Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Australian Parliament Approves Email Snooping 226

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the big-brother-is-reading dept.
brindafella writes "The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, reporting on a legislative change last week, says 'the [Australian] Government will have 12 months to access communications not only between the B-party and the suspect, but also between the B-party and anyone else. If you have unwittingly communicated with a suspect (and thereby become a B-party), the Government may be able to monitor all your conversations with family members, friends, work colleagues, your lawyer and your doctor.' The Australian Parliament's major parties combined to pass an amendment to the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1979."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australian Parliament Approves Email Snooping

Comments Filter:
  • by McGiraf (196030) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:48AM (#15055958) Homepage
    Before I wanted to go to Australia but I was scared, now i can go there feeling safe. I'm realy glad that they passed this law.
    • i think the reverse holds true for me. i _am_ scared now
    • I'm waiting for them to just sever all the Internet connections into and out of the country. I mean, it sounds like the country is run by a bunch of techno-scared religious people...ones that think if a 12 year old kid sees a naked boob they'll be scared for life or that everyone in the country is a potential criminal that emails they're master plan about.

      I don't know, but I think if I were up-to-no-good, I'd encrypt all my emails. Oh wait, got an idea: Hey Australia, maybe you should now ban encrypted emai
      • Yeah yeah, at least we dont crack a shit when we show tits on TV, the holly grail of
        stupid MOFO relegion MOFOs. We show tits, pussy, dicks, say FUCK everything on FTA tv. And no one cares.

        Every corner in every street magazine store/711 you can find porn and buy it. Whats your problem?

        At least if they snoop emails, they will catch the dodgy politicians and evil corporates.

        Real crims wont use email, they will either talk in person at a nude steam bath , or bar.

        Besides, how easy is it to setup your own encrpyt
  • by Elvis77 (633162) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:50AM (#15055960)
    I'm a programmer, I don't have any friends...
    • by Simon Garlick (104721) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @03:34AM (#15056077)
      -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
      Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2

      hQEMAyndGpy58lMCAQf/fyLAH++iB8hQSsAEN87ihbS8R6ZSjo nlXxSrGfiB/15J
      RUN3vfTkrDDpZPQtJtXNxAlykvKJRNd+pVz5NeITD5p2janveZ /SyezJA9mvNpsH
      hq2EkpTUZx7kp/bM20j9G3pJC+sh19B4iUbjV0L9s7VJ3NzZBh /k67b2gpGJ5ypf
      DWZMgI+8hNzyi6ldF7Wcv1iAqKH89OTQK1mdnyEsWjM8iu9hdd V4gl5tKWl/iVE8
      Z8rDxQk7N3s9dp17zsT2V9NIw1FfSpEPx4RknDbBtpPcyFNkN4 WqT2TBYEAFGofN
      Pcf2EGA5nDvhKbE1Zt8oIZX/jjz2eOOqAHu7XVgJwNJTAVBE89 7A+8o+Qrj2DST4
      +IuL7ibwweSJpniElDGuhsLX/fTDycXMkYAuhhazsdZcr6/YXr 3aNZTpTRcOnqlQ
      uMlCAwvuuBDf9pLaLIKzZEzNUnU=
      =R5l2
      -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
  • by syousef (465911) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:51AM (#15055962) Journal
    Seriously these politicians have just gone plain loopy and it's all because the labour party has gone into a tailspin.

    State labour in NSW (where Sydney is and the biggest state) has been unable to fix Sydney's transport problem and keeps closing roads around new tollways stuffing up public transport...not to mention they haven't been able to improve a constantly deteriorating health care system. Federal labour can't get enough votes to put up any serious opposition and the opposing party has a majority in both houses. The young labour party has recently been in the papers for calling for conscription - a total about face on their previous postion. Recently the labour party also did an about face on their position regarding forcing ISPs to filter pornography (and are now in favour of this with all of its technical problems). What's more they have personality issues within the party (nothing new in politics but this is when a party has to band together to survive).

