A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Rudd government keeps Howard’s war on terror alive
|
In what has been slammed as “a licence for witch hunts”, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard this morning approved proposed new laws that would give employers powers to snoop on workers’ emails. Ms Gillard told reporters this morning that the proposed laws are not designed to invade privacy, but would be “counter-terrorism measures” necessary for protecting “our critical infrastructure… our technology is a big infrastructure issue these days… so we want to make sure they are safe from a terrorist attack.” This move follows the release of a cache of security industry research papers which argue that corporate Australia should have greater involvement in national security. Some of the papers come from the federal government’s Research Network for a Secure Australia, whose tagline isn’t (as you might expect) “Protecting Australian Citizens”, but “Protecting Australian Infrastructure”. But this merging of corporate and national security interests could amount to McCarthyist-style snooping, says Will Anderson from Civil Rights Defence. He told Crikey:
The push to hand national security to the private sector is intensifying. In the last fortnight, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute issued a paper titled “Advancing Australian Homeland Security: Leveraging the Private Sector”. It argues that, “The danger of international terrorism has presented new business opportunities for the security industry”, and is confident that “concerns over terrorism and stricter security regulations will generate robust demand for services such as investigations, employee screening and close personal protection of executives and families”. This follows Howard’s regulatory pressure on business to meet greater national security standards (including the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003). These laws have in turn prompted the corporate sector, particularly transport, to demand that governments put their money where their mouths are. Ms Gillard could not be contacted in time for this story. |
|
|
2 Comments
I’m a PhD student studying informed consent in information technology at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics in Canberra. I wrote about this on our research blog at http://cappe-postgrads.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-losing-employee-consent-price-to-be.html
My Canadian housemate said to me this morning when I told him what was going on, “Hang on, didn’t you just vote in a liberal government?” which I think sums up the whole thing quite nicely.
Julia, You’ve lost me. Employers snooping on employees? Australia’s infrastructure is not at risk from employees. It is at risk from the rent-seekers who now nominally own and couldn’t care less about our infrastructure other than as a source of income for their greedy foreign shareholders. Shareholdrs such as the Singapore Government a bastion of democracy. Look at Loy Yang Power, they are so serious about terrorism they won’t spend the money on security at a level that will stop a few unarmed greenies shutting down their power station with a few cahins and padlocks. Are these the employers you want to give more power to? It’s a joke. I have often thought, and it is now quite clear to me that when you vote for a government in this country all you are doing is voting for the is next PR company for big business. I exepected it of Howard I didn’t exxpect it of you!