Learn from the mistakes of others

Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Australia AG considering sedition laws revision
Jaime Jansen at 12:10 PM ET

[JURIST] Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock [official website] said Tuesday that he is willing to revise [ABC World Today transcript] Australia's new sedition laws [summary], particularly the use of the word "sedition," after the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) [official website] released a discussion paper [text] Monday arguing that "sedition" implies a threat to free speech [press release; ALRC sedition materials]. He indicated, however, that he will not act on the ALRC's recommendation until it submits a final report.

The ALRC, the independent federal statutory agency charged with conducting official inquiries into areas for possible legal reform, rejected an argument put forth by Australia's three major news organizations that the sedition laws dealing with the incitement of terrorism are excessive and should not be applied to major media outlets [JURIST report]. The ALRC nonetheless suggested changing the term "sedition" to "offenses against political liberty and public order," while also recommending 24 other changes to clearly state that the sedition laws only target people seeking to overthrow the government through violence, and not members of the arts community using political satire. Australia's sedition laws were enacted late last year as part of sweeping anti-terrorism legislation [JURIST report].

The Australian has more.

Sedition is an ancient offence (and a reasonably consistent one until very recently) that consisted of covert behaviour aimed at inciting others to overthrow of the public good order or disruption of good governance. So encouraging others to do something.

Treason consisted of acts directed to undermining your lawful government's capacity to wage war on the enemy. That is, you directly assist the enemy in some way.

Australia's new sedition laws seem to conflate the two in ugly ways. No only that, but the language is very broad - potentially capturing a huge range of normally acceptable democratic activities.

What has been more difficult to understand - as a lawyer - is why the law was brought into effect in the first place while intending to have the efficacy and even appropriateness of the law [and the offence of sedition itself] examined by the ALRC only a few months later. The ALRC did not take long to pencil in it's immediate concerns (as much of the legal profession generally across Australia had done back when the law was first leaked out of the secret process it was originally floated within and we got our first look at it).

Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Australia AG considering sedition laws revision
Jaime Jansen at 12:10 PM ET

[JURIST] Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock [official website] said Tuesday that he is willing to revise [ABC World Today transcript] Australia's new sedition laws [summary], particularly the use of the word "sedition," after the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) [official website] released a discussion paper [text] Monday arguing that "sedition" implies a threat to free speech [press release; ALRC sedition materials]. He indicated, however, that he will not act on the ALRC's recommendation until it submits a final report.

The ALRC, the independent federal statutory agency charged with conducting official inquiries into areas for possible legal reform, rejected an argument put forth by Australia's three major news organizations that the sedition laws dealing with the incitement of terrorism are excessive and should not be applied to major media outlets [JURIST report]. The ALRC nonetheless suggested changing the term "sedition" to "offenses against political liberty and public order," while also recommending 24 other changes to clearly state that the sedition laws only target people seeking to overthrow the government through violence, and not members of the arts community using political satire. Australia's sedition laws were enacted late last year as part of sweeping anti-terrorism legislation [JURIST report].

The Australian has more.

Sedition is an ancient offence (and a reasonably consistent one until very recently) that consisted of covert behaviour aimed at inciting others to overthrow of the public good order or disruption of good governance. So encouraging others to do something.

Treason consisted of acts directed to undermining your lawful government's capacity to wage war on the enemy. That is, you directly assist the enemy in some way.

Australia's new sedition laws seem to conflate the two in ugly ways. No only that, but the language is very broad - potentially capturing a huge range of normally acceptable democratic activities.

What has been more difficult to understand - as a lawyer - is why the law was brought into effect in the first place while intending to have the efficacy and even appropriateness of the law [and the offence of sedition itself] examined by the ALRC only a few months later. The ALRC did not take long to pencil in it's immediate concerns (as much of the legal profession generally across Australia had done back when the law was first leaked out of the secret process it was originally floated within and we got our first look at it).

Police peeked at database files
Padraic Murphy
MAY 19, 2006

DOZENS of Victorian police officers are facing disciplinary action after an internal investigation discovered that sensitive personal files about a number of people, including a well-known TV personality, had been accessed without permission.The latest security breaches follow years of police file bungles and allegations officers regularly access the highly sensitive LEAP database without authorisation and for their own amusement.

An audit of the Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which contains the personal details of millions of Victorians, has revealed as many as 35 officers inappropriately accessed information between September and April of people including friends, family and, in at least one case, a television star.

Five officers have been fined while a further 30 are awaiting disciplinary hearings.

The latest breaches were seized on by new Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu, who called on strife-hit Police Minister Tim Holding to resign. "Time's up, Tim. You've had enough chances. This is a debacle and the minister ought to call it quits," Mr Baillieu said.

"Steve Bracks should step in now to take control of this issue and fix it once and for all. We cannot continue to have a culture where people's privacy, their police database, is exposed to every whim and call of police officers."

But Mr Holding resisted calls for his resignation, saying the discovery of the breaches was evidence the force's in-house auditing system worked.

