Wikileaks threaten Conroy with extradition proceedings

Wikileaks have acquired a copy of the ACMA blacklist (which I am unable to link to without being fined) which forms part of Conroy’s filtering masterplan.

Conroy issued a press release saying that he was going to hunt down the person who leaked the list to Wikileaks.

Now Wikileaks have advised that if he does so, they will act under the Swedish law which protects their operations to have him charged with the criminal offence of trying to identify an anonymous press source, then start extradition proceedings in Australian courts. Yes, really.

Donate to wikileaks, folks. They are rolled-gold heroes.

This entry was posted in IT and Internet, Politics - national. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Wikileaks threaten Conroy with extradition proceedings

  1. conrad says:

    That’s great.

  2. observa says:

    Conroy is an L-Plater and as such has bigger problems on his plate than his net nannying. Here’s Alan Kohler describing how Sol will have the last laugh on the ‘Adios Amigos’ set-
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-dead-NBN-sketch-$pd20090311-PZQRE?opendocument&src=rss
    All because Labor can’t accept that Telstra is no longer its political plaything to cross-subsidise the bush.

  3. robertcorr says:

    They’ve got balls, I’ll give them that.

    I seriously doubt the Swedish right to anonymity would stretch to cover an anonymous Australian doing acts in Australia, being identified by Australian authorities. I could be wrong.

  4. Jacques Chester says:

    Robert;

    Under the Swedish law they rely on, yes, everyone who submits to them is covered. If they go after Conroy, he and anyone who worked on the investigation would be unable to go to Sweden ever again and would face at least some extradition attempts.

    Extradition from Australia would fail, as we don’t have an equivalent law AFAIK. But they’d still be branded criminals and in permanent exile from a nice little country. And there’d be no foreign ministry for Conroy.

  5. FDB says:

    Fucking brilliant, if you’ll pardon my French.

    They’ve got to just bite the bullet and drop this like a hot potato, if you’ll also pardon my mixed metaphor.

  6. Conroy is not just an L-Plater – he’s verging on incompetence.

    What is it with Communications Ministers in this country? Alston, Coonan, Conroy. All useless – all social conservatives.

  7. saint says:

    Useless yes. But Conroy a social conservative? Nope. Nope. And nope.

  8. NPOV says:

    saint, explain how any occupying a socially moderate or liberal position could possibly be in support of the sort of internet censorship being proposed? (I would haven’t have a big problem with, say, ISP’s being forced to delete DNS entries for sites known to contain illegal content, but even that’s of dubious usefulness, and is likely to make illegal activities harder to track down).

  9. Patrick says:

    NPOV, use some imagination!!

    Extradition is only a joke – because Conroy is a government minister acting and in a governmental capacity. Probably either of which would suffice to a) slam-dunk any attempt at extradition from an Australian perspective, and b) prevent even getting the wheels in motion in Sweden.

    But we could always try and sell him to them..?

  10. NPOV says:

    Imagination circuits are off-line today, Patrick…please explain? Or are you simply suggesting that from someone in Saint’s position, the entire rest of the world looks like a hotbed of extreme social liberalism?

  11. Patrick says:

    NPOV, nothing about extreme – but I certainly can’t imagine why ‘socially moderate’ people would have to be opposed to stupid internet filters.

    ‘Liberals’ in the meaningful sense of the word would have to be, but there are so few of them around anyway that who cares?

  12. saint says:

    NPOV – explain to me why I, a social conservative, think this whole scheme is a pile of steaming poo. You probably can’t because your underlying assumptions – are wrong, wrong, wrong.

    BTW, congrats folks, we have probably all made it onto big brother’s list for bagging Conroy. Count me as one of them, big boy.

  13. Jacques Chester says:

    They call Whirlpool a blog. Fail.

  14. Chris says:

    Even if they would never be able to successfully extradite Conroy, it would restrict his travel quite significantly – no trips for him to the EU.

