Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the critical-thinking-not-required dept.

Ever wondered what politics is really like? Wondered how politicians talk to one another in a open debate about something like a three strikes policy being introduced in a country (Australia) where it isn't in place? Here is a great example, taken right out of the Australian Senate — a back and forth between Attorney General George Brandis (thats long for big cheese) and Senator Scott Ludlam of the Australian Greens Party.

"I know industry leaders have very strong views on these things, but I'm asking you about groups like Choice or ACANN or others that might represent consumer interests or the public interest," he [Scott] said. "There is a very strong public interest in the protection of private property and that includes the protection of intellectual property." Brandis responded evasively. "So you're not going to answer the question?" Ludlam said rhetorically.

There is a lot more on this debate and it is disgraceful how clearly the AG is simply spouting what he is told to say.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by skullz on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:38PM

    by skullz (2532) on Thursday May 29 2014, @06:38PM (#48866)

    it is disgraceful how clearly the AG is simply spouting what he is told to say.

    Jeeze, you have high standards.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday May 29 2014, @07:11PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 29 2014, @07:11PM (#48880)

      - I'll take "disgrace" for $1000000, Alex
        - Daily Double Down! How much do you want to bet on stubbornness?
        - Considering that journalists are a branch of the media companies, I'll bet everything.
        - Are you sure?
        - Yep, who's gonna care what a site called "torrentfreak" reports?
        - Right, here's the answer: "Holding secret meetings with business interests whose goals for a legislation being drafted might not be aligned with the interest of the people"
        - Easy! "Shamefully, what has never cost a politician to lose an election?"
        - Correct! Thought the word shamefully hasn't been required for a couple decades.
        - Meh. I'm too old to adapt to recent changes.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30 2014, @05:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30 2014, @05:11AM (#49018)

        You realise they are talking about Australia don't you. They have an actual media down there, that do ask questions, and surprise surprise call out politicians bullshit. You should learn from them.

        • (Score: 2) by Darth Turbogeek on Friday May 30 2014, @09:02AM

          by Darth Turbogeek (1073) on Friday May 30 2014, @09:02AM (#49073)

          Pity we also have turds like Alan Jones and of course that asshole of assholes Murdoch owns too much of the media here, so any truth that the ABC or Fairfax may publish can be swallowed in a wave of News.com.au shit sprouting rubbish. You see it far too often - some interesting fact or story gets unearth by say PM (A fairly good public affairs raido show on the local ABC) and it either gets ignored or some BS is spewed out so the 80% of people who dont listen or watch the ABC never hear it.

          When Murdoch dies, I'm going to find his grave and piss on it for what he's done to subvert politics for his own ends.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday May 29 2014, @08:16PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 29 2014, @08:16PM (#48903) Journal

      This is what gets me screaming at the TV when Congressional hearings are being aired. (Also the reason I pretty much gave up watching C-Span).

      Posture, posture, posture, false fawning praise, various ass kissing, half truth, avoidance, lip service, posture, rinse-repeat.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2014, @07:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2014, @07:05PM (#48878)

    is this article about computers and technology? and is the lin7x creator pro-nuke? /me stares a green bl8nking lcd screen ....

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Crosscompiler on Thursday May 29 2014, @07:16PM

    by Crosscompiler (516) on Thursday May 29 2014, @07:16PM (#48882)

    Quisling is the top occupation in occupied countries.
    It has always been this way, and it will remain this way forever.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by MostCynical on Thursday May 29 2014, @10:39PM

    by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday May 29 2014, @10:39PM (#48943) Journal

    I am sure copyright lobbyists have some 'research' that shows people care about IP, and that there is "strong public interest in the protection of private property" (and that includes the protection of intellectual property, provided they worded the question carefully)..

    The Australian Research Council (one of the most competitive methods of getting research grant money in Australia) hasn't updated its IP page (yet) http://www.arc.gov.au/about_arc/principles_ip.htm [arc.gov.au], but since the new "conservative" government has come to power, they have attempted to slash Education funding, and suggest Unversities should seek private backers..
    I suspect this will also lead to some interesting debates around ownership of IP and patents. http://iupab.org/publications/value-of-fundamental -research/ [iupab.org]

    Publically funded research is something Australia has done well. Alas, it seems we are copying many of the worst aspects of the US funding models.

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 1) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday May 30 2014, @04:22AM

      by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday May 30 2014, @04:22AM (#49010)

      ...Publically funded research is something Australia has done well. Alas, it seems we are copying many of the worst aspects of the US funding models.

      Unfortunately, using negativity to game the system to get votes isn't the only thing Bushfire Tony* is trying to set in concrete. I know people get the government they deserve, but I didn't know that we were _THAT_ evil.

      * An appropriate nickname; we don't know which of last summer's bushfires he IS responsible for, but his climate change denying ideology IS responsible for quite a few of them.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31 2014, @04:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31 2014, @04:29AM (#49442)

      "Brandis said that his team has consulted with “industry leaders†in the United Kingdom and the United States to learn from their experiences. That wasn’t the answer Ludlam was looking for.

