User:Joakal

=Personal motivation=

I joined Pirate Party Australia (pending registration as of 4/07/12) because I had no faith in the old and recent parties to understand the rapid technological and social attitude changes. Some of the changes I'm against are; bi-partisan internet censorship, bi-partisan extradition to never-visted countries for sharing information, and more.

Before I joined, PPAU members said they may get around to my concerned issues but they lack time and volunteers, so any help and work done on expanding the policies would be appreciated. To this effect, I proposed extradition protections, empowering creators more (a very interesting policy that's anti-Hollywood and pro-creator), inquiry into AFP's ignorance of evidence-based approach to policies and even started AUIA: https://pay.reddit.com/r/AUInternetAccess/ All of which takes an evidence-based approach.

This is a huge amount of work that was slowly building up over almost a year. It's not something I'm doing full-time, only in my spare time. I'm not even able spend as much time on AUIA.

=Pirate Congress 2012 Motions=

Periodic return of copyright ownership to original creators
The independent creators had long suffered at the hands of companies due to an oversupply of numerous ideas that outstrips demand. This had allowed limited distributors to cherry-pick and demand transfer of copyright ownership in exchange for minuscule payments as compensation touting the need to have a reputation. The Pirate Party Australia wants to ensure creators enjoy the full benefits of copyright by returning the ownership back to creator after 1 (one) year.

After 1 (one) year, it is expected that creators will be able to command bigger cut as compensation for popular works and thus, inspire more creators to publicly deliver works due to the expectation of more appropriate and fair level of compensation from interested distributors. Otherwise, creators are discouraged from independent creation of works if it's believed that they will suffer perpetual loss of copyright ownership in exchange for a minuscule payment."

Current law grants assignment of copyright.

Explanation of terms

Overseas examples
Why ‘Mastered For iTunes’ Won’t Defuse a Copyright Time Bomb | Evolver.fm

Personal note
I feel that this is a very important policy that would highlight that Pirate Party Australia is for the people. A very strong pro-creator policy that I feel, that the distributors, the biggest backers of anti-consumerist copyright reform will be against it despite their populist stance at being pro-creator.

Workspace
We're entering the era of creating tangible objects on demand in our very own home and need to strongly ensure the 'right to participation in cultural life and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications' is respected while not allowing commercial use of the Intellectual property of others [Article 27, Universal Declaration of Human Rights].

The ability to create on demand are called 3D printers that can print tangible objects. This allows the ability to make toys, hats, pills, food, bones and even cars vastly more cheaper. There is also the possibility of self-replication (eg reprap project). It's important to give explicit protection for the people against vexatious litigation or disproportionate enforcement that may sometime in the future, attempt to restrict development of their patents for private non-commercial use in the form of restricting materials, declaring or implying such printers as devices for patent infringement, a reason for stricter enforcement (Internet filter, crippling unenforceable fines), et al [Article 30, Universal Declaration of Human Rights].

An exception was granted for research and experimental purposes regarding non-commercial use to the Patents Act 1990. We believe it does not go far enough because an individual printing for themselves are still vulnerable to disproportionate enforcement and litigation responses that equates commercial infringement with non-commercial infringement.

Currently, this means the relevant law(s) is required to decriminalise non-commercial use of patents to respect the human rights of the people.

Historically;

1) An exception was granted for research and experimental purposes regarding non-commercial use to the Patents Act 1990. We believe it does not go far enough because an individual printing for themselves are still vulnerable to disproportionate enforcement and litigation responses.

2) The Pirate Bay had recently allowed computer models to be uploaded that can lead to tangible objects of which some can infringe on patents.

Related links
Copyright Act

Article 27 Human Right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Article_27

ICESCR, Article 15.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights#Right_to_participation_in_cultural_life

[http://researchroadmap.osmr.nsw.gov.au/Sectors/LifeSciences/IntellectualProperty/A.4.3.3.htm "Australia does not have an exemption under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) for activities that are research only or not for commercial   application. Researchers must always consider whether their activities infringe an existing patent."]

Important implications

 * 3D printers can potentially run afoul of patent law for non-commercial development of favourite products.


 * There was a recent exemption to Patent Law for non-commercial research use, so it can be interpreted that students can use patents to build products.

Some potential sources:
 * "... under the Copyright Act, the maximum term of imprisonment for making a device intended for making infringing copies of a work is 5 years, whereas the maximum imprisonment term for a similar offence under the Trade Marks Act is 2 years." http://www.dilanchian.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=643:patent-and-trade-marks-acts-to-be-strengthened&catid=5:ip-tech-a-e-biz&Itemid=144
 * Chemicals, drugs, DNA could be produced for non-commercial use. [ Tech Know: Life hacking with 3D printing and DIY DNA kits http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8595734.stm ]. [Legal question: Could it run afoul under gene and medicine patents?]
 * Toys, glasses, and other easy printable patent products could run afoul under general patent laws. [Legal question: Could making own products  without resale be illegal? What about sharing, akin to filesharing?]
 * 3D Printers could be severely restricted under 'job loss' fears. As well, entire companies seized 'for encouraging infringement'. [Legal  question: Is it illegal for 3D printers to state that anything could be  printed, even cars, etc? My general question is akin to UK linking and  megaupload except without the explicit encouragement on fostering  ability to share]
 * More ease of copyright infringement as people become curious on how their favourite product works. For example, the most popular phone  series is Apple which jealously guards the workings.
 * Printing parts can be construed as encouraging patent infringement. For example: Someone wishes to build a car from 'spare pants', orders or  prints all the parts and builds them together. [Legal question: Is it  illegal to sell parts and/or use parts to make whole?]
 *  Sometimes there's one part which is considered the root of the assembled product.  Firearms work that way, maybe engines  work that way for cars.
 * Another discussion on it; http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?58,44938,44938 Dangerous items vs. Dangerous Censorship
 * A person missing a small part that's not otherwise sold or readily available but is patented and used as part of the product as whole,  could benefit from printing a part. Similar to downloading TV series  because there's a 1-2 year delay before national airing.
 * eg; "Sorry we need to get a critical car part specially made at the factory in China, there'll be about 2 month delay during which your car will be unroadworthy."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement (Australia not mentioned)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_patent_law
 * http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/1022/patents---are-you-risking-contributory-or-secondar.aspx [I can't understand the legalese but it implies that using result of patent is infringement]
 * http://www.davies.com.au/pub/detail/10/patent-infringement-exemption-for-experimental-use-acip-s-report-released [Patent infringement exemption for experimental use: ACIP's report released]
 * http://blog.patentology.com.au/2011/03/patent-reform-exposed-part-vi.html This one is a bit more explicit. The research industry  lobbied to have  an exemption from patent infringement by making the  product for the  purposes of research. Apparently the research industry is worried that  making products from the patent, despite non-commercial, would be  infringement
 * "Australia does not have an exemption under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth)  for activities that are research only or not for commercial   application. Researchers must always consider whether their activities  infringe an existing patent." http://researchroadmap.osmr.nsw.gov.au/Sectors/LifeSciences/IntellectualProperty/A.4.3.3.htm
 * Before oldwiki delete "Although we are still developing our policies in regard to patents, we believe that the current patent system needs to be  reformed. Patents holders should be required to provide greater detail  on how to utilise patented work once the patent has expired.  Non-commercial patent infringement should not be a crime and patents on  existing genetic material should be abolished. Pirate Party Australia  has no policy regarding trademarks or trade secrets at this time."


