Dave be careful or "great" politicans these days everywhere

[CosPhi]

I came across this link  https://theconversation.com/paranoid-defence-controls-could-criminalise-teaching-encryption-41238 

It's about the Australian "Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2015" http://www.defence.gov.au/deco/_Master/docs/Consultation-Docs/Public%20---%20Consultation-Slides.pdf

If you talk about "dual use" things in public you could be a criminal. And it seems the term "dual use" is pretty open. So it could also be when you talk about something who work under extreme conditions, like about electronic which is working either in very high or very low temperature (or both). Also about encryption, RSA with more than 512 bit should be "dual use". I guess they really stay somwhere in 1984
        

[c4757p]

buh.

fuck politicians.

well not really, might make more of the bastards...

[VK3DRB]

Australia is in 1984.

The government spies on the citizens and we have far more rules and regulations than any country on earth, including communist China, the USA, or anywhere else. The local council (county) here is corrupt. They "legally" gouge massive sums of money out of people on very dodgy fines, fees and charges, and pay the CEO of a tinpot council more than President Obama, Prime Minsters David Cameron or Tony Abbott get paid. Furthermore, the federal government monitors everyone's bank accounts. If money has not been deposited or withdrawn from a bank account in 3 years, the government will confiscate the money and place it into their own bank account. I don't think any other country robs their own citizen's bank accounts these days except Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Also the government is now forcing ISP's to keep metadata on every website visited and everything downloaded by each of its citizens.

[miguelvp]

Does the prime minister get paid for life as well? Not that the salary is going to be of any effect when an ex-president charges about $1million for public speaking in events. Or so I've heard.

Not hat those figures are any kind of serious money for the role they represent.

[SArepairman]

Australia is in 1984.

The government spies on the citizens and we have far more rules and regulations than any country on earth, including communist China, the USA, or anywhere else. The local council (county) here is corrupt. They "legally" gouge massive sums of money out of people on very dodgy fines, fees and charges, and pay the CEO of a tinpot council more than President Obama, Prime Minsters David Cameron or Tony Abbott get paid. Furthermore, the federal government monitors everyone's bank accounts. If money has not been deposited or withdrawn from a bank account in 3 years, the government will confiscate the money and place it into their own bank account. I don't think any other country robs their own citizen's bank accounts these days except Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Also the government is now forcing ISP's to keep metadata on every website visited and everything downloaded by each of its citizens.

can you tell me more about this bank thing?

[CosPhi]

can you tell me more about this bank thing?

Google speaks:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-26/banks-warn-customers-government-set-to-take-their-money/4541116
Legislation amended late last year means any account that has not seen activity within three years can be transferred into the Commonwealth's hands - previously the rule was seven years.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/cash-grab-inactive-bank-accounts-to-be-seized/story-e6frfmcr-1226585867131
HOUSEHOLDS face losing up to $109 million from their family savings as the Federal government moves to seize cash from inactive bank accounts.

After legislation was rushed through parliament, the government will from May 31 be able to transfer all money from accounts that have not been used for three years into their own revenues.

This will mean that accounts with anything from $1 upwards that have not had any deposit or withdrawals in the past three years will be transferred to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/budget-grab-for-inactive-bank-accounts-20130226-j13c5
“Imagine if I was looking after 200 property accounts and I had to do that for every one," Mr Lukav said. “It’s just ridiculous. The bond could sit here for the period of the lease, which could be five, 10 or 25 years and there is no need to withdraw or deposit."

 Westpac Banking Corp told customers in a recent letter: “We encourage you to transact (even a minimum of $1.00) on the account listed above within the next 72 hours otherwise you may be at risk of having the balance in this account transferred to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), which will occur on ASIC’s request."

https://www.westpac.com.au/personal-banking/bank-accounts/read-up-on/unclaimed-moneys/
If you do not make a deposit or withdrawal (excluding bank charges or interest paid) on an account for 3 years, Westpac will notify you (if we have a valid address) that the account will be closed.

 If the account balance is $500 or more the balance will be transferred to the Commonwealth Government's unclaimed moneys fund. The Commonwealth Government maintains a database for unclaimed money transferred from financial institutions.

