Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Oz Government to Become "Biggest Hacker in Town"

Nathan posted more than 14 years ago

Encryption 186

Wired is running a story with further information about the Australian Government authorising legalised hacking of private computer systems by its internal security organisation, ASIO.

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

Script Kiddies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479543)

Looks like script kiddies will have a goverment job in the land down under. What to do what to do.

Re:Grrrrr (2)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479544)

Is the[re] any difference ... except the govt will be doing it better and to more people?

Yes, the government is, at least in principle, accountable to the Australian people, whereas the kid is not.

I realise that many people, on /. in particular but by no means exclusively, have little or no faith in this accountability. There is a general feeling of mistrust in the government and national agencies.

A lot of this mistrust is entirely understandable. But it is, I think, important to make a point of the principle, namely that the issue is not that the govenment has more power than the individual but that they are not (sufficiently) accountable for the exercise of this power.

This is to me the real issue. You do not trust government. But listen: you are the only people who can fix this. You elect these people (I can't vote for any national parliament so I deny all responsibility :-)). Don't just complain and then stay at home on polling day. (How many people in the USA vote? 20%?)

Seriously: if we have zero trust in govenrment then civilization falls. Think about it: some form of government is needed for large scale human organisation. With the population of this planet seemingly ever-groving, the case could be made that we need more government, not less. Of course, it should a government that is truely accountable to the people.

Re:ASIO (2)

Jonathan C. Patschke (8016) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479545)

What's far more depressing is that it's not even hand coded or running on a decent server. Adobe Pagemill generated the page, and Microsoft IIS served it up. That has to be the most expensive chunk of HTML that I've ever seen. :) I have my doubts about the technical (also ethical) prowess of a government security agency that runs an insecure server OS and can't hand-code a "test page". Perhaps they're just a bunch of 5kR!P7 K1Dd13Z? At least I'm safe.... the machine I connected with was running Win98, and can't possibly stay up for long enough between reboots for them to do anything. :)

Confessions of a corporate espionage guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479556)

After working for a company for over 15 years, I got an offer to work for our competition. I was torn between the many friends I had gotten to know over the years, and the tempting offer they made me. After pondering the offer for many months, I finally took the job.

I am now in a position to access marketing reports, detailed sales figures, and inventory records. I took a few of the reports and ROT-13ed them and added the text to a meaningless GIF file.

I opened up a web page on the many free sites on the net(under false demographic info), and put This GIF file (a little animated bullet thingie) on the site with all the other info about under-water-basket-weaving, or some such nonsence.

Now, once a month, the president of the company (where I had worked for 15 years) gets an anonymous email with a web link pointing to this little GIF.

Sometimes the best place to hide your data is in a place where everybody is looking, but nobody knows to look.

Duh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479557)

Well what do you expect from a nation of convicts and societal rejects ;)

Re:Information is good (3)

Bostik (92589) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479558)

This is exactly the aspect that made me worried as well. According to the article, authorities can get a permit to break in and check the data. There is absolutely nothing preventing them from cracking their way in prior to the search and PLANTING the evidence they then find when the court order/permit allows.

As they sure as h*ll will modify the data on the computer during both processes, there is no way the victim (er, the owner of the computer) can point to what would have been changed without his knowlegde or consent. In effect, he has no ability to prove that the evidence wasn't there in the first place. ("Of course the files have been modified! How else would the police have managed to access everything on the computer?")

This may set an unwanted precedence and a disasterous example. Orwellian police states may no longer be mere horror speculations, but the standard in the 3rd millenium. I expect with utmost terror as to what countries follow the Australian Way.

Re:Grrrrr (1)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479559)

or murder you ? would you feel happy then ?

I hope that when this exile is over I will feel very happy. But maybe I will just feel, well, dead?

Seriously: there is nothing wrong with murder (!) all you need is a good reason. Law enforcement and war are typical "good" reasons, but there are others (and better). Even Christian law (normally very anti-killing) acknowledges the need for a little killing every now and then.

Maybe it is not true in the States, but here in Europe the police seems to use their weapons sensibly. I don't have a problem with them carrying guns. I do not normally have a problem when they use them. They are accountable.

cant plant viruses, but trojans ? (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479560)

Technically a trojan isnt a virus, so they could legaly just back orriface a computer.

Im australian, i certainly dont intend to vote for the current government in the foreseable future, they obviously have no clues on technology. (count the ways)

Ill be voting Democrats next time.

Re:And? (2)

SPrintF (95561) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479561)

I doubt that most countries have a legal procedure for planting fabricated evidence.

Here in the US, police have been known to plant guns on people they've shot to death in order to justify the homicide. (Yes, LAPD, I am talking to you.) No doubt, they rationalize this behavior by claiming that this improves their "security". But it's still illegal, and when they get caught, they get busted.

The Australian law gives the authorities a license to cook the bits on anyone's computer and serve up the results in the courtroom.

As noted in the article, this provides an avenue to challenge any digital evidence presented by the police. It only makes it harder for honest policemen to do their jobs.

Re:Australia's national security (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479562)

What icon would be appropriate? The Southern Cross? A marsupial? A shrimp on a barbie?

bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479563)

the ozzie govt. couldn't hack their way out of a paper bag

Hmm... (2)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479567)

Wouldn't that be legalized *cracking*?

Someone teach the Australian gov't how to hack, so they can play nice with everyone again...
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

OZ (2)

Money__ (87045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479569)

What's interesting is:

Under the new law, Australia's attorney general can authorize legal hacking into private computer systems, as well as copying or altering data, as long as he has reasonable cause to believe it's relevant to a "security matter."

Re:OZ (1)

Money__ (87045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479572)

...as long as he has reasonable cause to believe it's relevant to a "security matter.

