×

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!

Australian Gov't Seeks To Record Citizens' Web Histories

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the oh-you-can-trust-us dept.

Privacy 354

An anonymous reader writes "If you thought the Australian Government's Internet filter project was bad, think again. They have a new project — they are examining a policy that would require all Internet service providers to log users' web browsing history and email data such as who all emails were sent to and from. And that's just the start. Telephone calls, mobile phone calls, even Internet telephony. It's all in there. Looks like 1984 was a pretty prophetic book." Several readers also point to ZDNet's coverage.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

354 comments

O brave new world! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32532920)

Centrifugal bumble puppy or the 20 minutes hate, pick one.

Okay... (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532930)

So how long before Aussies figure out that "encrypt everything" is a great idea?

Re:Okay... (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532972)

probably about the same time the rest of the world figures it out?

Re:Okay... (5, Insightful)

Decollete (1637235) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532982)

How long before the Australian government realize that they need to pass a bill to ban encryption?

Re:Okay... (4, Informative)

powerspike (729889) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533088)

Conroy (the guy who's doing this -along with the filter), accused google of stealing every bodies bank details with their wifi devices. In saying that, i don't think we have to worry about an encryption bill, he obviously has no idea that encryption exists...

Re:Okay... (5, Informative)

infolation (840436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533172)

That sounds like Australia is taking their lead from the United Kingdom:

ISPs and telecoms providers already store details of email, net phone calls and browsing history for 12 months.

RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)) requires encryption keys to be handed over, or plaintext provided, on penalty of up to two years imprisonment.

Re:Okay... (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533212)

It is not the UK, it is EU law that the UK has to comply with.

That gives the government a great excuse "its not our fault, the EU made us do it", and its difficult to bring public pressure on the EU because its most important legislators are unelected.

Re:Okay... (5, Informative)

infolation (840436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533246)

EU Directive 2006/24/EC did require member states to retain the data. Some members complied, some didn't. But in the UK we already had Part 11 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and this is the Act that the governent 'voluntarily' required ISPs and telecoms providers to comply with regarding data retention. Of course, it's not really 'voluntary' at all, since they'd get named and shamed (and probably wouldn't get their licences renewed) if they didn't comply.

Re:Okay... (1)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532978)

Not long. And then the government will have a pretty hard time when finally actual something bad happens and they really need to use these investigative tools. I think tho this will be the breaking point with the censorship debarcle and all.

Yeah, sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32532990)

... the general public, who can't work out that they need to press the "Start" button to shut down their computer, is going to start encrypting everything they do online.

Just like they've all educated themselves on the new Facebook privacy settings, and nobody in Australia clicks spam e-mail links.

Re:Yeah, sure... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532998)

Hate to be selfish, but since not enough people use it, they don't ban it, and I'm allowed to use it. Though I'd be surprised if the NSA didn't have a pragmatic way to break things like PGP, it's enough to prevent the small fry for messing with you.

Re:Yeah, sure... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533130)

who can't work out that they need to press the "Start" button to shut down their computer,

Uh.. logically you'd want a "stop" button for that. The dumbasses in this case would be whoever require you to press "start" to stop. Poor example.

Re:Yeah, sure... (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533224)

who can't work out that they need to press the "Start" button to shut down their computer,

Uh.. logically you'd want a "stop" button for that. The dumbasses in this case would be whoever require you to press "start" to stop. Poor example.

Not really, since clicking start is the start of the procedure for stopping. If They but a nice one click 'stop' button next to start those same dumbasses would complain they accidently turn of their computers or shut down their programs all the time

Re:Yeah, sure... (2, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533252)

clicking start is the start of the procedure for stopping

See, that just sounds silly. I usually just press the power button on my netbook for ACPI shutdown and then click shutdown. I also think how Ubuntu does it is a bit more sensible - a power button in the corner where you can shut down, restart, logout, etc.

I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense to put it in the Start menu in Windows, I'm just saying how ludicrous it sounds that you should have to click "start" to stop. "Actions" or "Windows" would be a better text name for the menu, or just get rid of the "start" text completely, which is what they've done with 7 and maybe Vista.

Re:Yeah, sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533332)

... "or just get rid of the "start" text completely, which is what they've done with 7 and maybe Vista."

No completely, the text "sart" still appears when you put your mouse on the icon.

Re:Yeah, sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533248)

Uh.. logically you'd want a "stop" button for that.

Microsoft "logic" said otherwise until the release of Vista.

Re:Yeah, sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533266)

It's a bit like doctor suess.
The rain starts when the drops start dropping, when the drops stop dropping, the rain starts stopping.

Re:Okay... (3, Interesting)

xerent_sweden (1010825) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533074)

Encrypting sender and recipient is hard and in the summary it's clear that it's mostly sender and recipient that's being recorded. Who's talking to who is more important for data mining than what you're actually saying to each other.

Re:Okay... (0, Offtopic)

what about (730877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533104)

Encrypt ... yeah sure, next step gov. declare encryption illegal and the penalty for using it is just 1000 dollars fine.
Gov. can even make it automatic (no need for human intervention) to send you a fine.
You do not pay... well, your house is sold to pay the fine... you complain loudly, just get locket up... easy..

What are you left with now ? You are naked in front of a HUGE power, remember Gov. has HUGE power, nowdays even more.

So, STOP advocating encryption, it does NOT solve anything !!!
Aim at the issue, say it clearly !!

It is ORWELL to record/log everything and this is WRONG.

Re:Okay... (3, Insightful)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533176)

If you outlaw encryption, you'll have no more SSL, either. I'm reasonably sure Windows uses encryption in it's logins et al, too. They'll soon find out that the whole country becomes unmanageable as soon as the banks say "if we can't offer our clients encrypted homebanking, we're outta here".

