US-Australia Agreements Create Opportunities for Privacy Violation, Extradition 127
TheGift73 writes with a link to (and this excerpt from the beginning of) a brief description at TorrentFreak of recently signed agreements between the U.S. and Australia: "Figures.... File-sharing was firmly on the agenda when the head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security touched down in the Australian capital last week. The four new agreements – promptly signed before Secretary Janet Napolitano flew back out of Canberra – were less about sharing season two of Game of Thrones and more about sharing the private, government held information of Australian citizens with U.S. authorities."
What is the Department of Homeland Security for ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, what that word "Homeland" really means ?
Why the hell the department of HOMELAND SECURITY is interfering with file sharing ?
What " SECURITY RISKS " do torrent / file sharing pose for the HOMELAND that department supposed to protect ?
Re: (Score:1)
Homeland Security if for Protectionism of US Government and their Lobbying organizations interests.
Re: (Score:2)
What " SECURITY RISKS " do torrent / file sharing pose for the HOMELAND that department supposed to protect ?
information leaks? big zip files of diplomatic cables? who knows.
though perhaps "homeland" is one of those ministry of truth kind of names
Re: (Score:2)
It's just you. Most people have already moved on to the PHP edition to work on GamemakerVille!
Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
Having caught every terrorist in the world, Department of Homeland Security has now moved to the next threat to America: People downloading crappy TV series.
The Department of Homeland Security is a joke. Director, you sir, are a joke. And sooner or later, public support is going to evaporate, and then you'll be wasting billions of dollars classifying every detail about every employee in your organization. Every camera you point at the public will mean ten more pointed back at you. You're going to spend more time spinning and protecting your image as the "good guys" than you will finding and hunting down the bad guys. And the only people who are going to want to work for your organization are pathetic paper pushers with no sense of ambition, loyalty, or patriotism. And why will that be? Because that's the kind of person your organization will be doing its bidding for. You won't be saving the world... you'll be pool boys for the wealthy entertainment industry.
Re: (Score:1)
The sooner someone puts a bullet in the head of DHS the better for the world.
Re: (Score:3)
The sooner someone puts a bullet in the head of DHS the better for the world.
One, they'd just replace him with someone else just as bad. Two, you'd be doing the exact same thing they do: Carry out extrajudicial executions without a full review of the facts, which are presented in front of a judge and jury, and the results made public. We can't regain democracy in this country by stooping to their level -- if we're going to dismantle this corrupt super-organization, it's going to start with exposure and doing an end runaround the media.
Spin doctoring and media manipulation works fin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
One, they'd just replace him with someone else just as bad. Two, you'd be doing the exact same thing they do: Carry out extrajudicial executions without a full review of the facts, which are presented in front of a judge and jury, and the results made public. We can't regain democracy in this country by stooping to their level -- if we're going to dismantle this corrupt super-organization, it's going to start with exposure and doing an end runaround the media.
A pretty ideal but naive. Talking someone into giving up power only works when a) they are willing to listen to reason [pig-headed delusion about being right by default prevents this]; and b) has a sense of shame. If your opponent fails on either of these counts then they will not go quietly into the night no matter how much you insist they should, they will cling to that Titanic claiming that it is unsinkable even when the water is up to their neck.
The important thing to remember about the justice system is that it is a mechanism for preserving the status quo of civilization. When the status quo slides away from fairness and actual justice then you aren't going to find those within the system. There's a reason the American Revolution against the British was a war. If you can find people in influential positions who will actually listen and force the collective to behave then maybe you can accomplish your Velvet Revolution but don't expect the institutions of state to give a damn.
I should also point out that someone being compelled to leave office due to a scandal is itself a form of extrajudicial punishment, they were not found guilty under the law but a metaphorical lynching occurred anyway, do you have problem with this as well? I think it's important to remember that Judges really are not all that special, we hope they are fair, wise and knowledgeable but the reality is that you could pick 12 of your neighbors randomly, name yourself judge and run a trial if you wanted; the only difference between you and a "real trial" is the fancy courthouse, robes and the power to command the sword of the state (police) to uphold your/the juror's decision.
Can you say "dying empire"? (Score:1)
Like dying dinosaurs, dying empires make an astounding fuss and emit loud noises.
Then, they die.