So if I have a co-worker I hate, I can ROT-13 his entire hard drive, call the police, and get him turned in? And he has to turn over all his public keys?

It's bad.. but.. (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479574)

This simply says that national security officers can break into peoples computesr and do things if their reason for doing so is to protect national security. This is NOT much different from most other countries, the only difference being that in the US, there is probably no 'explicity' rule about breaking into computers. Gimme a break.. In the USA, the authorities can do *anything* in the name of national security... and get away with it.

new method for old crime (4)

JohnG (93975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479576)

This is really just causing criminals to create a new way to commit an old crime. Think about it. the IRS here in the US has for all of it's life, been able to look into the books of companies. But that didn't stop them from fixing the books. Now the Australian criminals will just have to put up decoy info on the server and keep the pertinet stuff some where else. Like say for example a LAN. The bad guys (errr Australian gov.) would have to be in the room with the computers to hack a network with no outside connection.
Beside, who keeps info that could breach national security on a public server anyhow?

And? (2)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479578)

This seems to me to be largely a non-issue. The article states that

Under the new law, Australia's attorney general can authorize legal hacking into private computer systems, as well as copying or altering data...

The only issue to me seems to be that this is under the control of the attorney general rather than the courts. In moust countries the police or security forces have this sort of power with a court order over other information sources, e.g. letters. Why should electronic information be different?

Information is good (2)

LionMan (18384) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479580)

I think anything that doesn't harm (too much) and spreads knowledge and information is good . . . as long as they all play nice, it will help the computer world a lot - we'll all learn a little about security.

? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479581)

what happened to the department/

The Olympics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479582)

He believes the government hastily pushed the bill through parliament using, among other things, national nervousness about the approaching Sydney Olympics to convince parliamentarians to go along

Wait a minute. Australia doesn't have any significant home grown terrorist organisations. There's more worry about international terrorism.
So these laws are mis-targeted, should be for foreign investigations.

The only other threat - solo mad bomber - isn't going to email himself much anyway.

This is a case of government paranoia. The officials that put this stuff together must be so dumb, or worse, so afraid and uncomprehending.

I guess Australian contempt for government is so high they just try to ignore everything it does, kind of like ignoring an annoying toddler. The only problem is, it keeps clamouring for attention with even more irritating behavior. You can't win, Australia!

If ever there was a dumb law, this is it (2)

sreeram (67706) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479583)

This should simply have been included as part of the "dumb laws" article (posted just two stories back), where it would fit perfectly.

Sreeram.

Re:Australia's national security (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479584)

Might not the Indonesians be a tad annoyed with y'all? Last I checked, the US was being rather reluctant to be involved on-site, and t'was the Aussies who had troops there despite our reluctance...

Hmm. So, aside from the electronic front, what's the general gist of Australian policy re: law enforcement? Do y'all have such things as no-knock warrants, a history of government infiltrators/agent provocateurs in even remotely potentially subversive organizations, leaders whose operatives break into the files of psychiatrists who treat their enemies...

...or is your government more respectful of privacy when it does not involve a computer?

Re:And? (1)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479585)

I doubt that most countries have a legal procedure for planting fabricated evidence.

Indeed I doubt so too. But they do have a legal procedure for, say, tapping your 'phone, and I was reading the article in the same vein. You need to be able to install bugs in the telephone and, similarly, in the computer. That means altering what is there.

[T]his provides an avenue to challenge any digital evidence presented by the police. It only makes it harder for honest policemen to do their jobs.

I read this as well, but I'm not sure I understand the issue fully. How does it work today with non-electronic evidence? If the police have previously searched your home and the later find evidence there, how do they prove they did not plant it?

It seems to me that the tracking and logging of what is being done sould be easier in the electronic world. Obviously you need proper controls in place, but you need that anyway for non-electronic information, police access and evidence.

If you trust the police for non-electronic evidence (and I relize that this is a big, big if for many slashdotters), then why not for electronic information?

Okay, okay... (1)

G-funk (22712) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479586)

I know, it sucks. We all think it sucks. And we'd all like to think the Australian government cares about what the geek masses think.

Well I can assure you they do not, and this will be a complete law in practice soon.

So what can I do to stop people getting into my computer? And don't tell me to run linux, because I'm a designer for a living and hence can't live without photoshop.

Re: Australian Electoral System (3)

Woko (112284) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479587)

Unfortunatly the major parties have managed to literally fix the voting system into a position where they cannot lose.

The combination of compulsory voting (fines imposed if you dont) with a preferential system means that while you vote for a conservative party, if your candidate has no chance of winning, your vote is passed onto that parties next preference.

This is an extremely effective mechanism of freezing out any alternative that the two major parties both dislike enough to exchange preferences over. So while a voter may tick that Liberal box, the vote may end up counting towards the Labor count.

In many electorates, where one side's pollsters feel its not worth spending the money to put up a candidate, no candidate is put up. Independants generally lose their seat after a term, after whatever issue pushed them into parliment has faded from public memory.

In fact in Victoria we have three independants committing to voting with the government, which really bends the definition of independant past breaking point.

And as for the federal senate with its broken proportional representation, leading to situations where one religous nut, who got a fraction of the votes needed in a larger state can dictate tax and censorship issues to a government with the backbone of a limp squid....

There's a good reason most Australian's distrust politians, have more respect for lawyers, and expect more honesty for real estate agents. In the vote on the referendum, (lost mainly because of a scare campaign over "the politican's republic") we had government ministers on TV saying dont vote for this republic, it gives too much power to politicians (a lie), and I'm a politican, and you cant trust us.

Re:Okay, okay... (1)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479588)

So what can I do to stop people getting into my computer?

