Australia starts to grow a set, every western country should man up as well

[mon]

For a start, the Australian Law Reform Commission. The qualified individuals whose job it is.
That's how checks and balances are supposed to work . It's bad enough that we have so few of them, let alone when those that exist are ignored.



That's because you didn't actually follow the link, look at the problems faced, the review and the repeal. As typical of your approach to information.



Actually it just means that you aren't paying attention. As usual apparently. There was plenty of outcry about the laws. That's why they tried to fob it off with sunset clauses and promised reviews. Except the reviews happened and were barely heeded at all.



Well it's pretty obvious that you formed an opinion without reading any of the legislation or the reviews or seeking to inform yourself about them, so yes I see a lot of emotion and very little pragmatism in approaching effectiveness. Culminating in legislators promising to pass bills they haven't read. Typical of this sort of legislation.
I'm saying people have the expected emotional response to upsetting events and media coverage and essentially cave in to terrorism.



What's communism got to do with it? Totalitarianism? The fact that you're perfectly happy relinquishing legal protection to authority because you're scared and emotional?



I haven't made any claim to have inside knowledge of the threat of terrorism. The fact that Australia faces a lower level of threat compared to other Western Counterparts is the information from the Government and security agencies, which is borne out by the history of attacks.
Pissing my pants? No, I don't like losing the privacy and legal protections we enjoyed prior to the existence of the anti-terror legislation, much as I don't appreciate losing the choice of firearms ownership to ineffective laws pushed through by ignorant, emotional masses who aren't effected.
...and apparently your concern for civil liberties doesn't even extend to actually reading the legislation you want passed or the reviews that take place after it was passed. As long as it's only the Muslims and Bikies and sports shooters right? Who cares?




I provided the links to his report. You clearly didn't even bother to read it. You've provided nothing but your emotional comments.




You clearly are pissing your pants. You're the one ready to give up civil liberties based on nothing but the media coverage of terrorism. Your use of drugs is hardly surprising.




Sure...

Started to glitch out again, I suspect its to do with the amount written within the window. Maybe ask your admins.

Stage 3: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014
The Government introduced the third stage of its counter-terrorism plan to Parliament on October 30, 2014. It was then referred to Parliament's Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is expected to table its report on February 27, 2015.

The legislation will:

• require telecommunications companies to retain customers' phone and computer metadata for two years

Good, blow up someone's lamb BBQ on Australia day them and their mates deserve rooting.

• keep information such as phone numbers, length of phone calls, email addresses and the time a message was sent

See above

• not keep the content of phone calls or emails and explicitly exclude internet browsing

No problems

• give security agencies access to the data when they can make a case that it is "reasonably necessary" to an investigation

Absolutely no problems

• still require security agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing the actual content of messages or conversations

What the hells wrong with this

• seek to reduce the number of agencies able to access the data

Fair

• seek to limit access to stored communication such as text messages and emails

Reasonable

• introduce an independent oversight mechanism, allowing the Commonwealth ombudsman access to agency records, in a bid to boost privacy protections

He we have a checks and balances, no problems as long as its internally and externally enforced

The Government is negotiating with telcos about who will pay for the new system.
Well as much as I hate Telstra I feel its on Australia but in an ideal world the cost is shared.



As for your constant crapping on about guns trying to get some backing from the pro gun lobby on here or so it seems. On that point I 100% agree with you, I never did or have supported these laws but besides you/others like you, some of my friends and myself being a inconvenienced where have we been hard done ny. I want to have a shot I talk to mates that own guns and I go with them.

 

[Ruprecht]

• allow one warrant to cover a whole computer network, allowing ASIO officers to disrupt the operation of targeted computers and use third party computers to access targeted computers

Have no problem with this

...and that right there just goes to demonstrate the extraordinary depth of your ignorance, and your willingness to piss away civil rights.
By the language of that law, a warrant for any computer connected to the internet is a warrant for every device connected to the internet.
Once again, you're happy to be bent over and just trust authority not to "abuse their power".

 

[Ruprecht]

As for your constant crapping on about guns trying to get some backing from the pro gun lobby on here or so it seems. On that point I 100% agree with you, I never did or have supported these laws but besides you/others like you, some of my friends and myself being a inconvenienced where have we been hard done ny. I want to have a shot I talk to mates that own guns and I go with them.

