It's about time that I started writing again. My blog seems to be a good place to commence.
Recent events have brought the Australian Democrats back into my life, albeit from the distance of Twitter, however it seems that little has changed and that another split has unfurled.
While I watch and wait for the outcome I am reminded of this graphic that I hacked back in the day when the party lost key Senate seats and the final death knell was tolling.
Quoting the Questions; Probing the Possibilities; Analysing the Answers.
The voice of a left leaning Aussie committed to liberal democratic socialism and pluralism throughout all facets of society.
I am particularly valiant when it comes to issues of rights, justice, and freedom from religion.
Showing posts with label Aust / NZ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aust / NZ. Show all posts
V for Vendetta
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
And the war begins ...
Xenophon's head up his own arse!
The impossible "war against paedophilia" is turning another idiotic page.
South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon's private member's bill would make it illegal for adults to lie to children about their age. According to reports,
The Bill will introduce three new offences. An adult misrepresenting their age online to a minor will now face a maximum 3 year jail term.
An adult misrepresenting their age in order to meet a minor will face a five year prison term and an adult misrepresenting their age with the intention of assaulting a minor will face a maximum 8 years prison term.
Clearly this is aimed at adult perpetrators posing as children - that's all well and good. What isn't clear is whether a 21 yo telling a 17yo he is only 20 is also a crime under the same offence. The ridiculousness of that situation is obvious.
Of course, the bill also fails to address those children who lie about their age in order to meet adults. Believe me, it happens a lot and some of them can get away with quite a few years!
Proposed laws like this are not only outright stupid, they are downright dangerous to the integrity of the justice system and a hindrance to the proper education and welfare of children.
What's next? Making it a crime for predators to lie about their intentions? Or will they make it a crime to lie about your weight or the size of your cock or boobs? I might support that if it applied across the board for all adults (lol - joking) :-p
Get real, Xenophon, you moron. Do something useful like allocate government funding for online awareness education for parents and children. Teach the kids how to use the Internet with respect and teach the parents about taking responsibility for their child's access!
RIP Jack - and please don't haunt me!
It is a day of many and mixed emotions when one's nemesis passes away. Where would Sherlock Holmes have been without Moriarty, Batman without Catwoman, Superman without Lex Luthor.
It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.
Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.
That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.
Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.
One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)
And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.
Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.
It is such a day for me, not that I consider myself to be a fictitious crime-fighter devoid of a super-villain; but the death of former Australian Democrats Senator, Jack Evans (see announcement below) does leave me feeling a little nostalgic, somewhat wistful and even a dab of sadness.
Anyone who followed my few years as an active member of the Democrats will know how I came to blows with Jack and his excremental offsider, Andrew Murray. Jack may very well have had good intentions to protect the party, but his vice-like grip did more damage than good and it blinded him to the facts. He was, unfortunately, more interested in retaining tight control more than upholding the democratic foundations of the party.
That was no more evident than by his actions during the WA Democrats fiasco in and similarly in several less public stoushes and faux pas' in the years since, culminating in his support for Murray during his ridiculous and damaging dummy spit of 2001/02.
Readers may wish to search through my very early posts on this site for an insight or review detailed documentation from Brian Jenkins and other online sources.
One day I might manage to upload all of my email records and other documentation from the AusDemocrats ... please contact me if you are a budding researcher interested in delving into the mire ;-)
Dear Friends,
It is with great sadness today that I have the duty to inform you that one of our greatest has passed away. Jack Evans died early this morning in Perth.
A former Senator, National President and National Campaign Director, Jack Evans was instrumental in the formation of the Australian Democrats, and was a significant figure in many of our greatest moments, including rafting the Franklin River with Don Chipp all those years ago.
Jack was a man of visions and ideas. He wanted to make things happen, and often they did. People would get caught up in his enthusiasm and share his vision and work hard to make it happen. He had a deep and commanding voice and chose his words carefully. He didn’t prattle on, but spoke with quiet dignity after listening to others opinions. Therefore – people listened, felt heard and had confidence in his ability to deliver.
He was a deal maker, pulling people together to make things happen. He was also very cautious and very much kept what he saw as the Party’s best interest deep in his heart. He was very protective of the Party when he could see people who’s intent was questionable or potentially problematic and some took this as obstructionist. He knew how to be a strategist and develop ways of achieving goals. Jack never spoke ill of people despite the criticisms he would inevitably receive and had a remarkable ability to tenaciously push through obstacles, disregarding personal cost.