Re: (Score:1)
Ugly precedents are being set and as you point out, the US may not always be in this position of relative strength.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We wish that's what would happen. More realistically, most of the country will be too busy focusing on entertainment & their bills or job woes to notice what DHS is up to & too uneducated to fully understand it or the freedoms we've been losing; of the people that do notice, most will decide/realize they're powerless to do anything and feel fortunate if DHS hires them given the job market's a mess -- a very small percentage will actively try to change the situation, only to fail or come under DHS s
Re:Terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And we will be paying for every useless bit of it.
Elections in Australia (Score:1)
Re:Elections in Australia (Score:5, Informative)
Any idea when the next elections are in Australia? What are the chances that Australians will vote for the same party that is doing this to them?
It must be held by the end of November 2013, but could potentially be before-hand.
As for your second question this is the the first I've heard of it, no coverage at all in mainstream media. That implies the opposition party didn't raise too many public concerns so no reason to think they wouldn't have done the same thing.
Re:Elections in Australia (Score:5, Informative)
our opposition party in Australia (the so called "Liberal/National Party", Read Conservative) wouldn't do anything about it, they are the ones who introduced the 'Fair trade laws" which mean that Australians have to bend over backwards to any American copyright but Australian copyright means nothing to America.
At least the Government waited until the Secretary was in Canberra to sign the papers, The Lib/NCP would have signed them and sent them in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
our opposition party in Australia (the so called "Liberal/National Party", Read Conservative) wouldn't do anything about it, they are the ones who introduced the 'Fair trade laws" which mean that Australians have to bend over backwards to any American copyright but Australian copyright means nothing to America. At least the Government waited until the Secretary was in Canberra to sign the papers, The Lib/NCP would have signed them and sent them in advance.
You are spot on. Unfortunately, posting as AC means many will miss your post. Luckily, we are still free to express our political opinion in Australia.
Re:Elections in Australia (Score:5, Informative)
In Australia, we have a situation similar to that of the US. We have 2 major parties one of which is a coalition, but that is irrelevant. Both parties are right of centre and have a secular façade. Both parties have the same contributors, the same policies (albeit a difference in approach), just different 'friends'. The incumbent has few friends in the media and has been raked over the coals continuously for most the term, ever since they attempted to tax the rich. The opposition does not really advertise their policies and simply plays 'the no game' - and they play it well.
The mainstream media in Australia supports the two-party system of voting and government, thus Australians are led to believe that an independent vote or minor party vote is a wasted vote. The media create such a brouhaha involving these major parties that people vote AGAINST the major party they don't want elected instead of considering all parties policies or their leaders reputations. This is the system that keeps these parties in power.
My vote will be wasted in the sense that the party I vote for will not be elected. My vote will not be wasted in the sense that I will be on record as preferring another parties policies. Come next election, there is a chance that the major party that is down in the polls MAY adopt some of the policies from these minor parties in order to secure votes. The outcome being that the people I wanted in are not, their policies are.
Voting is mandatory in Australia and as such is viewed as a chore or a burden. A lot of people don't take it seriously. It doesn't help that it is very difficult to get information on each of the candidates policies. The only real campaigning is tacky flyers with 'Vote #1' in beg red type and a spiel about why the other guy is so horrid.
To highlight my point compare the opposition [liberal.org.au] to a minor party [ldp.org.au] that most people are unaware of. The oppositions website uses the entire banner and the right half of every page attacking the incumbent. Policies are split across dozens of PDFs across several pages. The minor party makes their policies very clear with a headline, summary and major point of each area of issue on a single page.
Now in answer to you questions,
Any idea when the next elections are in Australia?
By Nov 30, 2013. Possibility of an early election but the incumbent won't call it because they are around 30% in the polls and the opposition won't challenge because they have a chickenshit leader.
What are the chances that Australians will vote for the same party that is doing this to them?
Very small - but not because of this issue. The other party would and will do exactly the same thing
They can't be that stupid, can't they?
Unfortunately, yes
Harden the F up, Australia!!
We are following in the footsteps of the US, except out citizens don't have the right to bear arms. Everyone wants change but votes the fucking same.
Re: (Score:1)
This post ignores the fact that the current government is only in place because of the support of one of the minor parties (The greens). Neither of the two big parties currently have the numbers to form government in their own right, they have to form a coalition with one of the minor parties are the independents.
