Australia passes security law, raising fears for press freedom

Australia passes security law, raising fears for press freedom

When you are at war with religious fanatics that holds zero regard for human life all bets are off the table.

Time to hunt them down no matter where they hide.

I don't see why these laws are needed. People with access to classified information generally have to swear oaths and sign statements that make them punishable by the government. This kind of action just gives ammunition to countries that actually hate freedom of the press.

the balance between freedom and security “may have to shift”

... this sort of statement always boggles my mind. Some radicals just threatened to kill one (count it, ONE!) Aussie citizen, and they're leveraging this into a justification for removing the freedoms of millions.

Let's test this logic. Alcohol kills over 5000 Australians every year. It is a far more real and demonstrable risk to the lives of Australian citizens than fear-mongering over terrorism. Over 1,190 people die a year from car accidents, this is also a real risk.

Yet you don't see the Australian government implementing limits on drinking, or putting in more mass transit systems to limit driving. The safety issue is a smoke-screen.

Face it, the only "safety" risk here is the risk to the safety of citizens posed by their own government and the risk to the democratic system that threatens the ability of the elites to do what they like, when they like.

We have visible proof (courtesy of Saint Snowden, patron saint of giving the finger to corrupt and despotic governments) that when secrecy prevails governments DO abuse that power to perpetrate atrocities in the name of their people that just INCREASE the risks, and thereby create a situation where more safety fears can be drummed up and more secrecy measures can be implements ... until eventually you're going to be presented with a blank ballot paper and just told to mark anywhere because the candidates are secret because they might be at risk from terrorists, and the government will choose who won the election.

Frankly we're rushing towards a dystopian future so fast that I find it frankly terrifying... mostly because there seems to be a vocal portion of the population who seem to believe it is actually a good thing!!

Frankly we're rushing towards a dystopian future so fast that I find it frankly terrifying... mostly because there seems to be a vocal portion of the population who seem to believe it is actually a good thing!!

Tin-foil hat much? The only "good" thing about the Manning and Snowden leaks is they proved is that there isn't widespread abuse of surveillance technology, and when there is the perpetrators are typically punished; and that there is legislative, executive and judicial oversight.

And as far as spying on foreign nations, those foreign nationals, for instance Germans in Germany or Brazilians in Brazil, have no rights no to be spied on by other nations. For example American rights only protect foreign nationals when on American soil, and it's Germany's job to protect their own citizens from foreign spying.

Stealing National security information and give it away to enemy via news media is nothing to do with freedom of press. Peoples like Snowden should be locking up for life.

Snowden did not have ownership of or permission to distribute the information he sent out.

Sure, there can be tidbits of info he passed out that people might disagree with. Ambassador conversations on various topics, etc. That's not a valid basis to say public should see everything. It wasn't Snowden's call to say what the public gets to see from that.

Chinese hooked up vacuum cleaners to US military programs and now have stealth fighters in prototype models. How many people outside China and Russia happy about that? One rule for Snowden, different rule for China?

I wonder where he'll end his days.

So. Austrailia is becoming the new America in terms of systematic government over the rights of it's citizens. Good to know! Freedom is the opposite of Security. It sets a dangerous precedent, that is for certain. I wonder if this could eventually evolve into a isolationist policy?

Steven C. SchulzOct. 02, 2014 - 03:30AM JST Tin-foil hat much? The only "good" thing about the Manning and Snowden leaks is they proved is that there isn't widespread abuse of surveillance technology, and when there is the perpetrators are typically punished; and that there is legislative, executive and judicial oversight.

... obviously the version of what Snowden released that YOU saw was already censored. He blew the lid on global surveillance programs that spied on friendly governments, targeted innocent civilians, and even spying on US citizens ... which the US President and CIA strongly denied and denied and denied - until it was proved that they were actually spying on US citizens... at which point the traitors were dragged away to ... oh, wait, nothing happened. A few token resignations but no actual prison time despite the CIA's actions being clearly illegal and against the US constitution, and by all accounts the spying continues to this day.