You were the one that brought up Port Arthur and the gun laws, I just agree that it's a perfect example of some similarly stupid and ineffective knee-jerk legislation under similar circumstances.
Also an example of how once legislation is enacted, it's much more difficult to get it fixed.
Funny that you brought it up.

 

[mon]

Yes, you don't even know what a preventative detention order is, do you? I suppose you don't even realise that they've been roundly condemned by all the reports. Yet still they exist.

Give me time Mate There's far too much for me to keep up with all your crap. Let alone start bring up all the points you've deliberately avoided.

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentar...pleted_inquiries/2004-07/terrorism/report/c03

This is Chaptor 3 and I'm the first to admit I'm no expert but I see almost nothing wrong with it and I support it whole heartedly. I don't need to be an expert though do I? Are you?

3.2 Item 24 of Schedule 4 amends the Criminal Code to insert new Division 105. The new Division provides for a regime of preventative detention for up to 48 hours for the purpose of preventing an imminent terrorist act occurring and to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to a terrorist act.[54] These objectives are stated in proposed section 105.1 and reflected in the new subsections 105.4 (4) and (6). The latter subsections provide the grounds for two distinct types of detention: detention before a terrorist act occurs in order to prevent an act of terrorism; and detention after an act of terrorism occurs to preserve evidence.

Nothing unreasonable here


3.3 The scheme provides that AFP members may apply for either type of preventative detention order.[55] The AFP member applying for an order must set out the facts and grounds upon which the application is based. The information must be sworn or affirmed if the application is for a continued preventative detention order.

3.4 Members of the AFP of the rank of superintendent or above may grant and extend initial preventative detention orders for a period up to 24 hours.[56]

No problems at all

3.5 A continued preventative detention order may be granted by a serving Federal Judge or Magistrate, a retired judge of a superior court, the President or Deputy President of the AAT in respect of a person already detained under an initial preventative detention.[57] A continuing preventative detention order may be granted, extended and further extended to bring the total period of continuous preventative detention to a maximum of 48 hours.[58] An order cannot be applied for or made for a person under the age of 16 years.[59]

No problems at all, 2 days of my life to show I have nothing to hide. To easy, no guilty conscience here.

3.6 To make or extend preventative detention orders to prevent an imminent terrorist act, the issuing authorities must be satisfied on the basis of information provided by the AFP that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person:

• will engage in a terrorist act; or
• possesses a thing that is connected with the preparation for, or the engagement of a person in, a terrorist act; or
• has done an act in preparation for, or planning, of a terrorist act.[60]

This is reasonable


3.7 The issuing authority must also be satisfied that:

• the order would substantially assist in preventing an imminent terrorist act;[61]
• detaining the person for the period for which the person is to be detained under the order is reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose;[62] and
• the terrorist act is imminent and expected to occur within the next 14 days.[63]

All this is little difference than the police as it stands, satisfy the relevant Authority that you need this


3.8 Proposed subsection 105.4 (6) provides that a preventative detention order can also be made where the issuing authority is satisfied that:

• a terrorist act has occurred within the preceding 28 days; and
• it is necessary to detain the person to preserve evidence of or relating to the terrorist act; and
• detaining the subject for the specified period is reasonably necessary to preserve evidence of or relating to the terrorist act.

Fair enough


3.9 The person detained must be given a copy of the initial order and a summary of the grounds, excluding information which is 'likely to prejudice national security' (within the meaning of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004).[64] The effect of an initial preventative detention order must be explained to the detainee, as soon as practicable, after the person has been taken into custody.[65] This obligation includes a requirement to inform the person of their right to seek a remedy in a federal court and their right to complain to the Commonwealth Ombudsman under the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 or to an equivalent State or Territory body.[66]

What the fuck is wrong with this?