Re: (Score:2)
This post ignores the fact that the current government is only in place because of the support of one of the minor parties (The greens). Neither of the two big parties currently have the numbers to form government in their own right, they have to form a coalition with one of the minor parties are the independents.
Good point. This actually made me hopeful that people would start considering their options. The media, and possibly the majors themselves, have been throwing around terms like 'corruption', '$43 Billion', 'sexual harassment' and 'vote of no confidence' in order to get Joe Public furious enough to vote AGAINST a major by voting FOR the other major. Without this kerfuffle, I would think that minor/independent parties would have the majors by the balls come next election. The way it is looking now, it will be
Re: (Score:3)
I'm definitely going to be voting minority parties this year, though the amazing complexity of the voting system means that no doubt some Lib/Lab cockjockey will end up benefitting from my vote.
I can't believe the political dialogue in this country sometimes. It's like people were born supporting Liberals or Labour, and so they defend that party against all comers, regardless of how godawful the politicians actually are. You can't see the policies for the haze of partisan conflict. But then, both parties' p
Re: (Score:2)
some Lib/Lab cockjockey will end up benefitting from my vote.
This is a good thing. Preferential voting basically says "if my first choice of candidate X is not going to win, then I'd like my vote to go towards candidate Y instead of being discarded".
Non-preferential voting is partly why the U.S. is locked into a two-party system although compulsory voting probably encourages two-party systems also.
Re: (Score:3)
We have 2 major parties one of which is a coalition, but that is irrelevant.
That's hardly irrelevant. Without the support of a small minority party that has something around 13% of the vote, Labor would not be in the majority. Think about what that means.
Re: (Score:3)
In Australia, we have a situation similar to that of the US. We have 2 major parties one of which is a coalition, but that is irrelevant. Both parties are right of centre and have a secular façade. Both parties have the same contributors, the same policies (albeit a difference in approach), just different 'friends'.
So, in effect, its a one-party state with that one party having two factions. Much like the USA.
Re:Elections in Australia (Score:4, Informative)
Australians are led to believe that an independent vote or minor party vote is a wasted vote.
You missed one major point which non-Australians in general may be unfamiliar with: Australia uses instant-runoff voting [wikipedia.org], in which you rank the candidates in the order of your preference, rather than voting for a single one. So you can put your favourite minority party down as your top preference, and if they don't get in, your vote gets transferred to your second preference, and so on, usually eventually going to the major party that you ranked above the other major party. So there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
Re: (Score:1)
And indeed, in the last Australian Federal election, a minor party managed to win the seat of Melbourne demonstrating that a vote for them was definitely not wasted :).
(Sufficient people put them first on their voting papers that one of major parties was eliminated in the "instant-runoff" before them. Now the Greens are probably the biggest minor party and there were some details which favoured them, but nevertheless, Melbourne strikes me as the leftmost city in Australia, so the result doesn't appear too u
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you do not give your own preferences. Vote below the line.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, making their policies so easily accessible makes it easy to decide that it would be crazy for me to vote for the LDP above *any* of the major parties :).
Their perhaps laduable views on some social policy does not make up for their fetishization of property rights and the free market, along with their other economic views that they propound.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh FFS (Score:2)
How do we (Australians) sack our government? They are obviously fucked in the head.
Re: (Score:2)
you don't.
same as europeans do not seem to care.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/20/0157232/europe-agrees-to-send-airline-passenger-data-to-us [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, not enough Europeans care.
Re: (Score:3)
How do we (Australians) sack our government? They are obviously fucked in the head.
We can't vote in US elections :)
Re: (Score:2)
apparently we can ask the governor general nicely
Re: (Score:1)
For one, he is a she. And two - No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia
Perhaps you're thinking of a certain southern state governor?
Re: (Score:1)
How do we (Australians) sack our government? They are obviously fucked in the head.
All you need to do to sack every one of them is 1) take a black marker to the next polling booth, 2) strike out EVERY candidate on the ballot, 3) place your secret ballot in the ballot box. This will not count as an informal vote as you will have expressed your will to REMOVE the preselected candidates. You're not told this as a majority vote like this would cause chaos for federal parliament (they would realise that the people are back in control and the gravy train ride was over). It is your duty as an Au
Australians are pretty dang bad with this stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Far worse than the stereotype of Americans here on /.
Australians tend to be gullible, and heavily rely on group think. If you think something other than the obvious what the media says, prepare to be insulted while patiently trying to articulate your point.