I don't blame you for being uninformed, clearly you're operating from inside a police state and don't know what's going on.

I don't blame you for being uninformed, clearly you're operating from inside a police state and don't know what's going on.

A true state would do a better job hiding it, or be so confident in its power everything would be in the open.

While I didn't view the leaks myself, because I don't give time or hearing to the traitors Manning and Snowden, from the news I did read, everything done was permitted by FISA and the Patriot Act, with continued oversight by the Senate, House and Executive. And when breaches were found overstepping the NSAs mandate, they were dealt with, if quietly.

And this may be a surprse, but neither FISA or the Patriot Act have been proscribed by the Supreme Court, the only body that has the right to determine constitutionality, not you nor me.

I don't blame you for being uninformed, clearly you're operating from inside a police state and don't know what's going on.

Frungy, I don't always disagree with you but on this... (facepalm). We have access to the BBC, Al Jazeera, CCTV, JapanToday, you name it, in the United States. How exactly does this make it a police state? All that was revealed w.r.t. US citizens is that they monitor communications with foreign nationals. And the Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional. I rarely agree with them, but they are the only ones that can order the "traitors" to be dragged away.

Steven C. SchulzOct. 02, 2014 - 11:58AM JST

I don't blame you for being uninformed, clearly you're operating from inside a police state and don't know what's going on.

A true state would do a better job hiding it, or be so confident in its power everything would be in the open.

... so someone gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar and you turn away saying, "Oh, that can't be happening, they wouldn't be so careless as to get caught.".

0 Good Bad

scipantheistOct. 02, 2014 - 02:13PM JST

I don't blame you for being uninformed, clearly you're operating from inside a police state and don't know what's going on.

Frungy, I don't always disagree with you but on this... (facepalm). We have access to the BBC, Al Jazeera, CCTV, JapanToday, you name it, in the United States. How exactly does this make it a police state?

The patriot act makes the US a police state. The fact that your politicians and public servants can lie to the public and face no reprecussions makes it a police state. The fact that Snowden is being persecuted for releasing information that is so painfully obviously covered by "free speech" makes it a police state.

All that was revealed w.r.t. US citizens is that they monitor communications with foreign nationals.

... so with access to all this news you still get the wrong information. They were also monitoring communications between US citizens. Perhaps you should re-read what you think you know.

And the Supreme Court decides what is unconstitutional. I rarely agree with them, but they are the only ones that can order the "traitors" to be dragged away.

If the US Supreme Court was politically neutral they would have been dragged away, and the Patriot Act ruled unlawful. When your highest court has so clearly been subverted ... you're living in a police state.

We'll life certainly is cheary in this police state: haven't seen a single cop all morning.

scipantheistOct. 02, 2014 - 11:40PM JST We'll life certainly is cheary in this police state: haven't seen a single cop all morning.

Why would they need to be out in the open when they can quite comfortably monitor your every activity through your cellphone's GPS data, your texts, your emails, your credit card transactions, your ISP, etc.

I realise you were being flippant, but I don't think most people realise just how much surveillance is "gray zone" (i.e. not legally prohibited by old and outdated wiretap laws).

most knee jerk reactions are what the name implies- knee jerk subconscious reactions. they mean people are not thinking. i remain bothered by the memories of police barging there ways into homes after the boston bombings without search warrants supposedly to protect people but treating everyone like a suspect.

a whole city

we are as a people across all our nations giving up our privacy, our freedom all for a false sense of security

The patriot act makes the US a police state. The fact that your politicians and public servants can lie to the public and face no reprecussions makes it a police state. The fact that Snowden is being persecuted for releasing information that is so painfully obviously covered by "free speech" makes it a police state.

Actually it does not. If the US were a police state, then we wouldn't be able to have free speech, nor go where we please, have the choices we have. Politicians lying doesn't have anything to do with stifling personal freedoms. Politicians have been lying to the public since the Days of Rome. What Snowden did was break the law and should be in jail or prosecuted. Trying to equate what The Austaralian press is doing and comparing it to the Patriot act is comparing apples and oranges.