 * PPAU initially drafted the non-commercial patent infringement policy: http://www.pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Initial_Draft_Policy#Patent_Reform

Similar but non-Australian

 * http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/faq/infringement/ "In the USA, also non-commercial use of the invention can be patent  infringement, although it is rare for a non-commercial use by a private  person to result in a lawsuit. "
 * http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_271.htm
 * https://depiratenpartij.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/het-orakel/ One source of Pirate Party policy
 * Google Translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdepiratenpartij.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F01%2F10%2Fhet-orakel%2F&act=url

Other topics relating to patent infringement

 * Might be unwise to mention, but pirate bay is entering 3D printer era as well: https://thepiratebay.se/blog/203


 * Warhammer figurine models created by someone subject to DMCA; https://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse/browse_thread/thread/599c4e60f459af8f
 * A loosely related article on 3D Printers for schools would mitigate the regulatory capture effects of companies crying piracy from 3D printers. https://printthat.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/im-conflicted-about-buildatron/
 * "The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing" http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp
 * Public knowledge newsletter 'It Will Be Awesome If We Don’t Screw It Up': http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/3DPrintingPaperPublicKnowledge.pdf
 * Source: http://declineofscarcity.com/?p=1444
 * Opinion piece: The Pirate's Dilemma book
 * Chapter 1, 5
 * http://thepiratesdilemma.com/download-the-book

3D Printers (Press Release and Motion)
[May need to be sent out following a submission to relevant people, e.g. Innovation Dept, ALRC - Mozart]

Pirate Party Australia wishes to embrace the emerging technology of creating tangible physical objects with 3D printers [1]. This amazing technology allows a person to create a guitars, motorcycles, planes, wrench or even print a car[2]. What's also impressive is that a person could send blueprints of their creations to anyone of any country in the world to print.

The technology exists to record 3D objects (eg Kinect) into 3D programs (eg Minecraft). Then it's a matter of printing objects from the virtual world. The only limits are the materials and imagination.

Yes, the 3D printing technology is new but making huge innovative changes. This can lead towards being the next trillion dollar industry [3] with printing toys, hats, pills, food and even bones. Reducing dependence on imports and creating many local jobs.

Join us in seeing the enormous possibilities if every child has access to it; we believe the government should fund a scheme to research into more finer 3D printers and give a 3D printer to every school in Australia. This would serve not only to encourage creativity in kids but also to train them to create future uses of 3D printing. There is a hurdle of non-commercial copyright distribution being illegal, so we again demand the government to make non-commercial copyright distribution legal. Because otherwise, the school kids could become criminals in sharing what they learnt about their own favourite toys with other school kids.

It's really the future of making your own materials and products. We hope the Labor government joins us in advocating and paving the way for this exciting future!

Motion Workspace
Look to patent infringement section for more details on implications and talk in general that are not specifically related to 3D printers.

Rationale
"If this catches on, the new paradigm will be so transfiguring to the current economic  environment, that chaos will ensue.  Literal chaos. You think SOPA was going to end the internet, imagine when every  manufacturing business on the planet gets together to protect their profits"

By teaching and encouraging children to develop and make their own products, it would be harder for manufacturers to demand the government to step in to protect jobs and economy by sacrificing culture and freedom among other rights.

Biosynthesis machines is similar to 3D printers. It may be applicable for biology classes; eg a class growing their own skin grafts.

Aims:


 * Allocate funding for 3D printers, the materials and education costs. The allocation is determined by the government research agency, CSIRO, in how best to not only purchase the printer but also to secure materials and distribution methods.
 * It would be incredible if we got CSIRO's vocal support for introducing 3D printers to youth.
 * Need to approach 3D printer companies as they are likely to have marketing material and costs. anonymous could help.