    I'm an Australian who feels I have zero representation. Not one politician here is even trying to make this country better...not even for the votes.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe if those of us on the left had someone we felt comfortable voting for other than the Greens, who can be a bit loony... but as it is Beazley seems to be trying to outflank Howard on the right wing. Ten years and one month so far of covert and overt racism, blatant breaches of ministerial responsibility, and a complete lack of any decent opposition. Still, at least Australians feel can now safe wrapping themselves in the flag and bashing people of "Middle Eastern appearance", hey?
      • I say vote Greens. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by babbling (952366) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @05:06AM (#15056284)
        Considering this new bill, surely even if you're not a Greens supporter, you can at least agree that having a few more Greens politicians in parliament wouldn't be a bad idea, right?

        I don't really see what you mean by "loony", though. Everything they do seems to be in the interests of the people. Yes, maybe their policies wouldn't be "the best thing for the economy", but have you ever considered that always doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?

        Forget the economy. There are more important things in life than money.
        • I agree with you, but I'm always amazed at how the green option is supposed to be bad for the economy. That just doesn't make sense.

          Say you implemented the most draconian of green laws. This would mean all these companies had to spend money to get up to code. This would mean they'd have to hire people internally to find out and implement what needs to be done, and hire externally to get it done. They might have to hike prices up a bit, but there would be many, many new jobs created.

          So what exactly is the do
          • Say you implemented the most draconian of green laws. This would mean all these companies had to spend money to get up to code. This would mean they'd have to hire people internally to find out and implement what needs to be done, and hire externally to get it done. They might have to hike prices up a bit, but there would be many, many new jobs created.

            Sane Universe with Capital Mobility Controls: Firm goes belly up, no more jobs, no more money.

            The Real World: Firm flees to Mexico, no more jobs, no more

            • So you impose an 'earth tax' (or some other catchy name) on imports have their origin in countries which don't adhere to similar conservation laws.

              And please don't tell me that you can't do that in a free economy; they're allowed to regulate against asbestos but not against other polutants? Not only that, but protectionism is a fact in all first world countries already (which is why third world countries are having such a time trying to get a foor in the door). As for companies fleeing...no profit in that i
              • So you impose an 'earth tax' (or some other catchy name) on imports have their origin in countries which don't adhere to similar conservation laws.

                Which is a great idea, until you realize how monumentally unfair that standard would be for developing nations. Nations like the United States, for example, can by virtue of messily developing early, have the luxury of cutting emissions and sinking one part of the economy in favor of another (or in this case, creating one from whole cloth, which is why I mentio

            • What competitors? If capital cannot flee, then the same mechanisms (or force of law) can stop the capital or product inflows that compete. Something in your logic is flawed.
              • Why do all people think about economic problems in this abstract world where everyone starts from an equal original position? Some competitors have advantages over others; if an arbitrary restraint is imposed (like, say, an emissions tax or mandatory reduction), it will affect the members of that particular industry unequally. Now, (and this is the real key), if your goal is to encourage the growth of jobs tangential to the industry, then the last thing you want to do is impose a blanket restriction which
          • So what exactly is the downside to the economy?

            If I make 12000 widgets a year, and my company's expenses are $50000000 a year, I can sell my widgets for $5000 each and make a decent amount of money. If the Green Party (or any other - a tax increase does much the same thing) increases my expenses to $60000000 to meet their mandates, I need to raise my prices to $6000 each to cover my increased costs.

            Now, YOU aren't going to get a 20% salary increase just because my costs went up 20% to make a widget (and

        • Yea voting Green worked so well in the US.....
          • Yea voting Green worked so well in the US.....

            Completely irrelevant. Not only are the Greens in Australia a much more credible party with more representation, Australia has a proportional representation system that gives minor parties a much more significant voice and funding. It's not a completely two-party system like the US.

        • [A]lways doing what is "best for the economy" involves completely forgetting about social, ethical and moral considerations?

          Francis Fukuyama apparently thinks so [wikipedia.org]. Neo-Liberalism (and its more militant arm, Neo-Conservatism) agree with him. The plan is that all social structures are going to be destroyed in order to make a "society" of consumer bees who live only to buzz in a capitalist hive, while constantly watching markets to take immediate advantage of anything that passes near enough to be stung th
      • What's loony about the Greens? They have the most credible social and economic policies for the mid to long term, and Bob Brown is probably the only really honest politician on earth. How can anyone not admire Bob Brown? He's a pillar of integrity and sanity, amidst a sea of crackpot, corrupt bastards.
  • Typical of Australia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by caitsith01 (606117) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:54AM (#15055968) Journal
    This is typical of the current government's attitude to privacy and telecommunications. The Telecommunications Act already allows for seizure of computers and other equipment when it is 'connected with' offences under the Spam Act, for example. There is also evidence that the government has been confiscating and destroying [sbs.com.au] personal computers without a warrant when they contain 'sensitive' information.