  15. observa says:

    “What is it with Communications Ministers in this country?”
    Perhaps both parties figure communications is always going to move faster than the public circus mindset ever can so communications always gets the short straw. A bit like Labor always giving the Left Aboriginal Affairs.

  16. NPOV says:

    saint, there’s lot of reasons that a social conservative might oppose the scheme.
    But I can’t think of a good reason why a social moderate would push it (they might accept it was “not such a bad idea” if they knew it was happening anyway, but that’s not the same thing at all).
    FWIW, Patrick, I’d say at least half of all Australians are socially liberal, if you believe opinion polls in issues such as gay marriage, euthanasiaa etc. etc.
    I’d consider myself more liberal than average (supporting legalisation of drugs etc.), but hardly in a tiny minority.

  17. Patrick says:

    Well, no, Chris, I didn’t mean that sense of not being able to extradite. I meant no judgement, not even a case, no orders, no restrictions, nada nyet nothing not here not in Sweden … an extradition fail if you like.

    Trips for Conroy anywhere he pleases.

    NPOV, I’m socially conservative, a hell of a lot more so than you. But I don’t think government has any or much role in mandating morality (virtue enforced is no virtue at all, etc) so I am, on legislative program, almost as liberal as you (gay unions not marriage, drug legalisation, very limited euthanasia).

    But I can easily see a socially liberal person in favour of all of those things on a personal level being in favour of massive legislative programs for all sorts of things, including protecting poor little misguided would-be pedophiles from themselves.

    In fact, if you actually have ‘liberal’ views of legislative function, which is not clear since iirc you support pretty substantial workers’ protection and environmental protection, then you would be in an absurdly small minority of social liberals.

  18. NPOV says:

    Well OK Patrick you’re just blurring the definition then – I’m a pretty conversative person myself – I don’t do drugs or drink excessively, believe in the importance of family etc. etc., but, like you, don’t believe there is much to be gained (and fear there is much to be lost) by attempting to enforce the same standards upon everyone.
    On “mandating morality” – as far as I’m concerned that’s exactly what penalities for murder or rape are doing. There are/were other cultures where murder and rape are/were not punished, largely because they aren’t/weren’t considered the height of immoral acts.

    Worker’s protection and enviromental protection, plus protection of the unemployed/disadvantaged, are three of the few areas that I happen to think government legislation is by and large the most effective method of ensuring we live in the sort of country I would want to live in (and want my children, grandchildren etc. to live in). I’d say that comes pretty close to the standard left-libertarian position, which if you want to call an “absurdy small minority”, go ahead, but it doesn’t seem so far removed from most people I interact with regularly.

  19. NPOV says:

    …sadly I note that online Australian readers do in fact represent a hotbed of social conservatism, with 79% believing that all bikie gangs should be banned from simply existing, regardless of what their members get up to. Now I could care less about ever wanting to join a bikie gang personally, but I’ll happily protest for their right to exist.

  20. Patrick says:

    and reality lands…do you really think the offline portion are more libertarian-minded?

    And I guess if you felt I was blurring the definition then you felt perfectlty entitled to jump in and get some for yourself?? lol.

    Banning murder and rape is certainly legislating morality at one level, but I thought there was a sort of consensus around manifest harm to others (simply wrong subject to a small range of defined excuses) and self-inflicted or consenting harm (not generally wrong). I was talking, fairly clearly, about the second range. I don’t think anyone else was too confused by the distinction!

    Finally, there is a massive contradiction in your position re worker’s protection.
    A) Workers’ protection is far from a clear-cut good, since the protection of one worker(leaving aside the minimum wage on which I believe the evidence is that it doesn’t hurt) is often at the expense of other workers’ potential jobs. So it possibly falls on the wrong side of the harm-to-others line that I suggested above.
    B) Workers’ protection even on the individual level is protecting people from self-inflicted or consented harm. Why do you think that people can consent to blowing their minds away on drugs but can’t consent to working hard?

