Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Zealand Halts Internet Copyright Law Changes

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the undo-undo-undo dept.

The Internet 216

phobonetik writes "The New Zealand Prime Minister announced his Government will throw out the controversial Section 92A of the Copyright Amendment (New Technologies) Act and start again. The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses. The changes were hours away from being signed but a series of online protests, a petition on Government grounds, as well as public rebuttal by a large ISP and by Google contributed to the Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry."

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Guys... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297823)

"The proposed law changes contained 'guilty upon accusation, without appeal' clauses and heavy compliance costs to ISPs and businesses."

What the HELL, New Zealand?

Re:Guys... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298691)

S'alright. They responded in the proper fashion. Now just watch to see if they try to slip it somewhere else. I don't know if they can hide it inside another bill like they do in the states. But now, the whole internet's watching. Good luck, Mr bureaucrat!

Re:Guys... (5, Insightful)

ouder (1080019) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298697)

It's not just the people. It looks like a lot of other industries finally woke up and say "Hey, this stuff the RIAA/MPAA is pulling is bad for OUR business." I was wondering how long it would take for other businesses to start putting up some resistance to the recording industry. I really hope this signals the start of a new trend. Perhaps the RIAA pushed to far on this one and woke up some sleeping giants.

Actually (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298813)

I am more concerned that this kind of idea is even in the west. It seems that we have a LOT of facism going on. In light of Biden's ties to the RIAA and even the current negotiation of a new international copyright treaty that is not being shown (even with a FOIA), it makes you wonder.

Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon Rpt (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297831)

Barack Obama hell bent on bankrupting the USA once and for all.

