Merry Christmas to all who celebrate!
Now for another issue, as you may see, I am trialing a new blog format!
I would love your feedback on this...can you see everything, is it clear, should I perhaps think about a landing page of some sort?!
Oh, the dilemmas one has with web design...
Leave your comments, send me an email or tweet - I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
This is an archived post, originally written for Future Challenges.
The Stop Online Piracy Act, SOPA.
The Protect Intellectual Property Act, PIPA.
The ISP based Australian Internet filter, the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
These are a few examples of many governments’ attempts, both within Australia and internationally, to fight what they see as “cyber crime” or ensure “cyber security”. The question to ask however, is whether these attempts are true steps forward in fighting unlawful and harmful action, or whether they are misguided endeavours to control users, and how effective are they in reality at either of those roles?
We live in an increasingly online society; Information and Communications Technology (ICT) plays an intrinsic role in the daily lives of most Australians, so much so we almost no longer consciously realise it. Like any tool however, ICT can be utilised for both lawful and unlawful pursuits and as such, “cyber crime” has become an issue of consideration for those concerned with the security of the nation, including the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
“High Tech Crime” is the purview of the AFP and is defined in Commonwealth legislation within Part 10.7 – Computer Offences of the Criminal Code Act 1995 . This includes crimes that rely on the use of ICT, or which target ICT equipment, data and services. The Australian High Tech Crime Center (AHTCC) was formed in 2008 and looks after these types of attacks; intrusions, denial of service (DoS) attacks, destruction of data and distributing malicious software (AHTCC 2011).
The AFP’s role is relatively understood, they pursue individuals and groups who have broken the relevant legislation. To aid this, in November 2011 the Australian Government made movements towards joining an international treaty fighting internet crime. This is hoped to reduce the estimated $1 billion in risk to Australian companies from cyber crime every year (The Australian, 2011).
Internet filters however, are a different beast and there are questions about their efficacy and the motivations behind them.
In 2009, the Australian Government began a campaign to introduce an ISP based internet filter to “block overseas sites which contain criminal content” (ABC News, 2009). This would be done through the creation of a “blacklist”, which would be maintained by an independent body in order to “protect Australians from unsuitable material”.
The actions however, brought resounding criticism from a multitude of corners, including the Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), who rightly posed the question:
“Exactly what will be blocked? Who will decide and why is it being attempted in the first place?”
The EFA’s Vice Chair Mr Jacobs suggested that “the ease with which users can circumvent the filtering raises questions about what it is actually trying to accomplish” (ABC News, 2009). This is perhaps the main issue with protection in the form of a filter or restriction; freedoms are reduced and controlled by a third party without any input from the public or the constituents.
Not only did the EFA raise concerns, but groups such as “No Clean Feed” erupted, encouraging users to take action against the Bill, and take action they did.
In August 2009, in response to the AFP breaking up an underground hacker’s forum, the AFP’s computer system was hacked and the individuals accessed both police evidence and intelligence about federal police systems such as its IP addresses (SMH, 2009).
The disruptions didn’t stop there; in 2010 hackers coordinated attacks on various government sites, debilitating the Australian Parliament House’s website and making Kevin Rudd’s website the home for “Operation: Titstorm”
This operation was conducted by the group “Anonymous”, the same group who have taken down Sony and attacked various government sites (such as Nigeria and Syria) in a form of “hacktivism” and are extremely vocal against all forms of internet censorship.
The bill hasn’t been passed completely, however it may no longer need to as four Australian ISP’s have now voluntarily blocked over 500 websites, setting an interesting precedent (Chalk, 2011).
So there is a lot happening; internet filters are imposed, hackers are accessing and committing “cyber crime” despite security measures, new types of crime are emerging as well as traditional crimes being aided by technology. What does this mean for the future? Where does this leave our global community? Can we have our computer and internet freedoms and still expect to be safe and protected?
Currently we are in a period of transition. We deal with new forms of crime with traditional methods of crime fighting. We deal with the symptoms and attempt to stem the flow rather than deal with the source.
