×

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!

On Eve Of Election, Australia's Conservatives Announce Mandated Filtering Policy

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the oh-by-the-way dept.

Censorship 87

Dan B. writes "After Australia's Conservative party (LNP) quietly posted a policy [PDF] to impose mandatory internet filtering just one day prior to the country's election, local premiere internet forum Whirlpool has gone in to overdrive with the fastest 50 page thread ever. At 8:30pm, both sides of politics were busy running media releases, with the Conservatives hastily back-pedalling on the policy, and the Government attacking it, accusing them of hypocrisy after voting down their own proposed filter 3 years prior, stating there was no proof filtering works."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

87 comments

Why... (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 7 months ago | (#44765759)

Do politicians repeatedly insist on inserting their feet into their mouths hours before an election?

Re:Why... (5, Insightful)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 7 months ago | (#44765795)

It's a test for future policy development: if they can get away with spouting crap before the election, they know they can get away with murder afterwards.

+1 Insightful (4, Insightful)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 7 months ago | (#44766781)

It's a test for future policy development: if they can get away with spouting crap before the election, they know they can get away with murder afterwards.

Not sure why that's currently rated at +5 Funny -- this is quite insightful. Politicians do indeed do this. Lay out a (sometimes batshit-insane extreme) policy position before an election, and if the electorate rolls over, the politicians know it'll fly just fine. If the electorate raises a holy stink, back off and propose something slightly less batshit-insane that's calibrated to squeak by. This is how bullshit becomes modus operandi. This is also how Microsoft has been working to make its Panopticon (a.k.a. XBox One) palatable to the buying public.

This approach is a proven technique. Funny? More like frighteningly accurate.

Cheers,

Re:+1 Insightful (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 7 months ago | (#44767335)

An accurate description of politics is indistinguishable from absurdism.

Re:+1 Insightful (2)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 7 months ago | (#44767653)

An accurate description of politics is indistinguishable from absurdism.

So long as we remember to laugh at ourselves, and not at the description.

Re:Why... (4, Funny)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 7 months ago | (#44766925)

They've already back-pedalled on this policy faster than Tony Abbott walking into a gay bathhouse.

Re:Why... (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 7 months ago | (#44770573)

They've already back-pedalled on this policy faster than Tony Abbott walking into a gay bathhouse.

Which means they'll do it after the election.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tony likes gay bath houses, the most ardent homophobes often hide homosexual desires.

Needless to say, if Tony gets in I'm moving to Singapore, he's our George W Bush.

Re:Why... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44771803)

Yes, because the political system in Singapore is so much better...

Re: Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44786603)

How's Singapore looking today?

Re:Why... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 7 months ago | (#44765967)

Do politicians repeatedly insist on inserting their feet into their mouths hours before an election?

They were caught in a moment of honesty, voicing their opinions as they truly are, usually you see this sort of hubris after the election.

if they were on the internet we'd call them trolls

Re:Why... (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 7 months ago | (#44766087)

I don't think this is what the usual "foot in mouth" or whatever it's called when a politician, required by the media to be talking 24 hours a day for about a year, inevitably proves human and something comes out wrong or is wrong. This was intentional. The mistake, if there was one, was thinking no one would notice.

To their credit, if it's more complex than "THIS politician made a cuss and the microphone picked it up!" or "Someone said this politician rubbed their genitals against someone else's genitals, and NOT THE PERSON THEY MARRIED!!!" the media usually WILL ignore it, along with everyone else.

Re:Why... (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 7 months ago | (#44766379)

it just always seems to happen to em the moment before it really matters, with no time to spin or back it off, or what have you.

its like the trope of the cop who says hes just days away frm retirement. and similar to the obligatory XKCD ( http://xkcd.com/1113/ [xkcd.com] ) im surprised more politicians, or their handlers, dont lock them away in a secure room without contact to the outside world in the day or two before the election, considering this just keeps happening.

of coure, its still endlessly amusing from where i sit.

