The New Children Overboard

The Howard government was long mired after the truth came out about the “children overboard” scandal. No children were thrown overboard. But just the mere thought of it shocked and disgusted a nation. It was chilling to think responsible adults, who are meant to care and look after their children, were risking the life of their child for their own selfish purpose. It was outrage at deliberate, dangerous actions that were morally wrong. In light of the Human Rights Commission’s report into children in detention, no wonder the Abbott government is coming out so scathing against the head of the report, Gillian Triggs. The government has been called out for the inhumane actions it has created and funding. Taking deliberate, dangerous acts that are morally wrong, to serve its own selfish purpose of scoring political points.

Every Liberal and conservative politician and columnist, including Malcolm Turnbull on QandA, dodges and tries to muddy the issue with Labor’s legacy, the numbers of ‘thousands’ of children in detention, and the ‘political motivation’ of Triggs. Some quick facts for them.

1. Yes, more boats came under Labor than Liberal. Though the problem has just moved offshore. Australia is accepting less refugees than it previously did, and refugees are dying in poorly run camps overseas or being exploited via other means (trafficked elsewhere). No lives are being saved under this policy. 

2. Yes, at it’s peak Labor had 2000 children in detention. On average they were processed and released within 7 months. The current children incarcerated have been detained for more than a year, with no clear date of release. The current policy allows for infinite detention of children.

3. The report equally blames Labor for the abuses against children conduct while it was in office (it also released multiple reports during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years). This more serious investigative report was commissioned because of the worsening conditions, and changes of policy that on paper, are indicative of Human Rights violations.  The investigation started under Labor, and continued under the new Liberal Abbott government, amended previous Labor policy.

Discussing numbers and the important changes that the Liberal party are making is just a tactic to avoid the issue at hand. No one within the Liberal party has outlined what they’re doing to stop the abuses occurring to children within the camps, or to improve conditions. No one has even denied the issue, as Scott Morrison did for months and months. This government has had the report since October, and have chosen to release it at the last opportunity possible and discredit it as much as possible. The current policy of indefinitely detaining children that are within state care (they’re locked up, not free to go), reducing media and independent oversight to almost nothing and purposely creating a harsh and depressive prison environment as a ‘deterrent’, is the calculated doings on the current government.

Australia was shocked at the thought of people throwing children overboard to save themselves. Here the Abbott government are throwing children into inhumane jails and camps and not releasing or processing them. Why? To save themselves from the wrath of the electorate, and fulfil under ANY means necessary the promise to have stopped every single boat.

A defence to the 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms.

For Freedom! -  Source: Flickr

a political opinion has always had a strong view against the 2nd Constitutional Amendment Right in the United States. Yet here we will try and analyse a reasonable justification (yes that's correct!) for keeping the second amendment. This is because there is some reason for the right to bear arms, on the basis of self defence.

The argument that will be analysed is:

"The right to bear arms ensures the natural rights of self-defence, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defiance of the state" 

So, here it goes. 

Premise: We have a right to defend ourselves from others and the state. 

To defend yourself from others seems like a reasonable justification. If others attack, you have a right to self defence. While the law of self defence has changed substantially through the ages, most modern notions of self defence are based on the actions of defence being proportional to the threat. That means if someone threatens to fling a banana skin at you, you can't pull out a rocket launcher and blow them to smithereens. Laws already limit the use of the 2nd Amendment right to make sure it is used only in proportional circumstances, otherwise a punishment will be given. But the government doesn't allow for the ownership of nuclear or chemical weaponry. This is because these kind of weapons would never be able to be successfully proportionally used against the threat of others.

So far then we can say that personal weaponry (like small arms) is useful in defending yourself against others. 

What about defending yourself against your government? Well, as much as gun enthusiasts love to tote about how they can keep the government to account through the barrel of their gun, the governments vastly superior army, military, technology and resources will always, always win. 

A massive problem: There is thus an inequality in what arms can be owned.

Because the government already restricts to a significant degree what kind of weaponry may be owned,  the right for the average American citizen to defend themselves from the wrath of the almighty government is useless, unless the state allows citizens to own weapons of the same grade as the state. 

Conclusion

The state may grant you a 'right' to defend yourself from others and from the state (which it then prevents you from doing so by means of other laws). The right to bear arms in your defence can include hitting your opponent with the arms of a stuffed dead bear, or a weapon that fires metal bullets at hundreds of km an hour.

Your right to bear arms is just an extension of your right to self defence by any proportional means necessary.

*** Note: This blog does not endorse the US 2nd Amendment Right: The Right to Bear Arms. 

The right of religions to discriminate

Labor's new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which is currently in front of a Senate inquiry, is causing a stir within some circles. I say a few, because it's not really front page stuff. Religions have discriminated against particular groups for centuries, and even the most progressive churches still discriminate. (You can't be an Anglican bishop without first being Anglican!). Though what has become an issue, is whether the government is justified in securing the right of religious organisations to discriminate when it comes to services they provide, like hospitals and schools.

It is well known that most religions organisations don't recognise, respect or tollerate certain practices; from homosexuality to unmarried couples. Often these groups that are marginalised become (or already are) secular or atheist because of this. Though there are some who wish to identify with a particular religion, despite not being fully accepted by their chosen religious organisation. There are many reasons as to why this occurs, yet the main rational is because they personally get a tangible benefit from identifying with that faith. Be it a good feeling that they will have an eternal life, or the comfort of being accepted within a particular community. Religion brings a benefit to people who subscribe to it.