Re:Okay... (5, Insightful)

what about (730877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533328)

I have a feeling that I got my message garbled....

The point I am trying to say is: If you try to "circumvent a law" (in this case the law would be being able for the Gov. to record you email activity or web browsing activity) then you are against the law and you face consequences.
Hiding behind "I am encrypted" saves you nothing. To the eye of a judge you are "not cooperating with the law and... probably guilty"

You state that banning encryption is impossible, Gov. obviously ban encryption for "unlawful" use, it is then your duty to prove that you where using for lawful use.

I just have the feeling that people that advocates encryption as a solution to privacy and tracking are just attempting to wrestle with the Gov. over "I am stronger than you", you cannot catch me. This is a false and dangerous starting point.

Gov. can always catch you, either dead or alive, you may be a small fish and can wiggle out of the net (unless the infringement process is automatic) but your hope of "breaking the law" indefenetly is just plaing unreasonable, unless, of course you try to "disappear", but then, what kind of life is it ?

So, after this long chatting, the point is:

If you and I think that an orwell society is wrong (I think so) we should say it clearly and loudly and not think "oh well, it does not matter since there is encryption"

Re:Okay... (3, Insightful)

Migity (1199059) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533134)

Encryption can't hide your source and destination IPs though, so if you're connecting to the lolita-manga website they'll still know that. However, encryption AND an anonymous proxy out there will do the trick.

Re:Okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533144)

Encryption does not hide who emails are sent to / from, nor your browsing history, just the content of those connections. You would need a VPN ending in another country to hid these details from the Australian govt.

Re:Okay... (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533190)

OK Mr Wise Geek, let's assume you're right and Australians do figure out that they need encryption to secure their communications. What then? What technologies are available which can offer them secure access to their usual internet services without compromising on features?

What about web browsing? Http. How can they browse securely? Https? Only available on a per website basis, and besides the security crowd are so pedantic they've convinced Firefox and who knows how many else that self signed certs are worse than unencrypted traffic. No real movement on that front then. Tor? I think the atrocious hit in speed precludes that route. Proxies? I suppose they'll work for about five minutes before succumbing to congestion. Let's just conclude this section by stating that encrypted/secure web browsing isn't going to be a viable option for most.

The situation for most other web protocols isn't much better. The simple fact of the matter is that the current infrastructure of the net was never built with mass government censorship in mind and is wide open to surveillance. On top of this, virtually no-one is interested in developing the technologies neccessary to make a secure web a reality, and those that are are too concerned with 50 year old theoretical problems than in making a system that everyone can use. We're not getting a secure web unless you count esoterica like Freenet.

It has nothing to do with figuring out you need to "encrypt everything". It's about needing the two to three decades of research and development required to build an Internet capable of end to end encryption; development that simply has not been done.

Re:Okay... (4, Interesting)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533288)

> virtually no-one is interested in developing the technologies neccessary to make a secure web a reality

IPv6. It already exists and would/could cover a large chunk of your legitimate concerns. Problem is...the switch-over is taking ages... But it's something you can advocate/implement from your end without waiting on other's.

Re:Okay... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533314)

OK Mr Wise Geek, let's assume you're right and Australians do figure out that they need encryption to secure their communications. What then? What technologies are available which can offer them secure access to their usual internet services without compromising on features?

I use relakks [relakks.com].

It has nothing to do with figuring out you need to "encrypt everything".

I do regardless though.

Re:Okay... (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533330)

Sorry for noob question. Wouldn't proxy anonymizers work? All traffic directed through foreign website?

I'm more afraid of the government (5, Insightful)

Decollete (1637235) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532968)

than pedophiles and terrorists.

Re:I'm more afraid of the government (5, Interesting)

molecular (311632) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533108)

Do you mean...

1.) your fear the gov't more than you fear the terrorists and pedophiles
2.) you are more afraid of the government than pedophiles and terrorists are

?

Re:I'm more afraid of the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533242)

Yes. The government has more support than terrorists and pedophiles. The probability of being affected by terrorists or pedophiles is also much smaller than being affected by the government.

Yes. Terrorists and governments are prepared to defend against government actions. It's part of their daily lives. I do not regularly take precautions against invasive and immoral government actions.against me, so if the government were to target me, I'd be a much easier target.

Re:I'm more afraid of the government (2, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533110)

I'm confused by the slant in those articles. It seems the Australians are considering a European-style policy ie. the content of internet use isn't stored but its participants are. They know a variety of low level data regarding log in times, durations, sign-in names and the such, but nothing more. The only place I can see the hyperbole is in the rather vague assertions of anonymous sources. Heck the Delimiter link makes it clear in the first paragraph that the more egregious claims are factually questionable.

I'm all for righteous outrage, when it's deserved and reasonable. We don't have nearly enough information yet to leap to the pitchforks, so far all that's been said is that the government is reviewing the European system. I read a really good article on Global Warming which made a fantastic point - the constant exaggeration, hyperbole, and raw sensationalism does more to harm a cause than anything else. If we're serious about making positive social change shouldn't we be doing our utmost to avoid this level of hysteria in discussion?
I'm genuinely interested by people's extreme reactions - is there a better compromise availible given the fact that there are reasonable problems arising from internet use in the present day.

Re:I'm more afraid of the government (2, Insightful)

silanea (1241518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533324)

[...] It seems the Australians are considering a European-style policy ie. the content of internet use isn't stored but its participants are. They know a variety of low level data regarding log in times, durations, sign-in names and the such, but nothing more. [...]