      “I know industry leaders have very strong views on these things, but i’m asking you about groups like Choice or ACANN or others that might represent consumer interests or the public interest,†he said."

      http://torrentfreak.com/aussie-attorney-general-pr essured-on-three-strikes-secrecy-140529/ [torrentfreak.com]

      IP extremists often try to argue that IP law is for the little guy. If that's true why is it always the big guy pushing for these laws the most?

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Darth Turbogeek on Friday May 30 2014, @02:34AM

    by Darth Turbogeek (1073) on Friday May 30 2014, @02:34AM (#48983)

    Brandis is an example of absolute doctrine over policy. He is a drooling idiot that will not, full stop do anything that is even a slightest bit outside of his narrow set of beliefs that he holds or his backers tell him to say. He really is objectionable.

    Ludham? Absolute best man in Parliment, bar none. A very good example of a politican who actually KNOWS what he is talking about and can say he is wrong. Which to be honest isnt that often. I think that he gets a lot more freedom to act and speak as he does due to not being in the major 2 parties but still.... you can see Brandis is the worst example of a True Believer (TM), someone's hand up his arse parroting crap, the kind of politican that defines scum. Whatever party he belongs to, I'd still call him scum.

    Why the fuck we have so many shits like Brandis and not enough of Ludham is beyond me (altho I do have suspicions)... but I suspect Govt would be much better if it was so.

    • (Score: 2) by Popeidol on Friday May 30 2014, @03:34AM

      by Popeidol (35) on Friday May 30 2014, @03:34AM (#48996) Journal

      Ludlam is an easy man to respect. He's erudite, well-researched and is never afraid to ask the hard questions. He seems to know more about issues relating to IT than any minister of communications, including our old friend Stephen Conroy (who launched a rather nice fibre-to-everybody-in-the-country program but spoiled it by repeatedly trying to instate mandatory internet filtering)

      Bottom line: If you're vaguely into tech in Australia, You should probably keep an eye on what Ludlam is up to. Whatever he's fighting will probably affect you personally.

      • (Score: 2) by clone141166 on Friday May 30 2014, @06:07AM

        by clone141166 (59) on Friday May 30 2014, @06:07AM (#49032)

        Senator Kate Lundy is another one to keep an eye on. She is aligned with the labor party, but she was one of the only senators to publicly question her party's mandatory internet filtering proposal. She is one of only a few politicians from the 2 major parties that I have respect for. She seemed to be quite well informed during the whole mandatory internet filtering debacle; unlike Stephen Conroy, the minister for communications, who was nothing short of idiotic at times.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 30 2014, @11:16PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 30 2014, @11:16PM (#49353) Journal
        I just learned about a CHOICE campaign [choice.good.do] this morning (coming in an email from a free software group downunder):
        (my apologies for the "spam")
        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30 2014, @06:49AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30 2014, @06:49AM (#49042)

      Why the fuck we have so many shits like Brandis

      Part of the answer is Right-wing_authoritarianism. [wikipedia.org]

      Just yesterday I read the first 100 pages of Altemeyer's The authoritarians and would recommend it. It's available for download for no cost. I found it easy and even funny to read, in addition to being quite insightful.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday May 30 2014, @10:43PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 30 2014, @10:43PM (#49343) Journal
      I just learned about a CHOICE campaign [choice.good.do] this morning (coming in an email from a free software group downunder):
      (my apologies for the "spam")
      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by clone141166 on Friday May 30 2014, @06:39AM

    by clone141166 (59) on Friday May 30 2014, @06:39AM (#49039)

    Reading that article was fascinating and horrifying.

    For anyone who doesn't know, in the previous government's attempt to bring in mandatory internet filtering, the biggest opponent to it and "voice of the people" if you will, was actually an ISP by the name of iiNet. In the case of the mandatory internet filter, it was really a series of shady backroom deals between the ever mysterious "rights holders" and Australian ISPs. A lot of ISPs couldn't have cared less and just rolled over, it was only really iiNet that pushed back against the government's bullshit and essentially stalled the mandatory internet filter. It is my honest opinion that the only reason we didn't up in the same situation as the UK's retarded ass, broken filter is because of their efforts. iiNet are also the same ISP that AFACT (an Australian puppet entity for American media companies) sued for not forwarding their made-up "copyright violation" letters to customers.

    I find it fascinating that this time around with the 3 strikes law they have *only* consulted with the mysterious "rights holders" and a single ISP, Tel$tra. (Tel$tra are the Australian equivalent of Comcast for any US readers; pure monopolistic corporate evil. iiNet and a number of other smaller ISPs essentially only spawned due to Tel$tra's maasssssiivveeeeee incompetence and inability to roll out affordable ADSL broadband in Australia. Tel$tra actually used to enforce a 3Gb cap while still charging like $80+/month, in the end smaller ISPs flat out proved there was no reason for this pricing by rolling out their own ADSL services at half the price).

    I am so, so tired of governments making decisions behind closed doors. This whole thing reads like if someone disagrees with you, even a corporation like iiNet, just exclude them from all future discussions! Democracy really is dead, welcome to the oligarchy.