    All of this is part of a broader lack of accountability, due process and transparency that is becoming part of the culture of Australian lawmaking. There is a good article on the subject here [theage.com.au].

    For those from more sensible countries, supposedly democratic Australia currently has the following features:

    1. One party entirely in control of both houses of parliament
    2. No bill of rights, either legislative or constitutional
    3. Legislation allowing for the arrest, detention, and interrogation without charge of persons not suspected of any offence if they may have information that is somehow relevant to a suspected terrorist offence; the onus of proof is reversed so that the person being interrogated must prove that they do NOT have any such information.
    4. One of the highest rates of phone tapping in the world
    5. Unelected bureacrats empowered to spy on Australians with no parliamentary oversight to speak of
    6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil
    7. New crimes of sedition for exercising free speech in a manner that encourages the overthrow of the government
    8. Troops in Iraq despite over 80% of the population opposing our involvement before the war
    At the moment we also have an extremely disturbing rise in racial and religious intolerance, which in my opinion is in no small part attributable to the federal government's policies and fearmongering on those issues. But of course, this doesn't stop us selling weapons-grade uranium to China [news.com.au] because they weeeeally promise to use it for civilian purposes only.
    • Curious that you consider some kind of bill of rights to be necessary for a democracy... In a true democracy, it's totally ok for anyone to be screwed over in every kind of way so long as the majority of voters don't dissent.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @04:15AM (#15056167)
      In the good ol' U S of A:

      1. One party entirely in control of both houses of parliament
      Check!
      2. No bill of rights, either legislative or constitutional
      Ok, you got us there
      3. Legislation allowing for the arrest, detention, and interrogation without charge of persons not suspected of any offence if they may have information that is somehow relevant to a suspected terrorist offence; the onus of proof is reversed so that the person being interrogated must prove that they do NOT have any such information.
      Pfft, legislation is for dweebs. Just ask Dubya
      4. One of the highest rates of phone tapping in the world
      Hmm, don't know enough to comment, sorry
      5. Unelected bureacrats empowered to spy on Australians with no parliamentary oversight to speak of
      Elected officials empowering agencies to spy on Americans with no oversight to speak of, check!
      6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil
      Check!
      7. New crimes of sedition for exercising free speech in a manner that encourages the overthrow of the government
      Check! But really, see #3
      8. Troops in Iraq despite over 80% of the population opposing our involvement before the war
      Dunno about 80%, but sure does feel way over 50...

      At the moment we also have an extremely disturbing rise in racial and religious intolerance, which in my opinion is in no small part attributable to the federal government's policies and fearmongering on those issues. But of course, this doesn't stop us selling weapons-grade uranium to China because they weeeeally promise to use it for civilian purposes only.
      Check!

      Sadly, this looks like the state of affairs all around the world :(
      • 6. Several semi-secret US intelligence bases operating on our soil

        Heh. Just thought I should point out that this is more of an issue for Australia than the U.S.
    • Tell me about it.

      I made a conscious decision to leave the US and return to Australia because I didn't have a lot of faith in the way things were going in the US.

      You can imagine my horror over the last 18 months.
      - federal 'monopoly' of both houses of parliament. WTF happened to the Democrats whose motto was 'keep the bastards honest'?
      - Howard bends over and takes it deeply and willingly on copyright/patents for the US trade agreement while gaining nothing for the primary industry
      - Australian Wheat Board. Fuc
  • Links? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vk2tds (175334) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @02:57AM (#15055973)
    Not sure if anyone has looked at the links to this article, but the text to the amendment to the act cited at the end of the article was approved in 2004, and is not related at all. In fact the amendment to the act was slightly changed with an 18 month period listed instead of 12 months.

    The admenment act is basically just, as far as I can tell, making some parts of the act plainer, saying that a router which buffers packets in memory is not actually storing those packets just because it needs to store them for a few milliseconds. It also clarifies that VoIP is not stored communications.