There was nothing more he loved, it seemed, than talking about political ideas, about ways to address the big issues, about the way the Democrats could continue to make a difference. He remained absolutely committed to the ideals of the Party and those remaining have a responsibility to Jack to do their best to ensure those ideals are not lost from the political landscape.
He remained very private about his personal side, yet once one of his friends he was warm and gracious, always showing a keen interest in those around him.
People like Jack Evans are rare – I know he touched and inspired many Australian Democrats and others across the country. To those close to him we offer our deepest and most heartfelt condolences. We will all miss him.
Julia Melland
National President
Australian Democrats
And in a strange way, yes I will miss him too.
Andrew Murray on the other hand ... well, let's not go there.
A Micro Win for Civil Liberties
Anyone following my Twitter profile would know I was dealing with an issue at the Australian Tax Office in Northbridge. Here's how it was relayed on Twitter:
In reply to a Direct Message (DM) querying if it was a security guard:
I had walked into the ATO and complained to the security guard about the incident, but he was laissez faire about the whole thing, wouldn't give me the name of anyone to speak with, but told me to call in tomorrow (Wednesday).
I did call back Wednesday afternoon, but unfortunately missed the relevant person.Finally, I met with Property Operations Manager this morning and discussed the issues of law versus ATO policy, as well as civil liberties versus employee security.
polemicol OH: ATO staff warning tourists "you can't take a photograph - its a government building" #ohperth #lie 10:20 AM Apr 8th
In reply to a Direct Message (DM) querying if it was a security guard:
polemicol no - a mere staff member as she was leaving the building. watch out for the memo that will be sent to all staff, after I get finished ;-) 10:39 AM Apr 8th
I had walked into the ATO and complained to the security guard about the incident, but he was laissez faire about the whole thing, wouldn't give me the name of anyone to speak with, but told me to call in tomorrow (Wednesday).
polemicol lots to do - banking, bills, holiday planning, ruffling the feathers of security and building management at the ATO - all in a day's work! 10:52 AM Apr 8th
polemicol @bel no - just a citizen protecting our civil liberties, ensuring that ATO staff know its perfectly legal to photograph government buildings 10:57 AM Apr 8th in reply to Bel
polemicol @bel no chance that photos are illegal - this is Australia, not the USA (yet!) ;-) about 19 hours ago in reply to Bel
I did call back Wednesday afternoon, but unfortunately missed the relevant person.Finally, I met with Property Operations Manager this morning and discussed the issues of law versus ATO policy, as well as civil liberties versus employee security.
polemicol I had a micro win for civil liberties today - ATO will advise staff that it's legal to photograph from outside the building ;-) about 1 hour ago
polemicol @perthtones but they still reserve the right to challenge anyone taking photographs and subsequently report them to authorities. *sigh* 33 minutes ago in reply to perthtones
Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan
The Commonwealth Government has announced what is undeniably a bold and visionary project to replace our nation’s aging telecommunications system with a digitally robust optic fibre network. It is a scheme that is being touted as Australia’s largest ever infrastructure project, requiring major investment by both government and private enterprise to the tune of around $43 billion.
Let us not delude ourselves with the panacea of optical-fibre optimism just yet. While the broadband plan is a long-awaited and well-debated project many, including myself, will attest that despite it being a much-needed booster for the economy, the mere 25,000 jobs it will provide over eight years is of little consequence to the larger unemployment rates expected from the downturn.
Significantly, at the core of this plan are three fundamental truths that are being deliberately overlooked as well as one obscure potential outcome that conspires to further threaten privacy and civil liberties in Australia as well as our economic and national security.
Firstly we must recognise that Australia is becoming more reliant on high-speed telecommunications for government, business and households alike to transact, communicate, entertain and interact locally and globally. The speed with which we are expanding our desire for information technology and communications access will soon surpass our infrastructure’s capacity and capability to deliver.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and full credit to the current government for acknowledging what the previous one dusted under the carpet. However, a large proportion of critics have been citing the Government’s solution as being redundant even before the first cable is laid. Comments like “too little, too late” or “too old, too soon” are making headlines. It is hard to disagree.
Just like its copper predecessor, even optic fibre has a finite capability and lifespan. Only 10 years ago a common dial-up connection offered speeds of 14kbps to access the information super-highway, while today we expect 56kbps as a minimum and DSL speeds of between 512kbps and 1.5Mbps are seen as the standard for the contemporary mega-media highway. It is, therefore, easy to predict that by the time the final cable is connected in 9 years time, the highly acclaimed 100Mbps connections will be barely sufficient to appease our addiction to the terabyte-highway looming in our future.
