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.

Read More

Below is Pirate Party Australia’s response to the Attorney-General’s Draft Terms of Reference for the ALRC Copyright Review.

Introduction

Pirate Party Australia is part of an international political movement that promotes the reform of copyright, right to privacy, freedom of expression, and the need for increased governmental transparency, as well as civil and digital liberties in general. Currently there are Pirate Parties registered in twenty countries, including Canada, Germany, Sweden and Spain (as well as four US States), with estimates of up to twenty-four additional unregistered parties that have formed.

Read More

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.”

Read More

Pirate Party Australia are disgusted at reports that the United States plans to cancel the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) stakeholder programme[1].

The Party gave a presentation at a stakeholder’s meeting in Melbourne last month, where they criticised the lack of transparency surrounding the TPPA negotiations, as well as the effect it would have on access to pharmaceuticals in developing nations[2].

“The stakeholders meeting in the Melbourne round was only possible thanks to leaks from concerned negotiators. It was still a puzzle to even know what exactly we were arguing against,” said Simon Frew, Deputy President of Pirate Party Australia.

“This further attack on involvement of civil society exemplifies US belligerence against the citizens of the participating countries. All of the US negotiating positions are wet dreams of Hollywood, the pharmaceutical industry, and a handful of major US corporations who will be the only beneficiaries of this further move toward secrecy.”

Read More

Pirate Party Australia is bemused by the remarks of Senator Steven Conroy, Communications Minister, who recently remarked that he sees “a very positive outcome” for the future of Internet censorship in Australia[1].

Senator Conroy’s remarks come at a time when Australia’s telecommunications industry has become increasingly cautious of publicly commenting on any of the current regulatory issues being addressed, particularly any preliminary results from the Interpol filter testing underway by Optus, Telstra and a few smaller ISPs.

The Party maintains their stance that there should be no requirement to filter the Internet, but that families and private network operators should be given information on how to install client-end filters if necessary. They also reiterate the technical flaws that filtering has, particularly the ease with which it can be circumvented[2].

Read More