The 2002 Barrack Obama - Updated (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766091)

The 2002 Barrack Obama - Updated

        What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz Samantha Power and Susan Rice and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

        What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove David Axelrod to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein Bashar Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi Syrian people, would be better off without him.
        But I also know that Saddam Assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi Syrian economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi Syrian military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Re:Why... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766119)

Ideally, they are supposed to do that during the campaign rather than surprising people with it after they are elected. It's what a campaign is for.

And if they are too dumb to have a well-thought-out policy early in the election, and face the backlash the night before, well, again, be glad they did it beforehand.

Re:Why... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#44766273)

Do politicians repeatedly insist on inserting their feet into their mouths hours before an election?

Well, governmental buildings are well-known hotbeds of the foot-in-mouth disease.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44768219)

In this case, it's simply realization that setting up the filters == power. If The Other Guys wanted to set it up, then it's bad, bad! But now the Conservatives want to do it (possibly believing they'll "win"), so it's good for the children.

When looking at government proposals for "security" merely as power grabs by whomever, it takes much of the soap opera aspect out of it.

But most voters are like NY Jets, Philadelphia Eagles (or Oakland Raiders or...Tim Tebow) fans. No amount of logic will cut into their emotionally-held "positions". They're like anti-trolls.

Re:Why... (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about 7 months ago | (#44772397)

Short answer: the blackout [wikipedia.org]. Now is the perfect time to reveal bad policy, because a) you can claim it was announced before the election, and b) your opponents can't call you on it in advertising.

Backlash is a wonderful thing (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 7 months ago | (#44765769)

We clearly need more of it. The problem is, it doesn't seem to work as well here in the States, especially when we only find out the details after the fact. I would that the US government were as communicative as these Aussies about their bad policies before actually makign them law.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44765815)

You would what? Forget verbs?

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (4, Informative)

stewsters (1406737) | about 7 months ago | (#44765889)

In English, if someone says "I would that" it means "I wish that' in a more poetic sense.
source [englishforums.com]

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (2)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 7 months ago | (#44766469)

When I say "I would that" it means "I'd hit that". Actually most things I say mean that...

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44770879)

When I say "I would that" it means "I'd hit that". Actually most things I say mean that...

And when I say "I'd lick it", it means "I'd have sex with her", regardless of whether or not I would actually lick anything.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 7 months ago | (#44765891)

Would is a verb. My usage may be a bit archaic, but valid nonetheless.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (4, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 7 months ago | (#44766187)

For example. When you see a group of 4 ladies. Your can rate them with: Would. Would. Would't. Would.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766727)

And if one of them is exceptional: wood.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767873)

For example. When you see a group of 4 ladies. Your can rate them with: Would. Would. Would't. Would.

I'd rate them: Wood. Wood. Wouldn't. Wood.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766255)

I apologize :)

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 7 months ago | (#44765949)

It's almost like elections in the U.S. are dominated by gerrymandering, personality, and advertisements, in a way that essentially creates a caste-based system of representation.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766029)

Almost: Adj; is precisely the case.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (2)

intermodal (534361) | about 7 months ago | (#44766243)

don't you have a grammar nazi rally to attend somewhere else right now?

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766371)

Someone used light irony to make a point. He agreed using levity. I don't see any correction of grammar here.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 7 months ago | (#44766475)

Due to the way the notification arrived and another anon's grammar correction, I unduly made a connection between the two posts. I apologize for the confusion.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767063)

don't you have a grammar nazi rally to attend somewhere else right now?

Right back at you :

Don't you have a sanctimonious cunt rally at which you are the keynote speaker ?

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 7 months ago | (#44766199)

I agreed up until you said that we are represented. I'd say we are, at best, occasionally placated.

Re:Backlash is a wonderful thing (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 7 months ago | (#44767603)

It doesn't work here because a large number of people are actually entirely on-board. We're talking spying on american citizens awful peacefully. Perhaps Australians still have some dignity left to be outraged at losing.

Political stupidity at it's zenith (5, Insightful)

Taantric (2587965) | about 7 months ago | (#44765781)

These morons would rather put the entire country and it's IT infrastructure to the expense and trouble of a Opt out system, instead of just making it a Opt In system for those families or organizations like schools that may need such a filter.