- Chairman Barack Hussein "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption, Rahm Emanuel (Radical authoritarian Statist-Zionist whose father was part of the Murderous Civilian Killing Israeli Terrorist Organization known as IRGUN), Connected to Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat), Connected to Ayers, a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom, Preacher Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a black-elitist who wants all the people who largely "pay the freight" to suffer, 31 million on food stamps, more blacks are in prison and on food-stamps per capita than anyone else. The problem with Wright is simply this: the facts are "racist."
- Obama: Racist, AIPAC-Zionist, Corrupted and a Traitor and a Liar who can't even produce a valid birth certificate (which is not a certificate of live birth)
- Raytheon lobbyist in Pentagon
- Goldman Sachs insider second in command at Treasury.
- Cabinet has had several nominees and appointees with multiple tax fraud issues.
- The head of the IRS and the head of the Treasury, Geithner, is a Tax Cheat
- Lied about no lobbyists
- Lied about having a new degree of accountability and a SUNSHINE period of new laws, he has signed bills with little or no review at whitehouse.gov as promised.
- Appointed a second amendment violating Rich-pardoning treasonist Eric Holder as AG, the top cop of the USA, a man who helped a fugitive evade justice.
- Has not put a dime in for a single new nuclear power plant but wants to help bridges and roads to promote more driving.
- Obama, Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel have a LOT to hide. They literally lived next to each other, Rahm had (until being Chairman Obama's Chief of staff) Blagojevich's old federal congressional seat. Blagojevich helped Chairman "The Teleprompter" Obama cheat his way to the Illinois senate by getting other candidates thrown off the ballot in Illinois. Why do you think Blagojevich was so mad? Obama DID owe him, big time. Rahm and Obama are using Blagojevich and trying to cut his head off to keep him away.
- Tony Rezko, Iraqi Arms Dealer Nahdmi Auchi, and of course Aiham Alsammarae. Chairman "The Teleprompter" Hussein Obama is so corrupted its a joke.
- Fools and "useful idiots" twist the pie charts by leaving welfare, workfare, interest on debt, social security, Medicare and Medicaid out and focusing only on non-whole "discretionary" pie charts.
2007 high level pie chart, Federal Budget, USA [wikimedia.org]
2009 Pie chart, detailed, Federal Budget, USA [wikimedia.org]
- Chairman Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive (especially against China, India, East Europe/Russia). This will be a huge disaster and change you can believe in will strap you and your grandkids with more debt. No taxation without representation? Obama is spending money for the next two-three generations and they can't even vote yet, or even have been born.
- An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state, why should the taxpayers (plebian citizen-slaves of a police state).
- The spending going on now vastly eclipses all previous spending. In fact, the massive trillion plus debts is a thing of the 80's onwards. Congress signs the checks, remember that Year after year, as egregious as the pentagon spending is, that the social spending is completely a waste of money and it is unfunded over the long term. Eisenhower built the interstates, the US could build a new power infrastructure with this money but instead is being pissed into creating more of an entitlement system that is STILL unfunded, and without massive poll-taxes and far more aggressive progressive taxes, could NEVER be funded.
- The budgeting being done today were recently reported by a non-partisan auditing commission will lead to about 10 TRILLION in new debt over the next 10 years. Obama is going to double the national debt while doing nothing to address the unfunded debt obligations of Social Security.
- Clinton appointed David Walker of the GAO, he quit, the unfunded debt obligations have rendered the USA insolvent according to accounting standards.
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion [usatoday.com]
US Public Debt Unfunded Debt Obligations [wikipedia.org]
- Most of the world population gets NOTHING from their governments, or a very bare minimum or services that benefit only the upper echelons of society. However, the liar Chairman Obama says we need his universal "state-hospital" rationed health care to be competitive. Bull. China and India give nothing, and they are the biggest threat to the American worker. By forcing healthcare and higher taxes, Americans will be less competitive.
- If you think 60% tax rates end to end (income, accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, excise tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, misc internet sales tax and many more taxes that I can't recall at the moment) will make the US competitive, along with compulsory programs to provide everyone with health care is going to make the US competitive in the age of India and China, you are a joke.
- As the US nationalizes (read: rations healthcare) to the least common denominator of affordability without regard to efficacy, people with money will simply look into medical tourism so those with money can go to medical parks in India and get real health care. Those who have lived in Canada or in the UK can tell you "free" healthcare is NOT a panacea. If you think this, you are again, a useful idiot. The NHS in the UK has given bad blood and Hepatitis and AIDS blood to people, and Jade Goody who just died was misdiagnosed twice resulting in her death (She was all cleared twice of cervical cancer which she just died of). The NHS in the UK is not able to be sued or held accountable. Neither will Chairman Obama's rationed health care service for America.
- Sorry to bust the socialist bubble-lie, but support of these types of policies will simply lower the standard of living in the USA, particularly for the middle class. At least at the end of the Eisenhower projects the USA got roads to show for the spending, and with this new spending, the USA could have built power plants that get the USA out of the middle east, but the age of government for the sake of government is upon us, and the useful idiots line up and believe empty promises.
The pentagon (and Bechtel, Kroll, Bluewater, Halliburton, etc) could get less than half of what they get today, but that will fix nothing fundamental in terms of government spending. It is simply not enough to make a difference when compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security entitlements.
See: YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy [youtube.com]
- If Obama thinks its ok to lie to 300 million people about being able to "take care of them" without even being honest about what that care would look like, then being an idiot and believing in Obama is for you.
- The US Government already have over 50% of the budget on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security. Socialists: Good job on that one, its working great. Solution to the current near-collapse-due-to-over-spending: add more unfunded entitlements!
- You Socialist-liars can break my spirit and my financial back to force me to "need" a federal government that is turning this country into a police state and turn it into a quasi-socialist lie, but I will, I must put up a fight. I have kids to educate and feed, and the stuff you sell (which is failing to various degrees everywhere else as implemented) is simply forcing a culture of failure on a once great, libertarian free country.
- I will not be complacent with your "change," and there will be a point where civil war will become an option. See how hard you can push before you get it. How much more than half can the truly productive workers in this country afford to pay. Keep pushing to find out how to start a civil war.
- The socialist-lie of a plan will not work, its not fundable, it WILL destroy the currency to fund it, and its really as simple as this: if this insanity is funded by borrowing from the US's economic and military adversaries then Obama and his socialist cabal is NOT fit to administrate society. Rome fell. Kings who mis-manged their treasuries all fell. Every example of unhinged spending leads to the same result: systemic collapse.
- Obama and his sycophantic lunatics would want to have a civil war to get Chairman Obama's way and force the socialist-lie system on my already tax paying law abiding ass. And as far as "no new taxes" for those under 250k, its a lie, the tax is called inflation, which is set to begin just about now that the Chinese wont want the USA's worthless treasuries to fund the socialist-lie fantasy (one that COMMUNIST China doesn't even try and sell to its people!)
- Chairman Obama's numbers don't add up. There is a $59 trillion dollar hole (UFDO) in social security alone. AIG $150 billion here, TARP $350 billion there. $800 billion for a highly dubious stimulus package. Another one on the way. $59 trillion hole in the balance sheet IGNORED. China saying they aren't going to buy treasuries, Clinton clamoring to find buyers now. $3.6 trillion dollar budget, potential military action on Mexico, Iran still a "terrorist state" at the behest of the AIPAC, spending up, dollar about to fall, inflation over time since Breton Woods extremely easy to document, yet, the socialist-liars question when the numbers (the Federal Government numbers) simply don't add up to the point where if the US-GOV was a company it would be insolvent.
  -How dare the taxpayers question what Chairman Obama's drastic spending increases are going to do to the purchasing power of our savings because Chairman Obama wants to recklessly spend and try to maintain and American empire AND guarantee a standard of living, and Chairman Obama doesn't even want to build a single nuclear power plant to do it? Chairman Obama must be a complete and total lunatic moron.
- Obama is either a negligent idiot or an unhinged maniac with delusional fantasies. Meanwhile, Chainman Obama's tax dodging Treasury Secretary has 17 unfilled positions, the Treasury Dept. isn't even functioning at this point.
- "General welfare" in the constitution was, according to the man who wrote it, Madison, meant to be extremely limited in scope. The federal government per the constitution doesn't even have the enumerated POWER to deal with economic messes. A lot of these "POWERS" were created while there is a crisis to dupe the public into accepting an un-constitutional authoritarian regime as the government and to usurp authority over the people.
- The USA is a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to eat a sheep. Also a constitutional republic isn't about using a barely-majority or a plurality to stuff your (un-fundable disastrous) crap down the disenfranchised other-half's throat.
- With Obama's authoritarian corrupted criminal (aiding and abetting a criminal in flight of prosecution, Rich case) Eric Holder in charge, we won't have our inalienable and enumerated rights to firearms much longer. For a constitutional law expert, Obama must have never read the federalist papers or he would simply hand himself as a traitor.
- The arbitrary expansion of "general welfare" is not only unconstitutional, it may very well lead to a serious conflict on the issue.
- Here is a debate on general welfare and how stuff like this came to pass, but was clearly no intended by the authors of the document of root law.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" (In reference to the general welfare clause)
So strongly did the founders believe that "general welfare" wouldn't be expanded as written:
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison's point. (That the "general welfare" clause was "clearly" nota free pass for government)
Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law a relief act, for instance wasn't covered by any of these powers, it was unconstitutional.
"why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hamilton goes on to argue that making Amendments (e.g., enumerating Free speech, press and assembly) and enumerating the 'right' would have the following effect:
(A bill of rights) "would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down. "
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison [The US Supreme Court has found the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution to be much more elastic than did Mr. Madison. But as the "author of the Constitution," what does he know?]
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...--The Declaration of Independence
- Wrong, monetizing failures causes more. Japan showed us this for decades. But hey, Chairman Obama thinks you can fix a problem DECADES in the making with a quick fixer-upper, he is screwed in the head.
- The complaints are with the Federal government (in general) since Breton Woods. The Federal Government and Obama's minions STILL didn't listen to David Walker, a Clinton appointee and former head of the GAO. This isn't about political parties anymore morons!
- Show me a single federal budget that was less than the previous. If this $3.6T budget goes, its never coming back barring systemic collapse.
- The United States Federal Government, The United States Federal Reserve, and the banks which were enabled to continue down reckless paths by a quasi government agency known as the Federal Reserve whose actions are not subject to congress and whose members are unelected. This situation is untenable and unconstitutional.
- Every inflationary road taken in history ends in collapse. Keynesian policies are widely regarded as no longer workable.
- Inflation is a tax: What ignorant tax and spenders don't take into account here is the relative percentages of people's wealth (both net and gross) and the costs of owning and maintaining houses, cars, standards of living.
- Inflation via deficit spending is going to make it such that you will be paying a lot more by percentage of your income to maintain a given standard of living. Obama's arguments are so poorly thought out and seek to blame "Republicans" for the mess, its really simply laughable - the needs cleanup now, not worsening.
- You can't spend your way out of a hole if the creditors (e.g. China) start telling the USA they won't buy. It is that simple. Now America starts to have to collateralize the debt with assets. The USA will be selling off chunks of American assets to back the new debt. One day, it may even be necessary to sell Alaska back to Russia because no one will take greenbacks to prop up a failing version of a modern Rome.
- Ah, here we go with the Matthew Lesko arguments. [lesko.com]
Interest rates were on the rise before the government stepped in with free money for everyone (the fine print of course indicate massive strings attached).
Other economies, for example, India, have the central rates set to far more reasonable/realistic rates (at the moment ~ 8+%), which is still tends to be too low, but shows that if you need someone else capital you need to pay a premium for it, and given that capital is in short supply, it would stand to reason that a premium must be charged for it.
The problem is the unrealistic growth rates of mature economies don't allow for profiting via growth projections (rather than simply earning money). So the government steps in, turns on the free money spigot, gets the interest rates for savings down in the 1-2% range while diluting the value of the whole currency in order to prop up dying companies that ran the business like a Madhoff Ponzi scheme.
- The Republicans aren't solely responsible for the crisis as Obama's minions would have you believe, congress is (no particular congress), the Executive of the US government (no particular one) and the US Federal Reserve System are all at fault.
- Fundamentally, the government is trying to fix the prices of various things to "make it all work." This pulling on the invisible hand is a fools venture. It was predicted long ago the housing collapse (and those, such as myself, in the know, wished while realizing the housing collapse coming that we were wrong for everyone's sake - but the truth is the truth) . It may be that the Austrian (von Mises) economists will ultimately be proven right.
- We are a nation of partially educated whiney grabby idiots, and we got the government that represents this. The Chinese, India and other up and coming nations will show no mercy for this arrogant abuse of our status as the world's forex reserves.
- War and asset sales will continue to be the only option for this scheme until it is corrected at the core. And to say that the government has already averted a depression by doing what they did (most of the monies injected wont be "felt" for some time), is just arrogance and stupidity. Price fixing prolonged the Great Depression. Price-fixing (or attempting to) houses will do the same, but probably worse.
- Obama's minions simply don't care if the US is bankrupted and rendered insolvent, they just want a say in how its done, presumably to "feel safe." Rather selfish.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." AND "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (Possibly Richard Jackson)