But that benefit is severely diminished when the value that is placed upon particular practices and beleifs, is erroded by the state or others. The Australian constitution protects freedom of religion. That allows individuals to freely associate with religions of their choice and not be discriminated against because of that, but it also allows religious organisations to operate independently from the rules of a secular state. Most often this is held to mean they don't pay tax. But it is much more. Religious organisations don't have to subscribe to a particular organisational structure like a public company does. Nor are they required to change their belief from creationism to evolution because the state doesn't believe in it. This freedom enables religious organisations to run themselves in the way they and their members see fit, not the public or secular government. Just because the state believes discrimination is abhorrent, does not mean it can impose that value on a religion.

People of similar faith congregate around each other for a 'shared' experience. They get meaning and benefit from existing in such a close and similar community. Religions that discriminate, actively choose to do so because that is (typically) what the majority of the congregation want. If the majority of members of the Catholic church accepted the notion of abortion, they would not excommunicate members who receive one. While not completely approving of it, most of the Catholic church has stopped excommunicating members who get divorced. (It was a bad retention strategy.) Some Anglican churches have 'gay only' services that particularly target gay Christians. Why? Because that is what the Church as a whole wants. Religion morphs over time and some faiths modernise, others don't. What's most important is that the ones that don't still bring value to the people who believe in such orthodox faiths. The 'purity' of their religion comes not from just being able to exclude those who are divorced, gay, or had an abortion, but those from other faiths, those who don't truly follow their practices. And this is why for religion, discrimination is is a tool that enables practice.

As a free citizen, you have no right to access a religion. You may choose your faith, but you have no right to demand access to your faiths organisation. As a Christian, you can't walk into a Synagog and demand a Rabbi give you a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. They wouldn't allow it on religious grounds. It would be against teachings, current orthodoxy or because its members find it disrespectful and 'immoral'. It doesn't matter if this was something of your choosing or not, because the rest of the church's religious practice is harmed. If you disagree with their religious view, change the church you attend, change that organisation and it's members viewpoint, or start your own religion (hello Church of England). It is completely within the rights of a religious organisation to discriminate against certain people, so they can actually provide the religious benefits that its members want. The government shouldn't shy away from defending this right to discriminate. Otherwise churches, religious ceremonies and certain practices just become "acts for hire" by members of the public who want to gawk at people in funny costumes.

When it comes to a religion discriminating against an individual for a "public services" they want, it becomes a trickier issue. A religious organisation which receives public funds to run a service, such as a school or hospital, should not be able to discriminate on who they hire or who they let in the front door. Government funds come from an assumed secular source, the taxpayer. The funds are not there to help provide better services to one religion, but to any citizen who may wish to access those services. Funds that are raised privately by churches are for the sole purpose of assisting those they wish to assist, mainly those who are interested in their faith. It is perfectly acceptable for a privately run religious school to deny homosexual teachers from working there, as it is to bar non religious students from going to that school.

It sounds horrible if you are in that minority. And most people are, as you can't be part of every faith. Yet those with such strong strong beliefs who want to bar and discriminate so as to guard their faith and its practices, need to be protected. For some this is done by not having a gay priest. For others it's not having a sinner in the pews. Those who wish to access a special religious social service, like a Catholic hospital or Islamic school, do it for a religious reason. They want their child to be taught a certain way, they want a particular kind of care, or only want to be surrounded by certain people. If that's their wish, they or their church can pay and provide for that particular religious service. They pay for a service that comes with a complimentary sermon. As for everyone else who is considered a minority, there are many local secular government services provided, from hospitals to community housing. So let those with a strong faith live and receive their services as they wish.


Links: 
Gillard's bizarre act of faith leaves vulnerable unprotected - National Times
Anti-gay rights to stay - Sydney Morning Herald
Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012: Explanatory Notes - Attorney Generals Department

Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier to!

The US has long struggled to pass meaningful law reform on gun control and ownership. If it hasn't been the National Rifle Association (NRA) watering down policy, it has been the Supreme Court overruling it but upholding the second amendment of the constitution. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting has inspired many on Capitol Hill to modify existing laws. While some political pundits and commentators are optimistic that the small progress that can be made now will set a trend for more discussion and policy in the future, there isn't much to be optimistic about. Passing small, watered down and compromised policy in the aftermath of an unparallelled national tragedy, only raises the bar for when policy discussion can occur again. It just affirms that policy will only ever follow after tragedy.

Joe Biden's "there is no silver bullet" approach (ignoring the politically incorrect pun), does have some merit. Yet in attempting to be holistic, it has become sidetracked with issues not directly related to gun violence and gun control. There is degree of dissent amongst experts and social scientists regarding the link between violent videogames and gun violence. Regardless of the link, current laws are too lax at preventing children from being exposed and participating in videogame violence. Though it really is skirting around the main issue of gun control when almost anyone is able to access a gun in the first place, because the NRA and other lobby groups have severely limited the ability of Congress to pass laws to restrict or even control sales.

The NRA is really clutching at straws trying to defend the right of US citizens to bear arms. Sadly though, their pathetic catch phrases and argumentation work.

"...this task force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners – honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans"

Given that the NRA lobbied to put a clause in Obama's healthcare reform policy that prevented the US government from collecting data on gun ownership, can we verify this claim? When 40% of gun sales in the US occur without background checks, how do we know these people pay taxes, are hardworking, or are even honest enough to say who they really are? It's a desperate attempt by the NRA hide reality with meaningless rhetoric.