You think the ISP or the smartphone or modem manufacturers are going to absorb the cost of this additional layer of government mandated censorship? No they are going to pass on the cost to the consumer. So for every one household that might actually use this filter, nine would not and yet those nine would still pay for it.

PS: I don't understand the logic. How does censoring my internet protect your children from porn? It just doesn't make any sense.

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (2)

bobdawonderweasel (941828) | about 7 months ago | (#44765875)

>

PS: I don't understand the logic. How does censoring my internet protect your children from porn? It just doesn't make any sense.

There is no logic. This topic comes up in politics as a way to make themselves look like they are doing something "for the children". Quite frankly, in Australia and here in the U.S. the elected officials should have better things to do with their time (and our money).

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (2)

mellon (7048) | about 7 months ago | (#44765969)

It's not the case that there is no logic. Rather, the logic just doesn't have to do with protecting kids from porn. It has to do with getting votes. But the public is developing a resistance to this tactic, and good for them for doing so. The only check on lying politicians is a skeptical and informed electorate.

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44770649)

too right. The children are fine!

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44765879)

between Austrailia and the UK, APK's going to be a multi-billionaire

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44765995)

Maybe you should check your facts because it IS an OPT IN system

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (4, Insightful)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | about 7 months ago | (#44766077)

No, the announcement was for an OPT OUT system. They backtracked claiming they meant for it to be opt in, yet how something like that gets written up in sufficient detail describing how the opt out system would work when they intended opt in just boggles the mind (read: they're a pack of liars).

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (1)

fritsd (924429) | about 7 months ago | (#44766311)

Taantric wrote:

PS: I don't understand the logic. How does censoring my internet protect your children from porn? It just doesn't make any sense.

Obviously, they want to block you from uploading those advanced ritual yoga [wikipedia.org] videos...

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (2)

dywolf (2673597) | about 7 months ago | (#44766439)

Oh no, thats not the logic. It's about protecting you from yourself. after all, you simply cannot be trusted with your baser instincts. they must be managed by an outside entity. for your well being. you dont know yourself well enough to know your emotional or physical needs, nor can you be trusted with the responsibilty of personal choice. Trust us. Its for the best.

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767199)

Once the nation-wide filter is in place, it's a small step to add filtering of political content. This isn't about the children.

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767277)

The logic is this: it's not about protecting children from porn, it's about establishing a precedence for censorship.

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767535)

It's not about you, it's about inserting filters and monitoring equipment in the country's Internet at the best place, the ISP. Porn has nothing to do with it, this is all about monitoring you, your associates, and controlling the information you get to see. All western countries are trying to do this right now. They'll use whatever excuse they can: protecting kids, porn, copyright infringement, terrorist prevention. The reason is just a means to an end, and whatever the public will eventually accept.

Re:Political stupidity at it's zenith (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 7 months ago | (#44773097)

The weird thing about the Liberal policy was their idea of rolling out filtering to new modems. These people must be seriously confused about what a modem does.

Just a distraction (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44765827)

Smells like a deliberate "mistake" to keep the news outlets busy for the final day before the election. Will prevent scrutiny of their policy costings they only just released today, 48 hours before the election.

Fastest policy backflip in history? (4, Informative)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 7 months ago | (#44765861)

This was alluded to in the summary but in case people just read the headline and make a knee jerk post about it ... they have already back tracked from the plan. In fact they said they never had such a plan and it was a mistaken statement in the first place.

Whichever it was, the correction certainly occurred in record time. Seeing the whole thing go down on Twitter there was barely a few hours between news outlets picking up the story of the filtering plan and Malcolm Turnbull responding and saying the whole thing was incorrect.

Official Liberal Party press release clarifying that they do NOT intend to introduce filtering: http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/09/05/coalitions-policy-enhance-online-safety-children [liberal.org.au]

There's various other reasons that you shouldn't vote for the LNP this election. But thankfully this isn't one of them.