The first problem lies in the fact that all those records are not taken when a crime is committed but preemptively, because someone, somewhere, will break the law. We are all declared suspects, not of a specific crime, but of doing something that may later be of interest to law enforcement or parties in a civil suit.

The second problem lies in the provable fact that whenever the government (or any other state institution) grants itself a privilege it will never give it back or agree to have it limited but seek to have it extended way beyond what it was intended to be when introduced. We have gone from being able to intercept specific calls to preemptively storing any connection's details and already there are vocal calls for storing and filtering message contents, and demands to release data that was intended as a way to fight terrorism and organised crime for prosecuting copyright violations and suppressing unfavourable speech. Giving the state one iota has them push you back a full mile. I simply do not trust the government not to sell us all out to the highest bidder.

Thirdly, the problem lies not in the individual surveillance measures and databases but in the sum of all those little records that the state has on us, both directly and by proxy (corporations, medical information, basically anything they can somehow subpoena or otherwise siphon into their own records). The state can generate a full profile on any of us, yet it fights tooth and nail to keep information about itself out of our reach. Do you know precisely how much money your state is giving to, say, the defense and military sector? Orders, subsidies, grants, tax cuts, everything combined? I don't. Do you know exactly who is involved in drafting your laws throughout the different ministries, committees, subcommittees and so on, how many representatives of certain 'interest groups' directly write the laws that will regulate their employers' or clients' industries? I don't.

In a nutshell: I do not trust the state not to abuse the power it gains from all the data it has on all of us. And so far it has not given me any reason to change my mind. The prerequisite to my consent to such measures is the full transparency of any official matter down to the most basic parts and a truly effective means to fight any abuse of the power we bestow upon our state institutions all the way up to putting traitors up against the wall.

Re:I'm more afraid of the government (4, Insightful)

silanea (1241518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533132)

I was about to reply when I realised that your post as it stands can be read in two ways. One I share, namely that the government is a much more immediate threat than any of the scapegoats presented to us, the other - supposedly not the one you intended - brings up a very interesting point. Your sentence could be rephrased as: Pedophiles and terrorists are less afraid of the government than you are. Why should they? They do not mind breaking the law, they do not mind faking their identities or going underground altogether, so they can avoid governmental surveillance. The generally more law-abiding rest of the populace does not have that luxury - we go to work, we pay our taxes, we maintain our social life, we register our place of residency when we move, we buy our plane and train tickets via debit or credit card, we use our own car and our legally registered plates to drive around and so on. Which is why any such surveillance measures have a much more profound impact on us than they have on their supposed targets.

Re:I'm more afraid of the government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533300)

yes!! I'm an australian, and I am more afraid of the government at the moment. They seem to have a disregard for legitimate democracy. The country is essentially run by a cabinet of 4 . They dont allow discussion of policy with their MP's
How on earth can we trust them. Help us World. Please

HTTPS -- default (4, Interesting)

martijnd (148684) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532974)

When do we finally make the move to a fully encrypted internet? An unencrypted internet made sense in the days that CPU power was expensive and there were no good encryption libraries. Both these problems were solved a decade ago.

The block seems to be the current idiotically expensive SSL certificate business.

The first step would be for the web browsers to add a "low default security" level : user signed certificates are accepted as "normal" connections without throwing up big errors and don't give much of an additional indication.

Expensive SSL certificates can continue to give the "feel good" level of indication by showing the name of the verified company.

Re:HTTPS -- default (4, Informative)

molecular (311632) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533004)

When do we finally make the move to a fully encrypted internet? An unencrypted internet made sense in the days that CPU power was expensive and there were no good encryption libraries. Both these problems were solved a decade ago.

Encrypting everything solves only part of the problem.
Big brother can still see which sites you visit, how much traffic is going on between who and who talks to whom.
It also doesn't give you anonymous publishing.

There's solutions for that, though, like http://freenetproject.org/ [freenetproject.org] which comes with a considerable resource penalty, but offers a solution for anonymous publishing.
Of course it's full of kiddy pr0n, that's the other side of the medal... take your pick.

"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'"

--Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Re:HTTPS -- default (1)

martijnd (148684) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533120)

I am not saying that HTTPS is the end of all our problems.

Tracking an internet that is by default encrypted is much harder than an internet that is pure text. They would know which server farm the website terminated at -- but most hosting providers run 200+ websites at the same server.

So that gives at least some plausible deniability ; and very limited access to what is being communicated.

Besides browser warnings for user signed certificates there also is the problem that we currently require a unique IP address per HTTPS server.

In my limited understanding that is to stop man-in-the-middle attacks as the browser caches & verifies the certificate/ip combination.

For a "low level default" encryption setting this also overkill.

Web browsers should handle this by not trusting a certificates identity -- continue to use paid for / certified certificates for this. (So your average internet scam artist cannot claim to be "Citibank Ltd")

The web browser should however accept the security offered by the encryption keys of a user signed certificate -- and show it as a normal connection, not scare people away by showing flashing warning signs.

Re:HTTPS -- default (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533008)

Really there should be a "I DON'T CARE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN READS THIS WEBSITE" button you can click combiend with opportunistic encryption. You're still vulnerable to MitM but it takes care of a great deal of snooping and requires zero user competence.

Re:HTTPS -- default (2, Insightful)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533028)

Then the government will just man-in-the-middle for all these "low default security" websites that don't show errors and record the browsing just as with plain HTTP.

Re:HTTPS -- default (2, Interesting)

martijnd (148684) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533180)

Good point of course.

It would still require a substantial investment in equipment to proxy all the internet connections of all citizens and not slow down things down to a crawl.