Evidence of past school 3D printer introduction attempts:
 * http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1059073553/MOLDING-YOUNG-MINDS-3D-printer-makes-an-impression-at-Bridgewater-Raynham-High-School Successful
 * http://www.royalhigh.edin.sch.uk/departments/departments/cdt/s2_0910_3d_printing.html Evidence of 3D printer results
 * http://www.zcorp.com/en/Press-Room/Z-Corporation-Unveils-3D-Printer-Stimulus-Package-for-Schools/news.aspx An attempt by a company to introduce 3D printer to USA and Canadian schools
 * http://seas.yale.edu/news-news-detail.php?id=309 Yale engineering department made use of 3D printers to develop new products
 * http://www.3d-printers.com.au/2010/10/20/3d-printers-in-education/


 * A loosely related article on 3D Printers for schools would mitigate the regulatory capture effects of companies crying piracy from 3D printers. https://printthat.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/im-conflicted-about-buildatron/

Public knowledge newsletter 'It Will Be Awesome If We Don’t Screw It Up': http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/3DPrintingPaperPublicKnowledge.pdf
 * "The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing" http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol7-1/bradshaw.asp


 * Source: http://declineofscarcity.com/?p=1444

on successes, failures and hindsight:
Hindsight: whoever started the trial was a moron. they decided not to target the design/technology classes initially, but decided that the special education students with severe mental and physical disabilities would be good targets for teaching computer aided design, mathematics and drawing.

Most teachers decided this was a fucking stupid idea and gave he opportunity to design  students instead, after a month or two of trying to teach the special ed students how to use a mouse and keyboard.

Success - we all got little 3d keychains after a while, gave an insight on how 3d printing processes worked and the limitations of the technology.

Failure - the company mandated the use of a  proprietary software package which 1) was costly to purchase 2)very  difficult to use even for students at selective schools 3)they provided  very little training/resources for teachers.

I think they went bankrupt eventually, I can not for the life of me remember their name.

RepRap with IP
What do you know about RepRap printers and/or implications with the current IP climate? (I'm adding the interview notes to 3D printers by the way.)

I haven't played with one personally but in my opinion, they're more of a hobbyist toy.

 They're more of a hobbyist toy because the technology isn't there yet?

Mainly quality and technical limitations which can't be overcome in the typical home.

I wonder if there's any company out there selling CAD models.

 Isn't the TPB offering CAD models lately?

I know a few firms sell designs that people can purchase for use in renders, etc (see 3d warehouse).

But I'm not sure anyone uses them for production; they're mostly for 3d renders for showing clients.

 Do you think this metaphor is inherently flawed; 3D Printers are like computers in the last century; they are expensive and impractical in some aspects but overtime have become a household and even a handheld device.

The logic of the analogy is valid, (and I may be thinking too technical here) but there are physical limitations of 3d printing that can not be overcome.

 Can you describe some?

I think it's not so much applicable to the end user, rather, companies in the future patenting 3d designs and the lawsuits that follow.

Some materials can not be printed - wood, some metals, silicone, fibres, some ceramics.

Economy of manufacturing scale will always be cheaper than printing at home.

 Makes sense, however, can the 3D printers improve to the point that manufacturing at scale would be akin to supercomputers?

No response.

RepRap printer quality
 anonymous, how good are reprap printers? I was thinking of reprap printers where schools are furthest apart from each other so they can build another and donate to the other schools nearby?

Joakal: Average print quality, not great. I think you're over estimating the capability of students.

Also remember, DT classes (or whatever they;re called in the respective states), they have 4 periods a week as 9/10 electives.

 The machines are being given to industrial design section of the high school.

 So they should have above-average knowledge of such machines.

Yes and no, most high schools are still manual. CNC is a dream they can't afford.

Also many teachers will need training - most D/T teachers I'm aware of were former panel beaters, craftsmen, tradies, etc.

Wood and metal.

Electronics is already a stretch.

RepRap potential
RepRap is essentially a 3D printer that can create more 3D printers of itself. More information can be found here:


 * http://reprap.org/wiki/BackgroundPage
 * http://reprap.org/wiki/EndOfIntellectualProperty
 * http://reprap.org/wiki/PhilosophyPage


 * 3D Scanners, able to duplicate objects: http://reconstructme.net/category/media/video/
 * A video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l402EIau4bk#t=90s (Rest of it isn't relevant to 3D printers)

Other
r/Auslaw discussion: What are the legal ramifications of copying an object and 3D Printing it? : auslaw https://pay.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/me88b/what_are_the_legal_remaifications_of_copying_an/

Protect Australians from extradition on IP
TODO: Review 2012 extradition act amendment changes for the motions

Potential paths

 * Append the following to EXTRADITION ACT 1988; Section 22(3)(g) "the Attorney-General is satisfied that there is no extradition request for infringement of intellectual property"; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea1988149/s22.html
 * In the new extradition treaties: State that extradition shall not be granted for offences relating to infringement of intellectual property.
 * Append to Australian Treaty Series 1976 No 10; Article VII (1)(d) "the offence relates to infringement of intellectual property" http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/10.html

Other research material

 * Extradition law in Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_Australia
 * Australian extradition treaty http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea1988149/

Hew Griffths
Legal analysis

http://www.internationallawupdate.com/09/australian-federal-court-of-appeal-rules-that-australian-resident-was-extraditable-to-u-s-for-his-part-in-alleged-international-criminal-conspiracy-to-pirate-copyrighted-software-since-u-s-had-made/

Brief analysis:


 * http://www.petermartin.com.au/2007/06/tuesday-column-be-warned-if-it-happened.html
 * http://www.intelligentdesign.com.au/blog/2007/07/17/australia-subject-to-the-laws-of-the-united-states/
 * http://lawontherow.com/2007/10/23/no-more-lines-in-the-virtual-sand-the-hew-griffiths-case-considered/
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hew_Raymond_Griffiths

O'Dwyer

 * http://cyberleagle.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/copyright-extradition-faq.html
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer

Extradition groups

 * http://www.australiansforextraditionjustice.com/home
 * http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigns/extradition-watch/index.php
 * http://spyblog.org.uk/mt436/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=6&tag=Extradition%20Act%202003&limit=20

2012 changes

 * http://corrigan.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/eamaicmlaa2012720/
 * http://castancentre.com/2012/03/07/extradition-and-mutual-assistance-changes-slip-in-under-the-radar/
 * http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4620%22
 * http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/extradition-and-mutual-assistance-fighting-crime-vs-protecting-rights

Crime doesn't pay, for everyone

 * Penalty Units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Day-fine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Finnish Drivers Don't Mind Sliding Scale, But Instant Calculation Gets Low Marks
 * Sir Philip Green - the billionaire who won't waste a penny - Telegraph
 * Discussion paper towards the development of formal TasCOSS policy - In relation to Income based monetary penalties

= Potential Pirate Congress 2012 Motions=

Tangible native animal conservation and foreign animal reduction
The aim is to reform the sales, trade and ownership of foreign and native animals to tackle conservation issues, lack of awareness, increase tourism value and foreign animal destruction issues.