Most Australians would be OK with this because they will believe it is for the greater good and serves some purpose. If this is even on their radar. Historically they are more concerned with essentially inconsequential things like tuition increases or workchoices.
Written as an Aussie expat.
Re:Australians are pretty dang bad with this stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
As an Aussie - this guy is fairly right.
You can get us to whine a fair bit but as for actually doing anything? Simply unheard of. We're so screwed.
Re: (Score:3)
Far worse than the stereotype of Americans here on /.
Australians tend to be gullible, and heavily rely on group think. If you think something other than the obvious what the media says, prepare to be insulted while patiently trying to articulate your point.
Most Australians would be OK with this because they will believe it is for the greater good and serves some purpose. If this is even on their radar. Historically they are more concerned with essentially inconsequential things like tuition increases or workchoices.
Written as an Aussie expat.
Bullshit. Maybe the people you hang out with rely on group think, but that's not typical in my experience. Possibly the lower class rely on "group think" but I imagine that would be the same in any country you care to visit.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Maybe the people you hang out with rely on group think, but that's not typical in my experience. Possibly the lower class rely on "group think" but I imagine that would be the same in any country you care to visit.
I agree that the lower class generally rely on 'group think'. I know many in the class that are quite proud of the fact that they watch the news and feel very well informed by doing so. However, I believe there are other groups that engage in this 'group think'. New Australians, especially those who segregate and live in their own enclaves, I posit would follow community fore-bearers. And I almost forgot the Hipsters with their anti-group-think group-think.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not bullshit. It isn't a class thing, it's a cultural thing.
The same relaxed, take it easy, don't fix it if it aint broke thing extends to most peoples though process. If you try to suggest something that isn't obvious or the opinion shared by the majority, be prepared for a long battle to even have your point of view heard. Much more so in other countries in my experience, and i've been to 40 or so.
Re: (Score:2)
I am Australian, grew up and left in my early 20's. I've more than seen enough. Using the electorate as an example of complex thinking is not the best example, not when we had john howard for 11 years and people voted him out just because of work choices, despite all the good he was doing.
From an Aussie to all Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really know what America exports these days apart from war, patents and entertainment. It would look too bad if American invaded Australia at this point in time (although some people have taken the sign of US Marines being based in Darwin as the sign this has started) so I suppose the only other thing for America to spread it's tentacles is by dodgy pacts like this. Anything to try and stay on top (apart from fixing the underlying issues with the government and legal system in the USA and stop bullying the world, turning everyone on the face of the planet against you).
Americans, please stand up and do something about this. I'll do what I can from this side, but I'll stop there. Really, I should have no power as to how Americans rule and legislate in your own country, and that is the way it should be.
Quite frankly, after everything I have seen, I'm starting to think that there will be an armed uprising in America within the next 10 years against the US government. Guaranteed. Maybe the US government foresaw the same thing. It would explain why so much leeway the US government has given to internal security forces like the FBI and possibly the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security, and how the shift in America has gone from looking for external threats to internal threats.
Re: (Score:1)
It's hard to overturn the massive bulk of legal precedents supporting the recording industry's claims to intellectual property - and not much easier, out here, to gain popular attention about anything not accompanied by a sensational presentation - regardless of the actual content of an argument, quite frankly.
To respond to the second matter: Myself, I don't suppose we'll see any coups at any time soon. Plenty of gun sales, I know, but no coups I think - quite.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't mean that there will be an all out assault on the White House. To me it seems the American people (excluding politicians, lawyers and people in the security industries who seem to be pushing most of the laws) are starting to get fed up with the way things are. I don't know how true this, as I am not in the US and can't comment on what it is like to be a US citizen. I'm going of everything I have read and seen. Losing jobs in greater nu
Re: (Score:2)
>I didn't mean that there will be an all out assault on the White House.
Don't worry I'll say it for you. Revolt America, storm the White House and take over your government and dispose of the corrupt politicians and lobbyists.
Re:From an Aussie to all Americans (Score:4, Informative)
Your a little behind on the US invasion of Australia. Already it is spreading beyond the US Marines in Darwin now Garden Island just off Perth has been added for the US Navy, Australia generally for the US Airforce (hard to figure out exactly what that is meant to mean), and the Cocos Island for a top secret airbase.
