Australian Home Affairs Minister Says Government Still Considering Spying On Its Own Citizens

[steven36]

from the be-part-of-the-open-book-experience dept

 

 

Nothing's too much to sacrifice for the greater good of Australia. Not even Australians.

 

 

A series of police raids on journalists has raised questions about how far the government will go to control what Australian citizens know about their government's activities. Three separate raids targeted leaks that revealed, among other things, possible war crimes committed by Australian soldiers and the government's plans to place its own citizens under surveillance by expanding the power allotted to the Australian Signals Directorate.

 

The unintentional side effect of government raids designed to discourage further reporting on government secrets is the government is now confirming one of the leaks it targeted.

Peter Dutton has confirmed that a plan to create new powers to spy on Australians – which sparked police raids at the centre of the press freedom row – is still on the table.

 

On Sunday the home affairs minister claimed it was “complete nonsense” that the government supported spying on Australians but, in the next breath, called for a “sensible discussion” about whether the Australian Signals Directorate should gain such powers, which he argued could help disrupt paedophile networks and stop cyber-attacks.

Ah, the old "we're not going to spy on you, unless..." National security takes a backseat to child porn purveyors in Dutton's directly contradictory statements, but it's still the same tired argument. Domestic surveillance makes it easier for the government to catch bad guys and efficiency should always take precedence over rights and liberties.

 

This followed other statements from Dutton, most of which followed the same pattern: deny the government wants to spy on Australians, followed by reasons why the government should be allowed to spy on Australians.

“We don’t support spying on Australians,” he said. “That was a complete nonsense."

 

“But where you’ve got a paedophile network that operates out of Manila that live-streams children being abused, there might be an ability for an Australian agency to try and shut that server down.

 

“If that same server was operating in Fitzroy, here in Melbourne, then there would be very limited capacity in certain circumstances where it was masked or it was rerouted and … we weren’t able to shut that paedophile network down."

Well, I guess if the ends justify the means… Like others angling for greater surveillance capabilities at the expense of the public's freedoms, Dutton claims Australians are only a "sensible discussion" away from accepting additional government intrusion.

 

That this "discussion" remains on the table despite Australians' opposition to it just shows how essential it is that Australian journalists remain free to publish leaked documents without fear of government reprisal. Dutton has tipped his hand, though, suggesting neither Australians nor the country's journalists will be as free in the future. He has refused to condemn the raids on journalists and is openly pitching a surveillance program whose unauthorized publication was greeted with a show of force.

 

Source

 

[Karlston]

"Tired" argument or not, if people want to be protected against terrorist and other invisible bad guys, then they have to cede some privacy rights. Can't both give everyone 100% privacy and search for these hidden dangers.

 

An argument is no less (or more) valid because it's often repeated.

[ghost]

53 minutes ago, Karlston said:

"Tired" argument or not, if people want to be protected against terrorist and other invisible bad guys, then they have to cede some privacy rights. Can't both give everyone 100% privacy and search for these hidden dangers.

 

An argument is no less (or more) valid because it's often repeated.

To a degree I agree with you. Spying can be vital at protecting a country and its citizens. But, I strongly disagree with Mass surveillance disguised as "national security." There should be a process in court by which a judge/magistrate decides the "who, what, where, etc."  That process is to ensure legality of the spying, to prevent abuse and ensure even criminals "rights" are preserved. That is the democratic process in which freedom is founded on.

[Karlston]

Political & off-topic posts hidden. From the Forum Guidelines...

 

Quote

This forum revolves around topics of a technical nature, which happen to be discussed by people from many nationalities, ethnicities and political backgrounds. In order to focus on what unites us all, rather than what divides us, cultural, national and/or political issues are not to be discussed.

 

[steven36]

18 hours ago, Karlston said:

"Tired" argument or not, if people want to be protected against terrorist and other invisible bad guys, then they have to cede some privacy rights. Can't both give everyone 100% privacy and search for these hidden dangers.

 

An argument is no less (or more) valid because it's often repeated.

Yes my country  thought that to  for awhile with the patriot act tell we woke up to fact of all that was gong on many years latter, if we would of thought that way in the beginning of the USA they never would been no USA we would still been ruled by  England . Many people died  for my  Freedom and yours people today are just a bunch of wusse cowards to scared to fight , to keep freedom  you must be willing to die for it, even if it means over throwing the government of the land , Freedom always comes with a price, if your not willing to fight for it you will  have none.

 

Before they had they terrorism problem from the Middle East , in my country it been a problem  since the 1800s  because we always had our own  terrorist also do other countries like Ireland had them since 1800s as well.  No internet surveillance can control these groups they requite from the prisons  were there being watched all the time and it never phases them .

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2011/spring/brown.html

 

Anyone that thinks taking your freedom away will protect you has never been to jail in the USA. As  soon as you lose your freedom and go in there the prisons in the USA are ran by Raciest Gangs that are terrorist and they will kill you for no reason at all . Crime still thrives in a controlled environment.  On the outside our Constitution protects them and people want to change it were it don't  there willing to lose there freedom for something that want change nothing .

 

In order to take these Radical groups freedom away they must take ours away too . Well Radical groups don't care about the law they thrive even in prison  and they going to do and believe what they believe   if its legal or not. There criminals to begin with, all changes like these will do is just give them a reason to start a internal war .

 

Back before they used Communism and the cold war as a excuse  for mass surveillance  on us it even got Nixon kicked out of Office  in the early 70s .  The things they do is nothing new they do this sort of thing  if it's legal or illegal but if you sit back and let them make it legal with out fighting to make it illegal  or keep it illegal when they get busted they will  never be punished for abuse of your freedoms because  it will be legal and just part of life and you will no longer be really free . You will give up your freedom for a false sense  of security   . Because  all the mass surveillance in the world is not going to save you if a coo  or real war breaks out and if you want to live you will have fight for freedom or against it in the end. That's reality brother , Freedom is everything or it is nothing . Ether your for it or your against it.