Therein lays the second poorly calculated assumption; that it will only take 8 years to roll out high speed optic fibre into every household and office across this vast land and that it will come in on budget. The Snowy Mountains Scheme aside, the record of Australian governments to complete major infrastructure on time and on budget is almost non-existent.
One can only guess at the millions of kilometres of cable required for this initiative and the speed with which it must be laid and connected, let alone for a project of this size to be adequately funded through successive governments and a myriad of unknown economic and political hurdles.
I draw the analogy of a homeowner wishing to renovate. Unhappy with the proposals and quotes received from the experts, they instead choose the DIY method. We all know how easily that can end in tears, heartache, financial ruin and divorce. This leaves the house unfinished, sold at a bargain price to some entrepreneur who simply walks in, tidies up, puts on a coat of paint and resells for a major profit.
The proposed $43b budget is to be partly funded by a government cash injection of $4.7b with up to 49% owned by private enterprise. The issue of Government Bonds (aka debt) is anticipated to cover the shortfall of around $20 billion. At the end of the project, the taxpayers will encounter another telco sell-off that may put the T2 fiasco to shame. At this point, the new monopolistic National Broadband Network Corporation will want to start recouping its money back from subscribers and our reliance on this new corporate beast will render us unable to resist.
With currently 8 million internet subscribers (covering government, businesses and households) nationally, the cost of this project calculates to an average value of $5,375 per subscriber. Even over 20 years, that equals an extra $268 pa to your access fees. This figure doesn’t even consider the additional investment by private enterprise or any losses resulting from movement of revenue away from traditional telcos as subscribers ditch the pay-per-call model in favour of the free Voice over IP (VoIP) options associated with their new ISP packages. Telcos will simply become ISPs, leasing bandwidth and reselling it to consumers.
The final truth, as proven by historical precedence, is that the privatisation of critical infrastructure only serves to increase costs for consumers as the commercial enterprise has a natural desire to chase greater profits. One needs only to look at the existing PSTN to understand that the majority of us are paying higher monthly line rentals for old copper infrastructure that should have been well and truly paid off by our forefathers. And simply look towards the increased cost of banking along with the decreased level of service – we now pay the banks higher fees while we do more of our banking online or via ATMs. Public transport, bridges, highways, the list of privatisation pitfalls is endless.
It is my conclusion that the “Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan” will insufficiently meet the needs of a future technology hungry Australia; it will be unable to meet its objectives within the proposed timeframe and budget, resulting in a greater financial cost than what is being purported today; and finally that Australia’s entire media, information and entertainment distribution and access will be left at the hands of a privately-owned profit-driven telecommunications behemoth.
And therein lays the final conundrum of epic proportions; a nation whose every act of communication will be required to go through a government-sanctioned commercial monopoly. Every packet of data, each phone call, email, tweet, download, upload; all syphoned through a single privately owned optic fibre network.
At this point, Stephen Conroy and the ACMA won’t need to be fussed with ISPs implementing his ill-fated Internet filter; he may simply attach it to the responsibilities of the National Broadband Network Corporation along with allowing widespread eavesdropping for ASIO, ASIS, DSD, or the AFP. All this for the protection of our national security, of course.
Just think Echelon on a grander scale only much more efficient. While it may seem unlikely, it is not out of the realm of possibility. After all, who would have correctly predicted the government assaults on truth and our civil liberties in the last 8 years?
Let us not delude ourselves with the panacea of optical-fibre optimism just yet. While the broadband plan is a long-awaited and well-debated project many, including myself, will attest that despite it being a much-needed booster for the economy, the mere 25,000 jobs it will provide over eight years is of little consequence to the larger unemployment rates expected from the downturn.
Significantly, at the core of this plan are three fundamental truths that are being deliberately overlooked as well as one obscure potential outcome that conspires to further threaten privacy and civil liberties in Australia as well as our economic and national security.
Firstly we must recognise that Australia is becoming more reliant on high-speed telecommunications for government, business and households alike to transact, communicate, entertain and interact locally and globally. The speed with which we are expanding our desire for information technology and communications access will soon surpass our infrastructure’s capacity and capability to deliver.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done, and full credit to the current government for acknowledging what the previous one dusted under the carpet. However, a large proportion of critics have been citing the Government’s solution as being redundant even before the first cable is laid. Comments like “too little, too late” or “too old, too soon” are making headlines. It is hard to disagree.