Something decidedly unsavoury is going on here. Americans had better be careful. It smells of the US powers that be have realised they have crapped all over their own country and an looking to ensure a safe place to retire too and run the US via remote, leaving the rest to wallow in the pollution and destroyed environment with no chance of joining in the great escape.
Re: (Score:1)
And at the end of 2012 all international airports got body scanners; because the USA says-so. Not the same scanners as the USA so that's a small mercy.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't really know what America exports these days apart from war, patents and entertainment.
Laws.
the shift in America has gone from looking for external threats to internal threats.
That's nothing new. Remember COINTELPRO, when the FBI tried to destroy domestic political organizations using any means necessary?
Re: (Score:3)
"America's onerous copyright laws" are the laws set by the Berne convention, largely at the behest of European publishers and artists, who wanted long copyright terms after an author's death and wanted to abolish registration requirements. Even today, Europe has effectively no public domain and n
I'm glad I left Australia (Score:3)
I'm glad I left Australia.
Now I just have to pick up Citizenship somewhere else so I can revoke my Australian Citizenship.
What a joke Australia has become.
Re: (Score:2)
Close the door on your way out, we dont need quiters.
Dear rest of the world (Score:5, Funny)
Please stop doing what my country's government tells you. It only encourages them.
Xoxo,
some American guy
Re: (Score:2)
Canberra Times [canberratimes.com.au]
SMH [smh.com.au]
Attorney General [attorneygeneral.gov.au]'s press conference:
Q:And if I could also ask the Attorney-General, this kind of increased intelligence cooperation tends to also lead to increased sharing of the information of Australians [unclear] information on Australian citizens. Have we seen today with the signing of these agreements, will more information be shared between the two countries?
NICOLA ROXON: Thank you. Look, when we say that we want to increase and improve cooperation, of course it still means that we will do that within the constraints of our laws, which means that information is shared where it meets particular thresholds. Of course we have for a long time and will continue to share information with other partners when someone is involved or we fear is involved in criminal activity. That sort of information, I think Australian citizens expect us to share with others. But there are very tight constraints around what can and can't be shared.
This agreement doesn't change that. But what it means is that we can continue to cooperate very closely in sharing where there are risks, what trends change, whether there are people of particular interest. And the US and Australia and our law enforcement agencies have had very strong partnerships for a long time. This enhances in an environment where we have new threats, new risks, more online activity, more information that's obtained, more transnational crime which relies on activity that might travel through different countries. We need to be aware of all of that and that's why we want to keep working so closely with the US in improving those relationships and I think these agreements today allow us to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Attorney General [attorneygeneral.gov.au]'s press conference:
A press conference on such an important issue and only 4.5 questions were asked by journalists - or journalist. Probably the lone AAP journo who penned the brief article reported in both the links you provided.
Was the press release kept secret or audience restricted in some way - or is there simply a lack of interest? Whichever, it is very disappointing.
Re: (Score:2)
Myles Peterson has retweeted a link to the torrentfreak story - http://twitter.com/#!/tpb/status/198910412371136512 [twitter.com]
DHS (Score:1)
Why is DHS involved in Kim Dotcom? Well it's because they have the executive powers to get things done and "somebody" forgot to require that there be a clear threat to US lives before DHS became involved in a matter. Why is the US signing copyright agreements with Australia?
It's all about regulatory capture. (see wikipedia). Those poor starving MAAFIA and RIAA and Microsoft and Google and the rest of the copyright/patent trolls are handing out or withholding their superpac contributions against results
Is there a contest for the most hated country? (Score:3)
Considering the news of the past few years, there must be a contest for the most hated country and the USA are fighting really hard to win. I seems this new move brings them closer to the top, now head to head with North Korea! Well done, Mr "Homeland Security" (I remember my birth country having had a similar security organization many decades ago, was called SS I think). I guess the USA can win this race to the bottom, they were never keen to come second (though Aussies are beating them now as the world's number one per-capita energy hog, na-nah-na-naa-nah!!)
Why is the MEDIA MAFIA industry so damn important? (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, tell me.
The entire media industry is worth less than say the cpu industry. So why the closeness to congress and LEO friends?
How many other industries get such high up help in legal help.
Is it that corrupt and evil?
(I mean the govt, not the honest media industry)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not only about money, it's also about power. When you control (or have some influence over) the media, you get to effectively mind-control a lot of the country population and point them in the direction of your interests and spend money where you want them to.