Information and Communication Technologies are a tool. In the same ways that cars and knives are tools than can be used for lawful and freeing activities as well as dangerous and deadly activities, technologies are a tool that can be used for great good and vice versa.
It should also be remembered that young people today are growing up in a society where ICT and the freedoms they provide are taken as the norm. As such, removal of these freedoms is most likely going to be seen as a step backwards and will be fought vehemently.
In any society there is the requirement for some rules and legislation in order to prevent crime. However, for crime fighting to be effective, the focus should be on the crime itself and not on restricting the medium by which the crime is being conducted, particularly when it can bring so much good. The types of crimes are changing and perhaps that should be the focus of protection efforts. It may also be worth thinking about looking at why these crimes are occurring and dealing with the causes rather than simply focusing on the symptoms. Easier said than done definitely, but if we are to live in a truly global society, how can you have true and free global interaction if someone picks and chooses what you are free to access? How is that freedom? Is it a case perhaps, of accepting the fact that no society can be as truly free as we want it to be?
Far from a moral and legal compass, Shari’a has been nothing but a political tool used by the NCP to consolidate their hold on power. While some naively believed the rhetoric and rallied around ‘the Islamic State’, the majority has known that the regime’s founding ideology has long been perverted by power and greed. In the past, the NCP made an effort, however minimal, to cover up their religious merchandizing, if only as a courtesy. However, when CS gas is fired into a house of worship on specific orders, it seems evident that we are no longer dealing with a regime that can be bothered with even insincere courtesies.
This has been a cause of personal frustration for some time now.
Another example can be found in Timbuktu (yeh, it’s a place), Mali, where a group called the "Ansar Dine", control part of the country and destroy the nation's heritage and history in the name of "Sharia Law".
This band of terrorists has recently turned their guns and fanaticism against the historical shrines that had made the city of Timbuktu a beacon of learning through so many centuries. They have used pick-axes, shovels, hammers and guns to destroy earthen tombs and shrines of local saints in the desert city of Timbuktu, claiming that they are doing so to defend the purity of their faith against idol worship. They are behind the destruction of at least eight Timbuktu mausoleums and several tombs, centuries-old shrines in what is known as the ‘City of 333 Saints’.
***
My frustration is twofold.
Firstly, even though the actions are not aligned with Islamic values and principles, these groups will often claim their actions are in the name of the religion and then rub salt into the wound by denouncing anything or anyone they believe isn’t following Islam.
Secondly, by using Islam as a political tool, these groups taint the name of the religion itself.
Take the example of the the Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Akhwan al-Muslimeen, the current Egyptian President’s party. The organisation started as a religious social organisation, with stated aims to preach Islam. With power usually comes political agendas however, and the Brotherhood is now one of the largest political movements in the Arab world. The organisation (the political wing) operates under the banner of Islam, however throughout its history, its actions haven’t always been aligned with Islamic values.
Yet, because the Brotherhood as an organisation has an Islamic mandate, Muslim members and calls itself the “Muslim” Brotherhood, it’s actions are seen as representative of 'what is right under Islam'.
This is unfortunate as there is a difference between Islam and self proclaimed ‘Islamists’, or those who use religion as a mean to a political end. This is not to say that all political Islamists are bad as such, things are much more nuanced than that. There is simply a difference between Islam and Islamists, and this should be recognised.
It is not the religion that should be judged by the people but the people whom should be judged by the religion. After all, we are only human, and humans are fallible. Such is the nature of our humanity.
***
This isn’t Islam’s problem alone, it has happened with Christians, Jews and numerous other religious groups. Religion is an extremely effective and persuasive political tool, and unfortunately is often used to justify evil and undeniable atrocities.
However, when you look at it…
“Do you love your Creator? Then love your fellow beings first.” – The Prophet Mohammed (SAW) [Muslims]
“Love thy neighbor as thyself” – Jesus, quoting the Torah (New Testament) [Christians and Jews]
“Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” – Buddha [Buddhists]
It would seems to me that mercy and love are what all religions preach and what we should focus on, regardless of denomination.