Don't ever connect it to the internet. Keep it with you always.

Then you should be fine. They can still see what you are doing, but they'll have a hard time getting in to it without you knowing, which was what you asked for.

...on changing data... (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479589)

They're supposed to limit it to:

* Hiding traces of surveillance, and
* Anything that's "reasonably incidental"

Dunno 'bout the judges down there, but "reasonably incidental" o'er here usually wouldn't be interpreted as "massive falsification of evidence"; more like the disruption caused by the electronic B&E method itself.

Best icon for Australia (1)

eauz (53101) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479590)

First, barbecued prawns (or shrimp as you call them) is an dish invented for TV ads. Here in Sydney, if we barbecue seafood, it's typically Salmon cutlets, or octopus in a chili sauce (yum yum).

The best icon would be the southern cross, as expressed on the Eureka flag:

http://www.ausflag.com.au/flags/eureka.html

More Info (1)

nihilogos (87025) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479601)

can be found at www.2600.com/~asio/

Re:Australia Icon (3)

jdub! (24149) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479602)

Please! A "shrimp" on the barbie!

Funnily enough, I think this would be rather symbolic of the Australia-related stories on Slashdot. We don't even say shrimp - we say prawn... The shrimp on the barbie icon would be an ironic play on the fact that we are so misrepresented overseas - and our government only exacerbates the situation.

I don't know a single person who agrees with any of our recent technology legislation. That includes people who don't have a huge understanding of the ramifications of the changes made. Most of it was put through for the benefit of other bills - mostly related to the current conservative government's tax scheme.

Sadly, most of the media focus on government decisions in the previous few months has been focussed on the republic issue. Even then we were caught with our pants down.

There is only on party in Australia who have any idea of the importance of our technology sector: the Australian Democrats. At the last election, they were essentially given control of senate decisions on partisan issues.

There is hope...

Re:ASIO (1)

Qrygg (122468) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479603)

That's not bad, that's funny.
The Australian government better keep it's tentacles down under, because if I catch them reaching across the water to my machine, I will have to create an international incident.

--Nimbus Qrygg, The One True Qrygg
OS > Religion;

orwellian? (2)

pixelfish (122467) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479604)

Orwellian might describe the way the article was written. A fine and shining example of newspeak, implying that the Australian government was going to hack into everyones computers and that any day now Aussies everywhere might find that important files had been altered. But let's read a little more carefully, shall we? The limitations imposed on these powers state that the use of the government hackers in altering data is only to conceal surveillance. Furthermore, there must reasonable cause to assume that it is a matter of security. Think of it like an electronic warrant. Warrants and sub-poenas are served with due cause, when it is believed that issuing such will produce evidence. We trust (i know i am speaking optimistically) that judges and those who issue warrants and sub-poenas do so with due cause, because they believe that information will be brought to light that will aid a case or provide evidence. Generally we assume that most government agencies would act on a similar principle. i.e. they aren't breaking into just anyones files for the hell of it. So I gues it all boils down to "Do you trust your government?" or "Do we have reason to believe that these measures would be abused?"

Re:Grrrrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479605)

...accountable to the Australian people... You got it. The problem with this particular law is that the government is not accountable to anyone. The Attorney general gives permission, but theres no further process involved, so it could be a once-off permission to agencies to hack anyone or everyone in Australia in the interests of "National Security". At least theres no enforced backdoors. That would really be the end. I've portscanned myself and turned everything off, don't a have permanent connection, run a sniffer on the interface, no servers, can encrypt files on the disks. They haven't got much of a chance (I think :-/ ) of h4x0ring me. Confrontation with government is kind of fun, like a street protest. There's no equivalent of pepper spray in the law's arsenal yet, so hey, get serious about security! ..AC in Perth, Western Australia..

Re:orwellian? (1)

ransom (115658) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479606)

Well, I don't care HOW unlikely it is. I think that it is a major breach of privacy and should not be done. Or allowed. Unfortunatly the system of checks and balances (dunno about Aussi law, they may not HAVE one) seems to be out of whack. I am so glad I don't live there right now, but feel very bad for those who do. There is a way around this of course: close off all your incoming ports. That way they can't FTP, HTTP, SSH, TELNET, whatever to your computer. The only port on my computer that is open I think is the printer... and if anyone can crack into my computer via the printer deserves being in my computer.

If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit.

Re:And? (2)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479607)

Physical evidence usually leaves a trail. For instance, it would be dodgy for police to visit my apartment, plant a stolen handgun, and then claim that I'd used it to rob a store; they would need to coerce witnesses who could place me there, they may need to forge recordings from security cameras, and they would need to pick a time where I had no strong alibi. It'd be even more difficult to claim that I discharged a firearm, due to the powder traces that normally leaves on the shooter.

On the other hand, it would not be that difficult -- given time -- to, say, install a variety of cracking tools and documents, and reams of stolen information in my personal computer.

There are already my prints on the keyboard, and obviously I use it; thus, it would be difficult to prove that I did *not* install that, barring extenuating circumstances like the fact that my connection is neither fast nor always-on -- and thus they would have to take care to choose a time when I *was* dialed in, and to not go overboard with the data that I supposedly downloaded. If they set it up to allow incoming connections, they wouldn't even necessarily have to prove that I was in my apartment, since they could argue that I accessed it remotely.

Re:Grrrrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479608)

The serious problem here is that the government can easily break into computers and people would have no way of knowing. It is much easier to punish police for violently murdering people than to punish them for breaking into computers.

To suggest that the police are cracking computer systems "for fun" is childish.

Police probably won't break into computer systems "for fun," but if they have a personal problem with someone then they could attack that person's computer and either destroy important data or plant evidence.