The first goal should be to make this kind of "dragnet" approach to scanning the whole internet as expensive as possible.

Re:HTTPS -- default (2, Interesting)

molecular (311632) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533078)

When do we finally make the move to a fully encrypted internet? An unencrypted internet made sense in the days that CPU power was expensive and there were no good encryption libraries. Both these problems were solved a decade ago.

You will never see "us" making some move as changing something this big from one day to the other (see IPv6).
We see groups of people doing it for themselves though. There's a lot of darknets out there already.

But now my darkest prediction: you will soon see news along the lines of "UK/AU/EU/US/... outlawing private use of encryption" (except some exceptions like banking). Control-freaky governments will likely try to pull something like this off (in the name of the children and against terrorists, or course)
Maybe they'll use a softer version and just make it a valid suspicion if someone encrypts more than xx% of his traffic. They'll do ad campaings saying: "He who has nothing to hide, doesn't need to use encryption".

What can we do about this kind of an attack on our freedoms?

Not much except become politically active, I assume. There's already the pirate party all around europe and I assume they will be getting a lot more exposure in the media when governments try to pull that kind of shit. They already made an impact in germany, ridiculing and largely disabling the stupid "stop child port by DNS-lookup filtering" idea and the people behind that idea.

I just have to quote Benjamin Franklin at this point:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re:HTTPS -- default (4, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533082)

It is possible for a man in the middle to attack https. The only way around it is for certs and keys to be transported by sneakernet.

But now customs can search us for "pornography" so (sneaker+747)net can't be entirely relied on

Re:HTTPS -- default (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533156)

The important point is that it's not possible to bulk-MITM the whole country for significant periods of time and not get caught.

While sneakernet could be the last theoretical option, there are easier ways to build side channels. Just set up a chat and discuss about the key fingerprints in english. Good luck intercepting that in realtime.

Re:HTTPS -- default (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533322)

Get caught? They're the government, they could pop open every https connection and shove it in your face and there's nothing you can do about it. They could require Verisign to hand over keys so they can make their own certs for MitM attacks.

Re:HTTPS -- default (5, Informative)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533154)

I just noticed after reading this post that https://www.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] doesn't encrypt. It just redirects to the non-encrypted version.

We're screwed if even the technical sites don't support encrypted connections.

Re:HTTPS -- default (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533222)

That won't help the wider picture - that only helps the web, the principle is the problem, not the practice. Once they start blocking / monitoring websites it's only a matter of time before bypassing that filter becomes an offence and/or they branch out into other traffic.

You're actually looking for a complete P2P, SSL network to overlay the Internet and provide the security of connection. And as Tor demonstrates - at the moment - that's hard, slow and doesn't protect people's privacy unless they do *everything* right.

Seriously, it's what's needed... some form of P2P, traffic-sharing, encrypted "darknet". It's the only way to stop government sniffing your traffic, choosing what websites they approve of and/or downloading things you might otherwise not be allowed to. Ideally, someone should build a little matchbox-sized device that just anonymously routes data from peers over secure connections via wifi, Tor-like, mesh-networking, with auto-routing, auto-discovery of wireless networks and internet connections, etc - with some QoS of course so no one peer can flood the others out. It's possible now with some embedded device that just accepts all wifi connections and joins them to a CloudVPN / Tor kind of deal. Spread enough of them around a town and you can bypass the traditional Internet entirely, transporting encrypted data over it when necessary, using any connection to another box of its kind that it can find otherwise. And it only takes one person to join to a physically-foreign network and the whole place will be able to contact the world (albeit slowly in that contrived example).

A mix of Tor, CloudVPN, mesh-networking, Kismet, P2P software.

I've said before, it's only a matter of time before "The Internet" becomes nothing more than an infrastructure to carry data for such a network - like back in the old days. The routers won't have any clue what data they are actually routing (always was a breach of layering to have them do that anyway), they just provide the fastest paths to the intended recipient. "The Internet" becomes a backbone network for a kind of global VPN. I'm not talking tomorrow, but give it a few decades and that will end up happening. As it is, we have to encrypt anything sensitive / useful anyway. Before you know it, every protocol running on the Internet will be encrypted (already true for certain things like certain SMTP, chat, web, filesharing, remote shell, etc.), so it's just a matter of lumping them together into a single VPN-style connection. Then "The Internet" returns to its original purpose - providing routes to other places and transmitting data that you don't necessarily know its origin or destination.

As a nice by-product, eliminates things like protocol-based bandwidth-limiting too.

anyone game to say it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32532976)

if you're doing nothing wrong, then why does the Government want to know?

Re:anyone game to say it (2, Funny)

powerspike (729889) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533102)

if you're doing nothing wrong, then why does the Government want to know?

Well, i'm not doing anything wrong, but i may be, or may not be doing things i might be ashamed of!

Somebody fill me in here (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#32532980)

What banner is flying over this huge censorship push? What is the general public's thoughts on all this? Usually with this sort of absolute censorship you have a particularly powerful head of state like in Russia, Iran or North Korea. Australia still has free elections (to my knowlege). Here in the USA we had a bit of tightening here and there security-wise with 9/11, but Australia doesn't seem to have any sort of dictator-to-be, nor do they have any significant terrorist threats or major overarching foreign policy that would require them to keep an eye on dissidents. Usually someone can point to some major speech by a prime minister or president outlining an "improved security policy" for the welfare of the country against some outside boogeyman, but from what I can tell, Australia is tightening it's grip on everything for censorship's sake.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (1)

Decollete (1637235) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533000)

There is a huge influx of rebel kangaroos out to take out the government. They also have a huge stockpile of joey* pictures shared over p2p. * young kangaroo

Re:Somebody fill me in here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533046)

I don't know the details, but it would appear that the government hasn't enough Seats to enact any proper legislature without the support of a lot of independents and Christian fundamentalist weirdoes.