Reform laws surrounding native and foreign animals ownership with a distinctive difference between wild/feral and domesticated. Appropriate decentives of foreign animals that are destructive to the ecological system in a form of a tax on non-native animals and related products. A government-driven national corporation is to be created, however there's potential for a private but controlled approach (eg subsidies, compliance, etc). To prevent the potential issues with the scheme:
 * Conduct education regarding wild vs native differences with a highlight that even foreign animals can be wild/feral and should not be handled. Also show the massive destruction caused by seemingly innocent animals responding to instincts. Also to ensure they understand how to handle animals; eg appropraite feed.
 * Control the demand for domesticated and non-domesticated wild animals by warning programs/news to not spread misinformation about availability, feed, etc, without appropriate sources until the domestication program is complete.
 * Provide incentives and decentives for traditional foreign animal breeders to phase out foreign animal breeding and to adopt domesticated animal breeding as well as animal-related products.

Enquiry on PPAU's opinion
Joakal   What's PPAU's position on native and foreign animals in Australia compared to having a business-model of selling native domesticated animals while restricting the sales/trade/dealing in foreign animals of which tax money goes towards conservation efforts. The aim is for people to have tangible sight of potentially extinct animals, boost tourism and curb foreign animals.

anonymous We have no position.

anonymous2 I would like to see some solid environmental policies in the future

anonymous2 get some real greens on our side

anonymous2 not just hippies

Joakal   The Greens probably won't like this policy because it's 'inhumane' but makes economical sense

Joakal   It's also a good policy of eliminating rhino horns/etc by farming rhino horns with profits going towards wild rhino conservation that makes it profit prohibitive for poachers, but we don't quite have that issue here.

Joakal   I'll propose the policy for kicks

anonymous2 I don't like your policy

anonymous2 this isn't South Africa

Joakal   No, this is Australia that has spent millions, for altruistic reasons to curb poaching of Australian animals, conservation/preventing-extinction, etc

anonymous3 This isn't the states either, but we were fighting against sopa/pipa

anonymous2 I'm aware of that, but the poaching issue is nowhere near on the same scale

anonymous4 i think it'll be a very long while before ppau needs environmental policies... state chapters perhaps

Joakal   I understand that, but the policy is something to tickle the fancies of environmental activists.

anonymous2 I don't like bullshit policies

Joakal   They can help expand PPAU's environmental agenda

anonymous2 and you seem to love them

Joakal   It's not a bullshit policy.

Joakal   I've done research

Internet Freedom motion
Internet Freedom section with several subsections:
 * Internet Access right
 * Domain Name protection
 * Rent-seeking of new companies for old companies

Reference: https://pirateparty.org.au/oldwiki/index.php/Draft_Platform

Internet Freedom amendment of Net Neutrality motion
Only applicable if Internet Freedom section exists.


 * Put the Net Neutrality section under Internet Freedom

Reference: https://pirateparty.org.au/oldwiki/index.php/Draft_Platform

Internet Freedom amendment of Graduated Response motion
Only applicable if Internet Freedom section exists.


 * Move 'No ‘Three Strikes’ or Graduated Response' under Internet Access right

Reference: https://pirateparty.org.au/oldwiki/index.php/Draft_Platform

PPAU's Net Neutrality amendment of Internet Censorship motion
Only applicable if Internet Freedom section exists.


 * Move 'Internet Censorship' under Net Neutrality

Reference: https://pirateparty.org.au/oldwiki/index.php/Draft_Platform

Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality is the guiding principle of the internet, ensuring that it is free and open, that regardless of service provider, we all  have access to the same internet - it prevents the blocking, speeding up  or slowing down of content based on its source, destination or the  owner of the content. Network operators do not decide whether using a particular service or application, what information should have priority  over another. Their job is simply to carry data. A simple analogy might be the postal service. When we send a letter, we don't expect a decision to be made by inspecting the contents of the  letter, or by looking at who the sender and recipient are. The postal service is simply paid to carry the letter. Another analogy may be the electric grid. It is a neutral network that does not care what you plug into it - and this provides a basis for the support of innovation and  competition. This principle is being threatened as content providers and telecommunication corporations begin to implement prioritisation of  information and data flow. If this principle is ignored, there are harmful consequences to competition as service providers may preference  or block protocols to force consumers to use other, more expensive  services they may provide. It would also be harmful to innovation, as net neutrality ensures that even the smallest entrepreneurs, have the  same access as leading firms. To remove this may see a crippling of new entrants, as they would struggle to compete on the uneven playing field  the internet would become. A free, open and non-discriminatory access to the internet is essential for our democracy, and for our economic well-being. Allowing discriminatory practices to develop would turn the internet into a  predominantly commercial only zone significantly impairing  participation, choice and diversity. We need the adoption of clear net neutrality principles and regulations that ensure the treatment of lawful content, applications  and services in a non-discriminatory manner.

Internet Freedom
Net neutrality (Above) Internet Access right (blocks three strikes, arbitary ISP d/cs) Domain name protection (prevents Australian brand destruction before trial)

Plan
Several steps to implementing it; 0) Make it pirate policy with motion 1) Enshrine in Federal law or consitiutional (the pro-copyright lobby will go batshiat insane over this) a) Need to find all relevant provisions in laws. b) Amend them as appropriate and/or repeal. 2) Adopt it as part of foreign policy to encourage foreign countries to adopt it for better education, less censorship, no corporate/government control, etc. With a strong platform; eg Those that seek to pervert access to Internet do not have the public benefit in mind.

