Category: Law and Politics

Election 2010 – Beware of the Boats

Here we go again…

I’ve avoided blogging about tomorrow’s federal election so far, mostly since the campaigns have been pretty lacklustre and the differences between Labor and Liberal policies minimal at best. That said I’d prefer Gillard to get back in if only because Labor has made some kind of commitment to fighting climate change, whereas Abbott is on record as describing it as “a load of crap” (not that Labor’s policy is great, but it’s better than the Libs’).

There’s also something about Abbott I just don’t trust. I can’t pin it down but he comes across as sinister – as if he’s playing nice for the cameras but rubbing his hands and plotting something nefarious in the shadows. Sure, I wouldn’t trust Gillard as far as I could throw her, but being alone in a room with her wouldn’t give me the crawling heebie-jeebies the way Abbott would.

At least the blackout came in the other day, which means the TV and radio waves have been free of the endless campaign ads that’ve been driving us all mad. I tell you, if I hear one more scaremongering spiel about THE BOATS I think I’ll knock someone’s hat off with a cane (I’d have to procure a cane first of course, but I’m so sick of it all that I’d be more than willing to do so).

My ideal outcome tomorrow? Labor in the Lower House, Greens in the Senate. But honestly any outcome where the Mad Monk isn’t PM is OK with me.

Victory!

Huzzah!

Good news on the electoral system front!


GetUp! wins High Court challenge to electoral roll cut-off

The quick summary. It used to be that when an election was called you had seven days to get yourself on the electoral roll. Back in 2006 the Howard government changed the law so that you only had until 8:00pm of the day the election was called to get on the roll – a move many (including myself) saw as a way of disenfranchising voters who’d turned 18 since the last election and not got around to enrolling (young people being well known for voting against conservatives like Howard).

Now a High Court challenge has overturned the change and restored the seven day rule. Huzzah!

Also, the opposition has come out and announced they will not support the government’s mandatory internet filter. This pretty much kills it dead, regardless of who wins the upcoming election. Again, Huzzah!

Good times…

About Time

Here comes the new boss…

Well, I’m near death with swine-bird-buffallo flu (by which I mean a minor cold) and so not going to write much, but I can’t let the appointment of Australia’s first female PM pass unmentioned. Shame it was done via leadership upset rather than an election, but it’s still a start.

Now let’s see some movement on asylum seekers, climate change and killing off that internet filter eh?

We have to be Sssssssneaky!

Big surprise…

Here’s something interesting that’s come my way. Senator for Censorship Stephen Conroy has a blog, located at http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/. As is fashionable in these upstart, youngster blogs it has a tag cloud – over on the right – which displays the most common words and phrases used in said blog. All well and good.

Except you have a look at the source code. Here can be found a chunk of Javascript that generates the tag cloud, and which has a very interesting addition.

First up is a long string of phrases that can appear in the cloud. I won’t copy this in because it’s huge, but in the middle is the phrase “ISP Filtering” – the Government’s euphemism for their ridiculous net filter proposal. Further down is the code that adds up the totals for each keyword and prints out the 15 highest ranked…

for(var i=0; i<=15/*<-Important! increase this value by 1 everytime a keyword is excluded below*/; i++)
{
var z=0;
for(var j=0; j<split.length; j++)=”” {=””>
if (unique[i]==split[j]) {
z=z+1;
}
counts[i] = z;
}
var size = getTagClass(z);
//Customise the tag-cloud to display what shows up
if (unique[i] == “ISP Filtering”)
{
continue;
}
document.write(‘<a class=”‘+size+'” href=”%5C%22http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/search?q=%27+unique[i]+%27%22″>’+unique[i]+'</a> ‘);
}
document.write(‘</split.length;></p>’);
document.write(‘</div>’);
}

There, do you see that bit in red? That’s a neat little patch that prevents the phrase “ISP Filtering” from ever coming up in the cloud.

Fascinating no? The Government is filtering their own sites to prevent mention of their own web filter. Great work everybody!

On the Democracy Front

Threats are coming thick and fast…

Well thankfully it looks like South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson has backed down over his ridiculous and anti-democratic laws concerning political blogging. Excellent!

For those late to the party, Atkinson got some new laws put in in South Australia this week forcing anyone who wants to post anything anywhere online about the upcoming state election to sign their comments with their real name and postcode. It seems that he was motivated to create such laws because he believed the opposition were using a false identity to harass him in the comments section of a local newspaper website (oh poor diddums!). Apparently this wouldn’t threaten free speech in any way because people could still say what they liked, they’d just have to say who they were at the same time (the fact that the option of anonymity is crucial to genuine free speech seems to have evaded his tiny mind).