They are pushing through all kinds of insane nanny-state legislation on the agendas of various crazy minorities, in exchange for support from these independents in enacting the policies they themselves are after.

Also, the government contains numerous nutcases and washed-up former rock-stars who never seem to get fired when they majorly screw up, ignore the advice of anyone educated in the relevant field, and are determined give Australia a bad name.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533060)

it's because gen Y voted in labor. they thought kevin07 was a catchy name so they voted for him.

unfortunately they failed to understand the fundamental fact labor is run by union bully boys who cream themselfs over having power over others.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533080)

> What banner is flying over this huge censorship push?

They're trying to sell it as a way to protect people from accidentally accessing "unwanted" material.

> What is the general public's thoughts on all this?

Near universal condemnation from the general public, although that's not done by an independent survey. Anyone who knows anything about the technology involved hates it.

> Usually with this sort of absolute censorship you have a particularly powerful head of state like in Russia, Iran or North Korea.

The censorship would not be absolute, but rather trivial, according to reports. Mostly its the principle that offends me, and the extremely large waste of public funds to implement it.

> Australia still has free elections (to my knowlege). Here in the USA we had a bit of tightening here and there security-wise with 9/11, but Australia doesn't seem to have any sort of dictator-to-be, nor do they have any significant terrorist threats or major overarching foreign policy that would require them to keep an eye on dissidents.

Free elections do exist, but they're only free in the sense that we can choose weather an insane person or merely a crazy one will run the country. Both major parties are pretty poor choices, imho.

> Usually someone can point to some major speech by a prime minister or president outlining an "improved security policy" for the welfare of the country against some outside boogeyman, but from what I can tell, Australia is tightening it's grip on everything for censorship's sake.

Nah, its all those paedophiles. And corrupters of children. Also murderers of unborn children. As well as those pesky people that have the gall to believe that just because because someone doesn't want to live isn't a sign that they're crazy (and therefore their death wishes to be ignored).
Or discussion of any of the above. We wouldn't want the *children* to get the wrong idea, would we?

Also, people can complain about any website, and if the complaint is upheld, the site will go onto the blacklist.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (1)

magloca (1404473) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533092)

While I have little to no personal knowledge of Australian politics, friends and acquaintances tell me it's largely a game of copycatting/catching up with big brother (literally) USA. "Oh look, they're becoming a police state. Let's do that, too. Why? Just because. No worries, mate."

Re:Somebody fill me in here (2, Insightful)

kramulous (977841) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533106)

Two days ago, there was a mothers' group here demanding that local councils put up signage in all parks warning of the native birds. A 6 mth old child was pecked once by a pee-wee and had to be rushed to hospital to get a bandage.

No one really cares and people want their moment of campaign but really don't give a shit about anything. The belief is that the Internet is like the wildwest and any sort of policing is good.

They don't realise the background profiling, indexing/classification, manipulation that will be the rest of our lives.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (3, Interesting)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533140)

What banner is flying over this huge censorship push? What is the general public's thoughts on all this? Usually with this sort of absolute censorship you have a particularly powerful head of state like in Russia, Iran or North Korea. Australia still has free elections (to my knowlege). Here in the USA we had a bit of tightening here and there security-wise with 9/11, but Australia doesn't seem to have any sort of dictator-to-be, nor do they have any significant terrorist threats or major overarching foreign policy that would require them to keep an eye on dissidents. Usually someone can point to some major speech by a prime minister or president outlining an "improved security policy" for the welfare of the country against some outside boogeyman, but from what I can tell, Australia is tightening it's grip on everything for censorship's sake.

I'm confused too. I live in New Zealand and to be fair, neither side of the Tasman Sea really understands the thinking of the other country.

With Australia about to roll out the NBN (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533146)

With Australia about to roll out the National Broadband Network, the Rudd government is terrified of being labelled as the government who improved access to child porn and helped terrorists communicate. A number of recent measures (think Conroy's filter and the border searches of digital devices) are designed to look good politically while achieving nothing substantive in reality.

The average user is the one who gets punished by politics.

It's all about Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533166)

...nor do they have any significant terrorist threats or major overarching foreign policy that would require them to keep an eye on dissidents...for the welfare of the country against some outside boogeyman

Their doesn't have to be a reason. It is human nature to seek out opponents, even when there aren't any. It's what drove witch burning in Europe and America. Everybody needs a scapegoat. If your logic tells you that authoritarianism in democratic countries is wrong then you are probably a pedophile (or a terrorist). Either way you are guilty of something, and that's why the government needs to know what Web sites you go too. Everybody needs something to fear; it helps build social cohesion.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (5, Insightful)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533198)

Australian here- It's pretty simple really. (Disclaimer: I've posted this before, but it bears repeating)

We have a political system where, instead of directly voting for a prime minister, we instead vote for our local representative; the party with the most seats gets to elect the prime minister. Essentially.

The problem comes when the two main political parties own almost equal seats, but many seats are "safe" seats. Think Texas. Is a Democrat ever going to be elected in a landslide in Texas? Nah. Is a Republican going to take San Fransisco in a landslide? Nah.

So, politicians focus on the marginal seats. Think Florida, which could go either way.

It just so happens a number of those seats are, currently, in and around Adelaide; a highly religious, conservative city known as "The City of Churches". So, politicians on all sides of the political spectrum are metaphorically sucking our version of the Bible Belt's dick in order to get those precious one or two seats, which means they can keep/gain government respectively.