Re:Fastest policy backflip in history? (4, Interesting)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 7 months ago | (#44766549)

For something that isn't policy, was never policy, was never going to be policy, and will never be policy, it certainly looks remarkably like an official policy manifesto to me:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/165690692/Coalition-2013-Election-Policy-%E2%80%93-Enhance-Online-Safety-final [scribd.com]

Are you implying their finger slipped in just such a way as to write a 10 page policy document, cost the policy, put the correct date on the document, and post the policy to their website completely accidentally? Or are you claiming that this is some sort of absurdly elaborate (and dull) hacker forgery?

At the very best, you can say that this is a policy that they entertained to quite a complete point before abandoning it- and that the almost-complete literature was made public accidentally. But that still implies that this is a policy that senior Liberals were happy to consider. The document is footnoted "authorised by Brian Loughnane", which is the party's Federal Director and Campaign Director; presumably a man who is at least relatively in tune with his party's policy attitudes.

Re:Fastest policy backflip in history? (2)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 7 months ago | (#44767281)

I'm not implying anything (hence the second paragraph beginning "Whichever it was..."). Not trying to judge either way whether it was an actual mistake, or a genuine policy which they've hastily backtracked from (I agree that it looks like the latter). Just putting the link up there for people.

For the record, I've already voted (I'm overseas so voted by mail) and it wasn't for the Coalition.

Re:Fastest policy backflip in history? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 7 months ago | (#44773671)

For something that isn't policy, was never policy, was never going to be policy, and will never be policy, it certainly looks remarkably like an official policy manifesto to me:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/165690692/Coalition-2013-Election-Policy-%E2%80%93-Enhance-Online-Safety-final [scribd.com]

Are you implying their finger slipped in just such a way as to write a 10 page policy document, cost the policy, put the correct date on the document, and post the policy to their website completely accidentally? Or are you claiming that this is some sort of absurdly elaborate (and dull) hacker forgery?

Neither actually. I'm of the firm belief that this being the party that voted against censorship when the Labor party considered it, concocted this all as an elaborate ruse to keep the media busy a day before the election. It was too absurd to be true, and they backed down waaaay too quickly for them to have actually considered this as a policy. Yet somehow I turn on the radio and the TV today and all I hear about the new former internet filtering policy.

What I don't hear anything about is the Coalition policy costings which they have released only 48 hours before an election and has more holes in it that a block full of half eaten Swiss cheese. Look politicians are lying cheating dirty thieving backstabbing scum of society and you wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. But they're not stupid.

I think this was actually quite genius on their part.

Re:Fastest policy backflip in history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44768993)

... you shouldn't vote for the LNP this election ...

Everyone voted for the 'immigration, taxation, defense and the USA' party during the boom of 2004. I think a lot of admirers will experience the painful sight of their saviour failing in the current economic climate.

no proof filtering works? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766175)

It works great for China and North Korea. Sure, some people get around it, but most people are cut off from things the government doesn't want them to see. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that unlike China and North Korea, Australia was a free country. Well, cross one more off the list...

Re:no proof filtering works? (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | about 7 months ago | (#44766539)

In China and North Korea, don't you get sent to prison or a labor camp for a multi-year sentence if you get caught even attempting to bypass the filters?

Re:no proof filtering works? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766741)

Lol
If that were the case, the prisons woudl be fuller than American prisons. (Hint: there not)

Im in China now, and every 2nd add that pops up is trying to sell me a VPN.

Its extremely common to bypass the filters, most Chinese dont need to because they dont care to, They have plenty of Chinese versions of everything they could ever want.

Re:no proof filtering works? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44766823)

ignorance, pure ignorance.

posting anon from China, I must say this:
The GFC works very well indeed and ALL countries should simply copy it and adapt to their own flavour of filtering.

one only gets caught and sent to be fixed up if using internet to do kiddieporn or some such bad stuff

on a geek note, how [and why] does one by-pass RST ACK and automated URL visited monitoring?

Re:no proof filtering works? (1, Interesting)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 7 months ago | (#44767291)

Did you actually read the summary? It's a non-policy that they've already backtracked from due to public outcry.

Also even if this ridiculous policy would have become reality, it was an opt-out system. Comparisons with China aren't very useful (you can't really opt out of their filter, though you can easily bypass it).

Do it (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#44766269)

Now is your chance, Australia. Do the world a favor and show them, at this election, in no uncertain terms what you think of politicians who want to censor.