    Any citations of the actual amendment?

    Darryl
  • by TheNoxx (412624) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @03:02AM (#15055992) Homepage Journal
    Why is the Australian government even doing this? Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia? Do they really think there will be one in the future? What's the point, other than crushing freedom?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      1 - Get court order on a spammer.
      2 - Wait for spammer to email everyone in Australia.
      3 - Become legally entitled to monitor all Australians at will.
    • Actually a cadre of extremists were arrested in both Sydney and Melbourne and were charged with a slew of new terrorsism related offenses. It was thought the arrests had effectively prevented an attack on Australian soil.
      • Did you perhaps notice that they were able to catch these "extremists" WITHOUT the draconian legislative changes they're trying to introduce?

        Maybe that means they've already got all the tools they need - in which case, why do they need this?
      • by lorelorn (869271) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @05:54AM (#15056377)
        Actually it was claimed the arrests had stopped an attack on Australian soil. The media duly repeated this claim without comment or question, so now it has become somehow relevant.

        The fact is, a group of people from an increasingly vilified minority in Australia were arrested and are being held without formal charges being laid or evidence tendered.

        They are being held under dubious new laws that extend the amount of time someone can be held without formal charges or evidence.

        I expect they will be held for several months and then released without charge, trial, or comment in the media.

    • Control of your population. That's in democracies even more important than in dictatorships where you got easier means to make sure everyone stays in line.

      Given the choice, I'd prefer the danger of a bomb on my head to the golden cage. Unfortunately, we don't get the choice.
    • Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia?

      Rightly or wrongly, the "2002 Bali bombings [wikipedia.org] is percieved as such:
      The largest group among those killed were holiday-makers from Australia. The Bali bombing is sometimes called "Australia's September 11" because of the large number of its citizens killed in the attack.
    • "Why is the Australian government even doing this?"

      It is in our constitution that what the USA does our government must try to go "one better". It used to be about having cattle stations bigger than a Texan ranch (maybe even bigger than Texas?). Nowadys its all about who can find the most terrorists.

      "Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia?"

      No, Aussies have been targeted in three major Indonesian attacks over the last few years. We have had some "minor" attacks in the past from neo
    • Why is the Australian government even doing this? Has there been any major terrorist attack on Australia? Do they really think there will be one in the future?

      Well, they jumped gung-ho into the Iraq invasion, which didn't work out too well for the UKs "zero islamic terrorism evar!!!" record on one warm, sunny July morning in 2005.

      Despite our politicians attempts to mislead us from the truth, these terrorists don't hate freedom. They hate our actions, and rightly so. And now they hate Austrailia as well

  • *sigh* (Score:4, Funny)

    by phreakv6 (760152) <phreakv6@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @03:05AM (#15056002) Homepage
    "the Government may be able to monitor all your conversations with family members, friends, work colleagues, your lawyer and your doctor."

    ..and my SPAM too. good luck with tracing the person selling me viarga for years
  • Chain letter (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kooshvt (86122) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @03:15AM (#15056026)
    Just start a chain letter to everyone you know and make sure to CC all the politicians so they will also be subject to monitoring. Let them know they have now become a B-party. If every politician becomes a B-party to every citizen they may reconsider their actions.
    • Re:Chain letter (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Boronx (228853)
      They will demure from spying on anyone of consequence who might object and derail their plans. Their lists will be continually culled of the famous and the politically connected.
  • Welcome to 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @03:39AM (#15056087) Homepage
    Welcome to the totalitarian world.

    The excuse for all of this is "the rise in global terrorism", well if that were really the reason then the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies.

    The reasons are deeper than that, terrorism is an excuse that is brought out as a bogey man to try to provide justification for further infringements of civil liberites. The Tony Blair, in the UK, is now pushing an act [saveparliament.org.uk] that will allow any government minister to change almost any bit of legislation without having to bother to pursuade parliament to agree.

    We will suffer for sleep walking to a state where unelected civil servants have the power to snoop on us without any real oversight. This will be abused by these civil servants for their own personal ends.

    You thought that Russia 20 years ago was bad - we will have it far worse.

