Little Aussie bleeders!

[guydesavoy]

I would be very surprised if this got up in anywhere near the draconian form touted so far. It will have to pass the Senate and that will be no easy task in the current political climate.

[Torurot]

Conroy is up in arms over his blocking plains not being nicely received by many Australians.
Mean while back at the border

Travellers to be searched for porn
ASHER MOSES
http://www.theage.com.au/technol....09.html
May 20, 2010

Comments 145

Australian customs officers have been given new powers to search incoming travellers' laptops and mobile phones for pornography, a spokeswoman for the Australian sex industry says.

Fiona Patten, president of the Australian Sex Party, is demanding an inquiry into why a new question appears on Incoming Passenger Cards asking people if they are carrying "pornography".

Patten said officials now had an unfettered right to examine travellers' electronic devices, marking the beginning of a new era of official investigation into people's private lives. She questioned whether it was appropriate to search people for legal R18+ and X18+ material.

€œIs it fair that customs officers rummage through someone's luggage and pull out a legal men's magazine or a lesbian journal in front of their children or their mother-in-law?€ she said.

"If you and your partner have filmed or photographed yourselves making love in an exotic destination or even taking a bath, you will have to answer 'Yes' to the question or you will be breaking the law."

Customs confirmed the new reference to "pornography" on the Incoming Passenger Cards and the search powers, acknowledging that searches conducted by officers may involve the discovery of "personal or sensitive possessions".

A spokesman said officers were trained to apply "tact and discretion" in their dealings with passengers.

"Including an express reference to pornography is intended to enhance the interception of prohibited pornography at the border, by making passengers aware that some forms of pornography may be a prohibited import," the spokesman said.

The "pornography" question has appeared on the cards since September last year. The change was only spotted by Patten earlier this month and it had received little to no coverage in the media.

Colin Jacobs, chairman of the lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the change appeared to have sneaked under the radar "without any public consultation about the massive privacy issues".

"It's hard to fathom what the pressing concern could be that requires Australia to quiz every entrant to the country on their pornography habits, as if visitors would be aware of the nuances of the Australian classification scheme," he said.

"If this results in Customs trawling through more private information on laptops searching for contraband, I would say the solution is way worse than the problem."

Patten said if the question was designed to stop child pornography being smuggled into the country then the question should have been asked about "child pornography", without encompassing regular porn.

Hetty Johnson, chief executive of child protection group Bravehearts, agreed with Patten that the question was too broad. She said it should only apply to illegal pornography.

"If it said child porn I'd be 100 per cent behind it - if you're carrying child pornography then you deserve everything you get," she said in a phone interview.

The issue has echoes of the 1956 detention of famed British conductor and composer Sir Eugene Goossens who had his bag searched upon his return from Europe.

He was carrying material that was considered, at the time, pornographic and his reputation was subsequently ruined, forcing him to flee the country.

"The term pornography is not referred to at all in the federal Classification Act, which customs relies on to classify their material," Patten said.

- with AAP
Comments

145 comments

[guydesavoy]

To paraphrase the well known PSA :

"On the Form, say NO to Porn"

[pacman]

That was a very valuable post thanks Torurot. The facts have been noted.

I wonder exactly what defines porn according to the Customs Officers?

Nudity? I doubt tasteful nudes are pornographic but why risk an argument?

[guydesavoy]

(pacman @ May 27 2010,20:52) I wonder exactly what defines porn according to the Customs Officers?

Nudity? I doubt tasteful nudes are pornographic but why risk an argument?

I don't have any doubts, and I don't fear any 'arguments'.

As they are clearly looking for the 'bad' porn, I won't be declaring anything (and taking precautions to hide any personal pics or files I may have on the laptop anyway). As has been noted, Customs Officers have discretion.

That's why my advice is to say No and IF you are quizzed or your laptop checked (highly unlikely unless you look extremely dodgy) and IF they find anything it is very easy to say 'That's private that's not porn'...what are they going to say ? If it's not kiddy porn they will drop it...again, IF the conversation even gets that far...

Up to you, but maybe you'll want to get a photo of their Thai ID card just to be safe  

[pacman]

Thai ID card? Mate, read the article, it is Australian Customs Officers to whom I refer.

But your comment is still valid. Anything on my laptop won't be offensive to anyone.

And the girls who may be on there won't be engaging in any sort of inappropriate behaviour.

At least not on camera...

[guydesavoy]

(pacman @ May 27 2010,21:08) Thai ID card? Mate, read the article, it is Australian Customs Officers to whom I refer.

And it is content featuring potentially under age Thai gilrs/LBs to which I referred, albeit tongue in cheek...

Do pay attention Paccie

[pacman]

Ahhhh...      

Ya got me...               Yes, of course. I never even thought of that as I assume that the hotel's ID checks would keep me safe.


I am tired & I was thinking of the Thai Customs Officers number, not the girl's ID.

I will be better in the morning...