***
In all of this, it should be noted that Muslims have been not given a mandate on how to rule a nation.
There are detailed descriptions for many things in Islam, down to the very details of how to wash before you pray, but there is no description for the best “model of government”.
Yes, there is the concept of ‘Sharia’, however Sharia is not a book of law as Western civilisation would have it, rather it is the ‘path’ or the Islamic ‘way of life’ (read further here).
What there isn’t is a ruling on whether Muslims should be right wing, left wing, realist, socialist, communist (though that wouldn’t really work anyway), democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial…
Politics is one of the areas that Islam hasn’t mandated. What does that tell you?
***
So, what are your thoughts? For me personally, I think religion and politics are different realms and should be kept separate. That is how I will keep it at any rate.
I’ve been working on my tagging skills =) This is one that I did for a workmate. Getting better…
An interesting perspective from Attentional Austerity on multitasking: It’s sometimes assumed that in the world the Internet created, those who excel at multi-tasking and endlessly partitioning their attention will have the advantage. I’m not so sure. It rather seems like we are turning our digital devices into horcruxes of the mind. Instead, I’m betting the advantage will go to the person who is able to cancel out the noise and focus with ferocity.
Read more after the jump!
Useful procrastination – Improve your vocabulary with this nifty little website…
This guy only owns 39 things. Learn from him..
I’m right and your wrong and other political truths…
I don’t like this expression ‘First World problems.’ It is false and it is condescending. Yes, Nigerians struggle with floods or infant mortality. But these same Nigerians also deal with mundane and seemingly luxurious hassles. Connectivity issues on your BlackBerry, cost of car repair, how to sync your iPad, what brand of noodles to buy: Third World problems. All the silly stuff of life doesn’t disappear just because you’re black and live in a poorer country. People in the richer nations need a more robust sense of the lives being lived in the darker nations. Here’s a First World problem: the inability to see that others are as fully complex and as keen on technology and pleasure as you are.
Teju Cole (via semperes and areyoumyghost)
I found this article particularly poignant. Piety alone is supposed to cure all ills and fix centuries of delays in development.
Instead, Arabs have turned into the best consumers of Western products—from oil pipelines to skyscrapers—while smugly believing that they are in possession of religious truth. In other words, the only thing left the Arab world is its conviction that Islam is better than other religions or beliefs and Sunnis are better than Shiites. Such convictions may help one feel good but they don’t help nations progress or win gold medals.
Just as political systems need to change, the Arabs’ relationship to Islam needs to be reformulated for the times if they are to move ahead. They need to make a concerted effort to keep the spheres of religion and politics wholly separate. This, however, requires active dissent from within. Muslim-majority Arab societies need heretics, people who are not cowed by the fear of hellfire and the popular condemnations of moralists to nudge their fellow coreligionists out of their paralysis. They need to instigate a cultural revolution, not just a political one, if there is ever any hope for Arabs and Muslims to have a real place in contemporary civilization. Magical thinking about reviving 7th-century Islam is not going to get them gold medals at the Olympics, a soccer world cup, give them the knowledge to invent new technologies, improve their universities, cure dangerous illnesses, overcome poverty and illiteracy, and temper the flames of extremism. Only a well-defined secular, contemporary project can get them there.
An oldie but a goldie...
“You must know that in any moment a decision you make can change the course of your life forever: the very next person stand behind in line or sit next to on an airplane, the very next phone call you make or receive, the very next movie you see or book you read or page you turn could be the one single thing that causes the floodgates to open, and all of the things that you’ve been waiting for to fall into place.” - Anthony Robbins
Some of the biggest changes in my life have occurred after the most unlikely inspiration.
My love of cars and motorsport? From watching a movie when I was 13.
My current job? From chatting to a lady at a jobs stall when I was in first year uni and thinking 'I would love to do that one day'.
