Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Smoke from what seems a number of small Eucalyptus bushfires rise behind a hill crested with Australia's iconic tree.

Fire in the Meehan Range, north-east of Hobart. 6th March, 2013.

The national broadcaster admits they can’t be trusted, ‘The Mockery’ also tell us how they can’t be trusted, as do both propaganda arms of the ‘”Northern” Rebel “‘Alliance’ (scum)”‘.

The Government have gone on vacation and neither the Department of Premier And Cabinet or the Governor are talking.

With all the courts untrustworthy and no alerts on why Parliament has vanished, at least someone’s noticed a problem with the law.

Just by the side. The idea of an ‘ssl_error_rx_record_too_long Express’ is plain weird and why they’d drive it in to Tasmanian Times anyway glad Tas Police got called to the scene.

Tas Firesigh after how many years, you still the only one for me ‘coz you so… dirty! x

Monarchists note the Crown continues to work and Republicans hope.

Read Full Post »

Followers of IT in Australia may recall in June 2011  it was reported by Crikey.com.au that a staffer at ABC Australia placed some code on an ABC server to mine bitcoins.

Back then, as Fairfax’s Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time, ‘ABC’s head of corporate communications, Sandy Culkoff, said that the ABC would not comment on IT security matters however “there is a serious misconduct case underway in relation to this matter”

During Australian Senate Estimates in February 2012, Senator Abetz asked ABC Australia a number of questions about the incident. This revealed the incident was not a case of someone attempting to use corporate CPU time for their own advantage, but instead use visitors computers without their knowledge.

To answer Delimiter’s question from last year, this would most likely place the actions of the ABC staffer in the class of ‘petty criminal‘ under section 478 of the Australian Cybercrime Act. Today, the answers to the questions from May 2012 have arrived and it once again raises the question whether the ABC’s board are guilty under section 477 of the act – the more serious computer crime.

The ABC will be telling parliament they’ve destroyed logs. The actual quote is “The ABC did not retain the server log files for that period” which leads to wondering how long the ABC maintain their logs and why possible evidence of a ‘serious misconduct case’, or even that of a possible criminal act, has vanished. They will be telling parliament that no record was kept of the offending code “The ABC did not retain the Bitcoin code.” They will also be telling parliament that a conscious decision was made to keep notification of trying to impair computers away from the public: “There was no ABC news coverage of this matter” (this is at direct odds to my recollection of coverage at the time, but I would agree that it would seem there are no references to this incident on the ABC’s own website as of today). The ABC have previously claimed that they “ha(d) not received any complaints from audience members as a result of this Bitcoin code.”  The ABC believes that it’s not for them to tell the public when their staff members attempt to execute unauthorised code on your computer: “The ABC considered that it would be contrary to good security policy to publish any information about breaches of site security as this could reward and encourage hackers.

This is not someone attacking the ABC’s site, this is an ABC staff member attacking external computers. The ABC have decided to show no one – not the public, not AusCERT, certainly not the Federal Police – any details. If you were visiting their website and your web browser did have performance issues at the time, they certainly haven’t put their hand up to say ‘Oh sorry it might’ve been us’. Instead, they’ve hidden, obfuscated and deleted data. To say that such behaviour reminds me of the genesis of reports on the News International phone hacking scandal would be an understatement. Maybe we should expect more of this behaviour from ‘our’ ABC in the future. In the context of the push by the current Australian government’s attempts at data retention, one can’t help but also think that parliament is putting the horse before the cart. It’s time enough for Australia to have mandatory disclosure laws about data breaches. I hope that scenarios such as the ‘ABC Bitcoin Incident’ will be included in the types of data breaches requiring mandatory disclosure.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Choose no life. Choose no career. Choose no family. Choose a fucking small computer, choose disk arrays the size of fingernails, WIFI keys, 3G MicroSIMs and electrical coffee makers. Choose no sleep, high caffeine and mental insurance. Choose no friends. Choose black jeans and matching combat boots. Choose chairs for your office in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose LAMP and wondering why the fuck you are logged in on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting in that swivel chair looking at mind-numbing, spirit-crushing websites, stuffing fucking junk food in your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in some miserable social network, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up lusers Jobs spawned to replace the computer-literate.

Choose your future. Choose to #smeg

(based on a Jonathan H N Chin <jc254@newton.cam.ac.uk> interpretation of an original usenet post by Gary Barnes <gkb@bofh.org.uk>)

Read Full Post »

Dear Sir,

I’m curious about the number of violations of Electoral Act Section 191 that may have taken place in the past few weeks. From my own brief observation, that is to say less than 30 seconds, it would seem clear that major Hobart online news outlets and at least one major party candidate have been in breach of the law for the entire campaign for the Tasmanian upper house seat of Elwick. As S191 received a reasonable amount of attention during the State campaign, it would be hard for a major party to argue one isn’t aware of its existence. I further find it hard to imagine that this law is any less relevant during a mere singular upper house election.

If there were as many unauthorised newsprint, roadside and pamphlets carrying unauthorised commentary as there are online unauthorised commentary, I have no doubt there would be demands that intentions should be clarified for when the law would be enforced. One can only have confidence in law enforcement if the law is enforced fair and evenly. It is disturbing trend seeing the Electoral Commission treating the online community as second class citizens with poorly worded, illogical information and little or no feedback.

Regards,

Peter Lawler.

Read Full Post »

Blink and you’d miss it, but unionist Tim Jacobson, Greens advisor Kartika Franks and Mayor Adriana Taylor are currently contesting a Tasmanian upper-house seat. As usual, interesting to note who has and who hasn’t complied with the Tasmanian Electoral Act as well as who doesn’t meet basic accessibility. The ultimate irony being the Commission’s own failure to meet basic accessibility.

For the record, I suspect I’ve written a great number of tweets that may not have been Authorised. Not living in an electorate that’s now at the polls lead to a situation where I was blissfully unaware I may have broken the law. Is this a case for a unicameral system? I have no idea. I do know if the Commissioner wants to stop me, he should already know where I live. He’s got my name and address on his electoral roll.

For the blood and gore, there’s Antony Green‘s blog about the contest for Elwick.

Read Full Post »

Now there’s clear difference of opinion with candidates on S191, the definition of ‘Electoral Matter‘ is far more important. Seeking legal advice before blogging again.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »