full-disclosure - Australia becomes a police state [serious]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <871080DEC5874D41B4E3AFC5C400611ECFCE87@UTDEVS02.campus.ad.utdallas.edu>
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Schmehl, Paul L)
Subject: Australia becomes a police state [serious]

What this has to do with full disclosure, I'm at a loss to say.  But
since your bring it up, I'll ask you to ask yourself one question.  You
don't need to answer to the list.  And anyone who wants to can answer
this question for themselves as well.

How do you stop someone from blowing up a building *before* they blow it
up?  If you can honestly answer that, you've come a long way toward
understanding what a difficult position governments are in trying to
deal with the problem of terrorism.

In the end it comes down to who do you fear more?  The government (your
government) that may exceed its constitutionally proscribed powers in
the pursuit of terrorists?  Or the terrorist, who knows no law and has
only one goal in mind - to kill you and as many other people as he or
she can?

I don't need you to give *me* your answer.  I'm struggling with the same
questions myself.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
TCS Department Coordinator
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
AVIEN Founding Member 

-----Original Message-----
From: Silvio Cesare [mailto:silvio@....net.au] 
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:50 PM
To: Grant Bayley
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Australia becomes a police state
[serious]

   (1) An authorisation (and any decision of the Police Minister--
   believe it or not, that means the current New South Wales Minister
for
   Police--
   --under this Part with respect to the authorisation) may not be
   challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into question on any grounds
   whatsoever before any court, tribunal, body or person in any legal
   proceedings, or restrained, removed or otherwise affected by
   proceedings in the nature of prohibition or mandamus.
   (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), legal proceedings includes an
   investigation into police or other conduct under any Act (other than
   the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996).
   Those provisions clearly show that the Minister for Police has total
   powers that may not be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called into
   question on any grounds whatsoever before any court, tribunal, body
or
   person in any legal proceedings, nor can the Minister for Police be
   restrained, removed or otherwise affected by proceedings in the
nature
   of prohibition or mandamus. These are extraordinary powers--quite
   extraordinary. We must remember that many Australians died for
freedom
   in this country, yet it is proposed that in an instant we should
allow
   those freedoms to be frittered away in this House.
   The limitation of clause 13 is exacerbated by clause 29, which

...
"

^^ goes on for a while.. check it out yourself.

--
Silvio
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html