poor kids.

That's the worst thing about the sorry, it reinforces the stigma that we can no longer do anything because such acts would always be criminal.

Does anyone else find this a little creepy?

Rudd staff must reveal sex history
MINISTERIAL staff in the Rudd government are being forced to list their history of sexual partners, before gaining security clearance.

Staff are also expected to reveal extra-marital affairs and detail homosexual experiences.

More than 300 ministerial and electorate staffers have been ordered to fill in a 25-page form and attend an in-depth interview into their personal finances, drug habits and sexual history before gaining high-level security clearance.

Senior staff say they have been told the security form is designed to protect them from blackmail.

But several have told The Sunday Telegraph they were affronted at the personal information they had been forced to divulge.

Friends are also interviewed, and information about drug use and sexual history is cross-checked.

From the SMH

COMPANIES will be able to intercept the emails and internet communications of their employees without their consent under new laws being considered by the Federal Government to protect the nation's critical infrastructure from a cyber attack.

The proposed powers, which the Government wants in place by the middle of next year and which could affect millions of workers, have been slammed as an unprecedented and unjustifiable intrusion on civil liberties.

The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, acknowledges concerns but said the powers were a necessary bulwark against a growing threat to national security.

Mr McClelland told the Herald he had been advised that an attack to disable computer networks that sustained the financial system, stock exchange, electricity grid and transport system "would reap far greater economic damage than would be the case of a physical [terrorist] attack".

The Government is developing counter-measures, including amending the Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act to allow companies and others operating critical infrastructure to monitor emails and other internet communications without their workers' consent.

The act allows only security agencies to monitor their employees' communications without consent. That power expires at the end of June next year and Mr McClelland said he wanted the new legislation to include companies providing services critical to the economy.

"At least 90 per cent of networks exist outside government but there's no powers for corporate network supervisors to intercept such communications unless they have specific authority from the employee," he told the Herald.

"It's unquestionable that it's necessary from time to time for network supervisors to open emails addressed to people to identify viruses and the like

"There needs to be protocols and guidelines developed so companies can protect their own networks.

"It will need new legislation."

Mr McClelland said there had already been instances of hackers infiltrating sensitive systems in Australia.

"There's no question that breaches of both government and private sector computer networks have occurred already - in some instances as a result of mischief, in some instances to obtain security-sensitive information and in some cases to obtain commercial information."

He said it was difficult to track electronic attackers.

He cited an attack by hackers in Estonia last year that, in effect, shut down its Government for almost two weeks.

They used thousands of computers controlled through viruses - known as botnets - to simultaneously access an Estonian Government website, overwhelming the server and crashing its entire network.

Mr McClelland said he would consult unions, privacy experts and civil libertarians before introducing the laws.

Dale Clapperton, the chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit group concerned with the rights of individual internet users, was unimpressed.

"These new powers will facilitate fishing expeditions into employees' emails and computer use rather than being used to protect critical infrastructure," Mr Clapperton said.

"I'm talking about corporate eavesdropping and witch-hunts If an employer wanted to bone [sack] someone, they could use these powers."

Mr McClelland said Australia would send people to the US to help with a project to tackle electronic attacks. Hackers have infiltrated networks of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies.

The Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the problem needed an approach similar in scale to the Manhattan Project, which led to the creation of atomic weapons.

What the?! I thought conservatives were supposed to take away freedoms.

Post Last Updated:14.04.2008 at 17.11

That is really, really dirty. How the hell can monitoring an employees e-mail possibly prevent a terrorist attack? Do they really believe (or expect us to believe, more likely) that employees will use it for anti-terrorist reasons? Bye bye freedom.

Post by Allan

Dale Clapperton, the chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit group concerned with the rights of individual internet users, was unimpressed.

"These new powers will facilitate fishing expeditions into employees' emails and computer use rather than being used to protect critical infrastructure," Mr Clapperton said.

"I'm talking about corporate eavesdropping and witch-hunts If an employer wanted to bone [sack] someone, they could use these powers."

I don't get it. Read your contracts, people, and you will find most workplaces say that all electronic communications are the property of the employer/organisation. So they can read them now if they want to (and do, btw - I know this from people both in IT and management). Is the govt pretending this isn't already the case? Weird.

Most contracts stipulate that, however, it only applies to corporate mail. The description of the new act is open ended and actually implies that corporations will be able to read all electronic communications - so if you open your GMail or Yahoo Mail during your tea break that too could be read.

Ugh I'm getting sick to death of listening to this government talk about going after 'rich families' to the benefit of 'working families'. Who the flip are these rich families who don't work? What do they do all day, because I want to do it to!

And now we have special taxes against the rich. Such as extra tax on luxury cars. That is cars over $57,000. And then there's the extra taxes for wealthy families. That is those that earn over $150,000 a year. So $75,000 each. Bugger the fact they're probably up to their eyeballs in debt. Tax them more.

Heck, why not just tell people don't work harder or try to achieve, we'll only penalise you for it. Oh, that's what they are saying.

Most knobbish element of last night's budget:

ow tough was Wayne Swan really, when he can afford such make-work schemes for musos:

The Government will provide $1.7 million over four years to ensure that international touring productions employ at least one local band or artist as a support act.

You pay so they play.