In the face of (unsurprising) public outrage he’s had to back down and promised to retroactively cancel the laws after the election. He’s attributing this outrage to the “blogging generation”, which only goes to show how hopelessly out of touch he is.

Additionally, in a nice bit of irony it turns out that the ‘fake commenter’ created by the Liberal Party to harass him in the Adelaide Advertiser is in fact a real person who lives less that 500m from his office. Nice to know he keeps in touch with his electorate.

Of course Atkinson is the same guy who’s singlehandedly preventing an ‘R’ classification for computer games anywhere in the country, apparently on the basis that anyone who wants to play anything more sophisticated that Mario Cart is a ravening sociopath. He also claimed that the gamers lobby (who are trying to get such a classification set up) are sending him death threats – on the basis of one threatening letter that turned out to be related to a completely different case.

What can you say but roll on the election!

China 2.0

All hail the Great Leader!

China 2.0

The federal government has green-lighted its highly controversial censorship plan to introduce a mandatory internet filter that will block refused classification content* from being accessed on Australian soil.

* By which they mean anything on a secret government blacklist compiled without any oversight (judicial or otherwise) and with no right of appeal. Hooray for democracy!

Airstrip One

It just keeps getting worse…

You know, Big Media’s attack on democracy just keeps getting worse. Not content with “three strike laws” that allow a media conglomerate to cut off someone’s internet access by merely accusing them of copyright infringement (yes, that’s right, under these laws if Time-Warner or someone wants to throw you off the net all they have to do is say you’ve infringed their copyright three times, and you’re off – no trial, no burden of proof, no appeal) they’re now getting the UK government to set up a system where the Secretary of State can just make up and enforce laws about copyright without debate or approval by any other part of government.

Or to put it plainly…

What that means is that an unelected official would have the power to do anything without Parliamentary oversight or debate, provided it was done in the name of protecting copyright. — Cory Doctorow

You can read the full details from the link above, including some pretty disturbing things the new powers are intended to do.

If you live in the UK and care about either democracy or the future of the net, get in touch with your MP now!

Image (S)Hack

At the very least you could have posted your manifesto in *text* guys.

(I would like to apologise in advance for this post – it’s full of ill informed ranting. This is nothing unusual of course, but in this case it’s pretty bad. Hey, why don’t you go and read some other, more sensible post instead? Please?)

Apparently overnight the image hosting site Image Shack has been hacked by a group of people calling themselves “the Anti-Sec movement”. They’ve replaced (presumably) tens of thousands of images hosted on the site with a manifesto opposing the “full disclosure” method of publicising security flaws, and threatening “through mayhem and […] destruction” to force the abandonment of the same.

Well.

On the one hand I have to agree with some of their points. Full disclosure does have its share of problems – the main one being that the black hat hackers and the software companies get the same information at the same time, starting a race to patch the issue before it can be exploited (a race that the black hats usually win). That said, I do have some issues with the Anti-Sec manifesto as it currently stands.

(Edit: As it turns out that’s actually wrong – full disclosure policies almost always have a delay built in so that the companies responsible are told first and get time to patch the hole before the black hats find out about it. So Anti-Sec are basically talking out of an orifice other than their mouths.)

The first is the problem of security through obfuscation. Anti-Sec seems to be suggesting that if you discover a security hole you should shut up and sit on it so that no one can exploit it. This would work fine if it could be guaranteed that you’re the only person who would ever find it. This is, of course, ridiculous. Someone else will discover the same exploit and they may not have the same, upstanding community attitude that you do. The sensible thing would be to report the flaw to the company responsible so they can patch it before the knowledge becomes public. Anti-Sec may well support this method, but their manifesto says nothing about it.

(Edit: Actually they’re actively opposing it.)

The second problem I have is with their methodology. Let me quote…

It is our goal that, through mayhem and the destruction of all exploitative and detrimental communities, companies and individuals, full-disclosure will be abandoned and the security industry will be forced to reform.

How do we plan to achieve this? Through the full and unrelenting, unmerciful elimination of all supporters of full-disclosure and the security industry in its present form. If you own a security blog, an exploit publication website or you distribute any exploits… “you are a target and you will be rm’d. Only a matter of time.”

This isn’t like before. This time everyone and everything is getting owned.

Right. Well, opening a debate is one thing. Opening a debate and then forcibly silencing everyone with a dissenting viewpoint is completely another. And when that forcible silencing is achieved via threats and “unrelenting, unmerciful elimination” it’s basically terrorism.

So, it’ll be interesting to see how this thing plays out. If indeed it does play out and Anti-Sec don’t just vanish into the digital woods they suddenly emerged from like so many other online ‘movements’.