Even when the NRA doesn't cry out against gun reform, many US citizens do, claiming they have a right to protect themselves and their families. I couldn't agree more with them. But I strongly disagree in their desired method of how they want to defend themselves. Let's say you want a gun to protect yourself from a home intruder. A gun is both a very big threat to that intruder, and it can be used to stop someone from breaking into your house and hurting you. All you need is gun with 4 or less bullets, depending on how bad your aim is and how many people you're expecting to try and break into your house. But an assault weapon with an extended clip of more than 100 bullets isn't needed to ward off your local burglar. That's the kind of weapon used to take on the FBI, SWAT or US Army. So in that circumstance you're not really wanting a gun to protect your family, but you're looking for a mass killing machine that will allow you to overpower anyone or anything that comes in your way. That's not self defence, but mass murder.

The mantra of "self defence"and "protection" by the NRA, gun lobby groups and gun toting citizens really doesn't lend much weight to their claim for gun ownership. It is a mantra to have more police officers, more home security, a right to have personal panic rooms and to sleep with a baseball bat beside your bed. You may have a right to defend yourself from a burglar or random aggressor walking down the street, but you do not have a right to kill them. And what's a gun really for? It's not a tazor gun which incapacitates, or baton which can ward off and injure someone, or pepper spray which causes temporary blindness. It's a contraption that shoots small metal balls at high speeds, designed to kill a target. It's not a defensive weapon. Even if it is, there are better alternatives available, eliminating the right for US citizens to "bear arms", but to now use more sophisticated personal defence devices. And that is a discussion the NRA really doesn't want anyone to have.

Links: 
How the Video-Game Industry Already Lost Out in the Gun-Control Debate - The Atlantic
Joe Biden Gun Control Recommendations: Background Checks To Be Top Priority - Huffington Post
Joe Biden meets games companies as gun control taskforce readies proposals - The Guardian
White House has 'agenda to attack the second amendment', says NRA - The Guardian

Anonymity is a necessary part of democracy

A New Yorker cartoon from 1993

Comment boxes at the end of online articles are the norm these days. The ability for the reader to fill out a short form and then tap away their thoughts before posting it to the author and the world, is only a few clicks away. It is democracy in action. It is an open relationship. The author can not sit on his or her high podium and dictate to all who reads, what is important and what isn't. If so, with the plethora of online media, people will be very quick to change. But through spam, vitriol, and often straight out bullying and libel, online comment boxes can become quite an unpleasant place that ruins the experience and democratic process for all involved. Though in no way should a few bad eggs ruin the benefits of online anonymity for everyone. Being anonymous is a right that may not be explicitly enshrined in the constitution or a bill of rights (to which we don't have), yet it is practised extensively throughout Australian society.

Being able to be anonymous empowers the individual. It gives them the ability to speak their mind without the cost of consequence and repercussions. Free speech is the first step. Being able to speak out on political and social issues is critical to the functioning of an effective society. Though while Australia isn't a dictatorial country that limits free speech, there are still consequences for speaking out on issues. This can be referred to as the "cost" of speech and opinion.  Standing up at a rally with a megaphone and blurting out your thoughts brands you and your identity with the words that come out of your mouth. At that point in time you choose to associate your "brand", - your face, voice and attitude - with a cause that you believe in. Though 20 minutes to 20 years later  you may not want to be associated with that same protest. People build up perceptions and prejudices about you because of your participation in that event. Their viewpoint of you, being either positive or negative, changes. This is the "cost"; people have perceptions about you and your "brand". The only way to change and remove that cost, is to change your identity and your "brand". Of course, try changing the perceptions that have been built up in peoples minds; like BP being an environmentally conscientious company for instance.

In comparison, Aung San Su Chi choses to associate herself, her identity and her "brand", to the cause of democracy and liberty in Burma.  However many of her supporters who made statements to western media just before she was released, chose to be anonymous. They chose not to forever brand themselves with her identity for fear of persecution. In Australia, persecution doesn't always come at the end of a gun. It can be a look, comment or vibe you get from a friend, passer by, or even your boss. It doesn't have to be overt. Surprisingly enough, these judgements don't even need to occur. All that needs to happen is this thought process:"What will people think?. Suddenly the "cost" of free speech and participating, outweighs the overall benefits and "return" of speaking out. Under this system, free speech comes at a cost. The consequence of this is that less people participate. They won't voice their opinion, won't participate in public discourse, won't leave a comment on the end of an online article. In China, where to participate in a protest you must register your details with the government, participation is low and sometimes doesn't even occur because of fear of government reprisal. In Australia, the majority of people don't fear their government, they fear the judgement they receive from there friends and family around them. In order for democracy to properly function, participation in public discourse needs to occur because everyone should have the ability to help shape ideas and contribute to society. This is why we vote in secret ballots; so citizens can feel free to vote for whomever they choose. Similarly, it should be the same when making a comment online.

When you remove your identity from free speech, the "cost" to you becomes almost negligible. The person serving you on the other side of the counter doesn't know you are 'Sally_528', neither does your boss or maybe even your partner. Suddenly all those judgements and consequences that that could be possibly be made against you, are now made to the "brand" ('Sally_528'). You have a greater ability to speak out and participate without reprisal. Some claim that this lacks credibility, as there is no face to be put to the name, no system of accountability. But a face doesn't really matter, a brand does. If all 'Sally_528'  does is spam comment walls and write drivel, then people and authors will start to ignore her comments, and the "brand" looses credibility. Similarly, when you read an article, say from the Economist, you may not intimately know who wrote the article, but you trust the name of the Economist.  It is the same principle with online commenting. People trust certain authors and commentators, just as they trust certain parts of Wikipedia, even though they may have not the slightest idea who wrote it. And that is a good thing, because then peoples' judgements are not clouding or disregarding the information that is presented. Political, cultural and social prejudices are put aside. The information that is displayed has to taken on its merit.