3.10 A detainee may be held in police custody or at a prison or remand centre of a State or Territory during the period of the preventative detention order.[67] Proposed section 105.33 requires that a person taken into custody or detained under a preventative detention order must be treated with humanity, with respect for human dignity and must not be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Look at this I'm getting a pink fuzzy feeling that we are up holding peoples rights


3.11 Police interrogation of the detainee is prohibited except to: confirm the detainee's identity; ensure the detainee's safety and well being; or otherwise to allow the police to carry out their obligations under the Division.[68] However, it is apparent that preventative detention orders can operate in conjunction with:

• ASIO’s compulsory questioning and detention powers under the Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act; and
• police investigation and questioning related to suspected criminal offences, including questioning governed by Part 1AA and Part IC of the Crimes Act.[69]

This is actually more than I'd give them. Id allow the police the right


3.12 Proposed section 105.34 restricts a detainee's ability to contact other people. It provides that a detainee is prevented from contacting anyone, except where permitted by the Bill. The proposed section permits a detainee to have contact with certain classes of people by telephone, fax or email but 'solely' for the purpose of letting those persons know the detainee is ‘safe but is not able to be contacted for the time being'.

This is both reasonable and sensible. So you're in favour of a potential terrorist telling his cahoots to run or start early.


3.13 Special contact rules apply to a detainee who is under 18 years old or who are considered incapable of managing their affairs. These allow the detainees to disclose: the fact of the detention order; that the person is being held subject to the order; and the period of detention. A detained minor is entitled to a minimum of 2 hours contact with a parent, guardian etc per day or longer at the discretion of the AFP or as specified in the order. Contact may be made by visit as well as by telephone, fax or email.[70]

Nothing wrong with this

3.14 Proposed section 105.41 makes it an offence for a detainee to make an unauthorised disclosure. It also criminalises secondary disclosures by a person who has been contacted by the detainee (such as a lawyer or a family member or guardian of a person under 18 years).[71] The offence provisions also apply to interpreters and police officers who have assisted in the monitoring of contact with the detainee (see below).[72] The offences apply while the person is being detained under the preventative detention order and attract a maximum of five years imprisonment.

This is needed otherwise why have the earlier conditions.


3.15 The right to contact with other people is also subject to the discretion of the issuing authority. The issuing authority may issue a prohibited contact order to prevent communication by the detainee with another person where the issuing authority is satisfied that the exclusion 'would assist in achieving the objectives of the preventative detention order’.[73]

If I had a tapped phone call and the detainee had read this document and there was a pre prepared plan to start/run on "safe but is not able to be contacted for the time being" I'd refuse his calls as well. Its called common sense.

3.16 A prohibited contact order may be applied to a particular lawyer.[74] However, in those circumstances, or where a person is unable to contact a lawyer of their choice, there is an obligation to provide reasonable assistance to the person to identify and contact another lawyer for the purpose of providing advice about rights in relation to a preventative detention order.[75] Proposed section 105.37 imposes restrictions on the scope of legal advice and representation that may be provided by a lawyer to
the person while the person is in custody.

Nothing wrong with this, there are a shit load of shady solicitors out there. Ialmost punched one in the head late last year


3.18 A senior AFP member, who is not involved in the making of the preventative detention order, must be nominated to oversee the exercise of powers and performance of obligations in relation to the preventative detention order.[77] It is the duty of this senior member to receive and consider representations from the detainee, their lawyer, parent, guardian or another person representing the detainee's interests.[78] Representations may be made in relation to the exercise of any powers or obligation, including the revocation of the preventative detention order and prohibited contact orders and the treatment of the person while in detention.[79]

This shows that checks and balances are in place to limit its potential misuse.


3.19 A preventative detention order must be revoked on the application of the AFP, where the grounds on which the order was made cease to exist. As noted above, the detainee, their lawyer or other person representing their interests may make representations to nominated senior AFP member for revocation of the order.[80]

If this was unrealistic there is no way this would be in it.


3.20 The Bill recognises the general right of detainees to access a court for a remedy in relation to a preventative detention order or their treatment while held in detention. The right to make an application to a federal court may be made at any time and a person must be informed of their right to do so.[81] However, proposed subsection 105.51(4) excludes the application of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) to any decision made under Division 105.