Just like its copper predecessor, even optic fibre has a finite capability and lifespan. Only 10 years ago a common dial-up connection offered speeds of 14kbps to access the information super-highway, while today we expect 56kbps as a minimum and DSL speeds of between 512kbps and 1.5Mbps are seen as the standard for the contemporary mega-media highway. It is, therefore, easy to predict that by the time the final cable is connected in 9 years time, the highly acclaimed 100Mbps connections will be barely sufficient to appease our addiction to the terabyte-highway looming in our future.
Therein lays the second poorly calculated assumption; that it will only take 8 years to roll out high speed optic fibre into every household and office across this vast land and that it will come in on budget. The Snowy Mountains Scheme aside, the record of Australian governments to complete major infrastructure on time and on budget is almost non-existent.
One can only guess at the millions of kilometres of cable required for this initiative and the speed with which it must be laid and connected, let alone for a project of this size to be adequately funded through successive governments and a myriad of unknown economic and political hurdles.
I draw the analogy of a homeowner wishing to renovate. Unhappy with the proposals and quotes received from the experts, they instead choose the DIY method. We all know how easily that can end in tears, heartache, financial ruin and divorce. This leaves the house unfinished, sold at a bargain price to some entrepreneur who simply walks in, tidies up, puts on a coat of paint and resells for a major profit.
The proposed $43b budget is to be partly funded by a government cash injection of $4.7b with up to 49% owned by private enterprise. The issue of Government Bonds (aka debt) is anticipated to cover the shortfall of around $20 billion. At the end of the project, the taxpayers will encounter another telco sell-off that may put the T2 fiasco to shame. At this point, the new monopolistic National Broadband Network Corporation will want to start recouping its money back from subscribers and our reliance on this new corporate beast will render us unable to resist.
With currently 8 million internet subscribers (covering government, businesses and households) nationally, the cost of this project calculates to an average value of $5,375 per subscriber. Even over 20 years, that equals an extra $268 pa to your access fees. This figure doesn’t even consider the additional investment by private enterprise or any losses resulting from movement of revenue away from traditional telcos as subscribers ditch the pay-per-call model in favour of the free Voice over IP (VoIP) options associated with their new ISP packages. Telcos will simply become ISPs, leasing bandwidth and reselling it to consumers.
The final truth, as proven by historical precedence, is that the privatisation of critical infrastructure only serves to increase costs for consumers as the commercial enterprise has a natural desire to chase greater profits. One needs only to look at the existing PSTN to understand that the majority of us are paying higher monthly line rentals for old copper infrastructure that should have been well and truly paid off by our forefathers. And simply look towards the increased cost of banking along with the decreased level of service – we now pay the banks higher fees while we do more of our banking online or via ATMs. Public transport, bridges, highways, the list of privatisation pitfalls is endless.
It is my conclusion that the “Rudd-Con DIY broadband plan” will insufficiently meet the needs of a future technology hungry Australia; it will be unable to meet its objectives within the proposed timeframe and budget, resulting in a greater financial cost than what is being purported today; and finally that Australia’s entire media, information and entertainment distribution and access will be left at the hands of a privately-owned profit-driven telecommunications behemoth.
And therein lays the final conundrum of epic proportions; a nation whose every act of communication will be required to go through a government-sanctioned commercial monopoly. Every packet of data, each phone call, email, tweet, download, upload; all syphoned through a single privately owned optic fibre network.
At this point, Stephen Conroy and the ACMA won’t need to be fussed with ISPs implementing his ill-fated Internet filter; he may simply attach it to the responsibilities of the National Broadband Network Corporation along with allowing widespread eavesdropping for ASIO, ASIS, DSD, or the AFP. All this for the protection of our national security, of course.
Just think Echelon on a grander scale only much more efficient. While it may seem unlikely, it is not out of the realm of possibility. After all, who would have correctly predicted the government assaults on truth and our civil liberties in the last 8 years?
Cyber safety research may miss the mark
The good people over at Australian eDemocracy alerted me to the recent report that the Federal Government will spend some of the $125.8 million cyber safety plan funding to engage an Edith Cowan University research team to "review current research on matters such as the nature and prevalence of cyber-safety issues, such as cyber-bullying, online predators and the disclosure of personal information."
They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."
All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.
On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
I disagree!
Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.
I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.
Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".
At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?
We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.