- Everyone better realize that inflation will pay a major role in funding un-fundable fantasies, wiping the savers and the middle class out. The problem is, that other countries are growing tired of making our Federal Reserve notes worth something by buying our debt as treasuries. Obama's minions talk about spending, but in order to "get what YOU want" you will sell debt to potential economic and military adversaries? Real bright. What's really sad is that despite David Walker being an authority on these issues, people refuse to even watch him and listen to what he is saying.
- On the success of Canada and its form of Socialism: A huge country like Canada with massive amounts of uranium and tar sands and natural resources and a huge land mass with a scant 30 million people is an order of magnitude less of a problem to manage than a country with 10x its population, a serious leaky southern border, backfiring aggressive foreign policy, particularly with Iran, and the US is competing with countries like India and China whose middle classes are larger than the US's entire population. The top 5 students in every Indian and Chinese primary school out numbers all the kids in primary school in the US. Canada is a idyllic island, the USA is front and center in an all out economic and political clash of ideologies.
- Cap and trade (and pollution control for solving global problems) will never work unless the top 10 countries in the world (in terms of both GDP and manufacturing capacity and population) are on board. Period end. If the world doesn't quickly move to nuclear now and fusion shortly, it is OVER possibly not if every home on the planet gets a wind vane, but that seems unlikely to happen (since its possible now).
- Keynes calls it "the paradox of thrift" and suggested that policies forcing people not to save is a "good idea." The guy wanted people spending all the time, or if he didn't, he never conveyed that to his protégés well enough for them to not do what they are doing. Right now the plebeians in the US are actually stashing cash, and everyone from Obama to the media is trying to get people to spend spend spend. The best thing for the long term is for people to prepare for the coming hell, not set out with no reserves.
- I have seen Keynes invoked to justify nearly every bad move in the past decade, and its warming up to be a potential currency collapse, the collapse of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve notes, and a collapse of the NYSE. And then they invoke Keynes to suggest the best way out of the mess is to spend out of an already near-critically debt massed black hole.
- A house is run like a town is run like a country or business is run like a state is run like a government. If there are things the government is doing that would either force your home into bankruptcy or into jail via fraud charges, then the government and banks shouldn't be operating in that fashion. A certain degree of stretchy liquidity is in order, but in terms of percent of GDP, there is no way of justifying what they US has now.
- Iceland failed at 850 percent debt to GDP. The US is at 350 and rising. It is not a good thing at all.
- What is happening to the dollar as a forex standard. [youtube.com]
- March 19, 2009 C-SPAN - "Let's Quit Destroying Our Dollar!" [youtube.com]
- HR 1207 (A bill to make the Fed more accountable and to answer questions regarding the dollar policy) [loc.gov]

Title: Obama sidetracked by fiscal mess, but presses on [yahoo.com]
"Being heard above the din may prove difficult. Lawmakers are wrangling over taxing people who got big bonuses and worrying the president's budget could generate $9.3 trillion in red ink over the next decade."
- Kremlin to pitch new global currency [infowars.com]
Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency

Holy crap, even the Russians and Chinese get it. Strange days are here.

Re:Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298431)

Sounds like you should move to New Zealand.

In other news... tl;dr

Re:Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298535)

Yeah, you see slashdot doesnt have inline images so I cant make a picture-pages style story book for you. Maybe on fark? Literacy is a bitch, I know.

Re:Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon (1)

interested pyro (1499899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299237)

and this is why we need a "mark for deletion" mod on /. on TFA, They have their own Constitution (or whatever is their equivalent) and we have ours. we need to stop looking at other countries with our Constitution in our minds. GL and HF trying to get that into our constitution......

Re:Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27299387)

Mark for deletion. So you are a wiki-barnstar-fuck that deletes shit, a deltionist!

Well, we need a users marked for deletion, like karma whoring fucking rank and file red-shirt loser fucks like yourself.

If your faggot username was put to a vote, you'd be GONE, fucking gone. Welcome to Internet Sharia, a true democracy, where the MINISTRY OF TRUTH (minitru) ALWAYS FUCKING WINS, and you, plebians and proles, you always have to eat these authoritarian communist totalitarian thugs SHIT.