This could do with some tightening up but as long as its enforced and reviewed I have no problems with it


3.21 The Bill provides detainees with a right to apply to the Security Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for merits review of a decision to issue, extend or further extend an initial or continued Commonwealth preventative detention order.[82] The Tribunal may declare the order void and order compensation.[83] The application for review cannot be made while the order is in force.[84] Proposed subsection 105.51(9) provides that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) will apply to an application to the AAT to review, subject to any modifications specified in regulations to be made under that Act.

This provides the potential for compensation. There is the potential for misuse in that they could keep renewing it but I cannot see this happening as it will have to go through multiply senior AFP personal and once it hits the media they will pay through public out cry and I'd be as loud as you.


3.22 A State or Territory Court has no jurisdiction in proceedings for a remedy in relation to a Commonwealth preventative detention order or treatment of the person detained under a Commonwealth order while the order is in force.[85] If the person is also detained under a State order and brings proceedings for review of that order in a State or Territory Court, that court may review the Commonwealth order on the same grounds and grant the same remedies available under State or Territory law that would apply to the review of the State order.[86] Proposed subsections 105.52(3) and (4) provides that a State or Territory Court may order the AFP Commissioner to give the court and parties to the proceedings the information that was put before the person who issued the Commonwealth order - subject to the requirements of the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004.

Why should a state be able to interfere with a federal detention?

 

[Ruprecht]

Give me time Mate There's far too much for me to keep up with all your crap. Let alone start bring up all the points you've deliberately avoided.

Are you joking? You didn't even finish my post with the list of objections to the legislation, claiming your post had been too long.
So instead you just do a bunch of generic cut and pastes from a bunch of articles about the legislation (not the reports or legislation itself) and then just say that you agree with it all.

 

[mon]

...and that right there just goes to demonstrate the extraordinary depth of your ignorance, and your willingness to piss away civil rights.
By the language of that law, a warrant for any computer connected to the internet is a warrant for every device connected to the internet.
Once again, you're happy to be bent over and just trust authority not to "abuse their power".

I don't know where you spend your days and nights on the internet but its obviously on different sites to me. I bank, do my travel, waste time here, and other boring shit. They're welcome to my hard drive as I may be able to get compensation for it.

In you language of the Law where do you stand when the computers not attached to the internet?

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't know where you spend your days and nights on the internet but its obviously on different sites to me. I bank, do my travel, waste time here, and other boring shit. They're welcome to my hard drive as I may be able to get compensation for it.

In you language of the Law where do you stand when the computers not attached to the internet?

I know. That's why I think you're a complete waste of time. In the rest of the world, Snowden and his revelations about government surveillance were an issue. You think it's fine.
The language of the amendment means that where ever "computer" is used in the legislation or warrant, "network" or even "network of networks" can be legally substituted as they see fit.
This was brought up by the greens and many independents (they proposed a 20 device cap), but no changes were made to the wording.
The same amendment made reporting on such abuses a criminal offence.

 

[mon]

Are you joking? You didn't even finish my post with the list of objections to the legislation, claiming your post had been too long.
So instead you just do a bunch of generic cut and pastes from a bunch of articles about the legislation (not the reports or legislation itself) and then just say that you agree with it all.

As I said I reached a point where every time I tried to add something the screen reset.

You sent a new reply so I moved on to it which I cut and pasted every point as it was displayed from the article. I stopped at Comparison with overseas laws as I have had almost 100% agreement with everything that has been introduced and I have faith in our government as it stands. I have faith in human nature in that it will cover its arse and if these powers are misused it will come to light.

What I find ridiculous is you have no problems with the people being killed yet you have a problem with any one of the highlighted points.

 

[mon]

I know. That's why I think you're a complete waste of time. In the rest of the world, Snowden and his revelations about government surveillance were an issue. You think it's fine.
The language of the amendment means that where ever "computer" is used in the legislation or warrant, "network" or even "network of networks" can be legally substituted as they see fit.
This was brought up by the greens and many independents (they proposed a 20 device cap), but no changes were made to the wording.

I have absolutely nothing to hide, I have no kiddy porn, no scams, no drug deals, no crimes I'm involved in.

 

[mon]

You were the one that brought up Port Arthur and the gun laws, I just agree that it's a perfect example of some similarly stupid and ineffective knee-jerk legislation under similar circumstances.
Also an example of how once legislation is enacted, it's much more difficult to get it fixed.
Funny that you brought it up.

