In response to the recent shutdown of Omegle, Pirate Party Australia reaffirms its dedication to defending digital freedoms while acknowledging the complexity of safeguarding against online misuse.

Omegle was a platform allowing users to anonymously video chat with strangers, but the site drew criticism due to incidents of child sexual abuse and other criminal activity. Pirate Party Australia acknowledges the gravity of these concerns, emphasising the need to find a balance that both addresses such issues and maintains online freedoms. Leif K-Brooks, Omegle’s creator, cited the struggle and costs associated with combating platform misuse as the main reasons for its closure. While Leif expressed that the site “punched above it’s weight in content moderation” and highlighted that “Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison” it seems that was not enough for it’s detractors. Pirate Party Australia highlights the ongoing battle endured by online platforms in creating safe spaces without stifling critical rights.

Despite acknowledging Omegle’s misuse, Pirate Party Australia stresses the wider implications of closing platforms that promote free, open communication. The party believes a nuanced approach is key — one that deals with concerns, yet maintains the essential right to make new connections online. “Digital freedom is integral to our ethos, and we empathise with the difficulties platforms like Omegle face. Striking a balance between safety assurance and the preservation of an open internet is crucial,” states Pirate Party Australia’s President, Miles Whiticker.

Pirate Party Australia champions responsible online governance that combines robust, preventative action to protect against misuse, rather than resorting to total shutdowns. The party upholds the power of technology to bolster civic engagement, and supports ongoing efforts to find inventive solutions to the challenges spawned by shifting online dynamics. Despite Omegle’s closure, Pirate Party Australia persists in its commitment to cultivate a digital environment that upholds privacy, free speech, and the right to connect with others without unwarranted restriction.

 

Do you like memes? Do you make memes? We’re proud to announce that tonight we’re launching the Remix This! Meme Mashup Competition.

Watch: at 6pm AEST on Facebook Live https://fb.me/e/1yVtiYg6i with video to be uploaded to YouTube later. Alternatively, read on…

What: Creators have one month to create a 6-30 second video clip that mashes up content from existing sources to create a remix that is relevant to Australian politics or society.

Why: Pirates are all about free access to media, culture, commentary and politics. Let’s prove it. Down with censorship and copyright!

Read More

The Australian Government today announced it is going ahead with an ineffective “strategy” to “tackle” online copyright infringement, which puts a gun to the head of ISPs by requiring undue compromise with the copyright industry or face legislative regulation[1]. Despite being demonstrably futile, the Government will be pursuing both a notification scheme and court-ordered website blockades. The Pirate Party opposed both as neither will reduce infringement in Australia and do not address the more pressing issues of accessibility and affordability, instead targeting normal human behaviour[2].

It appears copyright holders will be able to request that an Internet service provider (ISP) sends an educational notice to an alleged infringer, with no actual penalty attached. Copyright holders will also be able to seek an injunction that requires ISPs to block access to websites that allegedly infringe copyright or facilitate infringement. Groups including “wifi providers” and “libraries” are also unreasonably expected to act as “copyright cops” according to an FAQ on the Minister for Communication’s website[3].

“This proposal is effectively the beginning of an Australian version of the failed US Stop Online Piracy Act. Notification schemes, graduated response schemes and website blocking do not work. They are costly, ineffective and disproportioned, as evidenced by academia and decisions of foreign courts. Fighting the Internet itself as opposed to solving the lack of convenient and affordable access does not work, nor does propping up business models that rely upon the control of content consumption in the digital environment,” commented Brendan Molloy, President of the Pirate Party.

These points have been refuted strongly by the Pirate Party and others in their submissions on the Government’s Online Copyright Infringement discussion paper. The efficacy of blocking websites was examined in a Dutch Court of Appeals case earlier this year, where the Court found there was insufficient evidence that blocking the Pirate Bay was effective at reducing copyright infringement and ordered that the blockade could be lifted. The Pirate Party arranged a translation of the judgment, which is available from the Pirate Party’s website[4].

Read More

Proposals to allow copyright holders to seek injunctions that require Internet service providers (ISPs) to block subscribers’ access to allegedly infringing websites will allegedly be presented to the Federal Cabinet today[1]. Coincidentally, the Pirate Party is pleased to publish its recently-commissioned translation of a Dutch Court of Appeals case (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2014:88) that casts significant doubt on the efficacy of blocking websites[2].

The Pirate Party arranged and crowdfunded a certified translation of the case involving two ISPs, Ziggo and XS4All, and Dutch anti-piracy association BREIN[3]. The translation was carried out by Sydney translation service Linguistico and the Pirate Party has published the translation under the Creative Commons Zero licence, allowing unrestricted use.

“Today the Pirate Party has demonstrated that it is willing to put its money where its mouth is and contribute to the commons. This translation is a significant piece of evidence that can be used to campaign against Internet censorship,” said Brendan Molloy, President of the Pirate Party.

“What this judgment makes exceedingly clear is that website blocking is ineffective and disproportionate for the many reasons we outlined in our submission[4] on the Government’s Online Copyright Infringement discussion paper.”

Many submissions to the inquiry, including the Pirate Party’s, argued that the discussion paper attempted to solve a problem that does not exist, while acknowledging yet overlooking the major issue of access to content.

“What is known to solve the ‘piracy problem’ is providing consumers with convenient, timely and affordable access to the content they wish to acquire, and these alleged proposals will regress Australian copyright, not progress it,” commented Mr Molloy. “Another look at the recommendations of the ALRC ‘Copyright and the digital economy’ review certainly wouldn’t go astray.”

The Pirate Party thanks all of the supporters who contributed to the crowdfunding campaign that made this important translation possible.

[1] http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/no-harsh-penalties-for-illicit-downloaders-under-copyright-reform-20141208-122rmj.html
[2] https://pirateparty.org.au/media/documents/ECLI_NL_GHDHA_2014_88_ENG_Ziggo_v_BREIN.pdf
[3] http://www.pozible.com/project/185899
[4] https://pirateparty.org.au/media/submissions/PPAU_2014_AGD_Online_Copyright_Infringement_DP.pdf

On Thursday, the Government introduced data retention legislation into the House of Representatives as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014[1]. The AFP has confirmed, even before the legislation has been voted upon in Parliament, that data retention will be used for copyright enforcement[2]. The legislation also confirms that the exact location of mobile phone users will be stored as part of these provisions.

“There are far too many flaws in this legislation to enumerate,” said Brendan Molloy, President of the Pirate Party.

“There has been no discussion as to why the current retention order provisions are insufficient. This legislation is disproportionate and unnecessary. ‘Metadata’ is ill-defined in such a way as to contain so much information that it is effectively the content of the communication, insofar that it contains the context and location of all communications. This is a massive issue for journalists, whistleblowers, activists, and a whole host of other persons whose activities are in many cases legal but perhaps not in the interests of the state to let happen without some level of harassment.

“There are significant issues relating to cost and security of the data. Steve Dalby of iiNet said yesterday that iiNet would consider storing the data where it is the cheapest, which includes Chinese cloud providers. There will be a significant ‘surveillance tax’ introduced by retailers to cover the costs of storing this data that nobody wants stored.

“Now we have it admitted by the AFP today that this legislation will be used for something completely unrelated to national security: copyright enforcement. The legislation hasn’t passed and yet already the scope is creeping! They are taking away our right to free expression and privacy to protect the profits of a few large corporations.

Read More