Hello, As some of you know, I've been holed up working on a submission to the PJCIS for the National Security Legislation Inquiry. While most of you have neither the time, nor the inclination to do the same, can you at least sign this petition about it? http://pirateparty.org.au/natsecinquiry-petition/ For the quick and nasty overview, look at these short fliers: http://pirateparty.org.au/media/promotional/natsecinquiry_poster.png http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/sites/default/files/natsecinquiry.pdf For slightly longer news articles, read these: http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/10/government-unveils-huge-wishlist-of-new-... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/07/australian-government-moves-expand-sur... http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/23/hypothetical-news-from-a-national-securi... Even more info is available here: http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Security_Inquiry My more in depth reading of the government proposals indicate that it will easily be possible for the powers that be to spy on anyone or criminalise them, regardless of whether or not they've actually committed any crimes (it would easily be possible to send anyone to jail). It's actually quite hideous, which is why I'm breaking with my normal policy of not sending things like this to everyone I know. There are some rather nasty aspects of this which should definitely be of concern to LUV members. Like the sections making failure to assist in decryption of data crime, being able to modify or delete data on a system and use of third party systems and networks to access a system targeted by a warrant. Regards, Ben
Ben McGinnes wrote:
Oops, of course if I just follow the link, this URL works: http://petitions.pirateparty.org.au/natsecinquiry It assumes everyone has a single first name and a single last name, which is broken :-) <input type='email' id='email' name='email' value=""> That isn't recognized as an input field, thugh, because email is not a valid @type for INPUT as at HTML4. That last appears to be what yields "There are incomplete fields." and prevents me signing it.
On 14/08/12 12:45 PM, Trent W. Buck wrote:
Ben McGinnes wrote:
Oops, of course if I just follow the link, this URL works:
The other link loads that one in a frame.
It assumes everyone has a single first name and a single last name, which is broken :-)
Yeah, I forgot to check if it worked with mononyms, that's bad.
<input type='email' id='email' name='email' value="">
That isn't recognized as an input field, thugh, because email is not a valid @type for INPUT as at HTML4. That last appears to be what yields "There are incomplete fields." and prevents me signing it.
Okay, I've forwarded this to the PPAU Secretary. Regards, Ben
Quoting Trent W. Buck (trentbuck@gmail.com):
It assumes everyone has a single first name and a single last name, which is broken :-)
More at: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-nam...
That isn't recognized as an input field, thugh, because email is not a valid @type for INPUT as at HTML4. That last appears to be what yields "There are incomplete fields." and prevents me signing it.
My wife has endless problems with data-input systems, on account of having this name: Surname: Saoirse Moen Middle Name: [none] Given Name: Deirdre Naturally, approximately nobody actually gets that right. (Not my fault: I signed a licence that specifically allowed her to opt for 'Moen' as a surname, but NOO-oooo. ;-> )
Ben McGinnes wrote:
Even more info is available here:
http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Security_Inquiry
It's actually quite hideous, which is why I'm breaking with my normal policy of not sending things like this to everyone I know.
"and kept the pressure on before Canada’s online surveillance bill <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/keep-pressure-canadian-online-surveillance-bill-pause-fight-continues> was temporarily shelved in the face of an outcry from privacy advocates, ..." It occurs to me that the idea we could expect the internet to remain a regulation free zone; once it became a widely used utility; was always something of a romantic dream. Likewise the idea that a 'right to privacy,' is an appropriate approach to the encroachment by security organisations etc,.on the privacy of individuals. It seems to me the legislative model we need; is for all personal information only to be available on a 'need to know' basis; so that the onus of proof falls on the particular requesting organisation; and is tightly tied to whatever they have been tasked to do; just a thought Rohan McLeod
participants (4)
-
Ben McGinnes -
Rick Moen -
Rohan McLeod -
Trent W. Buck