[翻头条]毛骨悚然：工党政府秘密要求ISP们提供网络用户私人资料

iami

[翻头条]毛骨悚然：政府秘密要求ISP们提供网络用户私人资料

你最近如果收到tpg的信，警告你不要下载盗版电影的要小心了。
IP(知识产权)的法律惩罚是非常严重的在澳洲。
工党政府目前正在偷偷摸摸的搞搜集个人网络使用情况的记录，所有下载电影的同学要留心眼了。不是说笑！



3月份的时候，政府在一次简短会上，秘密要求ISP服务商提供澳洲每个网络用户的个人隐私资料，包括用户浏览历史等完整记录。
政府要求ISP们储存和记录澳洲人民的所有在网络上的活动，这些数据将被法律部门所使用。
具体要收集的数据写在这个pdf文件中，但是由于这是暗中进行的计划，这个文件的关键部位全部被涂抹掉了。
The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI（freedom of information） and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez写到，
如果让公众知道这里面写了什么东西可能导致不必要的争论和对政府决定的偏见
具体点说这关系到政府还在制定中的一个政策，而且这个政策很可能在发放给公众了解前进行修改。
她承认，公众有权参加和影响政府决定这个政策，但是过早发放这个文件更可能制造混乱和误导。
她说她觉得公众不想这个文件发放的人数要超过想要发放的人数


Greens Communications spokesman Scott Ludlam说这个文件不全文发放的藉口是令人惊愕，
他已经启动了senate inquiry的程序以进一步了解情况
他在一次电话interview中说，所谓的文件发放会引发不必要争论的观点并没有让成千上万的人感到安心，大家都很警惕政府想要收集这些信息做什么事情。
反对党的副领导人George Brandis说，政府这样偷偷摸摸的搞调查，显示这个政府已经变成了彻头彻闹的Orwellian式的政府(通过控制思想达到控制被统治人群的政府)。
他还说，越是敏感的数据要收集，政府越应该透明化自己的这么做的原因


Online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs说，发放给公众知道的简直就是一个玩笑。
他说，我们不得不做最坏的打算，政府这样蛮横的要求得到这些数据不得不让每个人都很担心自己。
他说这有可能增长犯罪。
他说，我们不得不回到一个古老的问题上，如果你没与值得隐藏的东西，那你就不应该担心让人命了解你这个文件
这是非常敏感和重要的问题，引发巨大的担忧，关于隐私，数据安全和增加小型ISP们的经营负担。
真正需要讨论的是，这个政府究竟需要什么数据。这才是这个隐私问题真正的丑陋面目，jocob说。


根据一个internet 商业来源，这次发放这个高度审核过的文件，证明了这个政府不想让群众知道一件事情真相，并且想要提前把所有的事情都做完的方法。
这是一个令人担忧的事情

The Attorney-General's 的发言人拒绝就此发表评论。
政府的这个部门说，没什么事情可以多说的。


pdf 文件的下载地址
http://images.smh.com.au/file/20 ... ?rand=1279848876837

工党政府狡辩为什么不让群众知道的原因
http://images.smh.com.au/file/20 ... ?rand=1279848876837



No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'

The federal government has censored approximately 90 per cent of a secret document outlining its controversial plans to snoop on Australians' web surfing, obtained under freedom of information (FoI) laws, out of fear the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate".

The government has been consulting with the internet industry over the proposal, which would require ISPs to store certain internet activities of all Australians - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.

All parties to the consultations have been sworn to secrecy.

Industry sources have claimed that the controversial regime could go as far as collecting the individual web browsing history of every Australian internet user, a claim denied by the spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland.

The exact details of the web browsing data the government wants ISPs to collect are contained in the document released to this website under FoI.

The document was handed out to the industry during a secret briefing it held with ISPs in March.

But from the censored document released, it is impossible to know how far the government is planning to take the policy.

The government is hiding the plans from the public and it appears to want to move quickly on industry consultation, asking for participants to respond within only one month after it had held the briefings.


The Attorney-General's Department legal officer, FoI and Privacy Section, Claudia Hernandez, wrote in her decision in releasing the highly censored document that the release of some sections of it "may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making".

Hernandez said that the material in question related to information the department was "currently weighing up and evaluating in relation to competing considerations that may have a bearing on a particular course of action or decision".

"More specifically, it is information concerning the development of government policy which has not been finalised, and there is a strong possibility that the policy will be amended prior to public consultation," she wrote.

Further, she said that although she had acknowledged the public's right to "participate in and influence the processes of government decision making and policy formulation ... the premature release of the proposal could, more than likely, create a confusing and misleading impression".

"In addition, as the matters are not settled and proposed recommendations may not necessarily be adopted, release of such documents would not make a valuable contribution to public debate."

Hernandez went further to say that she considered disclosure of the document uncensored "could be misleading to the public and cause confusion and premature and unnecessary debate".

"In my opinion, the public interest factors in favour of release are outweighed by those against," Hernandez said.

The "data retention regime" the government is proposing to implement is similar to that adopted by the European Union after terrorist attacks several years ago.

Greens Communications spokesman Scott Ludlam said the excuse not to release the proposal in full was "extraordinary". Since finding out about the scheme, he has launched a Senate inquiry into it and other issues.

"The idea that its release could cause 'premature' or 'unnecessary' debate is not going to go down well with the thousands of people who have been alarmed by the direction that government is taking," he said in a telephone interview.

"I would really like to know what the government is hiding in this proposal," he said, adding that he hoped that the Attorney-General's Department would be "more forthcoming" about the proposal in the senate inquiry into privacy he pushed for in June.

Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, George Brandis, said the government’s decision to censor the documents showed ‘‘how truly Orwellian this government has become".

"To refuse disclosure of material that had already been circulated among stakeholders, on an issue of intense current political debate on the ground that it might provide unnecessary discussion, shows that the Gillard government has become beyond satire," Brandis said.

Online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia spokesman Colin Jacobs said what was released was "a joke".

"We have to assume the worst," he said. "And that is that the government has been badgering the telcos with very aggressive demands that should worry everybody."

Jacobs said that the onus was now on government to "explain what data they need, what problem it solves and, just as importantly, why it can't be done in an open process".

"The more sensitive the process and the data they want, the more transparent the government needs to be about why it wants that data," he said. "Nobody could argue that public consultation ... would somehow help criminals," he added.

"We have to turn the age-old question back on the government: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn't be worried about people having insight into the consultation.

"This is a very sensitive and important issue. It raises huge questions about privacy, data security and the burden of increased costs to smaller internet service providers. What really needs to be debated is what particular information they want, because that's where the privacy issue rears its ugly head," he said.

According to one internet industry source, the release of the highly censored document was "illustrative of government's approach to things where they don't want people to know what they're thinking in advance of them getting it ready to package for public consumption".

"And that’s worrying."

The Attorney-General's spokesman declined to comment, referring comment to the department. The department said it had "nothing to add" to the FOI letter it provided.

Poweregg

像TG学习？GFW？

iami

清如小可

iinet前不久刚刚赢了的官司也是这个方面的内容。