Archive | Personal liberties RSS feed for this section

Pot 2.0 is a no go

By Vivienne Crompton on June 19, 2013 in Personal liberties, Rule of law

The Federal government this week has brought in an interim 120 day ban on synthetic drugs. Over 19 different pharmaceuticals have been prohibited. These drugs are manufactured variants of illegal substances, that mimic the effects of cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine. Though not the “real” product, they are promoted as “legal highs,” without the downer of jail time. The Commonwealth intends to work with the states and territories during the ban to write legislation that will prohibit the drugs altogether.

As already proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice Jason Clare, the yet-to-be-written legislation plans to ’implement a “reverse onus of proof” scheme.’

It’s extraordinary that this proposed legislation has been put forward by our federal Minister for Justice. His office is meant to uphold the key principles of law that have made what our legal system is today.

By reversing the onus of proof, instead of the government having to establish that your product is a banned substance, it is automatically assumed that anything new coming into Australia is illegal. This creates significant added costs to private enterprise, who will have to foot the legal, administrative and pharmacological fees that will be required to prove that their drug is a licit substance. On a legal rights notes, it is assuming that legitimate businesses are all criminals, unless they can prove their innocence to the government.

By all means, if the government is concerned about synthetic drugs, they can investigate companies and new products as they see fit. However, the onus, manpower and money should be expended by the accuser, not the accused.

NSA surveillance causes Cato confusion

By Simon Breheny on June 18, 2013 in Personal liberties, Rule of law, Technology and online rights

Julian Sanchez at the Cato Institute has written an excellent response to his colleagues Roger Pilon and Richard Epstein after they wrote an op ed for the Chicago Tribune in which they defend the NSA’s surveillance program.

Sanchez argues:

…the appropriate question is whether the creation of a system of surveillance perilously alters that balance too far in the direction of government control, whether or not we have problems with the current use of that system. We might imagine a system of compulsory cameras installed in homes, activated only by warrant, being used with scrupulous respect for the law over many years. The problem is that such an architecture of surveillance, once established, would be difficult to dismantle, and prove too potent a tool of control if it ever fell into the hands of people who—whether through panic, malice, or a misguided confidence in their own ability to secretly judge the public good—would seek to use it against us.

While I hold much of Epstein’s and Pilon’s work in high regard, I believe both their research and their reasoning in this case to be faulty, and hope they will reconsider their position on this important issue. If they remain unpersuaded, then I at least hope that readers who look to Cato for guidance on these questions will recognize that theirs is not the position held by all—or, indeed, most—Cato scholars.

The piece is well worth a read.

LISTEN: Radio interview on data retention

By Simon Breheny on June 18, 2013 in Personal liberties, Rule of law, Technology and online rights

I was interviewed by SBS Radio last week in relation to the surveillance scandal currently playing out in the United States.

I made the point that the problems that have arisen in the US are the same as those that will arise in Australia if the government is successful in its push for a mandatory data retention regime.

Listen to the full podcast here.

The betrayal runs deep

By Vivienne Crompton on June 12, 2013 in Personal liberties, Rule of law, Technology and online rights

Republican senator Rand Paul’s opinion piece illustrates the depth of betrayal that Americans feel over the NSA’s vast net of surveillance. In a country that revolted against its colonial masters for unjustly invading the lives of its private citizens, it is abhorrent that their democratically elected government is reverting to imperial tactics from centuries past:

What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won’t be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation…Monitoring the records of as many as a billion phone calls, as some news reports have suggested, is no modest invasion of privacy. It is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked. Our lives are now so digitized that the government going from computer to computer or phone to phone is the modern equivalent of the same type of tyranny that our Founders rebelled against.

Please follow the above link; the full article is well worth reading.

ACLU launching law suit over NSA’s unprecedented surveillance

By Vivienne Crompton on June 12, 2013 in Personal liberties, Rule of law

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in light of the NSA’s mass surveillance of US citizens, has started civil proceedings against various US government agencies. The ACLU feels that the acts of unprecedented spying on private (and most likely innocent) citizenry is a

…program [that] violates Americans’ constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy.