I brought it up once mate yet you keep bringing it up and keep trying to turn it into a ongoing politically point scoring mechanism or it seems so.

Out of curiosity how has your life been disadvantaged from it?

 

[Ruprecht]

I brought it up once mate yet you keep bringing it up and keep trying to turn it into a ongoing politically point scoring mechanism or it seems so.

Out of curiosity how has your life been disadvantaged from it?

Like I said, it's a great example of my point.
The restricted choice of firearms is a relatively minor inconvenience for me compared to the potential for arbitrary detention, the loss of the due process and the expansion of government surveillance.
Even so, New Zealand provided a much more sensible approach, and they didn't even need a constitutional amendment to achieve it.

 

[mon]

I know. That's why I think you're a complete waste of time. In the rest of the world, Snowden and his revelations about government surveillance were an issue. You think it's fine.
The language of the amendment means that where ever "computer" is used in the legislation or warrant, "network" or even "network of networks" can be legally substituted as they see fit.
This was brought up by the greens and many independents (they proposed a 20 device cap), but no changes were made to the wording.
The same amendment made reporting on such abuses a criminal offence.

As for what you think of me, don't you get it? I couldn't care less. Just as I've shown you that I'm not worth your time you have shown me the same. We see this in a completely different light, you want to start from very little and increase from there to save your rights at the expense of others and I want to start with more safe guards in place than reduce if necessary.

You say that its illegal, so fucking what. It was illegal to go on strike and police could arrest you for it but when it became too bad Australians stood up. This would be exactly the same, and that's IF its misused which I don't see happening without it coming to the publics attention. Id rather lose my liberty for a limited amount of time than see some person lose their life forever.

I support what Snowden did as I do Assange but whether its fair or not secrecy is a necessary part of intelligence and we live in a democracy. If the majority supported him he would be released, as shown on sherdog the majority doesn't. Therefore you're implying that just because you think it is right makes it so, that is why I had the implication of an authoritarian viewpoint because you show plenty of it.

 

[Big Tuppy Hole]

Thieves > slave owners.

Yes, same as I'd say it to anyone that wanted to ban motorcycles or institute draconian drug laws as a "life saving" preventative measure.
That's the exact opposite of "growing a set" as far as I'm concerned.
If you want a hyper-regulated, authoritarian nanny state, move to Singapore.

Anyone that has even basic firearm knowledge can tell you how pointless it is to severely restrict pump action shotguns, but not rifles or lever/bolt action shotguns. Even purely from a "movie aesthetics" point of view on gun control.

Plenty of bikies are simply criminal scum. Especially the "nike bikies". That doesn't mean I'll accept laws which allow mandatory detention and remove freedom of association with that as justification.

I wonder what would do more damage a pump action 308 with a bunch of 10 round magazines on stand by or a pump action shotgun, I think its pretty obvious

 

[Ruprecht]

I wonder what would do more damage a pump action 308 with a bunch of 10 round magazines on stand by or a pump action shotgun, I think its pretty obvious

Yeah, it's total knee-jerk nonsense that I can own a spring assisted, straight pull, bolt action, detachable magazine shotgun with whatever size magazine I want or a lever action shotgun with a detachable magazine or a .223 pump action rifle with a 30rd detachable magazine. ...but no pump action shotgun.
Just an example of making poor legislation during the emotional and political outcry after an event, with little regard for effectiveness or future evaluation.

 

[Ruprecht]

As for what you think of me, don't you get it? I couldn't care less. Just as I've shown you that I'm not worth your time you have shown me the same. We see this in a completely different light, you want to start from very little and increase from there to save your rights at the expense of others and I want to start with more safe guards in place than reduce if necessary.

You say that its illegal, so fucking what. It was illegal to go on strike and police could arrest you for it but when it became too bad Australians stood up. This would be exactly the same, and that's IF its misused which I don't see happening without it coming to the publics attention. Id rather lose my liberty for a limited amount of time than see some person lose their life forever.