Which means our current administration is pushing through knee-jerk think-of-the-children legislation while the opposition is basically screaming "US TOO BUT BIGGER, BETTER, MORE KNEE-JERKY."

It's pure horseshit and doesn't represent the will of the Australian people at all.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533316)

"Here in the USA we had a bit of tightening here and there security-wise with 9/11"

Dude, have you heard of the Patriot Act? It gives wide-ranging powers to 'security officials', from monitoring all emails and calls, to arresting, interrogating and more. All without a warrant. Wake up. You've sleepwalked into a new America.

Re:Somebody fill me in here (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533334)

The patriot act has to be renewed every X years. Where X is a single digit number. It's got a lot of bite, but it's designed to sunset itself unless congress actively passes it. It almost didn't get renewed recently.

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32532984)

What is it in the water Down Under that makes Australia's government lean so very far towards fascism?

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533182)

It's not the water...it's because they walk around upside-down all day.

Bare boobs and bottoms makes Jesus cry (4, Informative)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533016)

Rudd has to call an election soon, but what a choice it will be: Either Conservative-Christian Kevin Rudd or his opponent Conservative-Christian Tony Abbott. Abbott has refused to speak out against the net filter. Secretly, I would say he quite likes it and will go along with it.

> "I think that it makes sense to try to ensure that the homes of Australia aren't invaded with pornography via the internet," said Abbott. "On the other hand I don't want to see wider censorship and I don't want to see the internet destroyed as a tool for people's education or as a tool for people's businesses." Talk about fence sitting.

> What it came down to was a question of whether it was technically feasible, according to Abbott. Yet he wasn't willing to air his thoughts on the matter. "I just don't know enough about it at this stage to have an opinion on that," he said.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/abbott-drawn-into-filter-debate-339300089.htm [zdnet.com.au]

Given his conservative position on everything else he ever talks about, I'd say he *does* have an opinion on it... but he wants to cash in on the Rudd protest vote. At the end of the day we get to choose between two political parties... near identical... both headed by conservatives who like the idea of a net filter to stop the unwashed masses looking at boobs and bottoms, and to get them back into church. Pic related:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/03/31/tony-abbott-and-political-catholicism/ [larvatusprodeo.net]
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1362997.htm [abc.net.au]
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=19151 [cathnews.com]

Secretly? (5, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533184)

Abbott has refused to speak out against the net filter. Secretly, I would say he quite likes it and will go along with it.

Secretly? (Disclaimer: I have posted this before, but it's worth restating)

Tony Abbot visited humble Darwin city recently and it was there that I personally got to ask him, in his public question and answer time, the following question (roughly remembered):

"The Internet is an important part of the lives of many young Australians, as well as Australia as a whole in this modern age- what do you think of the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's plan to censor the Internet?"

His answer began:

"Well, I'm afraid I'm probably going to disappoint you..." and yes, unfortunately, he did.

Paraphrased his answer was: "Stopping child pornography is extremely important to me and the Liberal party and therefore, if we can prove the censorship plan doesn't work, we will oppose it; but only *this particular thing*. We will continue to seek effective means to block 'filth' (his word) from entering our country any way we can. If the filter works, we will support it."

Basically the message I got from his reply is that Tony Abbot believes that the filter will work "well enough" and is too much of a hot potato to oppose politically. The subtext I personally divined from his answer was a little more chilling; that the filter didn't go far *enough* for his tastes, and that he'd personally rather a complete whitelist than a blacklist. Therefore, speaking as a card-carrying Liberal... if you think that voting for the Liberal party in the next election will make the filter go away, you are sadly mistaken.

On a side note, the fact that he himself is an extremely religious man probably doesn't help a great deal, since it seems that too many politicians tend to "trust God about these things" when it's abundantly clear that God knows sweet F-A about the Tubes and how they work.

Re:Bare boobs and bottoms makes Jesus cry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533238)

Doesn't have to call an election until August 2011.

I have to ask... (2, Interesting)

random_ID (1822712) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533018)

Why? Given the amount of data involved, this seems like gross overkill. Even for hardcore Big Brother.

Re:I have to ask... (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533070)

Why? Given the amount of data involved, this seems like gross overkill. Even for hardcore Big Brother.

Some of the people involved won't have a clue about the amount of data involved. Others will be rubbing their hands with glee as they bid for the data center contracts.

this is what happens (4, Insightful)

blue_teeth (83171) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533022)

when you support spreading democracy and freedom in other countries. Bombing the shit out of them, to spread your so called "way of life". Internally your "perceived freedoms" are slowly eroded. Go ahead and mark me as troll and go back to living in your cocoon.

 

Scroll the Gibson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533034)

1984? Yeah, right, man. That's a typo. Orwell's here, he's living large. We have no names, man, no names. We are nameless!

Hey, can I score a fry?

Vagueries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533040)

Senator Conroy, our Minister for the Department of Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy wants to ban 'Refused Classification' content, which is a broad banner. He won't release the black list, he won't let the public argue against a websites ban... Everyone under 25 is dead set against it, and anyone over 25 is against it when they're given specific information about it. Conroy has admitted that the block can be sidestepped with a proxy, and has said that no laws will be broken by circumventing it. He also said teaching someone else how to sidestep the filter won't be illegal either. The filter isn't monitored, it's automatic, and it's not perfect. It's blocked harmless sites including a website for a school canteen lady because it had the word 'teen' in it.