Re:It's bad.. but.. (1)

seaportcasino (121045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479609)

I kindly disagree with you. There is a little thing called the Constitution that does tend to get in their way once and a while. Believe me, we should all love our Constitution, even if we don't give a shit about laws and so forth, as it is really just about the only thing holding back the Nazi hordes that would love to control us.

Re:new method for old crime (3)

seaportcasino (121045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479610)

Thankfully, just because they have the "legal" right to crack your computer doesn't mean they "can" crack your computer. We will just have to keep beefing up security until they don't have a chance in hell of ever getting in!

Me wonders how many copies of OpenBSD this story is going to sell???

Re:Hmm... (1)

ndfa (71139) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479621)

legalized *cracking*

They can change information according to when the feel neccessary!! thats kinda strange! I am not sure if that would even be cracking in hte normal sense of the words!! or maybe i am just on too little sleep!!!!!

So the govt. could make changes to say a mafia persons records and then bust them for ...hmmmmm
tax evasion ? ? ?

Re:Okay, okay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479622)

How much do you need the internet (or networking) connection? If you have sensitive stuff on it, buy a second computer (they're cheap!) and shuffle between them with floppies ;-).

But, considering the demonstrated incompetence of the Australian Public Service, do you really think there is going to be a secretive mass hacking of computers by Aus. Govt. persons unknown?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
,sigh.

Nope, there would have to be extra legislation COMPELLING people to trapdoor their systems, and even then ASIO would probably still stuff it up and you would be unnoticed.

Re:Grrrrr (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479623)

The point is, it's not okay for burglars to break into your company and steal or alter your private data, but it's somehow okay for the government to do it (now). I'd say it should also be legal, then, for non-government people and companies to break into government computers and steal or alter the data. What's good for the goose...

Local or Remote (2)

RobertGraham (28990) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479624)

The article is missing the key detail of local vs. remote.

A local hack would imply that the police enter your premise and sit down at your computer. A remote hack implies that the police connect to your computer while you're surfing on the Internet.

I can see this rankling a lot of Slashdotters who fear Big Brother, but remote access is really not different than what anybody anywhere on the world can do. I mean, you system is either vulnerable or hardened against intrusion. On Linux, if you simply remove all unnecessary network services in inetd.conf and install simple packet filters like ipchains [rustcorp.com] , then there isn't much the police are going to be able to do. Similarly, on Windows you can install Network ICE [networkice.com] which will not only block them, but also alert you to exactly what [networkice.com] they are trying to do.

I mean, anybody who runs such countermeasures regularly sees attempts against their machines. Why get into a tizzy over the government doing what Russian hackers/crackers are doing to you anyway? Indeed, the Russian hackers are likely to be much more intelligent than government drones.

In any event, I've got countermeasures on my system. This means that the most likey outcome is that bungling investigators would tip me off to the investigation, not compromise my machine.

(I guess my reaction is atypical: my geek distaste for l-users who can't configure their system outweighs my geek distrust of authority :-)

Re:orwellian? (1)

pixelfish (122467) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479625)

I'll agree with the system of checks and balances being out of whack. But I still think there should be some providence for the government legally accessing information if they think there is a security breach or a gross breach of conduct or a crime being committed....strong evidence that it has occured, I mean. I don't think that governements should spuriously hack into a system without justification. Thus, the question: How much do we trust our government? Perhaps the law could stand if it was better regulated? What would be a good way to regulate such a law?

Remarks like this are part of the problem! (1)

Maul (83993) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479626)

Hmn. I thought of this when I saw this message.

I know that Slashdotters don't take this kind of post seriously. We know that people who write this stuff all over the net are just mainly a bunch of script kiddies (or not even that) who talk big.

However, I don't know, are the mass number of computer users scared of this type of person, making them willing to let their governments pass anti-privacy laws? Not that there aren't skilled crackers, but there are a lot more people who go around CLAIMING they can compromize your system than can actually do it.

So I'm thinking, people acting like big shot crackers might actually be helping these laws come to be, because people are willing to give up their online privacy so that their governments can track down these "dangerous computer criminals."

Just a thought. ^_^

Remember the fundamentals (3)

craw (6958) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479627)

You know, there has to been a time when some government 1st authorized wiretaps on telephones. There has to be a time when the physical planting of recording devices was approved. Reading mail, I not sure about this one. Technology advances, and laws naturally adjust. But what remains the same (I hope) are the basic fundamentals that control the rights of the citizens and the role of the government.

The key question is does this new law infringe on the constitution (or whatever they call their basic national laws) of Australia? If it does, then it is wrong and will hopefully be ruled unconstitutional. If it does not, then okay. If the ppl don't like it, then they need to change their constitution.

The same holds true in the US. Remember all the brouhaha over COPA? Ultimately, the high courts started telling Congress that they passed unconstitutional laws.

Some ppl have stated that the gov is doing the same thing as script kiddies. Well, here in the US, law enforcement agencies have been given court approval to break into private property to play listening devices; for instance, this was used in the 80's against New England organized crime. Additionally, wiretapping by the gov is okay if its has court approval. Private wiretapping (like secretly recording telephone conversations) is illegal in many states. Linda Tripp is learning this lesson right now.

Re:Information is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479628)

Encrypt them on disk with 3-DES or Blowfish,and force yourself to remember an eighty-character random passphrase for decryption. Then decrypt to memory only.

"Grrrrr" Indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479629)

With the same argument I guess that since the police carry guns we can no longer critizise violent murderers?

Hardly. But then...

The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization.

Yes indeed. God forbid that the unwashed masses should take any responsibility for their own actions. God forbid that The PeePull should behave in an orderly and civilised manner without the Law Givers.

To suggest that the police are cracking computer systems "for fun" is childish.