    • Re:Welcome to 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pe1chl (90186) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @04:31AM (#15056215)
      the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies

      It has amazed me for a long time that major politicians fail to see this, or at least act as if they do so.
      5 years go, all "free western country" politicians were telling you that freedom was the highest goal in life, that communism was lack of freedom and so it was bad, that totalitarian governments were evil, etc.
      They were also claiming they would never negotiate with - or give in to terrorists because that would mean the end of this sacred freedom.

      And now, they are taking away all freedom at will to "combat" a problem that is mostly caused by their own behaviour. Freedom suddenly is worth nothing, now "security" is the buzzword. All other priorities and values have to give way to this.

      Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?
      Terrorism is a byproduct of fighting wars against defenseless minority groups, and so fighting a war against terrorism is completely counter-productive.
      • Re:Welcome to 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by slavemowgli (585321)

        Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?

        It would, if curbing terrorism really was the goal, but it isn't. The actual goals are (in no particular order):

        • Money
        • Power (including control of every aspect of people's lifes)

        Terrorism is useful because it keeps the population scared. Politicians can't publicly support or endorse it, of course, but they can act in a manner that they full well know will increase te

        • If politicians really cared about solving the problem, they'd take a look at how christian missionaries operate, for example. Not that I'm advocating missionary work, but you can't deny that they're successful - don't tell people that they're all a bunch of subhuman heathens, but rather set a good example;

          I don't think you have much idea of how Christian missions work. Most of them do not set good examples (quite the opposite) but instead focus on telling the indigenous that they are subhuman, and forcing

      • Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?

        Better for whom?

        Better for us, or better for the ruling elites?

        Might it not be better for the elites that we always "fighting a war"?
    • The reasons are deeper than that, terrorism is an excuse that is brought out as a bogey man to try to provide justification for further infringements of civil liberites. The Tony Blair, in the UK, is now pushing an act that will allow any government minister to change almost any bit of legislation without having to bother to pursuade parliament to agree.

      I guess the movie V for Vendetta is a reply to Tony Blair.
    • We will suffer for sleep walking to a state where unelected civil servants have the power to snoop on us without any real oversight. This will be abused by these civil servants for their own personal ends.

      Personally I think the situation will be less like Big Brother, and more so like Brazil (the movie). A dystopian world where bureaucracy is king, civil servants have enormous unchecked power, civil rights are non existant, but a place where people, on the whole, simply accept the situation, as it is not ye
    • Re:Welcome to 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by glesga_kiss (596639) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @06:46AM (#15056498)
      The excuse for all of this is "the rise in global terrorism", well if that were really the reason then the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies.

      ARGGHHHH! Stop it, stop it, STOP IT RIGHT THERE!!

      They do not hate our freedom. They don't want us to change our countries. They don't want you to lose unrestricted travel. While they might think your lifestyle is immoral, as long as you are on the other side of the world, they'll happilly let you reserve your place in the Islamic equivalent of hell.

      What they do hate is the policies of our governments. They hate how we have interfered in their own governments for our own ends. They hate how we overthrow their democraticly elected governments with crackpot dictators, and then give those dictatorships/monarchies the arms and financial means to survive. They hate how we used them in Afganistan to fight the soviets, then turned on them when it suited us. Al Qaida used to be our friend; the name itself was given to them by the CIA and they adopted it themselves.

      Every time someone says "the terrorists have already won", the only winner is liars such as Bush and Blair who claim it is a war on freedom. Until people start calling them out publically on these patriotic-manipulation lies, things like Austrailia's email snooping habits will be the tip of the iceberg.

      • I've been trying to explain this to people for months now. Applause.
      • They do not hate our freedom.

        Despite the fact that they've specifically stated so?

        They hate how we overthrow their democraticly elected governments with crackpot dictators, and then give those dictatorships/monarchies the arms and financial means to survive.

        You're getting normal middle-easterners mixed up with the terrorists. Very sloppy. The terrorists (Islamic theocrats) have always been against democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. They've even published books saying so. They'v

        • Re:Welcome to 1984 (Score:3, Informative)

          by glesga_kiss (596639)
          Despite the fact that they've specifically stated so?

          When? Cite a time and place where they say they want to remove personal freedom in the USA. Bush says "they hate freedom" often enough, but it doesn't make it true. Banging the freedom and liberty drum is a great way to get patriotic Americans on side, without them asking too many questions.