Already in place in EU (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533064)

Not to say that this doesn't suck or anything, but in the EU, all isps are obliged to do this and much more already.
- Log url history.
- log phone contact history
- log mail contact history
- Obliged to introduce CP filter. Filter can be expanded for other 'illegal' websites.
- Log banking history.
And to trump that:
- Obliged fingerprint scans for id cards.

I guess that the 'sample DNA at birth' card will be played within a year.

Re:Already in place in EU (4, Funny)

Xtense (1075847) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533086)

> - Obliged to introduce CP filter. Filter can be expanded for other 'illegal' websites.

So THAT's why I can't find anything about Captain Jean-Luc Picard on the internet!

Re:Already in place in EU (2, Informative)

Menchi (677927) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533282)

- Log url history.
- log phone contact history
- log mail contact history

Yes, but a number (at least 3, might be more) of EU countries have already thrown that out as unconstitutional and are taking the fight back to the EU to get it thrown out on a EU level.

- Obliged to introduce CP filter. Filter can be expanded for other 'illegal' websites.
- Obliged fingerprint scans for id cards.

Uhm, no. The EU does not prevent members from implementing this but it is not required in any way. A lot of EU states don't have this and don't have plans to implement it. If you live in a country where this exists, well that sucks, but don't blame the EU.

- Log banking history.

Well, duh, would be a bad bad world where your bank doesn't have your history on record. They could just change your balance without anyone noticing. At least the treaty to live-stream it to the USA was killed by the EU parliament.

Re:Already in place in EU (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533302)

URL history logging is not required by the directive. There is no EU-wide network filtering requirement. The German implementation of the data retention directive has been sacked as unconstitutional by the highest German court in the most assertive way: The law is nullified from the start and any data previously collected under it must be erased immediately. There is a network filtering law in Germany, but it has been suspended for one year and in the meantime has lost a lot of support (the election for which the conservative party raised the topic is over).

Pointless.. yet again. (3, Insightful)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533066)

Trivially easy to circumvent once again. Google already offers SSL encryption for web searches and for Gmail and I don't even need to mention all the privacy tools available. I think the bulk of people have moved away from their ISP based email due to the impoverished email service ISPs offer. I myself have already moved all my email to cloud based email a long time ago - what is the point in sticking with ISP based email? Native email clients don't really offer much compelling functionality over cloud services other than a way to loose all your emails when your hard drive dies.

I already use SSL for Google and Gmail. Of course the ISP can still track and log your cleartext http and dns lookups etc, but it at least offers some privacy.

Everybody who has something to hide on the internet is already using these trivial methods and others. This is about spying on the average citizen. Poor privacy on the internet in particular social media is already hurting countless millions of people identity theft and scams, we really do NOT need the government spying too.

Re:Pointless.. yet again. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533128)

Holy hell, Is this a cybercrime promotion bill? I used to work for an small ISP and if my experience was anything to go by I can say security at common ISPs is pretty lax around emails stored on servers and logs of HTTP traffic. Indeed way too many staff had more access to customer data than was strictly necessary, and there were far to many instances of people poking their noses where they shouldn't.

Oh and despite what you think ISPs are routinely hacked, individual accounts are hacked more frequently, and presumably customers private data was frequently taken. This is systemic to coroporate environments - it's cheaper to manage the fall out of a problem than it is to invest in security in the first place. Worst was that management took the view that too much security would actually attract hackers, and preferred rapid heroic responses to fixing things that get pwned than actually making it more robust in the first place. I spent more than a few late nights nuking compromised servers from orbit. Later there would be a report of a 'technical issue' causing customer data to be lost other than what could be revived from tape.

I wonder how much internet identity theft is actually rooted in this kind of silent theft from ISPs.

Now if ISPs were to log everything going back a long way, and have this data poorly secured (as they may just do), this is set up for a serious clusterfuck.

Re:Pointless.. yet again. (5, Insightful)

molecular (311632) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533142)

Trivially easy to circumvent once again. Google already offers SSL encryption for web searches and for Gmail and I don't even need to mention all the privacy tools available.

I think you're taking this too lightly, just a couple o' thoughts:

  * just because _you_ have a way around it doesn't meen the general public does and it also doesn't mean it will not impact you in some way.
  * encryption is only part of the solution (see other posts)
  * email can still be scanned, only transport between you and your mailserver is encrypted, the gov't could still pressure gmail into delivering the data (even easier, less mail providers)
  * international mail can (is!?!) still be scanned by officials
  * psychological effect: Joe Schmoe will think: "I better not look at teen porn on the web or else I might get suspected". Once you get just the /feeling/ of being monitored, your freedom of speech is already seriously impaired.

Not pointless, just missing the point (3, Insightful)

SmarterThanMe (1679358) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533244)

I think you're all missing the point here. The purpose of the net filter isn't to actually genuinely prevent access to those websites that are "evil". The purpose is to convince voters that the government is doing something about "evil" and thereby gain votes.

Re:Pointless.. yet again. (4, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533256)

Trivially easy to circumvent once again. Google already offers SSL encryption for web searches and for Gmail and I don't even need to mention all the privacy tools available.

I don't understand how this doesn't stop ISPs from doing a man in the middle attack on gmail and using their own valid SSL cert - I mean, it's not like I can't register a certificate for mail.google.com, the majority of legitimate authorized SSL cert providers will let me purchase it regardless.

Or they could invest in buying one of Netronome's high performance transparent SSL proxies (What? Did you really think current SSL schemes are that secure these days?).

Everybody who has something to hide on the internet is already using these trivial methods and others.

If technical people are serious about implementing such a system correctly, the bar of entry for the knowledge to get around this will get raised quite exponentially.

This is about spying on the average citizen.