Re:Do it (1)

mathew42 (2475458) | about 7 months ago | (#44770905)

So we can vote for the Labor party which attempted to introduce the legislation to censor the internet in the last parliament or vote for the Coalition which voted against censorship and has come out and said there was a mistake in wording of the policy.

Let me tell you a personal story. When my daughter was six, she was playing a game on the computer. She had seen me search for her favourite characters, so she opened a web browser, typed "Charlie and Lola" and clicked search. I was in the room, but only half watching. I was very relieved when the links that turned up were for the kid's book.

I'm not in favour of censorship, but I can see the value for the government ensuring computer illiterate parents can make their kids jump through 3 hoops rather than stumble across content accidentally. Kids will soon learn at school how to work around any filters.

Another scandal too? (4, Interesting)

wisty (1335733) | about 7 months ago | (#44766545)

There's a thread on reddit Australia - some guy claims a Liberal Party Facebook app is harvesting data using hex-encoded javascript. I'm pretty sure it's against their own privacy policy, the Facebook ToS, and possibly illegal.

Re:Another scandal too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767089)

There is no such thing as hex-encoded javascript.

Perhaps your description is imprecise.

Re:Another scandal too? (2)

Shatrat (855151) | about 7 months ago | (#44767323)

He probably means obfuscated, where all the variable and method names are replaced with gibberish. The other way to do it would be to have a small shell javascript that translates and runs a payload of what is apparently gibberish, so that it's not quite as trivial as a 'show source' to see what naughty business is being done.

Re:Another scandal too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767499)

Perhaps your Google-fu is weak. Or maybe you just enjoy being great fun at parties

Re:Another scandal too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767975)

I don't have to google it, but for your sake I did, and indeed, it doesn't exist. I understand one could garble text and degarble it before passing it to eval(). If that's the case then the description used doesn't convey the concept properly.

And I don't discuss Javascript at parties. I just bust out the clowns, drugs and confetti and I'm good.

Re:Another scandal too? (3, Interesting)

wisty (1335733) | about 7 months ago | (#44768789)

OK, go here: http://thechoice.liberal.org.au/assets/js/scripts_a525ba27d7083afd6698e2641babf7ff.min.js [liberal.org.au]

Find the bit that starts: decodeURIComponent((new RegExp("[?|&]"+a+"=([^&;]+?)(&|#|;|$)").exec(location.search)||[,""])[1].replace(/\+/g,"%20"))||null}var _0x8ece=["\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A

How exactly do you describe it?

Re:Another scandal too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44770907)

var _0x8ece = ["http://thechoice.liberal.org.au/", "http://d2uqpum5bozpw6.cloudfront.net/assets/img/thumb2.jpg", "See what could happen depending on your choice on September 7", "", "The Coalition will deliver a stronger Australia, and that means building a stronger economy so everyone can get ahead. It means scrapping the carbon tax, ending the waste, stopping the boats and building the roads of the 21st century.", "See what could happen depending on your choice on September 7: http://thechoice.liberal.org.au/ [liberal.org.au] . The Coalition will deliver a stronger Australia, and that means building a stronger economy so everyone can get ahead. It means scrapping the carbon tax, ending the waste, stopping the boats and building the roads of the 21st century.", "selectedVideo: ", "log", "send", "event", "video", "selectFirst", "select", "getDate", "setDate", "; expires=", "toUTCString", "cookie", "=", ";", "split", "length", "indexOf", "substr", "replace", "mailSubscribed", "mailShareSent", "/me", "location", "name", "email", "mail", "noEmailAddr", "mailSubscribe", "http://shared.liberal.org.au/thechoice/store-address.php?", "id", "first_name", "last_name", "get", "/me/feed", "post", "FBShareAuto", "published", "FBShareAuto published", "error", "api", "liberal", "http://shared.liberal.org.au/thechoice/send-mail.php?", "authResponse", "FB", "login", "new", "User cancelled login or did not fully authorize.", "cancelled", "email,friends_location,user_location,friends_likes,publish_stream", "https://m.facebook.com/dialog/oauth?client_id=", "&response_type=code&redirect_uri=", "&scope=email,friends_location,user_location,friends_likes,publish_stream", "/me/permissions", "publish_stream", "data", "undefined", "major", "getFlashPlayerVersion", "loggedIn", "initSharingApp", "hide", "#home-noflash a", ".sharingapp-items", "height", "#sharingapp", "