I support what Snowden did as I do Assange but whether its fair or not secrecy is a necessary part of intelligence and we live in a democracy. If the majority supported him he would be released, as shown on sherdog the majority doesn't. Therefore you're implying that just because you think it is right makes it so, that is why I had the implication of an authoritarian viewpoint because you show plenty of it.

Supporting legal restrictions on authority is the opposite of an authoritarian viewpoint.
Your support for laws which give broad powers and rely entirely on the enforcing bodies not abusing them, at the expense of personal freedom, is what constitutes authoritarianism. By definition.

 

[HIMBOB]

I wonder what would do more damage a pump action 308 with a bunch of 10 round magazines on stand by or a pump action shotgun, I think its pretty obvious

Quote me by accident?

 

[HIMBOB]

Yeah, it's total knee-jerk nonsense that I can own a spring assisted, straight pull, bolt action, detachable magazine shotgun with whatever size magazine I want or a lever action shotgun with a detachable magazine or a .223 pump action rifle with a 30rd detachable magazine. ...but no pump action shotgun.
Just an example of making poor legislation during the emotional and political outcry after an event, with little regard for effectiveness or future evaluation.

What's the difference?

I don't see much of a problem in being able to own a lever action but not a pump action shotgun. Maybe it's nonsensical but its hardly something to get over upset about unless you want both banned.

 

[Ruprecht]

What's the difference?

I don't see much of a problem in being able to own a lever action but not a pump action shotgun. Maybe it's nonsensical but its hardly something to get over upset about unless you want both banned.

Because it needlessly restricts options for no reason. Even using the logic of guns as "movie inspired" fetish objects. It's not like a pump action shotgun would be so much worse than a pump action rifle (in practical effect or as an object of desire for a spree shooter). The fact of the matter is though, the people that drafted the legislation were simply ignorant about firearms and drafted bad legislation.
New Zealand took a bit longer to draft theirs (about 2 years), there were people involved in drafting it that were knowledgeable about firearms, and they ended up with an eminently more sensible framework.

 

[mon]

Supporting legal restrictions on authority is the opposite of an authoritarian viewpoint.
Your support for laws which give broad powers and rely entirely on the enforcing bodies not abusing them, at the expense of personal freedom, is what constitutes authoritarianism. By definition.

Why is this continuing? You are correct yet you are showing all the signs of having your own authoritarian complex going, because you believe something it makes it right? Obviously there are plenty that disagree and trying to use a 0.005 % population march is ridiculous. You'd have as many people marching if the public toilets weren't working for the Sydney Council workers.
Here we go, this is my union marching. It doesn't mean I can say its supported by the masses like it means anything more than what it is, a highlight the removal of Sunday penalty rates.
https://thewest.com.au/news/traffic...c-in-perth-cbd-during-peak-hour-ng-b88625392z

This is doing something and you'll notice one of our members was arrested. That's right he risked is liberty for something he believed in and most likely will never effect him in his working life as the CFMEU doesn't represent hospitality workers.


Over and over I see me, me, me in your posts and once again what have you actually done about your beliefs? Have you handed out pamphlets? Have you approached media outlets? Have you even gone into a local members office a told them of your concerns?

No all you have done is post broad undefined documents as a form of entrapment instead of highlighting the parts of most concern as that appears to be your modus operandi as I don't think you give two fucks about anything but being "right"
When I start having problems with the window and have it crash after the second time writing it all I said fuck it. You want order give it, you want to see people educated, educate them. The truth is you want neither, what you want to me is to appear smart. You're intelligent enough alright but to me only half smart.

You're right I'm not 100% happy with everything but that's fucking life. You brought up a 20 nod max and I would prefer it but I will take what I can get and than do my best to implement change...... if its necessary. I don't see it as necessary and you shown me jack shit except peoples opinions about the potential for abuse. None of our cars are limited to 110km yet I don't see you screaming potential abuse.

I'm sure I've seen you belittle Americans for their suspicion of their government and the gun laws and outcomes over there yet you're showing plenty of CT paranoia towards our government in this thread. I have such a low opinion of our politicians yet even I can see that in the interest of self benefit that the oversights and controls will be put in place and maintained as the buck will stop somewhere and it'll be the person in charge and the senior AFP.

 

[Squish II]

This is a pretty awesome debate