[LINK] itNews: 'Aust Govt defends against attacks on ACTA'

[Brendan]

On 03/20/2012 09:08 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> [According to the usually reliable reporter below, DFAT says ACTA 
> would not infringe people's civil liberties, the freedom of the 
> Internet or require ISPs to monitor activities of individuals.
> 
> [I've not done the hard yards of analysing the long series of drafts, 
> let alone whatever the current iteration is.  But my impression was 
> the *opposite* of what DFAT says.
> 
> [Have I suckered for anti-ACTA propaganda, or do we have public 
> servants who lie through their teeth?]

Most of the bad stuff in ACTA is already in our CR Act thanks to the AUSFTA.  The IP provisions in the AUSFTA were separately repudiated by bipartisan parliamentary committees of both the upper and lower houses.  

That said, not requiring new law and not infringing civil liberties are two different concepts.  Stealing children from Aborigines didn't require "new" laws.  It would still have been wrong to ratify an international law which entrenched the practice.    


Brendan