big brother: September 2007 Archives
News.com.au carries the story that Centrelink, in the last financial year, had:
Despite the fact that, unlike the offences which are likely to apply to everyday people, the snooping-by-government-staff offences:
The most amazing part of the above is what's not in the article - prosecutions. Presumably because there weren't any. This from the agency that tells us to "trust them" with the Access Card database. Who say that their staff won't snoop through people's records because it will be a criminal offence to do so.
- 367 proven breaches of privacy regulations by it's staff;
- A further 239 breaches of the Australian Public Service code of conduct (eg staff accessing records of relatives with permission but in contravention of the code of conduct);
- 296 employees were given a written warning;
- 44 were fined or had their salary reduced;
- 13 were reprimanded (is there a substantive difference between a reprimand and a written warning?);
- 24 people resigned; and
- 2 people were sacked.
Despite the fact that, unlike the offences which are likely to apply to everyday people, the snooping-by-government-staff offences:
Trust them with the Access Card database? Sure -- about as far as I could spit them.
- Carry a maximum penalty of 2 years jail, as opposed to 10 years for the ordinary-people type offences;
- Do not have offences of strict liability, as opposed to many of the ordinary-people type offences; and
- Are highly unlikely to ever be used, because as the above figures indicate, Centrelink will warn their employees, or reprimand them, or fine them, or allow them to resign, or very occasionally fine them, but never prosecute them.
Yesterday morning, on what will (probably) be the last sitting day before the federal election, Coonan, out of the blue, introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism Related
Internet Content) Bill 2007 into the Senate.
The Bill, as it currently stands, will give the commissioner of thekeystone cops Australian Federal Police, or senior members of the AFP (to whom the commissioner's powers can be delegated) the power to ban Australians from accessing Internet content, whether it is in Australia or overseas.
The commissioner (or delegate), if they have "reason to believe" that Internet content is "crime or terrorism related content", may give a notice to that effect to the ACMA, who are required to notify all ISPs under the registered code for general-purpose Internet censorship, or otherwise give all ISPs a standard access-prevention notice which requires them to "take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content" - i.e. block it.
The short version is that the Federal police will be able to ban access to Internet material by decree, based merely on what they "believe" about the material.
The important part of the definition of "crime or terrorism related content" is that:
Despite the continued references to "terrorism", this Bill has nothing to do with terrorism. Its provisions apply to any offence against a law of the Commonwealth - even something relatively insignificant such as copyright infringement. The government are simply playing the terrorism card to deter criticism of the Bill.
This is the type of legislation that you would expect to see in a police state. The Bill contains no mechanisms for review or appeal of a decision to give one of these notices. It puts the police in the position of judge, jury, and executioner of Internet content, and it will almost certainly be used as a tool of political censorship.
EFA have issued a media release about the Bill. The Bill is typical of the contempt with which the coalition treats the Internet and the civil liberties of all Australians. Remember this on election day.
The Bill, as it currently stands, will give the commissioner of the
The commissioner (or delegate), if they have "reason to believe" that Internet content is "crime or terrorism related content", may give a notice to that effect to the ACMA, who are required to notify all ISPs under the registered code for general-purpose Internet censorship, or otherwise give all ISPs a standard access-prevention notice which requires them to "take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content" - i.e. block it.
The short version is that the Federal police will be able to ban access to Internet material by decree, based merely on what they "believe" about the material.
The important part of the definition of "crime or terrorism related content" is that:
- the Internet content (when considered in isolation or in conjunction with any other Internet content that is accessed, or available for access, from that Internet site or that part of the Internet site) encourages, incites or induces the commission of a Commonwealth offence; or
- the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the Internet content (when considered in isolation or in conjunction with any other Internet content that is accessed, or available for access, from that Internet site or that part of the Internet site) is to facilitate the commission of a Commonwealth offence; or
- the Internet content (when considered in isolation or in conjunction with any other Internet content that is accessed, or available for access, from that Internet site or that part of the Internet site) has, or is likely to have, the effect of facilitating the commission of a Commonwealth offence.
Despite the continued references to "terrorism", this Bill has nothing to do with terrorism. Its provisions apply to any offence against a law of the Commonwealth - even something relatively insignificant such as copyright infringement. The government are simply playing the terrorism card to deter criticism of the Bill.
This is the type of legislation that you would expect to see in a police state. The Bill contains no mechanisms for review or appeal of a decision to give one of these notices. It puts the police in the position of judge, jury, and executioner of Internet content, and it will almost certainly be used as a tool of political censorship.
EFA have issued a media release about the Bill. The Bill is typical of the contempt with which the coalition treats the Internet and the civil liberties of all Australians. Remember this on election day.