To suggest that any organ of Government is necessarily looking out for your best interests is naive.

Shouldn't this be in the Dumb Laws section? (1)

Exito (21839) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479630)

I think this article was placed wrongly... clearly it should have been an appendix to the the "Dumb Laws" article posted 2 hours prior to this one. :)

Re:orwellian? (2)

freakho (28342) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479631)

Do we have reason to believe that these measures would be abused?

Well, yes, we do. When one is speaking about governments or large corporations, there is a modified Murphy's Law in effect. If the potential for abuse exists, someone will do it, eventually. And the higher the person with the potential to abuse is in the power structure, the less likely it is that the abuse will ever be stopped once it begins. Accept this as fact now, and you'll save yourself a lot of headaches.

Re:Local or Remote (3)

vinyl1 (121744) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479632)

The US government has a similar type of surveillance program, although it does require a court order. They use a Trojan called 'DIRT', which is not detected by anit-virus software (I believe they have a deal with the anti-virus companies). Rather than break through or break in, they monitor the evildoer's email, and use social engineering to get him to install their Trojan. Most targets of this program are not guys like us, but dumb criminals using Windows 98. Typically, they have a mix of encrypted and plaintext email.

This apparently works well against drug dealers and such. Encryption passwords are captured and reported back to Washington, and then they break into the encrypted email. If they can't get the target to install the Trojan, they get access to his computer somehow and pop it in. Would Netice help in a case like this? I would think you'd want to use something like ZoneAlarm. But these guys are so unsophisticated, they think the Internet is magic and they're invisible once they install PGP or something.

resident keystroke collectors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479633)

unless of course they left a resident program on your system to record keystrokes or what have you.

Win98 reboots a good thing then? (1)

Ken Broadfoot (3675) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479634)

I suppose this is true... if they are hacking into your box and you frequently crash it could make it harder for them to get at that crucial data in your Explorer Cache....

The feature Windows really needs is a /dev/null file.

Are people angry? Indifferent? . (2)

Wah (30840) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479635)

.
I agree that this is not *too* interesting. After all..

"This just brings ASIO's powers in line with new technologies," she said. "It doesn't give them increased powers at all."

And I think this is a direct result of Echelon. Remember, Australia just outed the U.S and Britain for their own activities in citizen monitoring. I doubt they are still getting the and same info they were a few months (years?) ago? So basically they took it upon themselves. The same end result, I guess...

Like the sig says says, monitoring ALL the information would not be a happy task. Just don't act conspicuouly, you scientologists, libertarians, and illuminati, SLASHDOTTERS UNITE!!!

(err, whatever. I could tell you about the real-time demographic information that is available based on the sound of your name and your zip code, this is private corporations monitoring your info, and my guess is they have more money to spend on it than the government does, more quantity than quality tho, and the government has access to this info but not vice-versa.)

Re: Australian Electoral System (2)

Robert S Gormley (24559) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479636)

The right to speak includes the ability to not speak, the right to vote should operate the same way.

You have to turn up. You can vote informally. You're in fact free to right "You can all go to hell" on your ballot paper.

Why do they hate to call it Orwellian? (3)

Millennium (2451) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479650)

That's exactly what it is. Plain and simple. Yet another step towards Big Brother. You know the Australian government seems to have been taking a lot of them recently; even the US government doesn't have the audacity to proceed at this pace.

Frankly, this solidified my decision: I won't ever move to Australia. I'll grant, I don't like the US government. But at least they pay lip service to the rights of the citizens (and occasionally respect them); this law simply stomps all over Australians' rights without even a shred of subterfuge. Same with all the censorship laws there, many of which go into effect in less than a month. And then there's the other Net-related fiascos going on there...

By the way, earlier in this thread someone noticed that ASIO's Website had a "test page." This poster feared that ASIO was using it as a tool in their Big Brother scheme. I read it a bit differently (seeing as there was nothing in the page source that indicated the possibility of sending data).

I don't even think they have a proper Website. All that page was missing was that inane yellow diamond with the animated digging man inside it and it would have exactly mirrored the perpetually in-progress page of a typical technologically-illiterate person. I honestly think they're that clueless about technology; even more so than the US government (which is itself pretty damn bad). They fear it, fear it with such intensity that they'd do anything to crush it.

Oh, one last point: isn't this getting dangerously close to becoming a human rights violation? The situation there seems to be getting out of control; someone needs to bring them back into line and remind them who really runs the show.

Re:Information is good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479651)

perfectly secure is perfectly unaccessable. Here in the USA at my university your required to submit the FAFSA (finacial aid form) via HTTPS, give it 4-7 more years and you will be required to submit your tax returns via HTTPS. And in the end how can you tell if your system is secure if the very tools that report to you are tampered with?

Re:More Info (1)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479652)

I wonder if whoever moderated this post [slashdot.org] up actually tried the link [2600.com] . I get the 'Not Found' error.

Re:Australia's national security (0)

garbs (121069) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479653)

How about a nazi swastika replacing the union jack... Seems appropriate, our governement, afterall, are acting like nazi's

Re:OZ (2)

Roundeye (16278) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479654)

And he has to turn over all his public keys?