Deciding to start an organisation? From attending a conference I applied to late, and a conversation I had with my mum late that night...
Keep an open mind.
You never know when the inspiration will strike, or when your life will change...
This article was originally written for the International Political Forum, read the article here.
The Federal Government of Australia has announced changes to its policies that will see Australia take a huge leap backwards in the humanity of its processing of refugees and asylum seekers.
Allow me a moment here for honest disbelief and disappointment in the handling of this unnecessarily controversial issue.
The Immigration Minister Chris Bowen announced that asylum seekers that arrive by boat will no longer be detained in Nauru or Manus (PNG) as the the offshore processing facilities have reached their capacity. Instead, they will be allocated "temporary bridging visas", meaning they will be allowed to live outside detention centers without the right to work or bring their families to Australia. The bridging visas will allow for welfare and assistance of up to 89% of unemployment benefits ($270) a week, a sum below the Australian poverty line. [More after the jump]
The policy is eerily similar to the Howard era's draconian Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) but manages to make matters worse.
Individuals under TPVs were allowed to work and contribute to the community, thus culturally preparing them for the eventual transition to full Australian citizens once their processing was complete.
The policy, quite frankly, is a recipe for disaster. Introducing potentially thousands of asylum seekers into a community, living in poverty and with no legal way to earn money or improve their standard of living is not only inhumane, it is short sighted and irresponsible. Charities will be overwhelmed by the demand on their resources, communities can turn into ghettos and by disenfranchising and isolating truly vulnerable individuals, the policy has the potential to become the birthplace of a new underclass.
Asylum seekers and refugees are often eager to work, diligent and dedicated to beginning a new life. Stripped of their opportunity to do so, where will they turn? How will they properly adapt to their new culture? Looking internally, why would the community accept them if they don't see them contributing to the community?
There is no doubt that this is a difficult and complex issue with no easy solution. However, the solution cannot lay in essentially reinvigorating a decade old policy, in flaunting international law and creating inevitable problems for the future of Australia's social fabric.
Michelle Grattan made the following comment, challenging people to come up with better options.
It is easy to find holes in what the government has done this week. But it's another matter to say what policy adjustment would best meet the three criteria of humanity, effectiveness and community acceptability.
I tend to disagree. Australians (perhaps reluctantly) elected this government to lead the nation, not pander to every whim, ensuring every solution is "acceptable to the community" before it is implemented. It is their job as leaders and governors of the nation to provide solutions that are in the best interests of the country and its citizens, not simply in the interests of providing short term solutions that may work up until the election date.
Unfortunately however, this isn't how the system seems to work.
The public discussion on this issue has been clouded with political agendas, biased language, emotional manipulation and pure exploitation of fear of the unknown from both sides of the house. Unfortunately, it seems our very humanity as a responsible nation has been caught in the crossfire. There is very little public understanding of what will 'stop the boats' - advertisements such as the below are incredibly ineffective. Where is a potential asylum seeker going to access a computer and the Internet in order to even view the video? In two months it has had a total of 8.927 views...I think that speaks for itself.
Caption provided: "We're working regionally to stop people smugglers. There's no advantage taking a boat when it's safer, cheaper and just as quick to use orderly migration options." They have got to be kidding. (via)
It is no wonder that Australia is developing a reputation as 'extremely harsh'.
In a time where the nation is attempting to build its reputation in the region and globally through initiatives such as the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper and the seat on the Security Council, this is an embarrassment. Neighbours such as Indonesia and Malaysia, who deal with much larger numbers, are hardly likely to be impressed - or understanding.
The unfortunate result is that this issue has become unnecessarily politicised and used as a manipulator of the public sentiment by both parties. Simplistic statements such as "stop the boats" dehumanise individuals and create a political football that completely distorts the true nature of the discussion. 'The conversation has been poisoned' suggests Professor Burnside, and that poison is what feeds the inexorable decent in this debate.