Net Neutrality vs Internet Freedom
According to davidd, the net neutrality specifically encompasses protection from ISPs' arbitarily adjusting/filtering networks to other ISPs. Whereas Internet Freedom is about protection from the government. In contary to Wikipedia's article on net neutrality. His statement is based on dutch government's implementation of net neutrality that allows the government the order to censor. I believe Internet Freedom is almost synomous with Net Neutrality. The former is more broader category than the latter.

Net Neutrality

 * PPnl presented these being part of net neutrality bill http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/wetsvoorstellen/2011/01/20/wijziging-van-de-telecommunicatiewet-ter-implementatie-van-de-herziene-telecommunicatierichtlijnen
 * https://depiratenpartij.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/goed-bedoeld-slecht-bedacht/


 * 'There seems to be a possibility that the ISP's who are filtering are in breach of the Telecommunications Act. For any business to engage in practices that could be deemed illegal by current legislation in their country of operation seems reckless at best.'
 * http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1727294#r30066310


 * http://delimiter.com.au/2011/07/09/five-disturbing-things-about-the-interpol-filter/


 * Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/qv607/australia_placed_on_enemies_of_the_internet/

background

 * PR on UN's Internet Access right http://pirateparty.openpad.me/44


 * Judge believed that tools are available to iiNet that they're liable for copyright infringement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFACT_v_iiNet_Ltd#Jagot_J

[I hate that the judge believes consumers must pay more for Internet because of copyright people. Need to check their background or maybe they really believe in copyright in being a fundamental right over imposed burdens on liberties.]


 * PPCzech is working on an internet access right. Probably copy from it soon. http://www.ceskapozice.cz/en/news/society/pirate-party-seeks-support-internet-freedom-bill


 * http://www.pirati.cz/tiskove-zpravy/pirati-predstavuji-ustavni-zakon-o-svobodnem-internetu#comments


 * I sent an email asking for an English translation.


 * Update 9/3: Currently it'll be a while but after a month, they stated I should get the full package of; internet freedom bill, reasonings as well as collaboration between pirate and other politicians as they attempt to lobby for Internet Freedom.
 * Update 10/3: "It's not looking so bright after all. Here's a google translation of a news article that speaks about our draft bills published preamble below. We will have to reconsider a lot of things even because of our internal party discussion"

Cyber-lawyer is horrified

While Bohuslav Sobotka Pirate proposal shall be deemed a good idea, a leading Czech legal scholar is appalled. According to Radim Polcák, which is primarily devoted to the law of modern information systems, Internet and cyberspace, and currently serves on the Chicago DePaul University College of Law, the proposal was probably meant well, but sees it more as a peculiar expression of opinion that the issue of individual rights had information pay more political attention. But human rights information is already largely reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

"From this it can be inferred the existence of the right to net neutrality technology to protect the sphere of information and the like discretion. What exponents Pirate Party in this respect somewhat sadly do not understand is that fundamental rights are inalienable. This also means that no matter whether the constitutional order they speak explicitly - these are natural rights exist regardless of any written submissions and are found for a specific problem situations. Thinking that all applicable law is written in the law, and contrary to what is written there can not be a valid law, it is extremely dangerous. Just like to believe that a person can only do what the law explicitly allows "Polcák wrote in an e-mail CZECH POSITION.

The level of the freezing point

Probably more of a contribution to the political debate than a seriously intentioned legislative initiative, says legal expert The expert also criticized the technical level of the text, that is, he said the freezing point. "I guess it would be the content of any freshman some of our normal law schools wrote better. If someone gave me this example as a seminar performance, alive to the next semester will not pass, "said Polcák who judges that it is probably more of a contribution to the political debate than a seriously intentioned legislative initiative.

Kyberprávník pirates in an attempt to appear a general problem of the Czech Pirate Party. Unlike the Swedish Profiles in fact more like "extremist initiative without expertise stakes in cheap circus tricks", and is therefore not surprising that in our country nobody takes seriously. Polcák however admits that there are issues that this page deals with very important and dominant political forces neglected. But: "It is hard to be able to exercise adequately socially, if they will be taken care of our political scene so lightly and artsy."

The clear purpose of treatment is not sure even a constitutional lawyer and secretary of the Permanent Commission of the Senate Constitution of the Czech Republic Jan Kysela. "Regardless of whether a particular provision makes sense, in my opinion, it certainly is not anything that should be placed in a special constitutional law," said Kysela. Most of the pirates, according to him these things we find in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms now.

Kysela also notes that the constitutional laws they write in this style. "When you look at the instrument or constitutional law on safety, so they are all quite general and abstract questions. We have a culture, how to distinguish between constitutional law treatment, the laws, the regulations, including regulations. Pirated design resembles a civil or commercial code, "explained CZECH POSITION Kysela.

Constitutional lawyer hopes that similar efforts are not taken seriously. The basic disadvantage of the pirates said that the choosing of a relatively complex phenomenon of the world and everything else is secondary for them: "Whether we have or do not have clean water, if people die, or die of hunger, it's all the same, it is essential to grow Internet. "


 * Reddit USA collaboration: http://www.reddit.com/r/fia
 * http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/metal-code-flesh-why-we-need-a-rights-of-the-internet-declaration/2012/02/29
 * http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-report-internet-access-is-a-human-right.html


 * There's an interesting way to promote Internet Access freedom. Talk to the ISPs that offer uncensored Internet and push forward supporting unrestricted Internet with no ISP tracking:  http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/120315-iinet-packs-freedom-and-flexibility-into-its-plans.html

List of company brands that went publicly against Internet filter;


 * Internode
 * iinet

Domain names
The jurdisiction of .au are under both Australian government and ICANN under the sponsorship agreement which includes USA government.

1) Jurdisiction?