Fox News has two great videos on the controversy. The first covers the lawsuit itself and the second interviews the excellent Judge Andrew Napolitano’s response. Judge Napolitano feels the lawsuit is ‘right on the mark’ and just what Americans need to uncover how underhanded their government has been.

US surveillance scandal a warning against Gillard government data retention proposal

By Simon Breheny on June 12, 2013 in Media release, Personal liberties, Rule of law

“The extraordinary surveillance program by the United States government revealed last week is a warning against the dangers of the Gillard government’s proposed data retention laws,” said Simon Breheny, director of the Legal Rights Project at free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

US national security and law enforcement agencies have obtained access to the data of those who use services provided by Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple.

The data collected includes source and destination email addresses, communication times, location information and IP addresses.

“This is exactly the sort of data that the Gillard government wants to force Australian internet service providers to collect and store on all their customers,” said Mr Breheny.

The IPA has consistently argued against the Gillard government’s plan to force ISPs to store information on the online habits of every Australian internet user.

Mr Breheny told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s inquiry into National Security Legislation that data retention “is completely lacking in proportionality, undermines basic freedoms and is in fundamental conflict with a right to privacy.”

“The Australian government and opposition should abandon any attempt to implement mandatory data retention to avoid a similar privacy crisis as is being seen in America,” said Mr Breheny.

For more information visit: freedomwatch.ipa.org.au

For media and comment: Simon Breheny, Director, Legal Rights Project, 0400 967 382, sbreheny@ipa.org.au

Mark Levin: US has the “elements of a police state”

By Simon Breheny on June 11, 2013 in Personal liberties, Rule of law

American lawyer and radio show host Mark Levin gave a hard-hitting critique of the US government spying program in an interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto last week:

The Department of Homeland Security now is checking laptops and iPhones and other data, making copies of it and keeping it, and now we have this. And some of my brothers and sisters in law enforcement, prosecutors, are saying, ‘Look, look, this is permitted. We need to be able to go through and match —’ wait a minute. You don’t throw a whole net on the entire country and everybody’s phone numbers and check the duration and see if you can come up with some overlaps. That’s not law enforcement. That’s not how national security works. I don’t care what the hell the Supreme Court said 30 years ago or what some judge said 15 minutes ago. This is America, and our government is collecting way too damn much data on we the private citizen.

…

I think people had better wake the hell up and understand something. That we are not a constitutional republic anymore. I don’t know what we are. I’m not saying we’re the most oppressive regime on the face of the earth either, but we are not a constitutional republic anymore. When you look at the first amendment, the assault on free speech under these campaign laws, the assault on religious groups, under the first amendment. When you look at the effort to create a registry under the second amendment on guns. When you look at the fourth and fifth amendments turned on their heads, the ninth and tenth amendments, they pretend they don’t even exist. We have a chief justice of the Supreme Court who twists the words of the commerce clause and the meaning of tax in order to uphold ObamaCare. This is lawlessness. And at some point we need to unravel this federal government, unravel the ruling class and push power back to the states, municipalities, and the people, or we’re going to get more of this.

Watch the full interview here.

Nothing to hide? Prove it

By Simon Breheny on June 11, 2013 in Personal liberties, Rule of law

Richard Littlejohn has written an excellent piece for the UK’s Daily Mail where he talks about the surveillance scandal currently engulfing the US (and now the UK):

Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Every time the State wants to extend its powers, this trite phrase is wheeled out.

Whenever I hear those words I am engulfed by a profound sense of unease. If we have nothing to hide, then why should we have to prove it?

…

Look, we all accept absolutely that those charged with keeping us safe from terrorism must have the power to track the movements and communications of those who pose a clear and present danger.

The reality is: they’ve got that authority already. And even if they haven’t, I’ve always assumed they did it anyway. That’s their job.

But there have to be limits. And spying on all 60 million of us is a bridge too far.

Most people on this side of the Atlantic would agree with the sentiment expressed by President Obama when the Prism story exploded in the States: ‘You can’t have 100 per cent security and 100 per cent privacy.’ Correct. But nor should we be entitled to zero privacy, either.

You can read the full piece here.

1 2 … 12 Next →