Yes, drivel in comment columns are annoying, but they can be ignored. If need be, they can even be deleted. Systems and laws that that require people to disclose their identity, like South Australia's proposed bill earlier in the year (that was quickly repealed), prevents people from making a comment or adding to a discussion on an issues, without reprisal or judgement. All online speech, just as with voting, should be anonymous unless an individual choose it to be otherwise. When a persons identity (which they can hardly escape from) becomes attached to their speech and participation in public debate, it  comes at a "cost" to them. Though the real cost this has on society and Australia's democracy, is a reduction in participation, ideas and freedom.

Links:
Internet comments may one day receive the recognition they deserve - Sydney Morning Herald

In defence of anonymous pricks - ABC The Drum 

New media have made deriding politicians a national sport - The Daily Telegraph

News Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments - The New York Times 

Is there such a thing as 'digital privacy'?

The discussion about privacy on the internet is continuing to heat up, with Google now being taken to a US court for 'illegally' obtaining and storing data it received when driving round in the US, mapping for Google's Streetview. Criticisms have now moved on to Facebook, for its continual change of privacy settings. Governments around the world, including the Australian government, are struggling to apply normal legislation about privacy to these companies, and the internet at large. Do people make a conscience choice to give up personal information to companies and third parties? Or are they being misled? Regardless of what they choose to give up, the most concerning issue is what's being taken without your knowledge or consent. Tougher laws are needed, to give clarity to people interacting with the web, but also to companies who are providing ever expanding services. It's about time Australia introduced a comprehensive internet "bill of rights", clarifying laws already murky, and start setting precedence for protecting users privacy.

The main misconception with online privacy is that if you don't disclose any personal information, you're completely safe. Though even though you may not disclose your address, name, or picture of yourself, even more personal information about you can be surreptitiously disclosed. A US phone company was able to pinpoint a random customers exact location with over 90% accuracy, by only using past records of their phone usage. Thus whatever you've done in your past, can now be dug up to effect your present. And with digital media, it is even easier to track, record, analyse and distribute this data. From what you like to buy, to what you search the most on Google, all this is recorded. Even when you do a Google search or use a website, you may not be imparting 'vital' information about yourself, such as your name or location, enough information can be gathered about you without your knowledge. AOL once recorded the search results of individual clients then gave the clients a random ID. Through the compilation of just search data, other companies were able to track down individuals, by only having a list of search terms.

But it's not just AOL who does this. Google records your ISP number (it's like a car registration number for your computer), thus it records all the searches you conduct. One of the great points of Google is that is brings back search results that you want. Though it can only do this through gathering information about our habits. Are we legally able to opt out of this system? Can we have our records expunged if we choose to? Did we ever legally sign a contract with Google allowing it to do this? NO! And that's the problem. We inherently allow them to do this, every time we hit search! Such practices need legal clarification, so we know our digital rights to privacy, and companies know how much data they can collect.

Though companies, such as Facebook and Google, have a direct interest in obtaining our personal information, because it relates directly to profits. The more information they know about us, the more personalised the 'ads' become, thus the more likely we are to click on them and let Facebook and Google make a profit. The majority of websites are based on advertising models, so they want to know what we like, in order to sell it to us in an add. But what if we don't want to relinquish such information? With companies like Facebook assuming that we are happy to reveal this information, as seen with their lackluster privacy policy which is about to be radically changed due to user backlash, it's hard for us to choose what information we would like to reveal and what information we want kept hidden.

Google's blatant storage of information it 'accidently' harvested from unlocked wi-fi networks when it was conducting its Streetview mapping in the US, is an example of how sometimes, these companies are happy to overstep the mark for profit. So what we need are clear rules, outlining what rights we have on the internet, and legally, what companies can obtain without our consenting. While the government's proposed internet filter is meant to weed out the nasty side of the internet, clarification about everyones rights to the internet is a more important step. Because the real danger of todays internet isn't a virus or illicit material, located on an unknown server. It's the 'legal', daylight robbery of everyones information, regardless of whether its a photo, name or search details that when complied, can track you down, that is the real threat.

As seen when people mix their digital life with their real life, things can quickly turn sour. While Facebook was only the platform and not the cause Nona Belomesoff's death, greater awareness and clarification about privacy laws can prevent other harms from occurring; such the chat-roulette location scandal. I implore the Australian government to consider outlining in great detail, the legal rights to privacy people have in this digital age. At the moment, internet based companies are evolving their services and are harvesting information faster than the legal or political system can catch up. It's time we clarified, whether we do have a right to 'digital privacy'.

Links:
Facebook bows to privacy pressure - The Age online

Teen's murder sparks Facebook privacy plea - ABC online

Forget Facebook privacy, your digital life is being monitored - National Times

US judge wants copies of Google Street View data - The Australian Online 

No progress on Indigenous Health

While Kevin Rudd wants Western Australia to sign up to his National Health reform package, Australian citizens who are in most need of healthcare reform are still waiting for change to occur. On February 13 2008, Kevin Rudd promised to bridge the heath and life expectancy gap between Indigenous Australians and Non Indigenous Australians. At a time where a National Health reform package is on the table for discussion, with an aim to improve the health of all Australians', Indigenous health has been practically ignored. It seems the most opportune time to bridge the gap has been sacrificed, for the sake of a government concerned with being re-elected. 

It's not only the Federal Government's fault for ignoring Indigenous health and social issues, but also the fault of the Australian public. Because the general public is not directly effected by the atrocious health and social well-being of Indigenous Australian's, there is little pressure put on governments to act decisively on this matter. The geographical remoteness of these broken communities prevents wide scale media attention, further pushing Indigenous health and affairs into the dark. While these are the main factors preventing Indigenous issues from being front page news, the political and social awkwardness that comes from making policy and dealing with Indigenous affairs, muddies this process. Ultimately it is easier practically and politically, to speak in general terms about "bridging the gap", rather than taking action.