"We want police to get the message that they will be caught if they use LEAP improperly." he said. "These people were caught because police regularly audit the system to ensure it is being used correctly."

Victorian Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon attempted to play down the latest breaches but admitted she was disturbed by the number of officers snared in the audit.

Police peeked at database files
Padraic Murphy
MAY 19, 2006

DOZENS of Victorian police officers are facing disciplinary action after an internal investigation discovered that sensitive personal files about a number of people, including a well-known TV personality, had been accessed without permission.The latest security breaches follow years of police file bungles and allegations officers regularly access the highly sensitive LEAP database without authorisation and for their own amusement.

An audit of the Law Enforcement Assistance Program, which contains the personal details of millions of Victorians, has revealed as many as 35 officers inappropriately accessed information between September and April of people including friends, family and, in at least one case, a television star.

Five officers have been fined while a further 30 are awaiting disciplinary hearings.

The latest breaches were seized on by new Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu, who called on strife-hit Police Minister Tim Holding to resign. "Time's up, Tim. You've had enough chances. This is a debacle and the minister ought to call it quits," Mr Baillieu said.

"Steve Bracks should step in now to take control of this issue and fix it once and for all. We cannot continue to have a culture where people's privacy, their police database, is exposed to every whim and call of police officers."

But Mr Holding resisted calls for his resignation, saying the discovery of the breaches was evidence the force's in-house auditing system worked.

"We want police to get the message that they will be caught if they use LEAP improperly." he said. "These people were caught because police regularly audit the system to ensure it is being used correctly."

Victorian Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon attempted to play down the latest breaches but admitted she was disturbed by the number of officers snared in the audit.

ID Card - ALP says Minister must answer growing list of smartcard concerns

The Federal Opposition said Commonwealth Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey, has to address the growing list of fears and concerns held by industry experts and public advocates about Smartcard cost blowouts and privacy.

In a statement issued 17/05/2006, Federal Shadow Minister for Human Services, Kelvin Thomson, said: “It seems that with every day that passes, another industry expert raises serious concerns about the Smartcard project, and every day that passes the Government continues to ignore them. Minister Hockey must realise that charging ahead without public consultation and without listening to the experts is a recipe for disaster".

Mr Thomson claimed the former head of the Smartcard Technology Taskforce, James Kelaher, resigned because he did not want to be part of the "smartcard disaster". Mr Thomson said news that Assistant Secretary and Smartcard Project Leader, Suzanne Roche had resigned, is further evidence that the Smartcard project is in "disarray."

According to Mr Thomson, Siemens Vice President, Martin Praetorius, with more than 20 years experience working with Smartcard technology, told an e-Government forum last week that the $1.1 billion budget could be easily tripled because the "complexity of the project is greatly underestimated”.

British e-Government expert William Heath told the same forum that a single identifier card could actually increase rather than decrease the instance of fraud as: “It is an extremely courageous step to put all your identification, all the different departments, on to one identifier.”

Mr Thomson said that fraudster, Frank Abagnale, the real life criminal behind Catch Me if You Can, told BBC radio that the UK ID card would be replicated within six months.

“Minster Hockey must start responding to these serious public and industry concerns this week," Mr Thomson concluded. "The public cannot afford more major project budget blowouts, nor can we afford to have our privacy compromised".

18 May, 2006

ID Card - ALP says Minister must answer growing list of smartcard concerns

The Federal Opposition said Commonwealth Minister for Human Services, Joe Hockey, has to address the growing list of fears and concerns held by industry experts and public advocates about Smartcard cost blowouts and privacy.

In a statement issued 17/05/2006, Federal Shadow Minister for Human Services, Kelvin Thomson, said: “It seems that with every day that passes, another industry expert raises serious concerns about the Smartcard project, and every day that passes the Government continues to ignore them. Minister Hockey must realise that charging ahead without public consultation and without listening to the experts is a recipe for disaster".

Mr Thomson claimed the former head of the Smartcard Technology Taskforce, James Kelaher, resigned because he did not want to be part of the "smartcard disaster". Mr Thomson said news that Assistant Secretary and Smartcard Project Leader, Suzanne Roche had resigned, is further evidence that the Smartcard project is in "disarray."

According to Mr Thomson, Siemens Vice President, Martin Praetorius, with more than 20 years experience working with Smartcard technology, told an e-Government forum last week that the $1.1 billion budget could be easily tripled because the "complexity of the project is greatly underestimated”.

British e-Government expert William Heath told the same forum that a single identifier card could actually increase rather than decrease the instance of fraud as: “It is an extremely courageous step to put all your identification, all the different departments, on to one identifier.”

Mr Thomson said that fraudster, Frank Abagnale, the real life criminal behind Catch Me if You Can, told BBC radio that the UK ID card would be replicated within six months.

“Minster Hockey must start responding to these serious public and industry concerns this week," Mr Thomson concluded. "The public cannot afford more major project budget blowouts, nor can we afford to have our privacy compromised".

18 May, 2006

Cth - AG says major copyright reforms strike balance

Well, of course he says that. He approved them.