Want my public keys?... I think you meant "private".

nothing wrong with murder?????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479655)

Actually by definition murder is wrong. Murder = the wrongful killing of an individual. I.e. killing in self defence in not murder, it's self defence. Law enforcemnt IMHO is never a good reason, every time an officer fires his weapon he has FAILED in action, and if he wounds, or worse, kills his target he has FAILED as a PEACE OFFICER, not just as an action. We can all agree that failure is not good. War - well there is a nice kettle of fish, it may be fine and dandy to kill in self defence, or in the defence of another, but to think it's alright to hop on a ship, travel 2,000 miles and then shot an indigenous people because your goverment says they are "Bad bad bad" with no further justification at any level, *smile* I'm laughing out loud and scared shitless. As for Christian law *GUFFAW GUFFAE* there is no such thing unless you mean islamic law? biblical law is not law since each "Law" was created in and of its self with no logical basis from others. KNOW what I mean??? On the sensibly thing, if you can assume that the police will act sensibly then it is also logical to arm them for any situations that may transpire. Such as stopping a large vehicle traveling at high speed tword a crowd. The best device for this situation is a bazooka, mortar, or grenade launcher. You really trust a cop with one of these heavy ordinances? You just need one to have an accident to make it multiple deadly. When it comes to human nature - hope for the best, plan for the worst Arm you protectors with the minimum of weapons necc. to do thier job. When give the choice always choose non-deadly munitions.

Re:Why do they hate to call it Orwellian? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479657)

I don't even think they have a proper Website.

That bit's right - but this bit is not:

I honestly think they're that clueless about technology... They fear it, fear it with such intensity that they'd do anything to crush it.

Now that's just plain paranoia. ASIO, like other related organisations (ASIS and the DSD) have some very clever people working for them - but like most government departments they're not exactly flush with cash (unlike the United States' NSA) so unimportant projects (like a promotional Web site) get a very low priority in their daily task list.

After all, they're an intelligence service - what exactly are they going to tell us via a Web site anyway?!?! ;-)

Hold on a second... (3)

Dacta (24628) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479659)

Look, our (I'm Australian) govenment has done some pretty bad stuff lately, but I don't think this one is too bad.

So, they made a law that lets them (basically) monitor your computer use if they get a court order.

What's wrong with that? Sure, I don't like EACELON (sp) but this is totally different. That is indiscrminate wire tapping. This is focused on people who are breaking the law.

I don't like the idea of someone searching my computer, or my house. However I dislike even more the idea that the govement that is supposed to protect us cannot because the law forbids it from searching a criminals house (or computer)

At least, now, it is out in the open, and not against the law. Where there is law, there are proceedures, and appeals, and checks & balances.

Do you really think the NSA doesn't do this, too? What are the checks and balances there?

What?!?! (2)

Brian Knotts (855) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479662)

With the same argument I guess that since the police carry guns we can no longer critizise violent murderers? This is just plain silly and pathetic.

No. Since the police carry guns we can no longer criticize citizens who carry guns.

Or, more accurately: If the police were allowed to kill people without cause (in the name of "the people," of course), then, yes, we would be kind of out of order if we criticized other murderers.

The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization.

The state's only legitimate power derives from the consent of the governed. How many governed are going to consent to this kind of madness?

I, for one, am going to start boycotting Australia. These things are happening everywhere to some degree, but they are completely out of hand Down Under.


Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org] .

next steps (1)

m.o (121338) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479669)

OK, next they will prohibit people from securing their systems (cuz how will they otherwise get in?), then they will like it and will require every application/OS/computer/whatever sold in Australia to just have a special password for the gov't (hey, why spend taxpayers' money on cracking when you can just force people...). How cool! Big brother is watching...

And am I just terribly ignorant, or is it right that Australia doesn't really have direct enemies and therefore doesn't really need such extraordinary powers?.. I know, they are VERY scared of Fiji people.....

ASIO (5)

debrain (29228) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479670)

Ok -- I clicked on the ASIO web page and it came up:
ASIO test page
And I come to the realization that I connected to the web page of a national intelligence agency and it was pleasantly informed that they were testing something. Why does this worry me? In the back of my mind, I can't help but think that when I get up tomorrow my computer will have "missing time" ... and it'll be runnig asio.d

Fight fire with foam - not fire (2)

nullity (115966) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479671)

This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc. In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)... By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody". > The new powers are contained in a bill passed by > Australia's parliament late last month (the > Australian Security Intelligence Organization > Legislation Amendment 1999). This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power. ** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED ** Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system. -nullity- "Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"

Fight fire with foam - not fire (revised) (5)

nullity (115966) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479672)

This is an interesting issue because it draws numerous issues of technology, government, and privacy together. The descision touches on governmental rights and restrictions with regard to its citizens, privacy issues, security, permissible protection, etc.

In many ways technology is only bringing to light how invasive our governments have been in the past. It seems conceded by both sides of the issue (its hard to tell which argument it supports) that this merely extends previously held powers to "modern technology". Maybe technology is merely raising public awereness of just how invasive our governments have or could have been (legally)...

By way of example, in Australia, the Philippines, and I'm sure other nations, the governemnt is allowed to "root through" private mail upon mere suspicion of criminal behavior. But because this mail was *centrally controlled* it was unclear when this occurred. I'm sure many other people have gotten packages and messages that have been opened by "somebody".

> The new powers are contained in a bill passed by
> Australia's parliament late last month (the
> Australian Security Intelligence Organization
> Legislation Amendment 1999).

This raises the issue of technologist awareness. I'm not really sure that *any* civilian groups would really be driving this bill. In fact this sounds like something governments like to sneak quietly through w/o raising fuss. Why? It raises government power, and sadly political focus (at least in the US) is largely centered around the wielding of power.

** ITS HARDER TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS ONCE THEY ARE PASSED **

Of course another approach to combatting this is to fight back. Internet technology has been kind enough to oblige knowledegable users with "close to professional" (or as good) security tools. Use PGP even when you don't *really* need it. It just gets more encrypted mail out there, which certainely complicates the job of a centralized monitoring system.

-nullity-

"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is the best defence"

The cures for the ills of democracy... (2)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479674)

Is more Democracy.

--Al Smith
Govener of New York In the '20s I think.