When it comes to assisting these broken communities, an overarching policy must be put in place, combined with individual, town by town specific action. Some communities suffer from high rates of crime because of a lack of jobs, others alcohol abuse, others systemic health problems. The intervention was a necessary first step, but it wasn't and isn't going to solve the entire problem. What is needed is an overarching policy from the Federal government, committing funds to rebuild communities that have been neglected of government services for decades. It's not just throwing money at the problem, it's setting out a plan of action with legislation necessary to enact it.

One of the main reasons Indigenous health is so expensive is because Indigenous Australian's are over-represented in Australian hospitals. The cost of preventing chronic and serious health problems is cheaper than treating it. Thus without local preventative health measures, such as sanitation, local clinics and local GP's, the cost of Indigenous health will always be expensive (and wasteful). It is laughable that the Federal Government is promising 80 new Indigenous health officers, and believes this will make a meaningful contribution to closing the gap. Promising every remote Indigenous community a shower would be more effective, as only 30% s have a working shower. The lack of such basic sanitation has lead to a swine flu outbreak amongst the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory, with Indigenous Australian's 12 times more likely to be hospitilised for swine flu. This figure is compounded by the fact that access to the 'free' swine flu vaccine would have almost been almost impossible for communities that don't have a doctor or a healthcare worker. 

While Indigenous Health and "the gap" can't be closed overnight, making no policy, and taking no action is not going fix the problem either. Opportunities for reform are passed up on and the political capital for action just isn't there. Will it really take another "little children are sacred" before the government and parliament open its eyes? While the Australian government has apologised on behalf of all of Australia for the'stolen generation', Kevin Rudd might as well start writing his next sorry speech, on behalf of the 'Ignorant Generation'

Links:
Swine flu hit Indigenous people hardest: study - ABC Online

'Alcohol and indigenous violence linked' - The Age Online

NT says it will sign health deal if more money is offered - The World Today

Govt promises more Indigenous health officers - ABC online

Google and China make waves

After a long holiday break, a political opinion is back! Though while some of us have been happily holidaying and enjoying the summer, internationally, waves are being created by China and Google, whose already rocky relationship is quickly diminishing. Cyberwarfare and hacking is warfare of the 21st century. It's not traditional warfare in the sense that a country declares war on another, as groups and states can secretly hack, corrupt and steal data from another countries government or businesses. This is further highlighted with Barack Obama citing that cyberwarfare is a grave threat to the US and that freedom of information is critical, especially on the internet. But before we delve into the current crisis of Google and China, and the implications it has for Google, China and the US, we must look at how it all started.

In 1989, the Tiananmen Square massacre occurred, which has been the last major pro democracy protest in China. This caused a huge international controversy with many countries, including Australia, almost cutting off all diplomatic channels with China. While the massacre was isolated and the rest of China kept in the dark about the situation, the western world flourished with smuggled out images depicting the atrocities. The most common is the "tank man" (a student blocking a tank from passing within the square, before being hauled away). The Chinese government staunchly wants to stay in power and believes its communist rule is the most effective in governing China. Thus it has taken great steps in order to quash pro democracy movements and information about what occurred. With the development of the internet and free flowing information, China has been willing to accept the internet to develop, however it very closely monitors, filters, blocks and traces it. Hence what it doesn't want the people of China to know, it blocks. Biadu, China's main search engine, complies with all of the Chinese Governments requests and orders. Being one of the fastest growing countries, largest in population and hence going to have the greatest internet usage out of any nation, Google has tried to tap into China's technological growth, and become a rival search engine.  It entered the Chinese market with google.cn in 2006.

The relationship between Google and China has been fraught with difficulties. Firstly, China wants to restrict Google's search results and have Google "self censor" (block sites on their own will, but  with direction from the government) its results. Freedom of information advocates around the world (though mainly in the US) have tried to stop Google from doing this, even to the point of suing them. The US administration's China policy and Google's has been very close over the last few years. While not comfortable with censorship, Google has not been profiteering from its Chinese venture, nor making great inroads into the Chinese search engine market. However these last few days have really put to pressure on their already weak relationship.

Google HQ in California recently found that Google, and several other US based companies from Yahoo to Symantic, had been hacked from a Chinese source. After some investigation, they found that the Chinese government had either authorized or conducted these hacks on Chinese Gmail account users, who were also pro democracy supporters. Basically the Chinese government wanted personal information about Chinese Gmail users (to which it could have asked Google to relinquish, though it most likely wouldn't have to unless under US law), but instead they hacked a small amount out. Unfortunately for the Chinese government, it just bit the digital hand that is feeding its populous. In an official blog post from Google, aptly titled "A New Approach to China", Google stated that it would review its business operations in China because of the hack, and that it would stop filtering its searches for Chinese users. Google stopping it's "self censoring" is the interesting part.

When Google used to self censor in China, any result that the Chinese government didn't like, from images of the Tiananmen square massacre, to Barack Obama's comments about democracy and freedom of information whist visiting China, to the blog post Google used to announce its Google.cn plans, were blocked. Now if you type Tiananmen square into Google.cn, instead of happy pictures of Tiananmen square in sunshine, you get pictures of the "tank man", wikipedia entries and information about the massacre. Almost a generation have not known about this incident, even people who lived throughout that time. Now, with a Google search, everything their government doesn't want them to see, they can view.