 * The Government holds reserve powers in relation to domain names under the Telecommunications Act 1997.
 * .au is hosted at ICANN which implies USA government jurdisiction . JURDISICTION PENDING CONFIRMATION FROM A LEGAL VIEWPOINT BY DAVID CAMPBELL'S LEGAL ENQUIRY

2) How to define Domain Names as a form of property that can't be seized until after due process or   ex  parte. Domain names are addressed that can not violate any such law by itself. Such seizures done in good faith to block access to material are in fact fallacious since it's still possible to access such content. Seizing the server contents makes the domain seizures pretty ineffective and false sense of security. Seizures of domains construe a net-negative economic benefit causing uncertainity and brand damage. Therefore, by itself, domain name is afforded immunity from seizures.

Analogy: Imagine a building that only has one address that's hard-to-remember: 516.7813.185.50. The owners decided to split up the house into three rooms but are stuck with a single address. So they talk to a Human Name Service (HNS) get several human readable addresses called 'crazymetal', 'darkdays' and 'govleaks' for each three rooms. The government does not like one of the rooms to have leaked government material so they ask the court for permission to seize govleaks to prevent access. The court summarily grants the request to which the government sends the court order to HNS. HNS then pulls down govleaks. While people can't immediately find govleaks, they can still walk up to the address, 516.7813.185.50 and say govleaks and still access the room.

Some potential topics related to domains: Trademarks, Assets seziures

Trademarks are intellectual property, in layman's terms, a brandname. However, contary to some myths, trademarks are very narrow which means they only apply in certain industries. For example, a search engine named 'FindStick' is only related to online service offerings. It is therefore possible to have a foresty service named 'FindStick'. It is in essence, first-come-first-serve in regards to domains. By exempting trade marks from disputes, trademark holders are not legally obliged to defend their trademarks by seizing the relevant domain names.

TODO: AuDA has a current policy that company name and/or trade marks can override ownership. The questions are:

1) How can AuDA be compelled to update their policy?

2) Can trademarks being exempted from disputes offer protection for trademark holders?

Assets seizures are acceptable since the court would typically have reasonable means to pay off debt or for payments. However, concern should be noted that such seizures may inhibit periodic payments since the typical access to websites are through domain names.

NOTE: It appears that IP addresses can be seized according to this: https://torrentfreak.com/eu-adopts-resolution-against-us-domains-seziures-111117/

Joakal   Is it possible for USA to seize ip addresses? Honest question.

Joakal   It's sort of mentioned: https://torrentfreak.com/eu-adopts-resolution-against-us-domains-seziures-111117/

anonymous probably, but a pointless exercise

anonymous it's even more pointless than seizing a domain

Joakal   How technically feasible is it?

anonymous2 ip addresses are a whole lot more complicated than domains, in theory the central authority can just be ignored and overriden, and routing providers just trust each other, not a central registry

anonymous can just get another one in a matter of seconds

anonymous2 the viable alternatives would be to get the upstream providers to blackhole the ranges

Joakal   So, don't need to outlaw any attempts by Australian government/ISPs from hijacking ip addresses?

Joakal   or taking over ip ranges

anonymous2 there's nothing to stop anyone from doing it, it's up to the individual providers to decide who is more trustworthy, the govt, or their upstream and peers

anonymous2 the reason dodo took out telstra a few weeks back was exactly the same issue, telstra blindly accepted dodo's announcements without checking they were authorised to announce the entire internet

Joakal   A judge could argue that since providers have the power to prevent access to ip addresses, they are ordered to not trust certain IP addresses, restricting Internet Freedom?

anonymous thousand of ips are blackholed daily, botnets, spam, ddos attacks

Joakal   Could the government/ISPs hijack that to protect artists? That's my question

anonymous2 but they get blackholed as requested by clients to their individual upstream providers, not across all the upper tier providers, to try and do it universally would be very ugly

anonymous2 sure dnsbls exist for things like mail, that could theoretically be integrated in to a transparent proxy

anonymous but as said yesterday, thousands of sites/users may be behind one IP (not that sheer idioicy has ever stopped the US gov) and a new IP can be obtained in a matter of minutes for $1-2

anonymous2 but to make that universal would be a lot harder than just paying cisco & juniper et al to actually implement route checking against a central database, as many providers have been asking for years

anonymous2 and yes, blocking ip addresses would only be for entire providers you'd want to make disappear really

anonymous2 the trust for ip addresses/routing is really p2p where domains is client-server, just not worth it

background

 * Past seizures http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2061784/Search-Engine-Domain-Seizures-In-Australia
 * An organisation dedicated to media freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Modern_Media_Initiative


 * According to this agreement, all .au is hosted at ICANN which implies USA government jurisdiction http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/au/sponsorship-agmt-25oct01-en.htm
 * A legal name for unseizable property. However, it's sort of 'rented'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

More on AuDA


 * http://www.ezidomains.com.au/About/Policies/auDA-Policies
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auda


 * 2008 7% of total income to ICANN (218k), 2009 7% of total income to ICANN (247k)
 * www.auda.org.au/pdf/2008-09_auDA_Annual_Report.pdf

Recommended domains that are 'safe' for further research in why:
 * PPAU states: .is Iceland .ch Sweden
 * Guide to safe domain names. http://gun.io/blog/secure-your-domain-where-is-safe-to-register-a-domain-name/
 * Another; https://torrentfreak.com/how-to-stop-domain-names-being-seized-by-the-us-government-110205/
 * A UK serious crime enforcement agency seized an American .com domain. http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3921
 * US gov got court to bypass domain registrar and order verisign to take over domain http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/dont-bet-on-linsanity-us-seizes-online-gambling-domain-over-sports-wagers.ars
 * PPCA created this project; imagery of darknet instructions http://www.reddit.com/r/OpElectronicLeviathan/
 * Response on USA's domain name seizures being almost not legal http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/22214113120/once-again-why-homeland-securitys-domain-name-seizures-are-almost-certainly-not-legal.shtml


 * I contacted Falkvinge regarding groups or attempts to outlaw domain name seizures. UPDATE: No response.
 * Reference: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/qn7c8/with_the_latest_domain_seizures_the_united_states/

"I'm currently writing up and collecting research on outlawing domain seizures in Australia. Currently, I believe .au domains are subject to USA seizure since they're hosted by ICANN. A request was made to PPAU's lawyers on whether .au is actually safe.