They will also will also "explore views on the consequences of these risks, and what technical and behavioural measures can be used by children, parents and teachers to help reduce them."
All well and good, and I'm very supportive of the Government for undertaking this important action, however I have my reservations about the nature of the final report and the person heading it up, Professor Donna Cross.
On the Bullying. No Way! website, Prof. Cross is quoted thus:
“...much good work has been done by researchers to assess the prevalence of the bullying problem but virtually no research has been conducted to investigate empirically what can be done to address this problem.”It seems she has found a way to get this important research funded by convincing the government that it is a cyber safety issue.
I disagree!
Bullying is a behavioural awareness and disciplinary issue that everyone can combat by working with perpetrators and victims, or potential victims, alike. It is a distinctly separate issue to cyber safety, which is a parental care and child educational issue requiring purely preventative measures and can not be combatted by working to rehabilitate perpetrators.
I fear that Prof Cross and her team at the Child Health Promotion Research Centre will lack the technological understanding and experience to complete this task in full. The question arises as to how this research grant was awarded to Professor Cross rather than any of the other tenders? If she was the best qualified for this work, then it is possibly a sad indictment on Australian commerce and academia.
Notably there is $2.3 million set aside for this research as well as a second project to develop a "repeatable survey instrument and methodology for data collection on the changes in behaviour of children, parents, teachers".
At the crux of the issue of cyber-safety is that parents, guradians and adults charged with relevant authority MUST take full responsibility in educating and supervising children's activity on any and every electronic media. The Bullying. No Way website (supported by Prof Cross' team at CHPRC) even tells us why:
“Many young people say that they wouldn’t report cyber bullying because most adults don’t know that they have a cyber life ... But parents have a moral, as well as a legal, responsibility to ensure that their children engage in safe and responsible behaviour – including online behaviour.”Precisley the point that Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, and his team just don't seem to get, which is why they are insisting on imposing Internet Censorship via a secret filter on all ISP activity to ban black-listed sites.
Where is the control if parents don't know what their children are doing, who they are conversing with or what information they are unwittingly revealing about themselves, their location and their activities?
We wouldn't let our children walk the streets alone at night, yet there are many who allow their children to do just that in a cyber world. The risks and dangers are the same. The responsibility remains the same. Allowing a child to roam the streets alone is neglectful and it is a crime; so it should also be with cyber-media access. So it is, and so it shall remain. No cyber safety policy or Internet filter will change that.
Censorship or Backdown?
[update 2: The Age have reinstated the article ... no explanations]
My previous post about the "Forest Fire Jihad" warning needs an update. The Age has removed the article from its site. WHY? Because of all the publicity it has received in the last 24 hours, or because it was asked by the Government, and an embarrassed Attorney-General, Robert McClelland?
[update 1: It is possible that The Age just decided to cash in by charging $2.20 access for everyone who wanted to read it, however no other Australian news sources are reporting what the rest of the world have regurgitated in the last 24 hours. Why so silent?
A Daily Mail report (UK) states: Police say they have seen no indication that the Victorian blazes were a 'forest jihad', launched by a group of Islamic extremists using fire as a form of terror against Western communities - despite South Australian Premier Mike Rann labelling the perpetrators as 'terrorists'.]
Fortunately there are other sources and I link them below as well as copy the article for posterity.
Check out all the links through Google here.
Other Sources:
Jihad Watch
Western Institute for Study of the Environment News
Clipmarks
Canada Free Press
Hillary's Village
My previous post about the "Forest Fire Jihad" warning needs an update. The Age has removed the article from its site. WHY? Because of all the publicity it has received in the last 24 hours, or because it was asked by the Government, and an embarrassed Attorney-General, Robert McClelland?
[update 1: It is possible that The Age just decided to cash in by charging $2.20 access for everyone who wanted to read it, however no other Australian news sources are reporting what the rest of the world have regurgitated in the last 24 hours. Why so silent?
A Daily Mail report (UK) states: Police say they have seen no indication that the Victorian blazes were a 'forest jihad', launched by a group of Islamic extremists using fire as a form of terror against Western communities - despite South Australian Premier Mike Rann labelling the perpetrators as 'terrorists'.]
Fortunately there are other sources and I link them below as well as copy the article for posterity.
Islam group urges forest fire jihad
by Josh Gordon for The Age
September 7, 2008
AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.
US intelligence channels earlier this year identified a website calling on Muslims in Australia, the US, Europe and Russia to "start forest fires", claiming "scholars have justified chopping down and burning the infidels' forests when they do the same to our lands".