[guydesavoy]

yeah I guess the reference to the ID card was a bit oblique

Take 2 panadol and get a good rest

[Torurot]

The Australian Attorney-General's office recently confirmed to ZDNet Australia http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wa....785.htm that it's trying to implement a data retention regime in the country, and that they are currently in talks with ISP's about the proposed plan. Australian ISP's aren't currently logging web histories or most other user activity unless instructed by warrant, but that could soon change.


Aussies face 10 year browsing lock-up
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...ata_retention/

By Jane Fae Ozimek €¢ Posted in Law, 11th June 2010 11:53 GMT

Anything Europe does, Australia would like to think it can do better €“ and when it comes to snooping on individual internet usage, Australia is determined to lead the way.

A report in ZDNet Australia this week reveals that the attorney-general's department has been holding discussions with industry on setting up an Australian data retention regime.

Such an approach would oblige ISPs to hold not only the private web browsing history of their subscribers, but also all emails sent by subscribers for a set period of time and to make both of these available to law enforcement agencies on request.

However, Australia is thinking of going much further than Europe: a period of up to ten years appears to be under consideration. This would dwarf the term set out by EU directive on this issue (pdf), which appears to be the model of choice, and which envisages such records being maintained for between six months and two years. It even beats the UK€™s RIPA regime, which requires ISPs to hold records for 6 years.

At present, these plans are very much at the drawing board stage. In February of this year a Bill passed in the Australian Senate permitting ISPs to intercept traffic as part of "network protection activities". It is likely, however, that further legislation would be required in order to implement such far-ranging measures €“ and such a Bill is unlikely to be brought forward this side of the forthcoming Australian general election.

An official statement from the the attorney-general's department confirmed that it "has been looking at the European Directive on Data Retention, to consider whether such a regime is appropriate within Australia's law enforcement and security context.

"It has consulted broadly with the telecommunications industry."

According to Internet Industry Association (IIA) Chief Executive Officer Peter Coroneos the industry has been holding discussions with the attorney-general's department, but the IIA hasn't "seen any firm proposals yet from the government".

He said: "It's more along the lines of [the attorney-general's department asking] 'What do you see the issues being if we were to move to a position similar to the EU?'."

Electronic Frontier Australia (EFA) chair Colin Jacobs said the proposals were "a step too far".

"At some point data retention laws can be reasonable," he said, "but highly-personal information such as browsing history is a step too far. You can't treat everybody like a criminal. That would be like tapping people's phones before they are suspected of doing any crime."

For now, department officials are still talking. Critics have pointed out the difficulties for smaller ISPs of complying with such a move, but when it comes to policing the internet, the record of the Australian government to date suggests that practicality is not the highest priority.

According to one industry insider, the government once again has the dual threats of terrorists and paedophiles in its sights €“ and therefore we should expect further action on this issue. ®

[guydesavoy]

At present, these plans are very much at the drawing board stage. In February of this year a Bill passed in the Australian Senate permitting ISPs to intercept traffic as part of "network protection activities". It is likely, however, that further legislation would be required in order to implement such far-ranging measures €“ and such a Bill is unlikely to be brought forward this side of the forthcoming Australian general election.

That's the take home from this one. Some of these articles seem to be a bit on the alarmist side. Nothing wrong with getting the issue out there, but there's a hell of a long way to go before any concrete bill is drafted, and even longer still before it gets near a vote. Expect it to be very watered down by then.

[tomscam]

I agree

Maybe it's wishful thinking but I can't see this bill getting through parliament, especially in its current format.
Besides, as much as it pains me to say, this current government couldn't organise a fuck in a brothel. What chance do they have of getting this bill through?
A: None, at this point in time.

[guydesavoy]

(tomscam @ Jun. 12 2010,15:21) this current government couldn't organise a fuck in a brothel.

Sad but true.

A further clarification was provided by a spokesman for the Attorney General :

The consultations relate to the information to identify the participants in crime networks and terrorist organisations. It does not include the content of a communication.

[Torurot]

The madness is about to begin all over again

Inside Australia's data retention proposal
http://www.zdnet.com.au/inside-....862.htm
Telecommunications industry sources have called the claims by Attorney-General media relations that web browsing history would not be recorded in a controversial data retention proposal "a bit cute" and a question of terminology and semantics.

ZDNet Australia broke the news on Friday that the Federal Government Attorney-General's Department was considering how it could best implement a data retention regime in Australia.

"The Attorney-General's Department has been looking at the European directive on data retention, to consider whether such a regime is appropriate within Australia's law enforcement and security context," the Attorney-General's Department had said. "It has consulted broadly with the telecommunications industry."

Data retention requires telecommunications providers, including internet service providers (ISPs), to log and retain certain information on subscribers for local enforcement agencies to access when they require it.

The regime sees certain data logged before any suspect is identified, meaning that every internet users' online activities are logged by default.

etc at the link for the many details.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/inside-....862.htm

[Torurot]

The madness continues: "Yes Minister" in real life.

Here's a small cut from the full article

No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'
BEN GRUBB  July 23, 2010
http://www.theage.com.au/technol....xo.html


Via: Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/technol....xo.html

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 €œpremature 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.