I doubt your 'average citizen' would even know (s)he needed to get around it first, and then having the knowledge bar of entry some how to get around it, seems highly unlikely.

Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533076)

I am now officially ashamed to be an Australian citizen. Whatever happened to the happy-go-lucky attitude that Australia used to be famous for?

Horrors! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533122)

Then they'll know that I read Slashdot! I'll never live that down.

https://www.google.com/ (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533186)

Google offers SSL access now [google.com]

Encrypt your stuff. They can still track the target IP addresses, but no URLs. Next stop: Widespread use of foreign proxies, then TOR.

agnostic rule (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533188)

nobody who is devout, or even remotely religious, should be allowed into government.

from:bruce to:bruce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533196)

such as who all emails were sent to and from..

Yeah, a gazillion emails

from:bruce
to:bruce
Subject: Fancy a beer and OMGBBQFTW

The political rundown... (5, Informative)

SmarterThanMe (1679358) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533200)

This political stance is part of the ALP's general move to social conservatism.

Unfortunately, this is the way that Australian politics is moving. We have a two party system, the ALP (Labour, notionally the "Left") and the Coalition (counterintuitively named Liberals and the country-oriented Nationals who are notionally the "Right"). The ALP is currently in government, but the balance of power is held in the Senate by one vote usually exercised by a couple of minor parties, Family First (ultra-right ultra-socially conservative), a couple of independents and the Greens (left wing progressive, but the government mostly refuses to negotiate with them). Usually it's down to the Family First Senator to decide whether a given piece of legislation passes the Senate or fails, and he's revelled in the power of his role. So the government has expended a lot of effort in wooing the Family First Senator, which has caused a slight move towards the right and towards social conservatism.

However, the ALP has apparently decided that the best way to get votes is to, as much as possible, be almost exactly like the Liberals. While they were ready to do something about Climate Change before the election, they have largely done nothing (because it's too hard). While they spoke about the importance of funding public options, such as public schools and hospitals and so on, they still haven't done anything about the massive and disparate amount of funding that is given to the private option. While they say that they say that they're against government misuse of public funds to advertise ahead of the upcoming election, several million dollars have been spent on exactly that purpose (noting that, in this case, I agree with the expenditure, but even so it is a Coalition thing to do).

Even on issues where you'd expect the ALP to be starkly different to the Liberals, nothing. Refugees are still being treated as lower forms of life, just as they were under the previous Coalition government. The ALP has gone out of its way to foment a war between itself and the Education unions by subjecting teachers to extraordinary public criticism (without actually putting up the funds and the political will to fix problems from above). Welfare recipients are still being hounded and stigmatised for the fact that they could possibly be cheating the system (even though the vast majority aren't) with no talk of improving the system and helping welfare recipients themselves to reduce their imposition on society. On and on and on, there is increasingly less difference between the ALP and the Liberals.

The Coalition has responded by going further and further towards the right. They've elected Tony Abbott as their leader, because the last leader had the gall to negotiate with the ALP on an carbon emissions trading scheme (which subsequently dropped like a stone in the now hostile Senate). Tony Abbott is one of the most conservative politicians currently representing Australia. He approaches politics from the perspective of his own highly religious Catholic upbringing and lifestyle, doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change and is really quite keen to return Australia to the 50's in respect to how we treat anyone who isn't an Anglo-Saxon white Male of upper-middle (or higher) socioeconomic background and being above the age of 35.

Unfortunately, the ALP's strategy is going to bite them in the ass. No Coalition voters have been wooed over to the ALP side, but, now that both parties are on the Right or the Far Right and well and truly entrenched in conservative politics, many former ALP voters are turning to the Greens or other alternative parties. The Greens now have a swing in their favour of between 7 and 9 percent, mostly taken from the ALP, and other smaller parties are enjoying smaller swings in their favour. It's likely that the Greens will hold, themselves, the balance of power in the Senate (because Family First aren't likely to have a Senator elected this time around) but we could have a situation where Greens could get elected to the Lower House as well.

This ABC news article is quite good: www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/11/2924334.htm [abc.net.au]

Just for purposes of disclosure, I don't vote Green. I vote for the Australian Democrats, another more minor party which is relatively socially progressive but otherwise quite centrist, although I do generally preference the ALP over the Liberals.

t-shirts (0, Offtopic)

Larafabian (1831318) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533254)

This is creepy, wierd and I am being forced to read it as a class assignment! I think it is gross and repulsive. ewwwwww!!We’re all waiting for your next article of course. Cheap Online Whole T-shirts

Honestly (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#32533270)

A system like this wouldn't be so bad IF governments could be trusted with keeping their hands off the data UNTIL a crime was committed. Then, when they had physical evidence of a crime, a bit of data mining and searching could dig up other relevant facts. However the Australian government (famous for Task Force Argos [wikipedia.org], who took someone to court for posting a video freely available on YouTube citing child abuse) and other governments around the world have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to refrain from abusing such data.

Mention the words "terrorism" or "child pornography", and suddenly governments want to go so far as to break existing laws to prevent these crimes. However there is only one problem - if the person has not committed the crime yet, they are not a criminal. So we get cases built on "conspiracy to commit" and "intent to commit", cases which erode our freedom each single time. Because any psychologist will tell you that some very nasty thoughts can pass through the heads of very average people AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. The insides of our heads must remain inviolate and not subject to the state, or we become slaves. The law must draw the line at "yes but did the person go out and ACT on those fantasies?", not "did the person think about it". Otherwise everyone guilty of watching, writing or producing a murder mystery show is guilty of murder.

Welcome to nazi australia! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32533286)

WELCOME!.....pls deposit all yer liberties here

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...