The website, posted by a group called the Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network, argues in Arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the "eye for an eye" doctrine.
The posting — which instructs jihadis to remember "forest jihad" in summer months — says fires cause economic damage and pollution, tie up security agencies and can take months to extinguish so that "this terror will haunt them for an extended period of time".
"Imagine if, after all the losses caused by such an event, a jihadist organisation were to claim responsibility for the forest fires," the website says. "You can hardly begin to imagine the level of fear that would take hold of people in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Australia."
With the nation heading into another hot, dry summer, Australian intelligence agencies are treating the possibility that bushfires could be used as a weapon of terrorism as a serious concern.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.
"Any information that suggests a threat to Australia's interests is investigated by relevant agencies as appropriate," Mr McClelland said.
Adam Dolnik, director of research at the University of Wollongong's Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, said that bushfires (unlike suicide bombing) were generally not considered a glorious type of attack by jihadis, in keeping with a recent decline in the sophistication of terrorist operations.
"With attacks like bushfires, yes, it would be easy. It would be very damaging and we do see a decreasing sophistication as a part of terrorist attacks," Dr Dolnik said.
"In recent years, there have been quite a few attacks averted and it has become more and more difficult for groups to do something effective."
Dr Dolnik said he had observed an increase in traffic on jihadi websites calling for a simplification of terrorist attacks because the more complex operations had been failing. But starting bushfires was still often regarded as less effective than other operations because governments could easily deny terrorism as the cause.
The internet posting by the little-known group claimed the idea of forest fires had been attributed to imprisoned Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Suri. It said Al-Suri had urged terrorists to use sulphuric acid and petrol to start forest fires.
Check out all the links through Google here.
Other Sources:
Jihad Watch
Western Institute for Study of the Environment News
Clipmarks
Canada Free Press
Hillary's Village
Firebugs are Terrorists
Thanks to @Jinjirrie for the heads up (a Retweet from @mparent77772) on this tabloid-inspired report in The Age last September:
Islam group urges forest fire jihad
[update - The Age has archived this article see follow up post ]
I'm not so much interested in whether this was a plausible threat or not - it really doesn't matter. What I did find interesting was this:
Islam group urges forest fire jihad
[update - The Age has archived this article see follow up post ]
I'm not so much interested in whether this was a plausible threat or not - it really doesn't matter. What I did find interesting was this:
Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the Federal Government remained "vigilant against such threats", warning that anyone caught lighting a fire as a weapon of terror would feel the wrath of anti-terror laws.Go on Mr McClelland ... someone has done it - now, what did you say you were going to do? And will it still apply if they are Caucasian and Christian?
Economic Stimulus Package
(aka: an expensive theory to try to arouse a bunch a of knobs)
Just received via email from a friend:
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is
a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A
format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a
High definition TV set or a new computer, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.
You have to laugh to stay sane ;-)
Just received via email from a friend:
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is
a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A
format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a
High definition TV set or a new computer, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.
You have to laugh to stay sane ;-)
Fry on the Internet
I love it when someone can say something so profound and in the simplest possible manner, that even dumb-arses like George W. Bush could potentially understand it. Case in point, this gem spoken at Apple’s Regent Street store in London yesterday:
With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama
I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?
NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*
“The internet is like a city - it has red light districts, all kinds of weird people, who want to con and steal from you, but my god, they’re exciting places to live and to be a citizen of it is a great privilege. Yet people are trying to control the internet like they would never dare with a city.”
Stephen Fry, Actor/Presenter/TechEvangelist
With over 100,000 followers, @StephenFry is the 2nd most popular person on Twitter behind US President @BarackObama
I wonder if Stephen Conroy gets it ... yet?
NoCleanFeed and NO Censorship please, Minister!
*sigh*
Is this my last post before the police take me away?
PUBLIC WARNING!!!
Reading this post may put you at risk of breaking the law in Australia or other nanny-state nations. Following some the the links in the post will certainly do so!
I am posting this report and the links because I think the law has gone too far and I am putting out the challenge for charges to be laid against me.
2008 is likely to be remembered for many things, but censorship is the one area that has taken the spotlight, as the Australian Government, policing agencies, the courts of law and all forms of media have attempted to create an increasingly black and white view in a very grey world.
There is a fine line between right and wrong. Often that line gets crossed through humour, silliness, accident or just plain ignorance. But does that mean that the full weight of the law should come down upon you?
