Australia ratifies cybercrime convention Australia's Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has announced that the government has formally signed the European Convention on Cybercrime. Doing so was the final step in becoming party to the convention, after the Cybercrime Amendment Bill passed through Australia's Parliament in 2012. The A-G said the move will “will help combat …
expect more laws to enforce intimidation by oligopolists in fake democracies. To the tune of "This was unintended" when the goons kick in doors to confisticate another 9 year olds laptop. And Dr No is whining about broadband costs rising 3 times. This is why it will rise, nothing to do with the re-implementation of the old Telecom network, aka NBN.
With the global nature of cybercrime this is more than welcome. Most scams involve criminals from one country stitching up a victim from another. Most criminals get away with it because of those borders. With the aussies onboard there is now 39 less borders to hide behind. Singing from the same hymn sheet is the only way to tackling this long standing problem.
"He also states that a warrant is required “to access the content of a communication”." Personally I'd rather a warrant were required before you start even monitoring my communications.
I thought I was supposed to have some sort of human rights, something about the right to private life without unncessary state interference? In fact, I'm pretty sure this convtravenes article 12 of the universal declaration of human rights:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
Recording the fact that I'm communicating with people/servers/whatever (even being generous and assuming they don't do a Google and "accidentally" store everything I send rather than just the metadata) without a valid reason sounds like arbitrary intereference with my privacy to me.
The UNDHR, like its counterpart the US Constitution, is a piece of toilet paper written up in a more idealistic age for the sole purpose of quietening the proles. It doesn't actually mean anything; it isn't a law, because there's no means of enforcing its ideals.
The only rights you have are what you can a) take by force and b) retain by concealment from those who would take them by force - either alone or in concert with others. It's called "the law of the jungle", and it's the only absolute law, enforced by physics, that applies universally to all life, intelligent or not. You either hunt or hide. Everything else is window dressing.
I've noticed that when I've posted these sentiments before, I seem to attract a few downvotes. I probably will this time, too. But it does make me wonder; do the downvoters not understand basic physics or something? A stronger force will overpower a weaker force. A force will take the path of least resistance. It's not something you can argue with. It's just the way this universe works.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