 Westpac will assist you in making a claim to recover moneys that have been transferred to the Commonwealth Government unclaimed moneys fund. Please be aware, this process can take up to 3 months.


If we would have this rule in Switzerland I would have lost some bank accounts 

One would be my child account ... there is nothing really on it and on another is money I inherited.

I also don't see the point of such rules (except stealing becomes legal). 

Even I'm also not happy with our politicians here in Switzerland, but when I hear such storys ... 

[Rerouter]

The bank one was new to me, and caught me a bit off gaurd, i just walked out and brought it up with the folks, and they played it off as perfectly normal....

Our government is very corrupt,

Reminds me strongly of this quote, just about once a week ,

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”


? Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

[EEVblog]

Does the prime minister get paid for life as well?

Ever parliamentarian gets a lifetime pension after serving 8 years, half of their wage.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/system-nurtures-mps-even-dumped-ones/story-fn59niix-1226571150650
A member still in their 30's can get $80K/year for life:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/nice-perks-if-you-can-get-yourself-elected-20090705-d8jk.html
This kid can retire on a lifetime pension before he hits 30.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Roy

I don't mind the Prime Minister getting a lifetime pension, consider it a perk of reaching the top job, but it's a crime that every other tinpot politician gets it.

[EEVblog]

can you tell me more about this bank thing?

He being a bit sensationalist and forgot to mention that the government doesn't take the money for good, you can claim it back at any point. They even have a government website to find it and claim back:
https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-unclaimed-money/unclaimed-money-search

Doesn't make it right though, it's ridiculous and should be abolished.

[EEVblog]

I also don't see the point of such rules (except stealing becomes legal). 

The point is the government gets the money to play with until you come and collect it. If you don't ever collect it, it's theirs.
Most people who left an account dormant for 3 years probably wouldn't notice after another 4 years, so that gets them extra money for the election cycle.

[EEVblog]

Does the prime minister get paid for life as well?

Yes, to the tune of at least a few hundred thousand per year, plus extra perks like 2 staffers, a car, and travel.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/former-prime-ministers-costing-us-millions/story-e6frfmd9-1225945641593

[CosPhi]

I also don't see the point of such rules (except stealing becomes legal). 

The point is the government gets the money to play with until you come and collect it. If you don't ever collect it, it's theirs.
Most people who left an account dormant for 3 years probably wouldn't notice after another 4 years, so that gets them extra money for the election cycle.

Ok you can get your money again. That's true. And of course it is true, it does not much matter if three or seven years ... I think both is not right. Also what happen when you go to jail or something ... accident, for years in a hospital ...

My initial idea from this tread was anyway something else. For example when you talk about a computer (I guess they mean any electronic control system) who is designed to work below -45°C or above 85°C you would be already a criminal.

[VK3DRB]

can you tell me more about this bank thing?

He being a bit sensationalist and forgot to mention that the government doesn't take the money for good, you can claim it back at any point. They even have a government website to find it and claim back:
https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/tools-and-resources/find-unclaimed-money/unclaimed-money-search

Doesn't make it right though, it's ridiculous and should be abolished.

Speak to anyone who has tried to get it back. Some old aged pensioners have literally died before they could get it back. It is theft. If I break into a bank and borrow $100K, and hand them an IOU note to repay it in 3 months time, I would get a long jail sentence.

There are two forms of corruption by governments...

1. Illegal. eg: Russian, Indonesian and Chinese governments.
2. Legal. If you want to get something unfairly, just pass a law! eg: Australia.

One small example of #2: I had to remove an obviously dangerous and damaging 85 foot high non-native tree (a she-oak) from my own land. It was 6 feet from the house. The tree cost $3K to remove, but the local council made me pay an extra $500 in "fees and charges" to get a permit and a I had to provide a mountain of paperwork to remove it - photos, plans, title to the land, signed declarations, permit applications, arborist's report  etc. When I queried why they are charging people to remove a dangerous tree from their own land they said "If we didn't charge people, they would strip the suburb of its trees". Then I replied, "But they didn't strip the suburb of its trees before you started charging people, to which they replied, "If you remove the tree without a permit it's a $5,000 fine. Now, do you want to apply for the permit or don't you?" At least with the Mafia, you get some protection for your money.