          You're getting normal middle-easterners mixed up with the terrorists. Very sloppy. The terrorists (Islamic theocrats) have always been against democracy, freedom

    • The excuse for all of this is "the rise in global terrorism", well if that were really the reason then the terrorists have won, they have fundamentally changed our societies.

      Right. The only thing I can see is a "rise in global totalitarianism" in our very countries. Australia is not alone; in just about every western country (including here in switzerland) the fascist buggers in government increase in numbers and get more and more of a problem. It's not only the usual suspects (the right wing patriots, raci
  • by Malor (3658) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @04:25AM (#15056198) Journal
    With the six degrees of separation thing, and careful choices of 'suspects', they can probably get a 90% surveillance rate by declaring only a couple of thousand primary targets.

    In other words, as far as I can see, the Australian Parliament has just decreed that the government can read all the email it likes, whenever it likes.

    If I were in charge, and unscrupulous, the first person I'd declare a suspect would be the chief of the opposition party.

  • Redneck agenda.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MickDownUnder (627418) on Tuesday April 04, 2006 @05:25AM (#15056314)
    This does not surprise me, as an Australian I can say that I've definitely noticed a slide into a very right wing agenda here. The current government is right wing and has an absolute majority in our parliament, meaning they can pretty much pass any law or any bill they want without the chance it might be vetoed by opposition parties.

    I've been out of Australia for quite some time, I've found there to be quite a contrast to the Australia I left more than a year ago. I arrived back here just a couple of days before the Cronulla Race Riots [wikipedia.org]. Since then our leaders have been spouting racist generalisations [news.com.au]. There has been a large police crack down, the muslim community have made many claims [abc.net.au] that they are being unfairly targeted, I can personally verify this as on two occasions I've personally witnessed police unfairly targeting muslim men. I've also noticed since the riots (where our flag was used as a symbol of racial hatred), many police cars have had Australian flags mounted to their cars. I can't help thinking this is a sign of solidarity with the rascist mob.

    I really don't even know how these riots could have occurred without police complicity. We have Racial Villification Laws [hreoc.gov.au] here in Australia, that if they were applied that day could have been used to arrest most of the mob that day before any violence even began.

    And with all this, in the background we have our detention [tear.org.au] camps in which whole families including children have been kept in detention. There have been cases where children have basically grown up in detention.

    Unless there's a big turn around here I think the future for Australia could be something straight out of Huxely's Brave New World or 1984.
    • I think the solution to racism is to legalise and regulate it.

      There should be a department that operates a bit like match.com and matches together two people who want to kill each other. Then you put them in a room together and let one of the idiots kill the other idiot. This way it is off the streets and racists can eliminate each other in a way that does not affect reasonable people.
      • by dangitman (862676)
        Most racists are too gutless to actually back up their threats. Instead, they would just rather the police lock them away, or have them live as an underclass. It's not really the hardcore, overt racists who are the real problem - they are obvious enough to ignore. It's the people who don't think they are racist "...but" who are the cancer on society.
  • by smash (1351)
    Right, PGP email for me from now on :)

    smash (aussie)

    • "Only troublemakers with something to hide encrypt their communications! Take his computer! Return it in six months with a cracked motherboard and no hard drive! That'll teach him a lesson . . . . ."

      "Should we get a warrant?"

      "Fuck no! Do you want to do all that paperwork?"

      And so, the smartass nerd loses to the corrupt bureaucrats. This has been another episode of Postmodern Democracy. Tune in next week when a cleared suspect gets beaten and detained for reporting a crime! (Oh wait, that was last wee
  • Who'd want to wade through a ton of junk mail when snooping in someone's private communication?
  • by keyne9 (567528)
    In Soviet Australia, Government monitors YOU.

    ...oh, wait.
  • If you have unwittingly communicated with a suspect (and thereby become a B-party), the Government may be able to monitor all your conversations

    Technically, they can force some "suspect" just to communicate with you to be able to monitor you. From then, they declare you suspect...
  • Everyone is a criminal anyway, right?

    Yet another excuse to invade our privacy. Id say thankfully i dont live there, but it will be like that here soon anyway.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...