The Australian government makes the rules and the tax office implements them.
It seems Apple have complied with the rules.
If a majority of Australians are unhappy with what has happened, the correct response is to change the rules.
You are correct, however corporate media will spin this on behalf of the corrupt/immoral politicians that serve large corporations and keep the citizens in the ignorance. Lots of fuzzy warm feel good sound bites like "trade deals allowing tax breaks to foreign companies are good for our farmers", "allow us to grow our export industry" etc etc despite little actual evidence after decades of such deals being in place. Australians are particularly at risk of the corporate media chamber given that Murdoch Media empire has around 70% of the market last I heard, with the runners-up mostly echoing the same spin and propaganda,
Many Australians are big on their "buy Australian"/logo marketing for locally made products. It must be frustrating when your own corrupt politicians go out of their way to offshore as much corporate profit as possible, offsetting any gains that might have been made encouraging local industries...
Media leaks legislation?
When did the US Government become an enemy of freedom?
The moment the political class concerned itself more with the accumulation of,power and money for a few, rather than say running the country in a balanced manner for the greater good of all its citizens. Media leaks mean Informed Citizens, which may threaten corrupt power slightly more than if the citizens were left in the dark.
yep that's the one. I wouldn't trust Tor network as an anonymity service for anything, let alone something I really wanted to keep secret.
Tor is solid, are you and the GP trying to deceive, or have you been decieved?
Would you like to know more? "How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations"
But apparently the authors of IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) Internet-Draft "Explicit Trusted Proxy in HTTP/2.0" (14 Feb 2014) haven't gotten the message.
What they propose for the new HTTP/2.0 protocol is nothing short of officially sanctioned snooping."
Link to Original Source
There is speculation that this could well be the security hole which the NSA exploited to insert the DROPOUTJEEP software implant, probably using automatic updates via SSL. DROPOUTJEEP, whose existence was revealed by Edward Snowden, targets the Apple iPhone (but could conceivably be used on all other iOS devices) and allows the NSA to "remotely push/pull files from the device. SMS retrieval, contact list retrieval, voicemail, geolocation, hot mic, camera capture, cell tower location, etc. Command, control and data exfiltration can occur over SMS messaging or a GPRS data connection.All communications with the implant will be covert and encrypted.”
Apple, of course, denies that the NSA can access or are accessing iOS devices as Snowden's leaked documents claim. Still, there is no denying that such a bug is a major flaw, and allows iOS and Mac OS to be exploited by malicious persons.
The court ultimately ruled that the government had a legitimate reason to believe that David Miranda was involved with people who were at the time acting or threatening to act in a manner which was designed to influence a government and forward a political agenda, and those acts had the potential to cause death or serious property damage. All those appear true on their face, and thus the law states the detainment was legal.
That is a real stretch, you do know how ridiculous that sounds? First lets be clear: "involved with people" means The Guardian Newpaper and its journalists working on the story. Secondly you could use the same argument to start raiding and shutting down any media outlet you felt like and start detaining anyone the journalists ever related with - family and all. Real Gestapo tactics.
Every media outlet acts in a manner that could be interpreted as designed to influence a government. It could be argued that any newspaper/journalist is forwarding some political agenda. And the most ridiculous claim by Lord "Justice" Laws: "if [some leaked data that we can imagine might possibly be in the medias hands] was published, it [might for example] reveal personal details of members of the armed forces or security and intelligence agencies, thereby endangering their lives.". Neither Lord "Justice" Laws nor the security apparatus knows (by their own admission) what or how much data was leaked by Snowden, nor has any such data that "reveals personal details of members of the armed forces or security and intelligence agencies" been leaked or published by The Guardian or anyone else publishing Snowden material.
Lord "Justice" Laws might have just as easily said with the same straight face: "We do not know what data they have, but if they happen to have plans for top secrete weapons, and publish it, then they will endanger everyones lives.". So basically what the high court has done is make up a possible threat in order to get the ruling they wanted (or were told to get more likely).
No, what Lord "Justice" Laws really did was cover for unaccountable entities operating in the dark with little to no oversight, Exposing their illegal activities and a call for oversight and transparency is a fundamental obligation of any free independent press concerned with the wellbeing of society. This ruling only hints at how desperate they want to be able to raid Media outlets that start exposing their wrongdoing through responsible whistleblowing. We are already way down that slippery slope it seems, so I guess that it is only a matter of time now...