Another example: A few years ago the federal government appointed an "independent tribunal" (funded by the government) into politicians' salaries. First up... a 25% to 40% pay rise to the politicians. Then 6 months later a further 5%. All the politicians from all sides voted unanimously to support the increases. And when the politicians were questioned by the media, they said, "It wasn't our idea. We just abide by the recommendations of the independent tribunal." Meanwhile our state nurses had to fight and threaten to go on strike to get a measly 2%. And yet, nurses help sick people but sick politicians help themselves.

[Tinkerer]

One small example of #2: I had to remove an obviously dangerous and damaging 85 foot high non-native tree (a she-oak) from my own land. It was 6 feet from the house. The tree cost $3K to remove, but the local council made me pay an extra $500 in "fees and charges" to get a permit and a I had to provide a mountain of paperwork to remove it - photos, plans, title to the land, signed declarations, permit applications, arborist's report  etc. When I queried why they are charging people to remove a dangerous tree from their own land they said "If we didn't charge people, they would strip the suburb of its trees". Then I replied, "But they didn't strip the suburb of its trees before you started charging people, to which they replied, "If you remove the tree without a permit it's a $5,000 fine. Now, do you want to apply for the permit or don't you?" At least with the Mafia, you get some protection for your money.

I dont think the US is that far off from this. We already have homeowners associations that set everything from what plants you can have to how tall your grass should be. Depends on the city, but sometimes you need mountains of permits to simply place a small metal shed. To add a cost to remove a tree wouldnt be too much of a stretch.
Thankfully I live in a neighborhood without a homeowners association in a city that doesnt have a web of permitting and regulations for stuff. They still have some of course, but nothing near what the city next door has; you cant even place a shed there without a permit.

[VK3DRB]

...I dont think the US is that far off from this. We already have homeowners associations that set everything from what plants you can have to how tall your grass should be.

We are already there. Here, if the grass on the nature strip (ie: the part in front of your house) grows taller than 30cm (1 foot), its a $200 fine, even though the council actually owns that piece of land.

[Mechanical Menace]

I had to remove an obviously dangerous and damaging 85 foot high non-native tree (a she-oak) from my own land.

Out of interest which particular breed? I thought with them been called cassowary trees they were all native to Australia lol

"If we didn't charge people, they would strip the suburb of its trees". Then I replied, "But they didn't strip the suburb of its trees before you started charging people."

Times change, even with vast fines people knowingly buy listed houses with listed gardens and trees around here and strip out the trees and tarmac/concrete/somehow pave the garden to make a car park...

[SL4P]

We (the technologists) are partly responsible for this mess.

Back in the 60s and 70s - we introduced computers to mainstream life, and subsequently public authorities (and most private organisations) saw opportunities to objectify everything - either with a number, or a form using check-boxes and 'pick one from a list'.

Reduced staff, and costs - greater efficiency -- for the provider, not the customer.

Through the 90s this became the internet, then 'the web', and eventually pervasive user-access services that eliminate thinking (and more costs) on the provider's side - as long as you 'follow the rules'. (or as apple said: 'hold it properly')

There is very little provision for subjective or logical consideration outside the templates --- because they fired all the smart people that were hired to design the models about 15 years ago once the shareholders and management had learned everything.

Think about a fixed camera speeding ticket.  No-one actually saw the offence or prevailing circumstances, no-one looked at the image unless you ask for a review (then they check the computer records), and send a 'no grounds for cancellation' letter, and if you keep asking, it just gets pushed from one department's computer to another.
You are literally unable to speak to someone with authority or ability to review the notice.  If you choose to take the infringement to court - you are told - if you ask to present photos or other mitigating details - that 'this' court does not review evidence...  You may get let off, or penalty upheld.  No-one at any stage of the process has actually observed an offence or taken time to re-validate the possibility that it could be wrong (it probably isn't, but the death sentence is still dead - if the prisoner was actually innocent!)

- because we told them 'computers are never wrong'!

GIGO - Garbaqe In = Garbage Out!