HE was refering to things like sweatshops that were covering new york at that time.

So lets stop bitching about this and do something. I know both parties are having trouble getting people to run for office. So how about some folks consider running for your State Leg or Congress. Even if you don't win you might get stuff taked about.

Re:Information is good (2)

Gurlia (110988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479676)

No, the problem is not that they can access information. The problem is that they can modify the information. That's what's scary, because there's nothing that would prevent a Australian authority from changing your files so that it becomes "evidence" against you.

Play nice? In an ideal world, yes... but remember, human beings are inherently corruptible. Given enough power, the temptation to abuse will always be there. And quite frequently, that step is taken.

Seen it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479678)

Doesn't anyone else remember seeing this story on YRO a few days ago? If it's an issue big enough to put on /. now, why not then?

Great... (1)

Energy Flow (34311) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479680)

Great, another way for a government to take away people's privacy. It's kind of ironic that the Australian government can commit a crime that the rest of the world is fighting to stop. Oh well, I guess it's not like they wouldn't do that if the laws wheren't passed.

Grrrrr (2)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479681)

This article really p*sses me off.

"If the government is allowed to be the biggest hacker in town, it really undermines computer security rather than enhances it," he [Paul Budde, a Sydney-based independent telecommunications analyst] said. "How can they now criticize 16-year-old kids who break into computer systems for fun if the government's doing it, too?"

With the same argument I guess that since the police carry guns we can no longer critizise violent murderers? This is just plain silly and pathetic.

The state deliberately has wider powers than the individual to ensure order and civilization. It is right to watch the way the state uses those powers carefully, but this article is just paranoid. There are (apparently) issues with the new law, but the journalists seems to have largely missed them.

To suggest that the police are cracking computer systems "for fun" is childish.

paper vs digital information (1)

FoulBeard (112622) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479682)

Isnt this really scary to some ppl. What if Australian site mirror and/or cache a website from another country does this give the Australian government the right to change, or modify the contents. Also this is a personal gripe of mine. I have not seen a comparision of digital documents to paper documents. What is the difference between making a photocopy of a document and copying a digital file. For example:
I have a manuscript for a novel. first case: I typed on an old fashioned typewriter and have is stored in a safe. second case: I have typed my manuscript on my computer.

What is the difference, between the two documents other than the media on which they are prepared.

Whats next, and where does it stop!!

Bad Analogy (1)

The Other JoshG (8333) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479683)

With the same argument I guess that since the police carry guns we can no longer critizise violent murderers? This is just plain silly and pathetic.
No, if the police carry guns, we can no longer criticize others who carry guns. We can still criticize those who are violent murderers.

A little of column A, a little of column B (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479684)

I agree with you mostly. Although, a few slashdotter would be irked if the gov. started spamming. These intrusions are more noise you have to deal with before you can get any real work done. More people cracking at my box = more time making sure it's secure and less doing something productive like daytrading to make money for an orphanage.

Others will be annoyed at the concept the government can plant evidence on an unsecure system and then legally destroy the evidence of planting it. Rather irksome. Rather hard to prove.

GOV - "Yes we have records showing that we broke into the system and changed data, but all we did was change some access logs, etc. All that kiddie porn on his system was there before, and those 12 copies of Office2K and those 20 gigs of MP3s. All were located on the system in question"

ATRNY - Then how do you explain that this computer was a kiosk in a Burger King? With no keyboard or mouse?

GOV - Obviously Burger King is involved in a kiddie porn/warez/mp3 ring and must be stopped.

Re:The cures for the ills of democracy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479685)

You won't funamentally change the system from within the system.

The king must die.

Re:Hold on a second...times up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479686)

Actually the acticle states that no court order is needed. It is purely the decesion of the attorney general that is necc. no court must be informed or give its approval. No evidence of criminal action must be produced to do it. They already have the right and ability to do this if the court says it's ok, this law basically does an end run around the courts.

The test page shows their competence, in a way (2)

danish (60748) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479687)

Really. Look at the source to the test page. What do you get?

&ltMETA NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 2.0 Mac"&gt

Come on. Some supposedly-advanced computer intelligence agency had to use Pagemill to get something that said "ASIO - Test page" in a big font? Oooh, I'm scared of them now!

Bizaro flashcard already covered this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479688)

go to this url, deal with the damn shockwave player, and find out via -Cartoons-Bizaro what the author and I think about people who use Nazi

http://www.shockrave.com/flashcards/theme_bizarr o.html

Re:Bad Analogy (1)

QuMa (19440) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479689)

How many peaceful murderers do you know?

Re: Australian Electoral System (2)

DanMcS (68838) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479692)

Unfortunatly the major parties have managed to literally fix the voting system into a position where they cannot lose.
The combination of compulsory voting (fines imposed if you dont) with a preferential system means that while you vote for a conservative party...

I have vaguely heard of this before. Doesn't India have something similar? Compulsory voting, anyway. The right to speak includes the ability to not speak, the right to vote should operate the same way.
I'm curious, though. What is the state of the Australian Constitution? Do you even have one, or do you have something more similar to the British system of laws upon laws upon laws, back to the Magna Carta or so? Does the premise of judicial review exist Down Under? Could an appeal of some kind to the court system get this law ousted (the parties obviously aren't going to do it, legislatively)? An independant judicial system seems to be one of the few saving graces in America right now.

Re:More Info (1)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479694)

Methinks t'was meant to be a jab, lumping the ASIO with all the cracking groups...

Re:new method for old crime (2)

habib23 (33217) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479696)

It is the prospect of the Australian government cracking into your system, without notfiying you and covering their tracks, coupled with the lack of public oversight that makes this so troubling. While it is true that the american IRS has been able to see a companies books, they could not do so without your knowledge. This will be especially bad for international trade and e-commerce, as this will permit economic spying ; this is the natural inference.