We have seen the problem caused by Bill Henson's artistic perspectives (viewed via Google) and the topic has arisen through the public debate surrounding Stephen Conroy's proposal for an Internet filter, which most industry experts consider to be infeasible and a waste of effort - see www.nocleanfeeed.com.
More recently we see that the Courts are now jumping in with questionable rulings on what constitutes child abuse, and specifically that which is deemed to be child pornography.
Mark Pesce writes about two such cases on the ABC blog "Unleashed" and Greg Barnes also has a say over on OnlineOpinion.
The first is regarding the Simpsons cartoon characters represented in sexual acts. The second concerns a judgement against a man who redistributed a video online of a child being swung around in the air - deemed to be child abuse.
By the way, if you want to risk police attention, you will find many of these cartoon "porn" pics by doing a simple search on Google (e.g. Bart sex or Simpsons Sex). The suspect video is apprently freely available on the internet and in my research I've determined that it is probably this one on Youtube.
Judge for yourselves ... am I now a criminal for having viewed this material and linking to them on my blog? Are you?
Reading this post may put you at risk of breaking the law in Australia or other nanny-state nations. Following some the the links in the post will certainly do so!
I am posting this report and the links because I think the law has gone too far and I am putting out the challenge for charges to be laid against me.
2008 is likely to be remembered for many things, but censorship is the one area that has taken the spotlight, as the Australian Government, policing agencies, the courts of law and all forms of media have attempted to create an increasingly black and white view in a very grey world.
There is a fine line between right and wrong. Often that line gets crossed through humour, silliness, accident or just plain ignorance. But does that mean that the full weight of the law should come down upon you?
We have seen the problem caused by Bill Henson's artistic perspectives (viewed via Google) and the topic has arisen through the public debate surrounding Stephen Conroy's proposal for an Internet filter, which most industry experts consider to be infeasible and a waste of effort - see www.nocleanfeeed.com.
More recently we see that the Courts are now jumping in with questionable rulings on what constitutes child abuse, and specifically that which is deemed to be child pornography.
Mark Pesce writes about two such cases on the ABC blog "Unleashed" and Greg Barnes also has a say over on OnlineOpinion.
The first is regarding the Simpsons cartoon characters represented in sexual acts. The second concerns a judgement against a man who redistributed a video online of a child being swung around in the air - deemed to be child abuse.
By the way, if you want to risk police attention, you will find many of these cartoon "porn" pics by doing a simple search on Google (e.g. Bart sex or Simpsons Sex). The suspect video is apprently freely available on the internet and in my research I've determined that it is probably this one on Youtube.
Judge for yourselves ... am I now a criminal for having viewed this material and linking to them on my blog? Are you?
Coming Soon - broadcasting live to your desktop
Labelled:
Africa,
Asia,
Aust / NZ,
civil rights,
conspiracy,
economic,
environment,
Europe,
health,
law,
media,
Middle East,
politics,
religion,
society,
South America,
terror/ism,
USA,
war
Enhance your social networking experiences
Here's how one social networking futurist sees the tools developing into a sleeker service for all. As long as privacy is maintained, I'm all for a more personalised and friendlier experience.

Also check out this review of Power.com because taking control of your many online profiles, psuedonyms, blogs and networking tools may give you greater security and peace of mind and prevent your identity being hijacked as happened to Aussie billionaire James Packer recently.
Also check out this review of Power.com because taking control of your many online profiles, psuedonyms, blogs and networking tools may give you greater security and peace of mind and prevent your identity being hijacked as happened to Aussie billionaire James Packer recently.
Get Up! Campaign to Save the Net
Imagine a government proposing an internet censorship system that went further than any other democracy - one that made the internet up to 87% slower, more expensive, accidentally blocked up to one in 12 legitimate sites, and missed the vast majority of inappropriate content.
This is not China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - this is the vision of Senator Stephen Conroy for Australia. Testing has already begun. The community must now move to stop this plan. Click here to save the net:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/
The system that Senator Conroy wants is a mandatory filter of all internet traffic, with the government of the day able to add any unwanted site to a secret blacklist. Already, the wrangling has begun for the inclusion of material relating to anorexia, euthanasia and gambling. It isn't difficult to see the scheme is open to abuse.
Even when it comes to preventing child p-rnography, the filter will not prevent peer-to-peer sharing and is very simple to sidestep. The protection of our children is vitally important - that's why we can't afford to waste funds on this deeply flawed system. We should be concentrating on solutions that are more effective and won't undermine our digital economy or our democratic freedoms.