Re:Afro-Leninst Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon (1)

Phasma Felis (582975) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299929)

wiki-barnstar-fuck

Do what, now?

Industry? (4, Insightful)

alexo (9335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297865)

[...] contributed to the Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry

What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?

Re:Industry? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297907)

Who cares. First Flight of the Conchords, and now this. Maybe I'll move to New Zealand.

Re:Industry? (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297917)

That would require a ridiculously complex system of checks and balances.

Totalitarianism is better because it's easy. You just slide down the hill.

Cheques and balances (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298291)

That would require a ridiculously complex system of checks and balances.

Easy: Lobbyist writes check, bank increases elected official's campaign committee's balance.

Re:Industry? (4, Insightful)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297981)

People? What people? Typical people don't know what it is all about, they just visit youtube sometimes and write emails to friends. But we, slashdot readers are part of IT industry and want those changes. So yes, it is wishes of it industry not normal people.

Re:Industry? (5, Funny)

getuid() (1305889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298199)

people> What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?
govm't> Yeah, what about them?
people> Well, they should be... respected or something.
govm't> Why?
people> You know... the constitution and all that... that says that goverment is elected by the people, ...
govm't> Well, government *is* elected by the people.
people> ...then, aren't you supposed to do as we say?
govm't> Nope, not really. Why?
people> Y'know, the constitution...
govm't> What about the constitution?
people> Well, it says you're not supposed to do the things you're just doing. So...
govm't> So?
people> So stop doing it.
govm't> Why?
people> Because the constitution...
govm't> ...I don't care about the constituion. Go shove it.
people> But you're supposed to, or...
govm't> Or what?

Re:Industry? (4, Insightful)

alexo (9335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298637)

people> But you're supposed to, or...
govm't> Or what?

+1 depressing.

So Democracy is a sham. People cannot force the government to do anything. The only way to cause a change is to become the government and whoever has a realistic chance of achieving that goal, will become as bad as those they replace.

Re:Industry? (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298789)

people> You know... the constitution and all that... that says that goverment is elected by the people, ...
govm't> Well, government *is* elected by the people.

This is the really depressing part. Wake up, sheeple.

Re:Industry? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300855)

And what do you propose we do? I vote for people that I think will do good things in government. They either don't make it in or end up succumbing to the system like every politician before them, no matter how good their intentions going in.

Re:Industry? (3, Insightful)

silanea (1241518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27302427)

And what do you propose we do?

What everyone before us has done when they were fed up with their rulers: Line a few of the worst offenders up against the wall. Makes one hell of an example for the rest, at least for a while.

*snore* (5, Insightful)

upside (574799) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298643)

"gubberment bad, people good", guaranteed positive mod points. Sure it's good to be sceptical but where is the insight in the parent post?

How about:

people> We want no taxes but good services.
people> We want more efficiency but no layoffs.
people> We want to drive big fat cars, cheap petrol, clean air and an end to funding nasty regimes
people> We want conspicuous consumption and a clean environment
people> We want total safety, zero risk, absolute liberty, no personal responsibility and no nannying from the state
govm't> *explodes*

Re:*snore* (3, Insightful)

alexo (9335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299069)

Let's start with:

people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability.
crickets> *chirp* *chirp*
government> Look! A paedophile terrorist pirate! We'll save you!

Re:*snore* (2, Insightful)

interested pyro (1499899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299339)

people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability. crickets> *chirp* *chirp* government> Look! A paedophile terrorist pirate! We'll save you!

or people> WE WANT A BETTER ENVIRONMENT!!!
car manufacturers> ALL NEW 2010 HUMMER WITH 5 MPG!!
people> OOOOOOO, SHINY!!!!! MUST GET CAR!!!
or
people> WE WANT A BETTER ENVIRONMENT!! hey you over there, go make my environment better. too lazy.......

Re:*snore* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27301293)

Let's start with:

people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability.
crickets> *chirp* *chirp*
government> Look! A communist paedophile terrorist ninja! We'll save you!

There, fixed that for you.

Re:*snore* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27302327)

Let's start with:

people> We want honesty, transparency, responsibility and accountability.
crickets> *chirp* *chirp*
government> Look! A paedophile terrorist pirate! We'll save you!

government > nvm, it was just Bush

Re:*snore* (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299773)

Well, it's called leadership. I hated Tony Blair with a fiery passion, but he had it. Before Iraq he also had trust, which you need in order to say to people things like: in order to keep producing enough energy into the 21st century, we have to invest now in nuclear. I'm your leader, and I say we're going to do it.

But he pushed it too far, not by siding with Bush in itself, but by steamrollering the massive and visible opposition to the war.

Obama currently has a level of trust at least as high as Blair's used to be. It would be good to see him making some of these supposedly unpopular decisions, in such a way that even his detractors have to acknowledge his guts.

Re:*snore* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27300473)

people> We want no taxes but good services.
govm't> Raises taxes and cuts services
people> We want more efficiency but no layoffs.
govm't> Reduces efficiency through privatization
people> We want to drive big fat cars, cheap petrol, clean air and an end to funding nasty regimes
govm't> Does nothing
people> We want conspicuous consumption and a clean environment
govm't> Pays companies to offshore
people> We want total safety, zero risk, absolute liberty, no personal responsibility and no nannying from the state
govm't> Amazed that the propaganda has worked!

How about Re:*snore* (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300805)

How about:
Politician> We need your tax money, but we will not provide any worthwhile services in return
Politician> We will not work efficiently, employ 15 people to do 5 peoples' job. And blame you for troubling us.
Politician> We will pass laws enforcing seat belts and speed limits, but our own governors will not follow them.
Politician> We are prodigious in consumption of your tax money, but we insist you be frugal
Politician> We are quite willing to sacrifice your liberty and freedom under the guise of offering security. But our policemen will shoot unarmed people, and you cannot sue them or us.
People> *explodes*

Re:Industry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27300293)

govm't> Well, government *is* elected by the people.

Except it isn't. One of usually two equally upper-class, previously unknown, chosen-for-you-to-choose people is elected.

Surely you can see how illusory modern democracy is?

Re:Industry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27300687)

What about the wishes of the, um you know... people?

Well...The humans are dead. We poisoned their asses, with poisonous gasses.