Re:Information is good (1)

LionMan (18384) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479703)

The information is not the personal info . . . "Oooh, somebody will steal my electronic recipes!!" I encrypt and guard what I think necessary. The information we will gain about how to keep them from breaking in will outweigh those that they may gain, if they get in -- if we are careful with our personal data and do a good job of securing it.

public servers (1)

RoLlEr_CoAsTeR (39353) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479704)

Beside, who keeps info that could breach national security on a public server anyhow?


If their gov't is run by people, and if the people that run their gov't are similar in any way to the people that run ours, that won't always matter. Now, I realize that thus far I sound like I'm a accusing the Australian gov't of being bad people, but I'm not trying to. I'm just going to assume that they're not going to specifically define what they'll consider to be information that is a breach of national security, b/c that would convolute the workings of politic. (ok, so I'm ranting now.. moderate me down then.. sorry)

Re:Australia's national security (4)

CesiumFrog (41314) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479705)

Australia never really had direct enemies, except when Japan almost took a shot at us in WWII (Bombing Darwin and sending subs into Sydney harbour, tsck tsck..). The reason is that Australia just isn't worth invading. It's big, and mostly not worth inhabiting. The effort of transporting troops across some ocean, then through the middle of a desert just to pick a fight with an army prepared for the climate?

Also, Australian gov't likes to send lots of it's troops to help out whoever it thinks are it's friends. Whenever the US finds a cause, Australia backs it. Sure, our army is quite insignificant by comparison, but it's assumed that alliances with the US and Britain would be of some use if we were attacked.


On a slightly unrelated note, shouldn't we have "Australia" icons on the slashdot main page! Surely there's enough articles for a seperate section ;)

I won't be sending my e buisness to Au (3)

Money__ (87045) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479706)

Sometimes people break into computers.

Sometimes people break into computers and break the law.

Sometimes people break into computer and they ARE the law.

Which would you prefer?

Re:ASIO (1)

cybaea (79975) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479707)

You thought that was bad? How about:


Trying 152.91.15.15...
Connected to www.asio.gov.au [asio.gov.au] .
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 00:21:19 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Set-Cookie: ASPSESSIONIDGQGGQQPD=GFGIOFHCFOBKHKJFCCAPFNDG; path=/ Cache-control: private

No comments.

This is a Good Thing (2)

I Hate Myself (118516) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479708)

The Australian Government is not hiding unethical activities, they're doing it out in the open where it can be challenged. Who knows what the United States government has been up to? We certainly can't change anything if we don't know whats going on. Cheers to the Australian government!

Re:It's bad.. but.. (1)

randombit (87792) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479709)

This is NOT much different from most other countries, the only difference being that in the US, there is probably no 'explicity' rule about
breaking into computers. Gimme a break.. In the USA, the authorities can do *anything* in the name of national security... and get away with it.


That's what so bad about it: this law (and others like it) legitimatize enourmous invasions of privacy. Yes, here in the US the govt (ie NSA) can do whatever it wants, but at least they can't hide behind a law (witness EPICs lawsuit against the NSA).

Re:ASIO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479711)

Thank god I don't live in the hellhole that is Australia. Not only are they physically removed from the rest of the world by geographical reasons, but their politicians are effectively removing Australia from the technological world. Australians will be severely hurt by this. I guess they don't really care about having rights though. They wouldn't let stuff like this happen if they did.

Re:Information is good (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479712)

and how do you secure your private keys ? remember that they can get the private keyfiles from your hard drives.

Kick Ass! (2)

JamesSharman (91225) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479722)

And I thought there were no cool jobs in the public sector anymore!

Re:Grrrrr (1)

randombit (87792) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479723)

With the same argument I guess that since the police carry guns we can no longer critizise violent murderers?

LOL. If police where you live regularly kill people for no reason, I'd recommend moving someplace else. I do see a lot of hypocrisy in allowing only police to be armed (ie, highly restrictive gun control), but that's a different story.

Is the any difference between what the aus. govt. will be doing, and what your average 15 y.o. skript kiddie does, except the govt will be doing it better and to more people? I'm not talking about motivation, wether they're doing it for fun, or as a job, or for "national security reasons", but it's effect? As far as I'm concerned, the only difference is that the aus. govt. will be more dangerous when they do it. In any case, I don't want anyone attacking my machines, regardless of what half-assed reason they come up with.

Re:Grrrrr (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479724)

this really pisses you off ? what if the police were using their guns to stick you up ? or murder you ? would you feel happy then ? because thats exactly what the government is doing - legitimising a criminal act. note that carrying guns for law enforcement or using a computer is different from hacking a computer and robbing you with a gun.

Re:Information is good (1)

LionMan (18384) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479725)

The trick is to keep the important stuff safe - I wouldn't keep my tax documents on my computer. Plus if I did, I would make sure my system was damn well secured.

Page Source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1479726)

I don't know what everyone is so afraid of.

They used a WYSIWYG to make that web page.

what can I say, they aren't too smart anyway (0)

browser_war_pow (100778) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479727)

I think it is about time we do the following to the australians... maybe these things will tell their government to stop messing with their people. -cut off all telephone/cable lines into and out of australia -ban users with an australian ip from all american and canadian hosted websites -shoot down all satellites in geosynchronous orbit over australia so they can't have net access that way. Maybe when we make australia even more of an island in terms of communication their government will finally get the picture.

From the ASIO website... (2)

socratic method (15936) | more than 14 years ago | (#1479728)

META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Adobe PageMill 2.0 Mac"

Suddenly, I'm not afraid of the Internal Security down under...

SocMeth
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?