Almost everything that has happened in refugee policy over the past 11 years has been informed and supported by dishonest rhetoric. Specifically, calling boat people “illegals” and “queue-jumpers” is not only false, it is calculated to prejudice the public against a tiny group of weak, vulnerable people who deserve our help, not our hatred. (via)
In the grand scheme of things, these traumatised men, women and children are less than 10% of our annual migration intake and are just looking for a new, peaceful place to call home.
I doubt that they expected that when they eventually arrived in Australia they would be treated worse than our criminals.
Budget implications should be enough to convince your average Australian that there is a better solution. Detention onshore costs around $150, 000 per person, per year and offshore costs about $500, 000 per person, per year. Surely, there are better options.
For a fantastic article that looks at a possible alternative, check out Professor Julian Burnside's thoughts. There are many other humane solutions out there
Lastly, for those who claim that these initiatives stop the boat, Professor James Hathaway (an expert on international refugee law) states:
The whole people-smuggling problem is a false issue. We created the market for human smuggling. If asylum seekers could lawfully come to Australia and make a refugee claim without the need of sneaking in by boat, they would do it. But we make it illegal and create the market that smugglers thrive on.
We are extremely lucky to live in Australia and call this land home. Is it too much to show some humanity and share?
Satire at its finest!
A man who dresses up as a giraffe and carries out random acts of kindness towards people across Scotland has said he does it to feel good.
Child Labour in Pakistan, a photo journal
Talking about the different parts of you and your present voice…
I find myself struggling with being both content and restless. I have ridiculed myself for being the researcher, therapist, wife, and friend separately, constantly feeling as though I am lying to someone.
Choosing a career seems endlessly difficult, but actually, most of work falls into just a few categories, and most of what we love to do falls into just a few as well. Look at your choices. They probably reveal to you which of the three paths you should take.
Since Tetris was launched on the world in 1986, millions of hours have been lost through playing this simple game. Since then, we’ve seen games consoles grow in power, and with it the appearance of everything from Call of Duty to World of Warcraft. Yet block and puzzle games like Tetris still have a special place in our hearts. Why are they are so compelling?
Really clever app…
India no longer a receiver of UK aid.
Lowy Institute’s ‘Interpreter’ article on why Israel’s Gaza escalation is a calculated risk.
The terrifying truth is that I’m making a difference no matter what I do, whether I like it or not. The math is right there: Everything else being equal, my actions amount to 1/7,047,833,249th of human existence, give or take whichever babies are being born right now.
Great for friendships as well as dating..I found it interesting.
It happened to me, I was a lazy welfare mum…and interesting story about surviving on welfare
They say it will be an amazing phenomena. They also say not to look at it directly…
I will be checking it out from here…
Where will you be?
Happy viewing!
For anyone interested in regional politics: This week China starts its week long congress where they are going to begin the once-in-a-decade leadership transfer process. Interesting stuff indeed...
So during the congress a new central committee is elected, and they then choose the Politburo Standing Committee, the highest decision making authority in the land.
The congress opened with the outgoing leader, Hu Jintao addressing the congress and stressing that the fight against corruption could ‘prove fatal’ to the party if not won. It is said that the committees are already known before the congress begins, many decisions being made through “backroom politicking”. Either way, what is important is what the leadership plans to do…and it definitely seems that holding on to power is one of their objectives (naturally).
The BBC reports a little more here, and says that in Beijing, more than 1.4 million volunteers have been brought in to help out with security for the congress. Wow.
China is the world’s second largest economy currently and is well on its way to becoming the world’s first. The eyes of the world will be on the communist nation this week more than ever…
What do you think? Where will China’s leadership take it? Their system has clearly worked for what they want to achieve so far…right?
Hanging out with friends and family increasingly means also hanging out with their technology. While eating, defecating, or resting in our beds, we are rubbing on our glowing rectangles, seemingly lost within the infostream.
I came across a great essay on the false separation between what we see as offline and online and the fetishisation of the offline…read on for more.
