[LINK] It's Queensland - (sorry to Qlders)

Wed May 18 18:06:55 AEST 2011

What's your source for "crime is on the way down" Tom?

----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Koltai <tomk at unwired.com.au>
> To: link at anu.edu.au
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 5:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [LINK] It's Queensland - (sorry to Qlders)
> 
> 
> 
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
>>  [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Ash Nallawalla
>>  Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2011 3:29 PM
>>  To: link at anu.edu.au
>>  Subject: Re: [LINK] It's Queensland - (sorry to Qlders)
>> 
>> 
>>  If the Queensland Police continue to think in that vein, then 
>>  anyone watching a YouTube video taken from a copyright source 
>>  is likely to be arrested. They should be cutting their teeth 
>>  checking out the $5 big-brand software sold at swap meets 
>>  across the country, where the buyers are "knowingly" 
>>  receiving stolen goods.
>> 
>>  Ash
>> 
> <SNIP>
> The social networking, IM and global aspect of the internet combined, is
> in fact reducing crimes against persons, and crimes against property.
> Crime is on the way down. Unless the Police find new crimes to
> prosecute, they'll be out of business. Therefore even if they don't find
> Ben Grubb guilty of anything, there will be a precedent somewhere in
> there that they can use elsewhere to justify increases in funding and
> expansion of powers.
> 
> This is the truism first defined by Darwin.
> Police forces are no different to any other organism.
> They have to survive and grow, or else shrivel and die.
> Whilst we are at the moment experiencing a dramatic drop in the actual
> real crime... There is a valid argument that unless Police can be
> integrated into the new IT economy they will not be there when actually
> needed.
> 
> In 2009, QLD police were involved in training on P2P interception
> methods [TOR/Onion] with the FBI in an attempt to be able to track
> undesirables. Unless we allow themn to play with journalists and
> Facebook privacy, they'll want to play with other toys like AUSCERT.
> Actually, there is an argument that a new breed of policeman needs to be
> trained in IT. 
> The policeman that won't stand by idly when a pishing attack is
> occurring, or when questionable content is discovered and reported by a
> member of the public.
> 
> I think Ben is the "lucky" chosen one because his case, as ridiculous 
> as
> it is will obtain a ton of publicity resulting in eventual retasking
> requiring training and additional funding.
> 
> The case may also force policy makers to address such issues as Facebook
> Servers located overseas and breach of privacy (threat) to Australian
> nationals caused by persons or organisations not resident in Australia.
> 
> The concept of "stealing" a photo that was posted to a Facebook 
> account
> is fascinating. Zuckerberg has about faced a number of times on Privacy
> issues and Private Friends Only flag has been treated rather
> haphazardly, therefore I would suggest that Ben's defence would be that
> at some time in the past all Facebook content was in the Public Domain
> and that Mark Zuckerberg is at fault.
> 
> On that basis, I guess it would then be incumbent on the QLD police to
> obtain a determination through proceedings in a court. [See  55A below.]
> Which of course may even result in a penalty of some sort for Mark
> Zuckerberg for breaching the provisions of the privacy act.
> 
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1988108/
> Quote/
> PART III--INFORMATION PRIVACY
> 13.     Interferences with privacy  
> 13A.    Interferences with privacy by organisations  
> 13B.    Related bodies corporate 
> 13D.    Overseas act required by foreign law  
> 
> And
> 
> Division 3--Enforcement
> 
> 54.     Application of Division  
> 55.     Obligations of respondent organisation  
> 55A.    Proceedings in the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court to
> enforce a determination  
> 
> And
> 
> PART VI--PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATIONS AND TEMPORARY PUBLIC INTEREST
> DETERMINATIONS
> 
> Division 1--Public interest determinations
> 
> 71.     Interpretation  
> 72.     Power to make, and effect of, determinations  
> 73.     Application by agency or organisation  
> /Quote
> And
> 
> http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/59.%20Access%20and%20Correction,%20C
> omplaint%20Handling%20and%20Penalties/penalties
> Quote/
> Discussion Paper proposals
> 
> 59.165 In DP 72, the ALRC proposed that the Privacy Act be amended to
> allow a civil penalty to be imposed where there is a serious or repeated
> interference with the privacy of an individual. The ALRC also proposed
> that the OPC develop and publish enforcement guidelines setting out the
> criteria upon which a decision to pursue a civil penalty is made.[194]
> ...
> 
> 59.171 The ALRC understands that no prosecutions have ever been launched
> under the credit reporting offence provisions. At least some of the
> relevant conduct is covered, in any case, by other offences under
> Commonwealth legislation. The Criminal Code, for example, creates an
> offence in respect to unauthorised access to, or modification of, data
> held in a computer to which access is restricted.[201]
> 
> 59.172 Since the enactment of the credit reporting provisions, civil
> penalty regimes have become a more common means to enforce consumer
> protection laws including, for example, under the financial services
> civil penalty provisions of the Corporations Act[202] and the uniform
> Consumer Credit Code.[203] The ALRC considers that a civil penalty
> regime is a more appropriate enforcement mechanism for breaches of
> credit reporting regulation than the suite of criminal offences
> currently provided for in the Act.
> 
> 59.173 In Chapter 54, the ALRC recommends that credit reporting agencies
> and credit providers, in consultation with consumer groups and
> regulators, including the OPC, develop a credit reporting code.[204] It
> may be desirable for this code to provide for penalties, imposed by
> contract, for breach of the regulations or the code itself. Sanctions
> for non-compliance, such as suspension or expulsion from the credit
> reporting system, may raise competition issues and require authorisation
> by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
> 
> Recommendation 59-9 The Privacy Act should be amended to remove the
> credit reporting offences and allow a civil penalty to be imposed as
> provided for by Recommendation 50-2. /Quote
> 
> An intereseting precedent creating incident.
> 
> /body
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>