Sincerely,
IT Robot

Merry-go-round (3, Interesting)

mirshafie (1029876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297881)

Seems like every other day now a new crazy law is put in place, just to be repealed a week later. What is this, a circus?

Re:Merry-go-round (3, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298531)

Political job security.....

Re:Merry-go-round (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298605)

Ah yes, the Law Of The Circus, where it's Every Clown For Himself.

Seriously, what kind of circuses have you been going to where they change the law every week?

Re:Merry-go-round (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298985)

It's because they're getting caught now. This spying on each other works both ways. No more secrets.

Re:Merry-go-round (3, Funny)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300663)

Seems like every other day now a new crazy law is put in place, just to be repealed a week later. What is this, a circus?

Lets take a comparative approach to this:

Circus: has people jumping through hoops
Government: has people jumping through hoops

Circus: clowns are involved
Government: people act as clowns

Circus: charges for entry
Government: charges taxes

Circus: some people are frightened by the clowns
Government: some people are frightened by the people acting acting as clowns

I can quite understand the misunderstanding.

Democracy (5, Interesting)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297955)

> The changes were hours away from being signed but a series of online protests
> (...) Government changing course and respecting the wishes of the IT industry.

So whats the point in going to vote in the first place if theres no guarantee that the will of the people will be mirrored in the actions of the elected goverment until mass protests fill up the streets (or tubes)?

It seems that we easily could just appoint a dictator for life once and then keep protesting against his decisions we dont like, it wouldnt in practice be any different to the current situation.

Either we have a democracy, in which case demonstrations and protests again the democratically elected goverment shouldnt be needed, or we dont, in which case we dont need elections.

Re:Democracy (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298071)

But without democracy, Premier Election Systems will have no one to sell their voting machines to! That's why they'll lobby against totalitarianism.

Re:Democracy (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300917)

Hitler too needed ballots to be printed and boxes to put them in.
So your company will in fact enjoy a greater margin of profits...

Re:Democracy (5, Insightful)

cs02rm0 (654673) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298077)

So whats the point in going to vote in the first place if theres no guarantee that the will of the people will be mirrored in the actions of the elected goverment until mass protests fill up the streets (or tubes)?

So far as I can see, democracies have never had anything to do with the will of the public, just the will of their elected (from a pitifully small selection of) representatives.

There needs to be a better way of actually getting the will of the general public involved somehow, democracy as it stands is a pretty poor implementation of that. Politicians are a very dirty abstraction layer.

Re:Democracy (4, Insightful)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298575)

No, no there doesn't.

"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter" - (Churchill, afaik)

What there needs to be is some kind of supercrazyawesome education, and a willingness to pay attention and be involved, of the general population. Then, optionally, a way of getting the will of the general public involved.

Re:Democracy (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299853)

Actually, what there needs to be is a significant reduction in the scope of government -- particularly the upper, more distant levels -- such that people are rarely affected by decisions made without their consent.

The ideal form of this is not democracy, which purports to seek input from all but places no value whatsoever on sovereign individual rights. Instead it resembles the system known to some as Unanimous Consent, or voluntaryism, where each individual possesses full veto power insofar as their own person and property are concerned.

Re:Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27301355)

The ideal form of this is not democracy, which purports to seek input from all but places no value whatsoever on sovereign individual rights. Instead it resembles the system known to some as Unanimous Consent, or voluntaryism, where each individual possesses full veto power insofar as their own person and property are concerned.

So what happens when multiple individual's rights come into conflict? For example, when a business on private property pollutes (and I'm not talking about just CO2 here, also nasty stuff that can harm people on an individual basis like mercury, lead, or sulfur dioxide) the local air or watershed? Under your system what rights do people have not to be harmed by the activities of others, and more importantly how any redress possible? If one person, say the business owner, can unilaterially veto any collective action by the community against them I don't see how this system can deal with situations like this. The only real option would be individuals exercising violence against the offender outside of the system, in other words vigilantism.

Re:Democracy (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298745)

There needs to be a better way of actually getting the will of the general public involved somehow, democracy as it stands is a pretty poor implementation of that

As the quote goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

As the other quote goes, democracy is the worst system there is, except for all the others.

Re:Democracy (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299153)

There needs to be a better way of actually getting the will of the general public involved somehow, democracy as it stands is a pretty poor implementation of that. Politicians are a very dirty abstraction layer.

The US system really lacks choice. Right now I got about 7 parties to choose from that's currently in parliament, and while not a perfect fit it's at least somewhat more representative of my wishes, and we really have big changes. You could say that the more changes the more stays the same, but some parties grow large while some are now half the size they were at the last election. It's amazing how much more dynamics when you have competing parties on both "sides", not to mention a few that just don't follow the big left-right axis.

What I'm afraid of with a more direct democracy is the wikipedia syndrome - whoever has the most time on their hands wins. I don't want to constantly have to beat down proposals that the majority is against, but where some special interest group think they can gather a flash mob while the others are tired of constantly repeating their position.

Often people mistake wrong incentives with incompetence. Like the US economy, you think they're that incompetent? Hell no. But they knew that if they just pushed the bubble a little more and cashed in their quarterly bonus for the last few years they'd be better off personally - the storm is hitting everyone else. That they might not get the last AIG millions is just that the dessert got cut short. Add real incompetence and not just greed on top and you will be looking at the Great Depression II.

Re:Democracy (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300845)

US is NOT a democracy.
It is a Republic.
But US "brings" democracy and "liberates" nations under the guise of democracy.

Re:Democracy (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300193)

There is a better way. People can get off their asses and participate. Most people don't give a damn about politics, they think the system just runs by itself. When they wake up, they suddenly notice the government is fucking them.

Re:Democracy (3, Insightful)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298175)

If you try to do a street protest in a country that has a dictator for life, you run the very real risk of being beaten, tortured, and killed.

It's been known for a long time that quite often the only way to get the government to actually listen to its citizens is to stage some form of peaceful mass protest. That's why that right is protected in the US Bill of Rights.

Re:Democracy (3, Insightful)

cs02rm0 (654673) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298235)

It's been known for a long time that quite often the only way to get the government to actually listen to its citizens is to stage some form of peaceful mass protest. That's why that right is protected in the US Bill of Rights.

And why the UK has been slowly eroding any rights of protest near Parliament, at certain events, etc.

Re:Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298701)

And why the UK's ID card roadshow had events on private property (like shopping malls). Anti ID card activists who were merely handing out leaflets were turfed out by mall security guards. Not because the govt didn't want any diverging opinions (naturally), but because the mall owner didn't like them. How convenient!

Re:Democracy (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299311)

That used to work the other way around, too. When the police kept moving anti-apartheid protestors away from the South African embassy in London, the Church of Saint-Martin-in-the-Fields, right opposite the embassy, invited the protestors onto the church steps, where the police couldn't touch them because the protest was perfectly legal on private land with the consent of the landowner. Of course, now the protestors could just be served with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders on the grounds that they are annoying the neighbours :-(

Re:Democracy (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298735)

"..protest near Parliament.."

As far as I know, I think our Govt defines "near" as a 4 mile radius! - this covers the whole of inner London!

Re:Democracy (3, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298759)

Which is exactly why we need to protest in a MUCH larger group in EXACTLY those places.

Re:Democracy (2, Interesting)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298861)

Absolutely agree - we better contact the police and ask for thier permission (as required by current law)!

Re:Democracy (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299375)

Because UK has a long history of hidden Fascist regime.

Now that EU is moving toward one of the most democratic regime around, UK is trying to get out.

Re:Democracy (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300133)

That's why that right is protected in the US Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is just some nonsense to be ignored by the government. It's all covered up by "they didn't really mean that when they wrote it", even though you can read in the federalist papers that they did. Few of the so-called "rights" are still available. Freedom of religion means you are not allowed to display any sign of religious behavior anywhere. Freedom of speach is just lawsuit material. Right to bear arms is buried under massive amounts of paperwork and background checks.

The Bill of Rights is basically worthless now. You might as well tear it up.

Re:Democracy (2, Insightful)

billscott122 (933400) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298261)

"guilty upon accusation, without appeal" - I thought New Zealand was a democracy, with, you know, fair trials and "innocent until proven guilty" customs. I wonder when they changed. Too bad. We need all the democratic governments we can get these days.

Re:Democracy (5, Insightful)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298407)

Either we have a democracy, in which case demonstrations and protests again the democratically elected goverment shouldnt be needed, or we dont, in which case we dont need elections.

You must be one of those people who believes democracy operates based on fairy dust and kittens. Protests in the street are a particularly notable feature of democracy, not something democracy eliminates the need for!

To spell it out for you, politicians are for the most part corrupt and immoral and have little interest in mirroring the will of the people, but at least in a democracy the people have some leverage. Politicians can ignore a small fraction of the population pretty safely, but when that fraction takes to the streets and threatens to attract a lot of attention the politicians have to start worrying about reelection.

Democracy is not a perfect system, in fact it has many disadvantages when compared to a well run dictatorship, but the fact people can safely and effectively take to the streets in protest makes it the most effective system we've found yet.

Re:Democracy (1)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299149)

> but the fact people can safely and effectively take to the streets in protest

Your post doesnt contradict my question at all. All youre saying is that the sole fact that you can roam the streets and call politicians names without anybody shooting at you, makes up a democracy, which couldnt be more wrong.

The word itself actually implies that the will of the people is imaged onto the actions of their elected goverment and that the election every few years is a kind of a correction factor and a way to readjust the official policy to peoples wishes.

How exactly is roaming the streets and calling politicians names a part of this mechanism, when it still stays at the politician's sole disposal if he's going to react or not to react to the protests? Until youre actually allowed to vote again a few years down the road, the protests may be as (in)effective as a collection of someones meaningless tweets.

How is demonstrating and protesting outside of a election process (and not being shot at) to beg the politician to change his policy any more relevant than demonstrating in a dictatorship (and... not being shot at) to beg a dictator to change his policy?

> makes it the most effective system we've found yet

In Soviet Russia, they made you believe that too! ;)

Re:Democracy (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300611)

I never claimed that protests are the exclusive means for the people to make their will known; there are of course other measures such as the ballot box and lobbying. However, the idea that protests represent a breakdown of the democratic process is downright fantasy. I've never heard of a democratic government that operated for any length of time without protest, so your real democracy has never existed on earth.

The idea that the will of the people is "imaged onto the actions of their elected government" seems equally bizarre to me. I've never seen the slightest evidence for this occurring in any democracy, and more importantly, don't see it as remotely desirable. It is a fundamental feature of a representative democracy that sometimes the will of the majority is ignored, and often this is a good thing.

Finally, if you can't see how protesting in a dictatorship is less effective than protesting in a democracy, I really don't know what to add to my earlier post. It seems so blatantly obvious that I'm at a loss to guess what part needs explaining.

Re:Democracy (2, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298443)

This (and other crazy laws which have been repealed) was passed by the left-wing Labour Party government, which got voted out in a landslide in December.

Re:Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27301643)

This (and other crazy laws which have been repealed) was passed by the left-wing Labour Party government, which got voted out in a landslide in December.

I find it interesting that you blame our Labour government for this huge mistake. All the way through the process for passing this into law, the National (current) government supported it. The final reading had the following votes:

Ayes 111 New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.
Noes 10 Green Party 6; MÄori Party 4.

Re:Democracy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298741)

First, you're confusing a Democracy with a Republic. Understandable, because they're similar. In a true democracy, the will of the people is followed. Right down to the burning of witches. A true democracy is better known as mob rule.

Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics. The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.

In a republic, you don't cast your vote for someone who will follow your will completely, or else you might as well get rid of the representatives and institute a true democracy. You cast your vote for someone that you think is honest, has experience and training that will help him get the job done, and thinks enough like you that you'll be satisfied with the job he does. The idea is that the elected officials are more intelligent, honest, and even self-sacrificing than the average person, or to put it another way, that they would do a better job at running the government than the aggregate will of the people. They're supposed to be the voice of reason who refuses to burn a witch in the midst of a rabid crowd carrying torches and pitchforks. Even if she weighs the same as a duck.

The democratic election process in a republic is not to guarantee that people get what they want, but to hold the leaders accountable to the people so they can't stray too far from their constituency. But in some cases, like the one described above, they can and should go against the will of the people.

Of course, whether the reality matches the ideal is certainly up for debate.

Re:Democracy (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299843)

In a true democracy, the will of the people is followed. Right down to the burning of witches. A true democracy is better known as mob rule.

No, mob rule is mob rule. That's not the same thing as democracy, and it's an absurd bit of political rhetoric to claim that it is.

Most countries that we call democracies are actually republics.