", "clone", "#fbfriend-item-template", "fb-", "uid", "attr", "data-uid", "data-weight", "score", "show", "src", "//graph.facebook.com/", "/picture?width=150&height=150", ".item-thumb img", "find", "text", "h4", "TELL ", "toUpperCase", " TO VOTE LIBERAL FOR REAL CHANGE!", ".back span", "FBsharingApp", "prompt", "feed", "popup", "link", "picture", "caption", "description", "remove", "reloadItems", "isotope", "reLayout", "post_id", "ui", "click", "appendTo", "each", "slideUp", "#sharingapp-notloggedin", "slideDown", "#sharingapp-container", "#shareFBFriends", "FBShare", "sharingContainer", ".item", "width", "weight", "smartresize", "image", "magnificPopup", ".item-zoom", "ajax", "scroll", "mfp-zoom-in", "status", "ready", "fade", "flexslider", ".item-media.flexslider", "fitVids", ".item-media.video", ".item-link", "hoverdir", "contains", ":", "expr", "createPseudo", "change keyup", "on", "#fbfriendsearch", "val", ":contains(\"", "\")", "vidIsLoaded", "#loginContainer", "#videoLoading", "push", "min", "fqlFriends", "Australia", "Select uid, name, current_location from user where uid IN (SELECT uid2 FROM friend WHERE uid1 = me()) AND current_location.country = \"", "\" order by rand()", "Select uid from page_fan WHERE uid IN (SELECT uid FROM #query1) AND page_id IN (13561467463,71784212268,216342268645)", "Lingiari", "Kingsford Smith", "Reid", "Robertson", "Parramatta", "Greenway", "McMahon", "Werriwa", "Banks", "Barton", "Dobell", "Page", "Richmond", "Eden-Monaro", "Lindsay", "Macquarie", "Chisholm", "Deakin", "Bruce", "Aston", "La Trobe", "Dunkley", "Corangamite", "Bendigo", "Brisbane", "Lilley", "Petrie", "Moreton", "Oxley", "Rankin", "Blair", "Capricornia", "Adelaide", "Hindmarsh", "Boothby", "Perth", "Hasluck", "Fremantle", "Brand", "Bass", "Braddon", "/fql?q=", "stringify", "FB Error occured 454", "fql_result_set", "merge", "sharingAppStats", "C1Friends", "C3Friends", "current_location", "test", "|", "join", "inArray", "sort", "fbFriends", "myFlashcall", "videoMain", "getElementById", "style", "text-align: center;", ".home-type #main1", "videoStatus", "showVideo", "section#share", "scrollTo", "emailFBShareID", "FBShareFromEmail"];

Re:Another scandal too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44772013)

As a developer I'd probably describe it as fairly typical javascript minification for most of the file. In fact, the comments above the parts tell you the major frameworks in there.

That section specifically... appears to be a simple call to pull 1 variable off a query-string. You do seem to have read past the end of the function and skipped the start of it though. _0x8ece is some sort of lookup table. At a glance the query-string method is being used to pull the ID of a friend off the facebook URL so that when you choose to share it it'll offer the person you're currently on the page for, otherwise offering a more generic version. There's some google analytics code in there to track what call-to-action you used too, but there's nothing surprising about that.

Nothing in there really jumps out to me as malicious. It probably looks bad to someone who doesn't work with javascript but obfuscating and minifying javascript is essentially common practice.

conservatives want more freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767939)

But conservatives want less government and more freedom!

At least that's what the bumper sticker on the the car in the handicapped spot said. And it must be true because there was also a Ron Paul bumper sticker on it as well!

this back-pedalling must've been planned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44767945)

what is the stuff they are trying to hide by creating this circus?
I assume there is something else they don't want us to talk about

Security Theater (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#44768277)

More security theater designed to make people feel like government is doing something when it's not.

