Below is the email chain regarding the National Security Inquiry, in response to our previous email requesting an extension to September 30.
Category: Privacy
Privacy laws and breaches that infringe on civil liberties
Pirate Party Australia is outraged at Telstra’s underhanded scheme of tracking the websites accessed by their customers.[1] It was recently revealed by the telecommunications company that they track and store web addresses visited by their NextG subscribers on systems in Chicago, out of reach of Australian law.
“This raises a series of very serious issues. They are logging user behaviour without consent and the data is stored in the United States where our Privacy Act does not apply, but where the Patriot Act does apply. I find the claims that the non-consensual use of the data will be used to build an Internet filtering database for their ‘Smart Controls’ product to be troubling,” said Brendan Molloy, Party Secretary.
Pirate Party Australia is furious that the Attorney-General’s Department is considering expansive additions to Australia’s already overbearing ‘security theatre’ operations[1].
The Attorney-General’s Department is proposing a “super warrant” system that can grant ASIO sweeping investigative powers for six months. This currently requires much greater judicial oversight.
“It seems to now be a weekly occurrence that the Government adds a new act to its ‘security theatre’. If the Gillard government cares so dearly about citizen input, why were expansive changes to the ASIO Act – changes that would potentially allow ASIO to target Wikileaks – pushed through last May without public inquiry?” questioned Brendan Molloy, Secretary of Pirate Party Australia.
Pirate Party Australia applauds today’s High Court ruling to uphold the verdict that was handed down in favour of ISP iiNet early last year.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) initially sued the ISP over claims that the company had authorised copyright infringement by its subscribers. After losing their appeal to the Australia Federal Court, AFACT, who lead a party of 34 film studios against iiNet, appealed again to the High Court. Today the announcement was made that the second appeal was unsuccessful.
“I am sure it comes as no suprise to anyone that we welcome this ruling,” said Brendan Molloy, Secretary of Pirate Party Australia. “We reiterate that ISPs behave similarly to the postal service – they are the carriers of the message, and that message should remain private. It is not their business to police users, but merely to comply where necessary with authorities. ISPs are not, and should never be, responsible to anyone other than their subscribers and local law enforcement agencies.”
Pirate Party Australia’s Presentation to Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholders Meeting in Melbourne
Here is the speech that was presented by Pirate Party Australia President David Campbell at 11.45am at the TPPA stakeholders meeting in Melbourne. Thanks to Simon Frew (Deputy President) for authoring the speech and Mozart Palmer (Media Relations) for his contributions.
Pirate Party Australia, like many other attendees at the intellectual property section of this Agreement negotiation, first became aware of the proposed intellectual property provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement when the United States negotiating position was leaked last year.[1]
Much of the content of the leak is a wish-list for old media corporations who refuse to adapt to the Internet and instead pay massive “donations” to their government in order to push their legislative agenda against the interests of modern society. This wish-list echoes that of the intellectual property segments of the Stop Online Piracy Act – known as SOPA – and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – known as ACTA. The US TPPA provisions have been nicknamed “the son of ACTA”. The proposed solutions to online file-sharing will fundamentally change the operation of the Internet, to its detriment.
The extreme position of the leaked United States’ Intellectual Property chapter is highlighted by the unprecedented request for the negotiating texts to remain secret for four years after the agreement is signed. This secrecy is a perversion of democracy. The public would not be given a chance to oppose such a draconian attack on both the Internet and the civil liberties of citizens in all of the signatory countries. All of this to protect the corporate interests of a small sector of one industry? What about the cost to our democratic rights?