  21. NPOV says:

    Well that’s one particular example, but the polls on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage generally show Australians to be a reasonable socially liberal lot, at least compared to similar nations.

    As far “blurring the definition” goes, there’s a very big difference between conservative personal behaviour and a socially conservative outlook, that implies (to me anyhow) that you believe there should significant restrictions on what others are permitted to do.

    I agree that there are various downsides to worker’s protections.
    However I accept historically workers have had to fight hard to gain what we now take for granted as reasonable working conditions, hence it would concern me considerably if it looked like such conditions would become out of reach to many workers. I’m not sure the Australia would necessarily be a better place if many more jobs with lousy working conditions suddenly became available, unless it could be solidly demonstrated that this really was the best way for most currently unemployed workers to work towards self-sufficiency and gain a decent standard of living.

    FWIW, I would absolutely support changes that gave both employers and employees more mutually consensual flexibility in working conditions. However I’m not entirely sure how the “mutually consensual” part can be properly legislated, especially during recessions where the balance of power between employers and (potential) employees tips significantly.

  22. conrad says:

    “including protecting poor little misguided would-be pedophiles from themselves.”
    .
    I think this highlights why we don’t need legislation. It seems to me that there is an amazing amount of homogeneity as to what gets censored on the internet already, and the vast majority of illegal stuff in Australia is already illegal in both Australia other countries because of other laws. I imagine this is one of the reasons I don’t get constant spam advertising this sort of stuff (not that I’m reading my spam) — because the people sending it would get arrested on other grounds.

  23. Patrick says:

    However Im not entirely sure how the mutually consensual part can be properly legislated, especially during recessions where the balance of power between employers and (potential) employees tips significantly.

    That is just it, though, NPOV. You don’t really believe in ‘mutually consensual’ anything. Insofar as my puny grasp of economics has it, the point of a jobs market in a recession is that employers have the upper hand. So they lower wages, increase hours, etc, thus lowering their costs and the costs of their goods/services, thus eventually getting prices down to a point where people start buying them again, and then the whole train takes off again.

    And part of that point is that there should be a system were employers can sack people essentially immediately (as they basically can here, subject to our current government’s application of its infinite wisdom to labour regulation), but this sacking is not immediately financially disastrous for the person concerned.

    But similarly then the system has to be ‘mean’ enough to force them to lower their horizons and actually really look for a job. It certainly isn’t fun, I’ve been there (except with no benefits to fall back on at all), but it works. Here, for example, the French system flunks absolutely abysmally (it actually flunked the first hurdle). The Danish one does rather better, but anecdotally a lot of Danes think it is breaking partly because it depends a lot on cultural norms to get people back to work. In a small place like Denmark, those norms can be very strong, but they are apparently weakening.

    Our system probably is weakest on the immediate support. People who get sacked should, I think, get a few week’s grace before having to meet activity tests, and should also get, at least for the first month or so, what they were paid up to a cap of about 1.2 or 1.3 times the average wage. Long enough to think about the mortgage, what they can do, have a good cry, etc, without being so long that they go into holiday mode.

    But then they should be increasingly strongly encouraged to get back to work, even in a ‘lesser’ job.

    I am not quite sure how training should be included in this, although it seems desirable to do so.

  24. NPOV says:

    “So they lower wages, increase hours, etc, thus lowering their costs and the costs of their goods/services, thus eventually getting prices down to a point where people start buying them again, and then the whole train takes off again”

    I’m not even so sure that sounds good in theory, let alone practice…if employers are lowering wages across the board as well as prices, then where is there any gain? Everybody has less money to by the same amount of stuff? Why should that spark any sort of recovery?
    You could surely argue that because employers are not in a position to reduce wages, then their only choice is to invest in most efficient means of production, which is exactly what does produce long term economic growth. And companies that can’t figure out to do it are taken over by ones that can.

    As far as the rest of your post goes, I’m largely in agreement.

Comments are closed.