My son recently started public school. I took him on his first day only to find hundreds of kids milling about the front of the school, in the street, totally un-supervised. I tried to get in and the doors were locked. They didn't unlock until 7:30am the time class started so of course, every kid was late for first period. I went to the office and they told me due to all the school shootings (in the whole country we've had what? 1? In the past 5 years?) They said I'd have to take it up with the school board and blew me off.

Well, I did take it up with the school board. I called and pointed out that they were locking an EMPTY SCHOOL. All the kids were outside, unsupervised with no-where to go should a potential attacker arrive. It was ridiculous. To my amazement they got me in touch with the school districts director of security who conceded my point, agreed with my assessment and made a district wide policy change on the spot. She said that the change had been requested by local politicians over the summer and she hadn't really thought it through. By the time I went to pick up my kid the school was back to being unlocked. At least there are a few in government with half a brain in their head.

This is what emergency warning systems are for (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | about 7 months ago | (#44770105)

How about some accountability? If they say this was part of their mandate they are bloody crazy.

Poor Aussies, I thought this countries conservative party was bad. They're probably going to get up to the same kind of thing next election. Got voted in on a minor scandal involving some low tier politician at the wrong time. Sad.

Re:This is what emergency warning systems are for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44770547)

Accountability? We're talking about the party that released it's costings after the media blackout began, less than 48 hours before the election. They don't want proper analysis of their "plans", they don't want real public dialog about them, and they don't want to deal with annoying, leftist ideas like "accountability", "transparency", "honesty" and "compassion".

IF Labor is outed, I really hope that the Tories have a minority government, so they'll force a double dissolution. That way the damage they can do to one of the strongest economies on the planet will at least be limited to what the Greens and minor parties approve of.

Re:This is what emergency warning systems are for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44771041)

"We're talking about the party that released it's costings after the media blackout began, less than 48 hours before the election."
You mean like the other lot did last election?

Re:This is what emergency warning systems are for (1)

mathew42 (2475458) | about 7 months ago | (#44771343)

IF Labor is outed, I really hope that the Tories have a minority government, so they'll force a double dissolution. That way the damage they can do to one of the strongest economies on the planet will at least be limited to what the Greens and minor parties approve of.

The Australian economy was strong because it entered the GFC with a surplus and cash in the bank. The Labor government the proceeded to spend that and drive the country in to $300 billion in debt. Between the last budget (May 2013) and July 2013, Labor mismanagement saw the deficit balloon from $5 billiion to over $30 billion. The Greens have been pushing Labor to spend even more. The good news is that everything points to the Greens having less influence in the next parliament.

Minor parties have a distinct advantage in a double dissolution because it halves the quota for a seat, so I'm not sure it will be seriously considered. I can only see the trigger being pulled if Labor infighting and back stabbing continues and they slip further in the polls after the election.

Australia has elections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44770173)

I never knew that. This is the first time that I have heard of Australia holding elections. *grumbles at news media in United States of America* wish they (news networks/TV/Radio/newspapers) would focus on other parts of the planet besides New York City, China, North Korea and the Middle East. ok, end of rant.

I'm going to read about the Australian federal election, 2013 and the 44th parliament. yeah, i normally don't comment about politics, but i learned something new about Australia.

Re:Australia has elections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44771157)

Daily show has had a few reports on it.

Isn't there more news content there per minute than any other show shown in America?

Re:Australia has elections? (1)

Petfish (1254220) | about 7 months ago | (#44771975)

We sometimes need to have elections when Rupert Murdoch and/or Gina Rinehart need a new sockpuppet. Abbot is not even going to get up from his knees for the first year of his term.....

Too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44770739)

We already have this to some extent.

There's been a few questionable websites that would not resolve using my ISP's DNS.
Once DNS was changed to one outside of Aus (google for example 8.8.8.8) the address resolved fine.

Are you all kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#44777871)

An election campaign is a giant beast. One fucker releases an out-of-band email given some miscommunication, and you are all firing wild conspiracy theories. (And you call conservatives anti-reason, get a grip.)

Check for New 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...