This must rank as one of the most ill-thought decisions of the Rudd Government's first year in power. We need to act now to tell big brother the mandatory internet filter is incompatible with the principles of a modern democracy and modern economy:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/
Our government should be doing all in its power to take Australia into the 21st century economy, and to protect our children. This proposed internet censorship does neither. Take action to save the net today.
Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team
PS - The proposed scheme will pass all internet traffic through a government filter - it's like asking Australia Post to filter every letter sent in Australia. Click here to save the net.
Tools to beat Internet Censorship

Here are a few resources to assist anyone wishing to challenge, undermine and even usurp the Australian Government's intention to censor the Internet through the application of a national filter.
Tell them to take a flying leap and send Stephen Conroy a one-fingered message of defiance:
An overview is provided here:
http://www.masternewmedia.org/privacy_security/bypass-internet-censorship/bypass-internet-filters-anonymous-browsing-guide-20071118.htm
and here:
http://citizenlab.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1319
plus this one:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071015-citizen-lab-releases-guide-to-circumventing-internet-censors.html
Some web-based tools are offered here:
http://proxify.com/alt.shtml
http://www.peacefire.org/circumventor/
http://www.stupidcensorship.com
Other software is provided here:
http://psiphon.ca/
http://www.internetfreedom.org/
http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/
http://rajeshrana.net/2008/02/12/7-best-tools-to-circumvent-internet-censorship-%E2%80%93-an-alternatives-to-ultra-surf/
Good Luck! ;-)
Usurp Internet Censorship
Enough is enough!!!
I am looking for ways to avoid, undermine and even usurp the Australian Government's Internet censorship strategy.
Any ideas, please leave your comments!
More info here:
http://nocleanfeed.com/
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24569656-5014239,00.html
And show your objections here:
http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship
I am looking for ways to avoid, undermine and even usurp the Australian Government's Internet censorship strategy.
Any ideas, please leave your comments!
More info here:
http://nocleanfeed.com/
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24569656-5014239,00.html
And show your objections here:
http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship
An eye for an eye
“An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”
Mahatma Ghandi
The three convicted Bali Bombers have been murdered by a vicious, third world legal system at the behest of ignorant and depraved public opinion.
This is a sad and disappointing day for anyone who holds justice high above and disparate from vengeance; for those who foresee the deep and dark ramifications of gifting martyrdom.
And all the while war criminals like Tony Blair and George W. Bush, who are ultimately responsible for the documented deaths of more than 100,000 (potentially closer to 500,000), continue to walk the Earth as free men.
Mahatma Ghandi
The three convicted Bali Bombers have been murdered by a vicious, third world legal system at the behest of ignorant and depraved public opinion.
This is a sad and disappointing day for anyone who holds justice high above and disparate from vengeance; for those who foresee the deep and dark ramifications of gifting martyrdom.
And all the while war criminals like Tony Blair and George W. Bush, who are ultimately responsible for the documented deaths of more than 100,000 (potentially closer to 500,000), continue to walk the Earth as free men.
Difference Between the Obama and McCain Tax Plans
North American Patriot: The Real True Honest Fair and Balanced Difference Between the Obama and McCain Tax Plans
Its not so much the difference in tax policy that is astounding ... its the fact that they actually include people who earn more than $2,870,000 per annum.
Who actually earns that kind of money and doesn't have a full time tax accountant to reduce their liability to zero through dodgy tax minimisation and avoidance schemes??
LOL
Its not so much the difference in tax policy that is astounding ... its the fact that they actually include people who earn more than $2,870,000 per annum.
Who actually earns that kind of money and doesn't have a full time tax accountant to reduce their liability to zero through dodgy tax minimisation and avoidance schemes??
LOL
Death Penalty Caveat
An article on the death penalty and interesting commentary from readers led me to state:
The death penalty is final - what happens when we get the verdict wrong? How many innocent lives can we justify as the means to the end?
The only way I would accept the existence of capital punishment is if juries, prosecutors and judges were also given the death penalty if it was found that they'd convicted (and thus murdered) the wrong person.
With that caveat I doubt anyone would be game to take the chance.
The death penalty is final - what happens when we get the verdict wrong? How many innocent lives can we justify as the means to the end?
The only way I would accept the existence of capital punishment is if juries, prosecutors and judges were also given the death penalty if it was found that they'd convicted (and thus murdered) the wrong person.
With that caveat I doubt anyone would be game to take the chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