Do you know of any attempts to outlaw domain name seizures explicitly?"

auDA and dot-au: Disputes and the auDRP
 * Following USA's domain seizure legal questions such as this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/22214113120/once-again-why-homeland-securitys-domain-name-seizures-are-almost-certainly-not-legal.shtml
 * Although they've stated that it's illegal. ICE is currently delaying the due process by claiming investigation procedure.
 * Australia has no explicit free speech. Even then, I believe the domain names can not infringe and are semi-public property in that people need them to find things (Yeah, I'm still working on the definition of domain names in law).
 * http://www.caslon.com.au/audaprofile9.htm

Possibility of seizures attempted in bad faith


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan#Nissan_Motor_Co_v._Nissan_Computer_Corporation
 * http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/07/25/in-domain-name-flap-un-orders-boy-back-through-wardrobe/

Net-negative benefits for old companies (need re-wording)

 * Benefits for old companies at expense of others
 * Self-preserving companies

The general aim is to prevent an inherently biased group from legalised preying on businesses and legilsation while being funded by taxpayers. However, it also applies to certain taxes, eg levies. They are also self-preserving in that they have a history of flat-out lying against the interests of consumers and artists.

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/qn9ty/german_internet_community_cries_foul_over_google/

Any such taxes on services/products of companies that utilise the Interent with the aim of going towards old companies is an act of rent-seeking and anti-competitive since it would make it prohibitive for new companies to enter two or more of the relevant industries involved.

The general aim is to prevent an inherently biased group from legalised preying on businesses and legilsation while being funded by taxpayers.

Ban opt-out/mandatory filters
Put by: Joakal

Motion
To add to the Draft Platform, under 'No Censorship', under 'Internet Censorship', the following section:

"Deceptive 'voluntary' ISP Filters/Censorship

Clearly ban opt-out/mandatory filters imposed by ISPs."

Explanation
This is adapting to the evolving restriction of liberties by corporations in return for Labor government funding. This scheme is quite brilliant, making use of market forces to make unrestricted Internet ISPs exit the market.

Currently, people can look for fast unrestricted Internet subscriptions. With the government scheme, there's now cheap restricted Internet subscriptions, albeit slow. However, the next step is the NBN, which can very well state that companies wishing to resell NBN must have 'appropriate criminal content filters in place' to be eligible. Then the reality is expensive, slow, unrestricted Internet vs cheap, fast, restricted Internet.

This was extrapolated from UK's Internet censorship regime. The filtering framework is done 'voluntarily' by ISPs which the courts assumed power upon because the framework is there. The IWF group had been responsible for Wikipedia's temporary censorship from most of UK. The government requires ISPs to have appropriate criminal content filters in place to be eligible for some (if not all) government schemes.

To put it in layman terms, which would your parents want:

In legal terms, it's a hypothetical question whether the law is being broken, by making it explicit, it's clear that it's breaking the law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Legality_of_mandatory_filtering_for_users

Personally, I have no clear idea why the ISPs want to get involved in setting up an expensive framework just to ineffectively censor child pornography. Some theories are: iiNet trying to look like the good guy, there's some secret money/benefits stousch happening, they want to become content distributors so they want to restrict competition (no, not child porn! Eg AFL, etc), raising high barriers to entry, Hollywood taking over ISP shares, cisco getting involved again or some combination. I spent several months asking ISPs to assuage their public intentions. Some are either against it or they want to block child porn.

With no clear good reasons for the recent creepy developments, I feel that it requires an important law amendment to keep the playing field equal to ensure neutral ISPs.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nqfgd/to_any_posts_saying_rpolitics_is_too_overreactive/c3b4qv8

Charity and Non-profit transparency
The government shouldn't be the only one to have private access to over 600,000 [1] organisations. With Australians donating in blind faith towards non-profits, they are not aware of how efficient the dollar is with potentially high administration costs, high fundraising costs, and a low program cost. There's also criticism towards some organisations, namely Santitarium for having market advantage in not paying tax on company profits.

Therefore, Pirate Party Australia advocates such organisations' finances should be public.

Current
http://acnctaskforce.treasury.gov.au/content/content.aspx?doc=home.htm Australian Charities and Not-For-Profit Taskforce - Homepage

Research
http://www.philanthropy.org.au/involved/charities.html

www.charitynavigator.org

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/10/global-fund-transparency_n_860004.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Charities_and_Not-For-Profits_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_fraud

http://afr.com/f/free/markets/capital/cfo/cancer_council_nsw_wins_reporting_RRslaGWK9EpGMkjB95mAhJ Cancer Council NSW wins reporting gong

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp114/06_misuse.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitarium_Health_Food_Company#Tax_exemption

[1] Misuse of the non-profit sector for money laundering and terrorism financing

Personal note
Without any accounting background, I can't propose the above in confidence.

Polls transparency
In the name of transparency; the finances, donors and persons involved would be listed.

The aim is to combat potential corruption in the ranks as at least one person can disrupt the process, adversely damaging the brand.

However, this is by no means an attempt to make it mandatory. It's an option for current and potential think tanks that wish to be audited and clear about their interests.

Personal note
It's something of an option for people to request to ensure the integrity of pollsters, albeit a high standard is commanded of some polls. Without any accounting background, I can't propose the above in confidence.

Spreading Prefrential Democracy
The voters of countries with First Past The Post system can be disenfranchised since they are more likely to betray their favourite candidates in favour of two likely winners. It is in Pirate Party Australia's interests to see foreign countries with better representation.