Most democracies are also republics. New Zealand, however, most certainly is not a republic, although it is a democracy.

The key points of a republic are (a) the government is ruled by representatives chosen by the people, and (b) the rule of law is superior to the rulers.

Those are the principles of any workable democratic system that anyone has ever devised, as long as you replace the word "ruled" with "run" in point (a). A republic is one way to implement those principles; a constitutional monarchy, which is what New Zealand has, is another. Americans, living in a republican democracy (or a "democratic republic," but that phrase has been hijacked by a type of government which creates emphatically non-democratic republics) tend to confuse the two.

Re:Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298833)

I doubt the protests would have made any difference if Telstra and Google had not weighed in. You can't get anything done without the lobbying power of huge corporations.

Re:Democracy (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300113)

Democracy is not only about casting the vote, it's about full citizenship and it definitely doesn't work if people simply go cast the vote and then forget it.

A politician can (and will) do things that are exactly the opposite of what people elected him for. You see, the corporations are whispering in the politicians' ears all the time, not only during campaign. If people can't make more noise meanwhile, guess who the politician is going to listen to?

Re:Democracy (with consequences) (1)

EvilDroid (705289) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300795)

Obviously some penalties are needed otherwise the weasels will constantly try, try, and try again until all civil liberties are gone.

Let it be resolved that: If any elected politician tries to make a law which is found to contravene the spirit of the principles embodied in a countries bill or charter of rights and freedoms, then that politician will be immediately removed from office and publicly flogged.

Let's see how many friends in office the RIAA/MPAA etc. have after reading that into law.

Guilty Upon Accusation (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298089)

Good Lord, it sounds like we need to invade and liberate Australia. Guilty upon accusation laws only summon up memories of Joseph Stalin and similar bums.

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298141)

I know it's not easy but:
Australia != New Zealand

Yes, both places have been in the news over Internet law making recently but still...

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298255)

yes, but when austraia has more nautral resources, its an easier mistake to make

Why "liberate" AU when NZ is the target (3, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298355)

I know it's not easy but:
Australia != New Zealand

Then allow me to rephrase: Good Lord, it sounds like we need to invade and liberate Australia to set up a base from which to threaten New Zealand.

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298389)

As far as mistakes by Americans go it could have been worse. They might have thought you had WMD's capable of deployment within 15 minutes.

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298673)

Australia != New Zealand

Australia bang equals New Zealand?

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299443)

Heck, the "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq to get to somebody believed to be hiding near the Afghan/Pakistani border -- invading Australia instead of New Zealand seems to be as good as our precision strikes get nowadays.

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27298251)

Except, you know, people are tired of you Americans invading and liberating everyone around: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba (attempt counts), Somalia (same), Colombia, Panama, Lebanon... I could go on for a very long time.

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298549)

Except, you know, people are tired of you Americans invading and liberating everyone around: Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba (attempt counts), Somalia (same), Colombia, Panama, Lebanon... I could go on for a very long time.

Its like the Elf Liberation Front, except that people have very good reasons for not wanting to be "liberated".

Re: Guilty Upon Accusation (1)

loutr (626763) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299123)

Guilty upon accusation laws only summon up memories of Joseph Stalin and similar bums.

Yeah, like Sen. McCarthy.

Laws like this.. (4, Insightful)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298219)

...show just how grossly out of touch with reality governments have become.

Here's a few tips to any politician:
  • Before you even propose a law learn exactly what it is you're discussing.
  • Learn about the mechanical structure of the system.
  • Understand the nuances of the way it interacts with society.
  • And then ask your constituancy how they feel about it.

Obligatory (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298815)

  • ...
  • Profit!

Re:Laws like this.. (2, Informative)

hdparm (575302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299177)

It would be prudent to note that the proposal came from the previous (Labour) government, who were out of touch with reality on most other issues, too.

What's with the whacky NZ/AU laws? (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298237)

What's with all the really uptight censorship and recording/movie industry "yesManning" going on down in that part of the world? I'm really glad the Kiwis came to their senses on this one, but it seems like this success is just a drop compared to a much bigger bucket.

I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir, but judging by some of the more recent legislative gems we've been hearing about it just seems like lawmakers around the world are either insane or bought and paid for (or more likely; BOTH).

Fighting Censorship One Country at a Time... (1)

epdp14 (1318641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298263)

Viva La Revolucion!

The Kiwis have spoken (1)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298265)

Now pass the chips bro!

Light up the tubes! (3, Insightful)

gwait (179005) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298293)

Seems like a similar reaction Canada's minister (Jim Prentiss) had last year when he tried to pass a bunch of RIAA sanctioned copyright laws - He seemed surprised that anyone cared about the issue.

This news from New Zealand is extremely good news, (at least for now - they may sneak it back in piecemeal when the furor dies down),

At least some politicians can be made to feel the heat and go against the wishes of very high paid lobbyists.

Seems like one big problem, is that the mainstream media benefit by deals like the ACTA nonsense (national security my ass!) so will not dare print anything negative about it.

Very difficult in the current economic crisis to get any attention span.

Since politicians like soundbites, how about an internet headlines campaign:

"Obama appointees help RIAA sue Teenagers" or

"Government uses national security claim to protect the recording industry"

Try it yourself!

Re:Light up the tubes! (3, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298517)

"Obama appointees help RIAA sue Teenagers" or "Government uses national security claim to protect the recording industry"

It's exactly this sort of thing that buttresses my doubts about democracy. I know you were going for catchy headlines, but both of them are grossly oversimplified.

As I noted the other day, [slashdot.org] the DOJ's brief is an attempt to uphold the constitutionality of the statutory damages that Copyright Act permits. That issue cuts both ways, because if you emasculate statutory damages completely, when a big label rips off an independent musician, the musician won't be able to take them to task.

And regarding ACTA, the recording industry is peanuts compared to other players involved there. All of the major pharmaceutical and chemical companies are involved with ACTA, and those industries are far more important than the RIAA, no matter how you look at it. If anything, the national security claim is aimed at protecting their interests, and the RIAA is just along for the ride.

So while a lot of comments are along the lines of "why doesn't the government listen to the people more", keep in mind that a lot of times people are ill-informed and likely to act based on emotion rather than reason.

Re:Light up the tubes! (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298721)

It's exactly this sort of thing that buttresses my doubts about democracy. I know you were going for catchy headlines, but both of them are grossly oversimplified.

