Radio interview with the Minister of Silly Walks concerning the $43 billion national broadband network and Internet filtering trial

A big thanks to Mark Newton for tweeting a link to this Stephen Conroy interview.
When addressing the ISP-level filtering live trial it is almost classic Monty Python.

NewtonMark Conroy sets pants on fire as a defensive measure to stop Kate O'Toole from kicking his arse: http://is.gd/rGrm #triplej #nocleanfeed about 17 hours ago from web

Graphic from Google Images

Democratic freedoms? A case of Obama saying one thing and doing another?

U.S. President Barack Obama has been in office long enough now for disconnects to emerge between his grand speeches and what he does in fact.
Never more so than in the case of the former Bush Administration warrantless wiretapping of its own citizens.

CNet reported in January 2008 that Barack Obama was against warrantless wiretapping:

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In 2008 an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was put to the U.S. Senate.

This is what Obama as a presidential candidate is reported as saying of this amendment on 14 July 2008:

"I am proud to stand with Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty," Obama said in a prepared statement. "There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people — we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties.

"This administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the administration to join us in that effort."

Obama then went on to vote for the legislative amendment which allowed immunity from prosecution.

However this immunity was not believed at the time to extend to government according to its Senate sponsor:

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Since then a number of court cases have come to light including Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc v Barack H. Obama, President of the United States of America.

Now in response to this and other current litigation President Obama (through the Department of Justice) appears to be asserting a surveillance power which is even wider than that previously asserted concerning warrantless searches.

President Obama may be smoother and better packaged than George W. Bush, but deep down he is nothing more than an expedient politician like those presidents before him and, just as unwilling to relinquish any power (no matter how dubious) over the citizenry.

Here is what the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFA) says about its current court proceedings:

In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant's participation in the illegal surveillance program. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law attempting to derail that case by unconstitutionally granting immunity to AT&T and other companies that took part in the dragnet. Hepting v. AT&T is now stalled in federal court while EFF argues with the government over whether the immunity is constitutional and applies in that case — litigation that is likely to continue well into 2009.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, the lawsuit also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

For the full complaint in Jewel v. NSA

In March 2009 the Obama Administration replied to the EFA litigation with the GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT virtually asserting that everything (including publicly known facts about this wiretapping and data mining) is a 'state secret' or other form of privileged information.

Graphic found at BoingBoing

Easter as an ending, not a beginning (WARNING: this post is not for kiddies who believe)

Click images to enlarge

Original pics here

It's almost mid-2009 and they're still fighting in.............

It's almost mid-2009 and they're still fighting in.............

Iraq - the War on Terror still leaving a bloody fallout Bomb near Iraq Shi'ite shrine kills 7

Afghanistan - despite the propaganda NATO-led occupation forces are losing hearts and minds Obama seeks extra funds for wars

Sri Lanka - Tamil Tigers versus Sri Lankan Government forces 'Civilians die' in Sri Lanka zone

Democratic Republic of Congo - civil war still unresolved DR Congo army fights off rebel attack in east

Pakistan - Protestors versus police Two Killed in Protests in Pakistan`s Baluchistan

India - KCP rebels killed in exchange of gunfire with police 3 rebels killed in Manipur

Somalia - civil war leads to lawlessness Aid Workers Quit Somalia

Ethiopia - rebel group still active Ogaden Rebels Counter 'Crisis' Claims by Ethiopia

Sudan - Israel versus whoever they please Report: Naval commando forces involved in Sudan strike

Columbia - FARC rebels take on Columbian Army Colombian Army and FARC Rebels Battle Near Venezuelan Border

England - British establishment against one lone man Policeman suspended over G20 protest death Video of police assault

......and various other places around the globe.

Monsanto goes a-Twittering

It's no secret that Agwired has a relationship with Monsanto the biotech giant.
So when it came out with this it was hardly surprising:

I ran across this article, Planting Cyber Seeds, written by Jeffrey Tomich for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I thought I would share it will all of you. The article is about how Monsanto has worked to tackle big issues through Twitter, the social networking tool that answers the question, What are you doing?

Because environmentalists were constantly trying to derail Monsanto in the media, the company quickly realized that they needed to address some big issues in the news for themselves. The group uses Twitter to discuss controversial topics like food labeling and genetically modified foods. Like many agriculture groups, Monsanto has realized that this is the best outlet to interacting with the nation's food consumers.

Sounds as though Monsanto is on top of the social media game doesn't it? However when you search for Monsanto on Twitter you find a different story.

MonsantoCo shows the company-endorsed face of Monsanto tweets, but over at the official Monsanto blog they linked to a Twitter realtime search which showed 5 pages of more varied results, with anti-GM tweeters hogging the space right now.
Including beekeeper protests and links to media articles about GM crop failures.
Although it has to be said the Monsanto Twitter is hardly overwhelmed with people tweeting it.

Seems that whatever online PR Monsanto tries, it comes to grief.

The Rudd Government endores the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples while problems persist

First the Rudd Government formally said sorry to the Stolen Generation and now it has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin delivered a statement in support of the document at Parliament House this morning, saying that the move was a step forward in "re-setting" the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
"The Declaration gives us new impetus to work together in trust and good faith to advance human rights and close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians," Ms Macklin said.
"The Declaration recognises the legitimate entitlement of Indigenous peoples to all human rights – based on principles of equality, partnership, good faith and mutual benefit."