The implications this has for Google, the US and China are immense. China has to either accept Google's decision not to filter or bring it down, unless Google decides to start filtering again. The US government now has an avenue to which it can explore it's own role regarding dialog on human rights abuses and freedom of information within China, as well as the tricky situation of cyberwarfare. While there is not enough information to actually prosecute the Chinese government over the hacking, Google's decision to stop filtering its searches is worse than any international condemnation or process though the International Court of Justice. The social ramifications, and possible civil unrest, that can occur from Google's decision is yet to be seen. Hence, despite Google's intentions to 'get even' with the Chinese government, the possible waves itself can create through freedom of information is astounding.

Links


Censorship and hacker attacks provide the epitaph for Google in China - The Economist

A New Approach to China - Google's Official Blog

Chinese government-backed search engine blocks access to Google company blog

After Google’s Loud Stance on China, U.S. Treads Lightly - The New York Times

Tensions between Google and China complicate U.S. diplomacy - The Washington Post

Filtering the internet, but not choice

The Rudd Government is currently coming under heavy fire from the public about its proposed mandatory internet filtering for all ISPs, (Internet Service Providers) which would effect every Australian and content they could "possibly" view on the internet. But while some are heralding such a plan as a proactive step towards protecting children, others are claiming it gives the capacity for the government to become an overbearing big brother, diminishing our democracy. With the proposed policy in its current form, both sides of the argument have valid points. Though there is an effective solution, that could appease both sides of the debate.

The proposed policy, in its current form, will force all ISPs to block all RC (refused classification) websites on international servers. RC websites are not legally permitted to be hosted on Australian servers and are currently removed or blocked. However this policy classifies sites hosted internationally, and blocks these. Who chooses which sites to block was originally up to the government, but it appears they will opt for an independent organisation to review or choose which sites to block. The types of sites to be blocked are meant to be "offensive", though they range from illegal pornography and bomb making sites, to currently legal pornography and pro euthanasia sites. The list of sites to be blocked is not to be released publicly (which has caused just as much controversy as the blocking of sites), but earlier on in the year a list was leaked, which included a non harmful, not offensive, Queensland dentist's website. The main aim of the filter is to protect families and children from accidentally accessing "offensive" and dangerous websites. However the government has acknowledged the if people want to 'illegally' get around the filter, they can.

The main argument against implementing the filter is that the government has, and can, secretly block websites of its choosing. Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has criticised the proposed policy, as he, along with over 90% of the Australian public if news polls are to be believed, see an opportunity for government abuse to arise and the stifling of democratic process through restricted access to information. This is because it gives the government power to block sites it doesn't see as appropriate, such as pro euthanasia sites. Hence reducing the amount of information available to the public to continue fueling public debate and opinion. However if people can easily get around the system in an illegal way, it will still be ineffective in its purpose. And in this tech savvy world, it doesn't take much to get around firewalls. All this filter really does is stop people accidentally stumbling across such information.

The debate surrounding this particular piece of the Rudd government's "internet" policy, which is to be introduced into parliament next year, is also muddied by arguments that internet speed will decrease and that not all offensive material will be blocked. On the subject of speed, an internet filter will most likely slow down speed, but only by an insignificant margin. Though the belief that not all offensive material will be blocked does hold a lot of weight. While most RC sites can be blocked, it is easy to circumvent the filter, but also new sites can pop up, to which it comes a game of 'website creation' vs 'government finding and blocking'. Breeding complacency among the public with an internet filter is also dangerous. People still need to be careful about what sites they visit, and the content their children have access to.

So if the current proposal is ineffective yet to intervening, what's the solution? Firstly, to increase the range and type of RC websites to be blocked; which would include all pornography, scam and virus sites etc. (just think, any website you wouldn't want to be associated with opening in public). Secondly, list the websites blocked; transparency and accountability will not hurt here. If people want to find and access these sites, they will find away to do so. Thirdly, make it an "opt out" system; households and internet users who wish to remove such a filter, must register with their ISP to have it removed. This means the 'average' family has a safer internet, the complacent internet user who couldn't be bothered contacting their ISP is safer, and those who are wishing to access such information will be able to access it (because they would be able to with the proposed policy anyway)

The internet is the 21st century's digital figure-head for liberalism and democracy. It is also the greatest source for illegal and immoral content. However while governments should not be able to dictate what's morally acceptable (with legal exceptions), or diminish the capacity for individuals to access information consensually, they should be able to provide the choice for people to protect themselves and their families. 

Links

Net filters 'thin end of the wedge': Kirby - SMH online

Critics blast 'great firewall of Australia' - ABC news

Green light for internet filter plans - ABC news

Computer says no: Google slams filter - ABC News

The darker side of China's prosperity

While China is continuing to enjoy its strong economic growth that is fuelling the global economy, its intentions to "westernise" and be accepted as a good international citizen is again coming under fire. After vehemently denying the existence of "black jails", illegal detention (and sometimes torture) centres which hold civilians who attempt to make a complaint against the communist government, have formally been acknowledged by a high profile government newspaper and several officials. China continues to claim that it is improving its human rights record. However the cloud of Tienanmen Square still hangs over China and leaked reports of human rights abuses continue to plague the Chinese government.

Western nations, such as the UK, US and Australia have historically criticised China for its human rights abuses. Though as seen throughout 2009, these diplomatic condemnations of China's actions haven't occurred. Instead, because of China's economic growth, statements like this were made - "We won't let human rights get in the way of trade with China" (Hillary Clinton's statement when visiting China earlier this year). This is because of the strength of China's economy. Its newly found economic power is able to overpower international condemnation from its reliant trading partners. Western nations are also being held accountable to their human rights abuses and neglects, such as the US and Guantanamo Bay, UK and invasion of Iraq, Australia and the neglect of Indigenous Australians. Hence China's economic prosperity is able to diminish the capacity for dialogue about human rights abuses.