I don't see why it wouldn't work, Fox News has been doing that for years!

Re:Light up the tubes! (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298843)

I like how you justify keeping people uninformed by claiming that they're ignorant. :)

Re:Light up the tubes! (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298971)

I like how you justify keeping people uninformed by claiming that they're ignorant. :)

Care to explain how exactly I do that?

I absolutely wish people were more informed. I also don't think the way that will happen is for others to feed them sensationalistic headlines.

Re:Light up the tubes! (1)

ustolemyname (1301665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299089)

You justified the hiding of ACTA... and then called people ill-informed. Maybe his sensationalist headline of "Government uses national security claim to protect the recording industry" would seem silly if the contents of ATCA were known. But they're not, so your statement about ACTA is just as speculatory as his (even if yours is founded on reasonable assumptions).

Re:Light up the tubes! (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27299511)

You justified the hiding of ACTA... and then called people ill-informed.

No I didn't. I want ACTA revealed. I just think that a more accurate headline of "National security concerns invoked to hide trade treaty", maybe with a subtitle of "Drug and Chemical companies among those with primary interest" would be better. That way all those people who merely read headlines won't be going around with the idea that ACTA is primarily about the recording industry.

Re:Light up the tubes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27299143)

"It's exactly this sort of thing that buttresses my doubts about democracy. I know you were going for catchy headlines, but both of them are grossly oversimplified."

You state this and then decide these headlines shouldn't be shown.

But that is then keeping them in the dark because they're too dumb to understand anything other that a simplified headline.

Ignoring that underneath the headline is the text, which, not having to sit on a headline, can be less simplified.

But you kill the content because the headline is too simple...

Re:Light up the tubes! (1)

gwait (179005) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300819)

Point(s) well taken!

I'm thinking since the RIAA are very effective at using soundbites to oversimplify their case (don't you want to stop pirates from ripping off the poor artists?),
it's fair game to use the same tactic to get this subject in front of the public at large..

The ACTA is a good case in point, how can the public keep informed when pretty much everything about it is protected from freedom of information laws by claiming national security interests.
Call me cynical but I'll bet whatever is decided will be implemented in a slam dunk without any serious public debate.

The only information I can find is on wikileaks,
therefore I'm uninformed as to who the players are, and what the agenda is.

Re:Light up the tubes! (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298751)

This news from New Zealand is extremely good news, (at least for now - they may sneak it back in piecemeal when the furor dies down),

I would suspect this is exactly what will happen. Some natural resources bill, or health care bill, or some other completely unrelated but popular bill will get an amendment so that this BS can get shoved in through the back door.

That way, if you protest the bill, they can say "But why don't you think the orphans should be taken care of? Why do you hate orphans?"

Govt Stubborn To The End (4, Interesting)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298611)

I think the tag "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" could not be further from the truth!

After *Overwhelming* opposition via petitions, public outcry, comments from a "large ISP" and *Google* the "Govt" eventually backed down hours before this law passed.

This absolutely stinks of arrogance, grim determination and bloody-mindedness demonstrated by the "Govt" to try and *force* this law through despite widespread popular opinion and only backed-down at the last "conceivable moment".

If this was down to common sense the "Govt" would have abandonded this months ago or even at the earliest stages of discussion.

One way or another this law in some form is going to be passed. As other posts have said it will be pushed through some obscure law out of the publiic eye.

Obviously, the "Govt" do not think IT industry, Google and the *New Zealand People* are important enough to have an opinion.

Just look at the U.K. (where I live) to see what is happening.

Do now let this continue the fight is not over yet!

Any government should be the voice and representation of the people - we DO NOT serve the government for it's own purposes - THEY SERVE US.

Re:Govt Stubborn To The End (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27300447)

In fact they did originally. After the public submission process this part was taken out. It was put back in later. Then delayed after the outcry and now struck down completely.

Re:Govt Stubborn To The End (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27301901)

This was introduced by a previous goverment. They had removed the controversial section at the select committee stage, but the MP behind the bill (known for having her head a long way up her own rectum) had it readded.

Initially the new goverment postponed the introduction of the section in question until the industry came up with a "code of practice" to follow in dealing with complaints. Recently the industry came out and said "No, the law is unworkable, we wont agree to anything"

The government has now made this announcement, and wants to work on a new version of the law with support from the isp industry, and the recording industry

War won in the Pacific, next: liberate France (3, Funny)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27298621)

We're facing an uphill battle. The evil forces of Sarkozy-Universal are occupying the territory; they will probably be stopped by the European Parliament, but there will be much blood.

In any case, that's good news from NZ, something for the resistance forces to use during the upcoming parliamentary debates.

Boy in suit at the wheel. (1)

untalkative_bunny (1510041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300307)

Unfortunately because of the weird political time warp that NZ seems to live in we have gained ourselves a mini-me Bush Prime Minister in the form of John Key. He is an ex-Wall Street money trader and oh so clean at the surface level. He's a banker and thus well accomplished at moral ambiguity to get what he wants for his own pocket and the other boys in suits. Sadly, we have at least another 2 1/2 years before we can vote him out.

Re:Boy in suit at the wheel. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27302337)

Well, I am not actually a Tory supporter, and also have deep suspicions about bankers, especially the sort of banker that John Key is, but I think it is only fair to point out that the particular piece of legislation under discussion originated with the last Government. Helen Clark and the Labour parties record of listening to the people was not all that good, that was one reason why they were voted out, and since they originated the measure I think that if they were still in power it would have proceeded.

Note that governments in New Zealand are not voted in, they are voted out, eg it is not the merits of the alternative that gets them in, it is the failings of the incumbent that gets them sacked. This was true under the old first past the post system, and seems to be remaining true under the proportional system.

They aren't done... (2, Interesting)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27300821)

They'll just backdoor it later.

This is why people have to stay vigilant. The same people who organized these protests, etc - they shouldn't sleep on this one, because I think it's quite likely that whoever took that provision out probably made a phone call right before doing so to big content and said something like the following:

"listen mate, i'm gonna have to strike that provision of the bill - the time just isn't right, but don't worry - we'll backdoor it later after the furor dies down."

The New Zealand Prime Minister (1)

moegoldberg (1117449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27302105)

The New Zealand Prime Minister announced ...

The New Zealand Prime Minister, Brian, announced ...

fixed that for you

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?