However, this is the true state of affairs according to the National Indigenous Times:

NATIONAL, April 7, 2009: Residents of remote Aboriginal communities are routinely being sold rotten and overpriced food, an inquiry has heard.
A federal parliamentary inquiry into community stores has also heard a Queensland government-run store in the Torres Strait was infested with rats.
Distressed residents told the inquiry the infestation at the IBIS store at Moa Island had reached plague proportions, while a store representative admitted there was rodent problem.
"Many of the stores we heard about and some of the stores we saw were not up to scratch and that's got to have an effect," Labor MP and head of the inquiry Richard Marles said.
Mr Marles, who spent last week touring communities in the Torres Strait and Cape York, said residents across the region claimed food at their local store was rotten or out of date.
"There was a repeated sense that a lot of product was out of date, there was some evidence that the use-by date had been textaed over - that was certainly a repeated theme among those who were giving evidence before us," he said.
The inquiry has also received an anonymous submission from a Northern Territory nurse who expressed dismay at the quality and price of goods in her local store.
"The cucumber I bought was mostly rotten. Of the 1kg bag of tomatoes three were rotten, the sour cream went out of date six weeks ago, the avocado was black all through ... and a package of a red onion, a tomato and a lettuce cost $11," she said.

ISSUE 174, April 2, 2009:.........With the election of Labor, there was some optimism that there might be major changes to the scope and nature of the intervention. The political analysis was that Labor had deliberately kept themselves as a small target over the intervention, and that there would be a significant shift in policy and emphasis over the intervention post-election.
However, apart from some cosmetic changes to CDEP and the permit system - which have yet to be enacted - the new government decided to keep the intervention rolling.

A mounting case of intervention failure

UN tells Rudd to 'redesign' NT intervention

Graphic from the National Indigenous Times

Black Carbon Aerosols: another culprit contributing to global warming?

On 4 April 2009 the US National Aeronautics and Space agency (NASA) reported that aerosol particles known as Black Carbon, produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels, are contributing to the warming of the Arctic which receives wind drift from North America and Europe but has minimal precipitation to flush these fine particles out of the atmosphere.

Full article Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming.

Australian Law Reform Commission online forum asks for your opinion on royal commissions

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is holding a review of the operation and provisions of the Commonwealth Royal Commissions Act 1902 and related issues.

Submissions can be lodged in the usual way or the online forum can be accessed.

This is an important subject as royal commissions are sometimes the only way Australian citizens have of establishing the veracity of what the government of the day is telling voters about a given issue.

It is interesting to note that the ALRC has highlighted cost in its media release and not the attempts by government to limit such inquiries by handing down very narrow terms of reference, as was the case in the faux royal commission, the 2005 Inquiry Into Certain Australian Companies In Relation To The UN Oil-For-Food Programme (also popularly known as the Cole Inquiry or AWB Inquiry)

Here is the ALRC media release:

The Australian Law Reform Commission today released an Issues Paper, Review of the Royal Commissions Act (IP35) seeking feedback from the community on 49 questions posed as part of its current review of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth). The ALRC has been asked by the Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP, to review the operation of the Act—which has been in force since 1902—and in particular to consider whether less formal alternatives to a Royal Commission may be appropriate in some circumstances.

ALRC President Professor David Weisbrot noted that "Royal Commissions look at issues of great public importance and play a very important role in ensuring that systemic failures are addressed. When there are controversial issues that cannot be handled satisfactorily by the courts or the political process, there are invariably calls for the establishment of a Royal Commission—and there are often expressions of disappointment when other 'lesser' forms of inquiry are established, such as the inquiries into the treatment of Dr Mohamed Haneef and Cornelia Rau.

"Royal Commissions usually prove to be very expensive. Precise figures are surprisingly difficult to pin down, but we estimate that, in today's dollars, the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry cost taxpayers over $70M, the one into the collapse of insurer HIH cost over $47M, and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody cost over $50M."

Professor Weisbrot stated "A key concern for the ALRC is whether an alternative model of executive inquiry might provide similar advantages and outcomes to Royal Commissions, in terms of respect, independence, protection of witnesses and so on, while offering more flexibility, less formality and greater cost-effectiveness."

Royal Commission powers are another issue under the spotlight. Commissioner in charge of the ALRC Inquiry, Professor Les McCrimmon, noted that, "The Act currently gives Royal Commissions a wide range of coercive information gathering powers. For example, a Royal Commission can apply for a search warrant, summon witnesses to give evidence and require the production of evidence. The exercise of such powers must be balanced carefully against the rights of those being investigated.

"The Royal Commissions Act also contains a number of criminal offences that can be used to punish failures to comply with the requirements of a Royal Commission, interfering with witnesses, or interfering with the work or authority of a Commission. We will be exploring whether civil penalties may be more appropriate in some of these contexts," Professor McCrimmon said.

Along with the release of the Issues Paper, the ALRC has also developed an Online Discussion Forum organised around the key questions being considered in this inquiry, making it easy for people to share their ideas and experiences at http://talk.alrc.gov.au.

The Review of Royal Commissions Issues Paper and further information about this Inquiry are available from the ALRC website http://www.alrc.gov.au/. The closing date for written submissions in response to the Issues Paper is 19 May 2009.

The final report and recommendations are due to be presented by 30 October 2009.