Re: (Score:3)
Now Australia is open to DHS intrusions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Australians and Europeans need to fix their gov's (Score:2)
US imposed rule? How does the US "impose" its rule on Australia or the UK? These governments agree to these treaties voluntarily, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why: it makes their own copyright industries happy, it's easier than passing domestic laws, it's far more intimidating to be extradited to the US than getting a slap on the wrist from a domestic court, and as icing on the cake, the politicians can pose as victims of supposed American imperialism.
Don't feel sorry for Australi
Re: (Score:2)
That's a problem, but it's a domestic Australian problem.
Oops - wrong story.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
if it's "government-held" it's not private (Score:2)
The problem is that Australians (and Europeans for that matter) have to give that data to their governments in the first place, and then elect governments that share this data with the US. Don't blame the US just because you can't be bothered to elect a government that actually cares about you.
Re: (Score:1)
to be Julian Assange, considering that he is running for Australian senate
Re: (Score:1)
You can be pro piracy and not against paying for stuff. Those who will pay, or think it is worth paying for will pay. Those who can't or don't think something is worth paying for, won't.
You can't change that.
So instead focus on making better music or movies, and accept that people may share your shit and you can't stop it.
You can be comforted by the fact that a)those people are spreading your work bring in potential paying customers and b) the free cultural exchange of ideas benefits society.
Protecting their assets (Score:1)
Though I don't feel any particular warm fuzzies about it, I understand that the recording industry is simply endeavoring to protect its collective assets, in so far as legal precedent may define its collective assets to be.
I'm sure that there may also be a certain side to it, in which they're simply endeavoring to impress shareholders. The main issue seems to be the matter of legal precedent, however.
Re:Can we get some objective analysis? (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue here is that the people being extradited aren't committing crimes. If they did they could be charged, but they aren't so extradition is the only way to lock them up.
Soon we'll be sending all women to Saudi Arabia to have their heads cut off.
Re: (Score:3)
Soon we'll be sending all women to Saudi Arabia to have their heads cut off.
As soon as the Saudis have the geopolitical clout to make that demand anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who owns all the oil?
No one? Venezuela has the most proven reserves though, if that's what you mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country [wikipedia.org]
Who's the USA's best friend in the middle east?
Israel.
Sorry, but, your conspiracy theory not withstanding, the Saudis have very little clout. They depend on the oil revenue to prop up their monarchy, and without it they would collapse very quickly. They're not as precarious as some other petro-states (because they're somewhat better managed financially), but all the same they can't really use the oil a
Re:Can we get some objective analysis? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
A little broader perspective
http://slashdot.org/journal/282007/fun-things-about-australia [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/journal/282059/apparently-i-was-not-pessimistic-enough-yesterday [slashdot.org]
[these are by me from the few days]
Basically ignore the hype of file sharing, the Australian government really wants to get down & dirty on this total information awareness deal. NBN will be a big help there.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is hardly a waste to arrest the guys who run criminal empires that make millions of dollars off of illegally distributed works and extradite them to the U.S. to answer for their willing participation in an organized criminal business.
Except that it is a waste. People who want to download will move elsewhere, and they're the people who you just said weren't worth arresting. The fact that he's making money means nothing. It's mostly on ads and premium accounts. And all this is from the people who use the website (the ones you said weren't worth arresting). It's a complete waste of time. We gain absolutely nothing from wasting taxpayer dollars trying to stop this.
Re: (Score:2)
If its such an offence, why not face an Australian judge or jury? You then get to quiz your isp, the legal standing of the firm that identified you and trace paper trail that got you before a court.
Hire a legal team, see what they can do and face the Australian legal system, media and the state/federal political machines that passed the laws.
Its also very chilling to think about having your ip/site/comments/video/pics found by a US contra
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah. I hate to break it to you, but he's as much an entrepreneur as the Google guys were around when they started. What, you think a search engine owns all the content you can access through their search
Re: (Score:1)
Actually they gave the companies direct access to remove content from the site. I think it was only limited to 100,000 files per day. So the site was completely DMCA compliant and cooperated with them in every way. In fact, they were even working a deal with a few media companies to distribute their content legally. The companies were just butt-hurt because no matter how hard they tried the pirates were always one step ahead.
S