Forward"(giggle giggle) and on the other we have a policy that is in production that is a clear danger to the people and they don't wont it debated!!!!!...Your politics are clearly showing? So is mine

[botanika]

Now lets see..on one hand we have a new citizens assembly to nut out the climate change issue and develop a new policy with consensus "Moving Forward"(giggle giggle) and on the other we have a policy that is in production that is a clear danger to the people and they don't wont it debated!!!!!...Your politics are clearly showing? So is mine

 

Im not left or right, I am your comrade! Come we go for vodka and potato. It's good no?

Actually seriously I am not inclined to any party at the moment as Im living overseas in one of the countries previously mentioned so Im also already used to bypassing strict net filters. I've already been 'moved forward' .

The ISP policy will be debated when the decisions are formalized. Don't know if we'll ultimately stop it though in the long run, its part and parcel of the information world we have. I know Im sounding fatalist but australia has some pretty strict laws already in place (ie speeding, smoking, quarantine etc), this is just par for the course.

Achtung