We believe that country democracies should be able to expand beyond limited party representations to multi-party representations. Allowing competition and diversity.

Personal note
Some explanations:


 * [Is your Cat confused about the referendum on the alternative vote on the 5th May?]


 * [The Alternative Vote Explained]


 * [Duverger's Law]


 * [Hobson's choice]

I'm unsure about this.

Protest order

 * Allow protest leaders to delegate protest officers.


 * Due to the nature of rally and urgency, protest officer(s) should provide the same amount of identification as police officers. With the identification already pre-supplied.


 * Grant special powers to protest officer(s) to detain and hand over to the police within reasonable time.


 * All the above, is to be provided with the current/pending/granted protest permit application.

Definitions;


 * Protest Leader(s): One or more stated leaders of the protest/rally. They're points of contact. They have the same power as a Protest Officer.


 * Protest Organiser(s): Same as Protest Leader.


 * Demonstration Marshall(s): Delegated by Protest Leaders. They have limited detainment powers like the average person, but they are legally given detainment equipment by police or protest leader.

Personal note
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstration_marshal

It appears that some protests are being hijacked by both violent-seekers, agent provocateurs, disrupters, etc. Placing bystanders, property, etc, at risk. In the age of Internet and ease of recording activities, some protestors should be afforded extra powers. This is one policy that's designed to give more control to protest leaders over unruly elements during rallies and marches.

The identification part is a small attempt to discourage 'hiding behind badges' by expecting an appropriate standard of identification. It rarely happens in Australia, though. Consider this policy solidatory support to protests world-wide, that have the relative unfortunate heavy response from the actions of the few.

PPAU at the time is not receptive to granting powers to organisers as it can impose liability on organisers despite events beyond their control. As well, they state that there's often tensions and communication issues as several groups rally around one or more issues.

I'm unsure about this.

Royal Commission on federal police corruption
Pirate Party Australia is concerned that the same methods for copyright crackdowns are being take from tackling drugs. A royal commission would be required to ensure that the police are upheld to highest standards, taking into account evidence of failures and problems with certain policies.

Research
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/after-33-years-i-can-no-longer-ignore-the-evidence-on-drugs-20120606-1zwpr.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111003/12283916184/former-anti-piracy-investigator-explains-how-he-fed-police-cases-inflated-piracy-stats.shtml

Personal note
Generally something on my mind. I'm personally appalled that a federal police commission ignored evidence, damaging the brand of federal police.

Fair Go, No Attack ads
Pirate Party Australia believes attack ads create unhealthy emotional rhetoric with unconstructive attitudes towards a better future of peace. After all, Australia is not at war, neither is there only two sides of politics. We will instead ask people to: 1) put emotions aside and try to find the best candidate or party that would represent them. 2) consider researching the proposed policies as well as the past policies of the candidates and parties in their area.

Personal note
It was off the top of my head. Thinking about it.

Motions and submotions
Motion: To conduct a multiple submotion regarding Semi-Independent Motion. Until there's an implemented form of reliable direct democracy, this would serve in the meantime. Do note, that this isn't overridden, even if direct democracy was suddenly implemented a day after congress closure.

''Submotion rule: If at least two submotions in this motion meet required numbers, then the submotion with the highest tally of wins. In case of a tie, then this whole motion requires voting again except; if there was already two reiterations of this motion, then this motion fails.''


 * SubMotion 1 SubMotion: To add to the Draft Platform, the following section: "Beyond Pirate Party issues, Conscience vote Pirate Party wishes to clarify what will happen for representatives in power on issues on parliament votes beyond the policies listed. They are free to have a conscience vote on issues unrelated to Pirate Party. If there is any doubt, as to what relation or uncertainty a parliament proposal has with Pirate Party. Then a vote by the National Council is needed." Yes/No


 * SubMotion 2 SubMotion: To add to the Draft Platform, the following section: "Beyond Pirate Party issues, Abstain Pirate Party wishes to clarify what will happen for representatives in power on issues on parliament votes beyond the policies listed. They are required to abstain on issues unrelated to Pirate Party. If there is any doubt, as to what relation or uncertainty a parliament proposal has with Pirate Party. Then a vote by the National Council is needed." Yes/No


 * SubMotion 3 SubMotion: To add to the Draft Platform, the following section: "Beyond Pirate Party issues, National Council vote Pirate Party wishes to clarify what will happen for representatives in power on issues on parliament votes beyond the policies listed. They are required to follow the National Council on issues unrelated to Pirate Party. Yes/No

Yes/No

Personal notes
Note: I'm not using submotions.

This submotion thing is entirely new and untested. You can tell that it was written by a programmer. The reiteration limit is to prevent congress from being deadlocked, by the way. It can be flawed in that voters can purposely fail the highest motion by matching the votes with the next motion, causing it to fail. Overall, I don't like submotions. So, it's here for historical purposes for others who initially want to try submotions.

There's some issues with conscience vote and abstain one is that national council can override practically every vote. However, Labor and Liberals may also be secretly doing this in the form of conscience votes. Unless it's a major concern, I left out extra motions.

I do think that candidates must fully represent their voters. Hence this overall motion. Otherwise the stigma of being a 'single-issue party' is quite a valid notion. That's why this motion gives candidates the freedom to be more representative in their opinion. They could be more representative and gain more votes.

Please understand that this likely means having people in the people who campaign on issues you disagree with. Even if their campaign is different to other candidates from the same party, they would still vote on Pirate Party issues.

Royal Commission on 'National Security' reasons
Pirate Party Australia is concerned that the 'National Security' has been touted publicly, and lightly, on non-sensitive matters such as the government NBN Co tender seeking. A royal commission would be required to ensure that use of reasons pertaining to the national security are reasonable.

Research
http://delimiter.com.au/2012/07/03/national-security-nbn-co-blocks-huawei-foi

Personal note
Generally something on my mind after being sceptical with the NBN Co and government blocking Huawei. I think there may be some more dubious uses of 'National Security' for avoiding transparency.