[Mechanical Menace]

We (the technologists) are partly responsible for this mess.

Back in the 60s and 70s - we introduced computers to mainstream life, and subsequently public authorities (and most private organisations) saw opportunities to objectify everything - either with a number, or a form using check-boxes and 'pick one from a list'.

Reduced staff, and costs - greater efficiency -- for the provider, not the customer.

Are you seriously saying that before computers commercial enterprises weren't always trying to do this? I honestly thought Adam Smith was from the 18th not 20th century...

[CatalinaWOW]

Can't speak for the whole world but dead account laws definitely exist here in the US.  I can personally vouch for the difficulty in recovering the money.  But this is one of those cases where there isn't really any right answer.  (By the way the process, at least here in the US is called escheatment).

These dead accounts pop up for any number of reasons.  Death of loners, forgetfulness, fires floods and other disasters and so on.  Before these escheatment laws the banks were the ones playing with the money (and writing the definitions of how an account is defined as dead).   So trying to help, our politicians created definitions and took over the responsibility of dealing with the money.  While they could have forced the banks to leave the accounts open indefinitely, that would create its own problems (bank assets held in accounts hundreds of years old which due to the wonders of compounding contained a significant part of the banks assets with no way to do anything with them).  The banks were happy to wash their hands of the problem.  Each state in the US is different on how they handle this, but they all go to some level of effort to find the owners of the funds.  There are usually searchable records by name and other identifiers.  Now if every one was honest this would be a pretty fair answer, but we all know that there are a few people who would be glad to claim that they are the long missing owner of a big account, or the sole remaining heir or so on.  Particularly when the dead account is in some rare name like John Smith or Tom Brown.  Trying to prevent that kind of fraud is how the lengthy and painful recovery process came to be.

While it can be made to sound terrible as it has in some of the above posts, it isn't evil, just an example of muddling through in an imperfect world.  Having said that, I can't speak to the specifics of why the time frame changed from 7 years to 3 years.  I think the time frame has gotten shorter here in the US, but don't know the specifics.  Also don't have any good arguments for what the perfect duration would be. 

[EEVblog]

Also don't have any good arguments for what the perfect duration would be.

Well I think almost everyone, bar the politicians, think that 3 years is ridiculously short. 30 years would be too long, so 10 sounds reasonable.
Few people complained about 7 years.
The problem is they changed it and made it shorter, short enough so the money comes in during a 4 year election cycle. It can be seen as nothing but a blatant cash grab.
There was no other legitimate reason to change it to 3 years.

[EEVblog]

My initial idea from this tread was anyway something else. For example when you talk about a computer (I guess they mean any electronic control system) who is designed to work below -45°C or above 85°C you would be already a criminal.

Every one of us probably technically breaks a dozen laws every month, what else is new 
Of course that being said, the new law is ridiculous.

But it's just like being sued. You, me, anyone can get sued at any time for any reason at all! Doesn't make it enforceable, but it can certainly ruin your life.
Similar thing with laws. If the authorities want to get you they will get you on something. It's an age old cop trick that if you want to stop a car and you don't have probable cause, just follow it for 5 minutes and it's almost certain they will break some minor traffic rule. Or a person will jaywalk etc.
Reminds me of the secret federal court ruling that came down last year I think about the foreign government corruption thing. There was all the buzz that anyone who even retweeted a link to the case would be charged as a federal crime. Never happened of course because they knew it was ridiculous and charging anyone for retweeting a news link would be media suicide. But it scared a lot of people, and that's the point.
All these bastards need to be thrown out, yet the sheeple keep voting for them.

[SL4P]

We (the technologists) are partly responsible for this mess.
::
::
Reduced staff, and costs - greater efficiency -- for the provider, not the customer.

Are you seriously saying that before computers commercial enterprises weren't always trying to do this? I honestly thought Adam Smith was from the 18th not 20th century...

No - not at all - we, and the 'technologists before us - simply made it easier for 'them' - albeit paid by them to create this clean, simple, purely objective ''1984'' business utopia.
Subsequent enactment of laws just entrenched these 'efficiencies' to make their life easier, not the community's.