The recent report about human rights abuses and "black jails" however has come after much international concern and condemnation, especially from non government groups, such as Human Rights Watch, that aren't restricted in their opinion by lucrative trade deals. And with the acknowledgement of misconduct coming from a high ranking communist party paper, it signals a move by Chinese ministers that human rights abuses can not be overlooked or so easily swept under the carpet. However the reason these jails exist is just because of this. When a Chinese citizen wants to make a complaint, they must go to their local officials. These officials performance are not ranked or decided by a vote by the people in a democracy. They are judged by the amount of complaints that are made against them. Because there is little accountability within the communist government, these officials ignore and do not file these complaints. Hence these citizens who want to make a complaint must travel to the "State Bureau for Letters and Calls" in Beijing in person to make the complaint. And this is where the government employs civilian security forces to capture and detain those who have travelled to Beijing to make a complaint. About 10 000 Chinese travel to Beijing to make complaints a year. An unknown amount end up in "black jails".

While the Chinese Communist government is able to more effectively manage and regulate and economy, proven through its continued strength and resilience to bad foreign debt, it is unable to have effective accountability to the Chinese people. Millions more Chinese are enjoying to luxuries of a middle class life, such as owning a fridge, car, house and consumer technology. Though those who aren't on the 'golden coast' (East coast of China) aren't receiving these benefits. Their issues they wish to take up with their government aren't being heard, but instead they are being punished. The minor acknowledgement about these black jails is another step in revealing the failing process of accountability and transparency. China still strongly pursues its aim of internal stability, most notably created through military crackdowns (Tibet, Xijiang) and economic growth (the 'golden' East Coast). Though maybe more accountability, transparency and filing would work better than guns or money!

Links
China admits it runs illegal black jails - Telegraph.co.uk 

China must be held to account for its political repression - Guardian.co.uk

China 'running illegal prisons' - BBC News

One step not far enough

With Barack Obama recently being awarded the Nobel Peace prize for creating a renewed focus on reducing the worlds stockpiles of nuclear weapons, his previous actions on banning torture in the US (during the decommissioning of Guantanamo bay), were excellent for human rights, but they didn't go far enough.

Barack Obama's promise and policy of closing Guantanamo bay by January 22 looks like it will fall short. However his promise to close Guantanamo remains strong, with plans and inmate transportation still under way. Though the first hurdle main hurdle in achieving this step was selling to the US public the notion that "convicted terrorists" were going to be housed in US jails, on US soil! Despite the Republican party trying to make the situation look as though US jails would become al-Qaeda training camps, it has been publicly accepted without too much public backlash that these terrorists would be held on US soil, in SuperMax prisons (to which no prisoner has ever escaped from).

But the real concern comes from the 100 or more Yemen terrorists who the US government claim are too dangerous to be released, despite enough evidence for them to be convicted of any terrorist charges. These terrorists, the US government and Barack Obama have acknowledged, may be withheld indefinitely without trial or prosecution (the exact number of terrorists and their sentences has not been released). This blatant disregard for human rights and the US justice system can not continue. If there is enough evidence to prove that these people being detained are terrorists, or are too dangerous to be released, then let that evidence stand up in court. If not, then there is no grounds or evidence to prove that these so called "terrorists" are dangerous to US national security and they should be released. The only benefit that comes from this situation is that US citizens can sleep well at night believing that the bad bad terrorists are rotting away in a jail somewhere. Though infinite detention without trial or conviction doesn't make slumber any more easier for me.

Despite Barack Obama abolishing torture in the US, reaching out to long sworn cold war foes, trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons and with limited success attempt to convince the Islamic world that the US was not at war with them (ending the War on Terror), he didn't take that last step and really prove that the US had changed its ways. The US, despite and new president, needs to follow its own rules and ethics that it would like the rest of the developed and developing world to embrace, freedom, liberty and justice 


Links
Gitmo closure deadline fading - The Age

Facebook and the Law

In this post we discuss the important rights (or lack of rights) of Facebook users and non Facebook users.

Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

1. Your Account

Once you have created an account on Facebook, it is stuck their permanently. You have the option to deactivate your account, which only removes it from view from your friends and the public, not from the Facebook servers. This means that any information that you disclose on Facebook (pictures, posts, comments, likes or even your whole chat history – yes they do keep that to), is stored on the Facebook servers permanently. Facebook retain the right to store your information forever. 

           

2. Privacy – your rights to your information

Anything you post, add or contribute to Facebook, is legally theirs. All information you disclose to Facebook (comments, pictures, notes, anything) becomes the property of Facebook. They legally own it. This means that you have no exclusive right to any material you disclose on or to Facebook, and Facebook do not need to consult you on the release, publication or distribution of such information as they own it.

3. Right to protection of privacy

If your profile gets hacked, account or information stolen, its not Facebook’s fault, and they will not be held responsible or accountable. Facebook does not guarantee that any information/data that is stored on Facebook will never be released “information may become publicly available”. Anything on Facebook is the property of Facebook, to which they can do as they please!

4. Third Party Applications

When you install an “app” on your profile, whether it is a quiz or a game, that application, and the person/s that created it, gains access to your profile. Facebook is not responsible for personal information disclosed to these applications, or what they do with that information. Facebook doesn’t screen applications for what the information is being collected or used for. So if your information is stolen or used maliciously, your problem is with the application manager, not Facebook. A BBC TV program called Click, in 2008 demonstrated the power of application information “harvesting”, when they “harvested” thousands of peoples personal information (name, birth, email, photos, all posts etc) of people who added the application. So it’s your onus to protect your information from these applications. 