Commonwealth Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, announced on 14/05/2006, significant copyright reforms which make our laws fairer for consumers and tougher on copyright pirates.

Fairer for us, tougher for the bad guys. Sounds good. But wait ...

Mr Ruddock said: "These are commonsense amendments which will maintain Australia's copyright laws as the best in the world for the benefit of our creators and other copyright owners and for the many Australians who enjoy their creative works," Mr Ruddock said.[Sorry I had to delete one of them]

Wait 'till you see these common-sense amendments.

The changes:

Make it legal for people to tape their favourite TV or radio program and play it at another time;

But only once. You can only play your recording once. Then you're supposed to delete it. Oh dear Goddesses.

And yes, Australians were never legally allowed to tape TV shows with their shiny VCRs.

Legalise "format shifting" of material such as music, newspapers, books - meaning people can put their CD collection onto IPods or MP3 players;

Again, this means you can copy from your CD to your iPod. But you can't then back your iPod files up on your PC. Unless you "format-shift" them into another file format. That'd be OK.

You can loan your CD to your mate, but no way can you share that MP3 ... that'd make you a PIRATE™

Provide new exceptions allowing schools, universities, libraries and other cultural institutions to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes;

That's just so generous, Mr Ruddock.

Still, it's not the same as the "Fair Use" provisions enjoyed by such institutions in, oh, the USA.

Provide new exceptions for people with disabilities to allow access to copyright materials;

Holy Crap Batman! Blind people want to read? No!

Allow the use of copyright material for parody or satire, and;

... what can I say?

Provide new enforcement measures to combat copyright piracy including on-the-spot fines.

Are we going to do the same for car thieves?

Research also will be undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminology on the nature and the extent of piracy and counterfeiting in Australia and how best to respond to the problem.

Because doing the research before you change the laws is just too inconvenient. [Actually, he has further reforms in the pipeline. The AIC brief is to help tweak them.]

"Copyright is important and should be respected," Mr Ruddock said. "That is why the Government is updating our laws to keep pace with technology. Everyday consumers shouldn't be treated like copyright pirates. Copyright pirates should be not treated like everyday consumers".

If it's so important, why make such a mockery of it? And us?

Are Copyright pirates as cool as real sea pirates might have been?

Dear Goddesses near Hel, I just might have to do the PhD I went to Law School for in the first place ... Dear Gods, why do smacktards have so much power over stuff they not only don't understand, but don't seem to care about anyway ...

Cth - AG says major copyright reforms strike balance

Well, of course he says that. He approved them.

Commonwealth Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, announced on 14/05/2006, significant copyright reforms which make our laws fairer for consumers and tougher on copyright pirates.

Fairer for us, tougher for the bad guys. Sounds good. But wait ...

Mr Ruddock said: "These are commonsense amendments which will maintain Australia's copyright laws as the best in the world for the benefit of our creators and other copyright owners and for the many Australians who enjoy their creative works," Mr Ruddock said.[Sorry I had to delete one of them]

Wait 'till you see these common-sense amendments.

The changes:

Make it legal for people to tape their favourite TV or radio program and play it at another time;

But only once. You can only play your recording once. Then you're supposed to delete it. Oh dear Goddesses.

And yes, Australians were never legally allowed to tape TV shows with their shiny VCRs.

Legalise "format shifting" of material such as music, newspapers, books - meaning people can put their CD collection onto IPods or MP3 players;

Again, this means you can copy from your CD to your iPod. But you can't then back your iPod files up on your PC. Unless you "format-shift" them into another file format. That'd be OK.

You can loan your CD to your mate, but no way can you share that MP3 ... that'd make you a PIRATE™

Provide new exceptions allowing schools, universities, libraries and other cultural institutions to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes;

That's just so generous, Mr Ruddock.

Still, it's not the same as the "Fair Use" provisions enjoyed by such institutions in, oh, the USA.

Provide new exceptions for people with disabilities to allow access to copyright materials;

Holy Crap Batman! Blind people want to read? No!

Allow the use of copyright material for parody or satire, and;

... what can I say?

Provide new enforcement measures to combat copyright piracy including on-the-spot fines.

Are we going to do the same for car thieves?

Research also will be undertaken by the Australian Institute of Criminology on the nature and the extent of piracy and counterfeiting in Australia and how best to respond to the problem.

Because doing the research before you change the laws is just too inconvenient. [Actually, he has further reforms in the pipeline. The AIC brief is to help tweak them.]

"Copyright is important and should be respected," Mr Ruddock said. "That is why the Government is updating our laws to keep pace with technology. Everyday consumers shouldn't be treated like copyright pirates. Copyright pirates should be not treated like everyday consumers".

If it's so important, why make such a mockery of it? And us?

Are Copyright pirates as cool as real sea pirates might have been?

Dear Goddesses near Hel, I just might have to do the PhD I went to Law School for in the first place ... Dear Gods, why do smacktards have so much power over stuff they not only don't understand, but don't seem to care about anyway ...