Facebook doesn’t curtail the offline but depends on it. What is most crucial to our time spent logged on is what happened when logged off; it is the fuel that runs the engine of social media. The photos posted, the opinions expressed, the check-ins that fill our streams are often anchored by what happens when disconnected and logged-off. The Web has everything to do with reality; it comprises real people with real bodies, histories, and politics. It is the fetish objects of the offline and the disconnected that are not real.
Those who mourn the loss of the offline are blind to its prominence online. When Turkle was walking Cape Cod, she breathed in the air, felt the breeze, and watched the waves with Facebook in mind. The appreciation of this moment of so-called disconnection was, in part, a product of online connection. The stroll ultimately was understood as and came to be fodder for her op-ed, just as our own time spent not looking at Facebook becomes the status updates and photos we will post later.
The clear distinction between the on and offline, between human and technology, is queered beyond tenability. It’s not real unless it’s on Google; pics or it didn’t happen. We aren’t friends until we are Facebook friends. We have come to understand more and more of our lives through the logic of digital connection. Social media is more than something we log into; it is something we carry within us. We can’t log off.
Solving this digital dualism also solves the contradiction: We may never fully log off, but this in no way implies the loss of the face-to-face, the slow, the analog, the deep introspection, the long walks, or the subtle appreciation of life sans screen. We enjoy all of this more than ever before. Let’s not pretend we are in some special, elite group with access to the pure offline, turning the real into a fetish and regarding everyone else as a little less real and a little less human.
Read the article here: The IRL Fetish: Published at The New Inquiry, NATHAN JURGENSON, 28th June
***
We’re not friends until we are Facebook friends…
Isn’t that the truth these days? We speak about our “online” lives as if they are a different life but in reality, it is nothing more than an carefully curated extension of ourselves.
Online cannot exist in a vacuum, and Nathan highlights this in his piece. The internet and “social media” (as if it is a “thing” that can be defined), is only another tool for us to interact with as we see fit. In the same way that the clothes we choose to wear are an outward reflection of our beliefs or the image we wish to project, the parts of our lives we choose to share speak volumes about how we wish to be seen.
However…
I can’t stop myself from thinking about how everything I say and write on the internet is there forever, which at times (quite often, in fact), makes me hesitate. That permanence makes me apprehensive. Makes me think twice, three times, four even, before choosing to share something. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of our oversharing culture? Doesn’t it fly in the face of presenting the “raw” individual? Isn’t that why we follow celebrities and athletes on facebook and twitter, to get a glimpse behind the polished curtain of their presentation and see the person underneath?
***
Perhaps I am a little old fashioned and believe that not everyone has the equal right to access all parts of me. Some parts should still be earned. I still believe in the concept of privacy, however laughable that may be in the 21st century. There is still a space in society for the private and the public sphere, and you can choose to erase the line between the two or keep them completely delineated… that is still a personal choice that exists.
After all, Facebook, Google, Amazon and every damn Silicon Valley company may be able to track every move online, bank details, movements and purchases… but they still have no idea what we are thinking. We still have the power to buck our supposed trends and preferences, be erratic, unpredictable and unplug.
That is the beauty of being human.
A lovely tumblr I came across that frames the dilemmas of our twenties through beloved fairy tale characters of our childhood…
Prince Charming searched near and far for Cinderella. He even checked the event page for the ball but she totally wasn’t even on the guest list!
There is nothing like the taste of a dust storm for lunch…
Adjusting to working in the desert has been an interesting experience.
The most unexpected part isn’t the heat, the dust or the lack of reception.
It’s the flies!
Swarms and swarms of flies. They get into your nose, into your ears, behind your glasses…
I decided to walk home from work after a shift one day, optimistically thinking it would be nice to get some fresh air, exercise and appreciate the landscape. I ended up spending the entire time swatting my face and being chased by a black cloud of writhing insects.
It’s an eerie landscape out here, and one that often reminds you of your own insignificance. The unrelenting nature of the environment and the sheer scale of the expanse are truly …humbling.
We are fragile creatures.
***
Peace, Yassmin (from the rigs).