5. Interesting rights and responsibilities

If you would like to sue Facebook, or have the police investigate your personal information that may have been stolen, you need to travel to California in the US and get a US court order, which would allow an investigation to take place (that is if Facebook doesn’t assist you with your requests).

If you are a convicted sex offender, you can’t have a Facebook profile or use Facebook (however Facebook still retains the right to own and store your profile and information, and disclose it to anyone, as they own it)

And in Victoria, you can be served legal documents and judgements through Facebook if you fail to turn up to court. (Dec. 15^th 2008. A judgement against the defendant, which included a six figure sum of money, was served to him through his lawyers on Facebook because he failed to show up to court and could not be located).

Changes to Facebook and your privacy

Recently the Canadian government took Facebook to court, and threatened to block the site unless it changed its privacy policy to coincide more effectively with Canadian privacy laws. These changes will hopefully be applicable within Australia.

1. Deletion of Account – When deactivating your account, you will have the option to delete your account. All information collected by Facebook will be deleted permanently, however any other information collected by third party apps will be theirs (or very difficult to retrieve or delete). Also, when you die, your account can be deleted upon your behalf.
2. Privacy and Third Party Applications – when selecting an application, instead of having to give the application full access to your profile and information, you will be able to select the exact information that will be available (ie, can’t access photos, wall posts, personal info etc).
3. Non Users get Facebook Rights! -  If you are one of the few people that doesn’t have Facebook, you now have Facebook rights! (it’s something to celebrate) If you are tagged in a photo, have your email or information that is collected by Facebook, you will be notified by Facebook of the information that has been collected. That information can’t be disclosed ever! It is Facebook’s responsibility to protect your information, which means your information is more secure than a Facebook user’s vast digital footprint!

However, you can’t have that information deleted, unless you sign up to a Facebook account, and request to have it deleted (through the newly created option of deleting your account). The joys of digital bureaucracy.  

How you can change Facebook!

As a user of Facebook, you now have the power to change Facebook’s rights and terms of use. However this process is fickle and holier than Swiss cheese.

When Facebook now makes a change, it has the discretion to open up the idea/proposal to user comments. This means that you can comment on the proposal. (However they do have the discretion not to open the idea/proposal to comments, thus circumventing the following democratic process) If more than 7000 users comment on the proposal, Facebook creates a poll (ie. change rights to x, keep as y or we need a z solution) to which the result will be legally binding if 30% or more of all Facebook user participate in the poll. That requires 6 million people to participate in the poll. This is the best avenue thus far where we can create change within the realms of Facebook.

Head to www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance in order for you to have your say and see the changes that are occurring on Facebook, and to stand up for your rights.

We are living in the age of revolutionary communication and information change. We need to define, question and articulate what we want, as we are increasingly being given the ability to do so. And if we aren’t, we need to stand up and gain such ability. Our rights in this evolving digital age are increasingly being questioned, and to participate in such discussion and formation of law is critical, if not a moral duty. So while Facebook is a driving force of social change, we need to be the driving change behind this revolutionary digital mechanism.

Terrorism laws, are they safe?

The Federal Government has just issued a discussion paper, proposing a change to the current terrorism laws. Though this new proposal is a bit of a mixed bag. 


The outline of the proposal is

• to allow police to conduct a raid on the grounds of suspicion without a warrant being granted by a judge
• make it more difficult for suspects to get out of jail on bail
• have a cap of 8 days for suspected terrorists to be held without charge
• make it a crime to urge attacks on someone based on their nationality or religion.
• make terrorism hoaxes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The last three points appear to have tangible benefits of clamping down on crime and making the law more clear. However the first point can be highly questioned. 


The current process of entering a property to search or raid on suspicion of terrorism (as well as other types of searches), is to go to a court and apply to get a warrant, which is issued by a judge. A warrant allows the police then to search, raid etc the area. This warrant is a level of security and scrutiny, which makes sure that the raid or search is conducted under enough evidence of suspicion and that there is reasonable cause. With terrorism laws, there needs to be less evidence or suspicion to conduct such a raid. But is these new measures going to be of any benefit in increasing our safety, or is it going to impinge on our rights, and open another avenue for corruption and abuse?


Without having to go to a judge and have a warrant issued, it enables a police squad to conduct a raid at their own discretion. This gives them a greater ability to act quickly, but is there such a need. All terrorism raids in Australia so far have been conducted through the process of getting a warrant, and there appears to be no "close call" situations that have arisen that would require such a drastic changing of the law. 


Though without this safeguard in place (of getting a warrant), this proposed new law in the name of safety could just cause more harm and danger. It allows for more opportunities where our freedom and security can be taken away, as their are less checks and balances in place, which means there is more of an opportunity for wrong raids and searches to be conducted. It enables the police to make impulse raids, which are dangerous because it is typically not the terrorists who are caught, but innocent ethnics who are stereotyped as terrorist (Dr Hanneff). Any backlash can cause more trouble, as these communities attempt to defend themselves from persecution while the police (presumably) defend their actions. And furthermore it sets a precedence which allows the government or police to intervene more into our lives, in the name of terrorism and at the spur of the moment, without safeguards and proper checks being in place.


So it appears that while some of these proposed changes may bring many benefits to clarifying the law, taking away the requirement for police to get a warrant in order to conduct a raid (in the name of terrorism), is an impingement upon our civil rights and freedoms, as it only opens up another avenue for corruption, abuse and harm. 


The discussion paper, outlining the proposed legal changes, is open for public discussion and comments until the 25th September. 

Links

ABC - No warrant terrorism raids proposed