Category Archives: Criminalising

Whistleblowers on Intel face up to 10 years in prison

In the public interest. Those working in the public interest are not traitors, those deceiving the public are betraying the oath of office.

https://www.rt.com/news/173264-australia-asio-whistleblowing-jail/

Australian bill sees whistleblowing on intel ops punishable by up to 10 years in jail

16 Jul, 2014 20:10 / Updated 5 years agoGet short URL

AFP Photo / Frederick Florin © AFP

Follow RT on

Australia’s attorney general has proposed a new bill which would see potential whistleblowers facing up to 10 years in prison for leaks on special intelligence operations.

Publishing Snowden-like revelations could cost dear in Australia after attorney general George Brandis presented to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security a new bill expanding powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO).

Australia’s attorney general George Brandis is known for labeling former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a “traitor” after a secret document reported by the Guardian Australia and obtained from Snowden last year revealed the Australian spy agency had been ready to share data on its citizens with its partners from the so-called 5-Eyes alliance (Australia, Britain, Canada New Zealand and the US).

The bill supposes the creation of a new offence for “any person” found guilty of disclosing “special intelligence operations” information, which would be five years behind bars.

“The five-year offence would seem to be able to apply even if the person had no idea about the special intelligence operation and they happened to release information which coincidentally was part of or related to the special intelligence operation,” leading Australian criminal law barrister Shane Prince commented to the Telegraph.

So a person could be put on trial for disclosing information on a “special intelligence operation” he never knew about – and would never get to know what the special intelligence operation was about during the trial, because it is an intelligence operation, that is – a secret one.

“I can’t see anything that would protect journalists,” said Green senator Scott Ludlam.

If the disclosure would “endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation,” this person would be liable for a ‘liberal’ 10-year prison term, reported the Guardian.

On the contrary, the officers conducting those “special intelligence operations,” would become immune from liability or prosecution – because they need to be engaged in activities that would otherwise be considered unlawful.

Acting and retired intelligence officers and contractors would be put under a constant threat of newly created offences to prevent any unauthorized document disclosures. The amendments equal private contractors to intelligence operatives to make them subject to prosecution with a penalty of up to three years.

Evidence of copying, transcribing, retaining or recording intelligence material is not required for these new penalties.

Instead of the previous two years in prison penalty for disclosing confidential information to a third party, the new penalty would be increased to 10 years.

The new clause covering security personnel “appears to be a clear attempt to stamp down on whistleblowers to avoid an Australian Ed Snowden,” commented Electronic Frontiers Australia chief executive Jon Lawrence.

“The fact that they’re making that illegal doesn’t necessarily stop a whistleblower though I think in the general context of what is a pretty extreme crackdown on whistleblowers generally,” Lawrence said.

The proposed legislation has been dubbed “troubling” by Australia’s leading criminal barrister and spokesman for Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barns, who said that this “unprecedented clause” that would capture any media organization that reports on intelligence activities, be it WikiLeaks, the Guardian or the NYT.

“I thought the Snowden clause [in the bill] was bad enough but this takes the Snowden clause and makes it a Snowden/Assange/Guardian/New York Times clause,” Barns told The Guardian.

All the ASIO would need to do to prosecute journalists would be secretly declaring any case a “secret intelligence operation”, with an approval of the security director-general or deputy director-general required, said Barns who used to advise WikiLeaks and work on terrorism cases.

“Their own boss says, ‘I think we better call this a special intelligence operation, don’t you?’ ‘Yes, sir,’ close it down. The more you talk about it the more outrageous it becomes,” Barns said.

As for making intelligence officers immune from prosecution, Barns is positive that society would regard officers participating in operations that imply violation of law as abuses of power.

“In Australia we lack that fundamental human rights protection and therefore Brandis can get away with inserting a clause into a bill which you wouldn’t be able to do in the UK or in the US,” Barns said, stressing “It’s the sort of clause you’d expect to see in Russia or in China and in other authoritarian states but you don’t expect to see it in a democracy”.

Australia’s whistleblower legislation is already very tight, leaving only a narrow window for disclosure of intelligence information in public interest, argued the Guardian. The penalties proposed for such activities by the new legislation would ‘fill’ the existing gap and close the window altogether.

“When things go awry total secrecy is not desirable. When something is seriously awry whistleblowers play a vital role in the provision of good governance,” said the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks.

Australian MPs are set to debate the amendments presented by George Brandis in September.

Former Victorian Premier Brumby Quits Huawei Board and Joins La Trobe University

My first feeling in this is of the IT trade war between China and the United States. My next feeling is those in prominent positions joining industry and the revolving door that exists between government and industry. The original intent of government was that these entities were separate as government ensured neutrality so that it could represent the people. Unfortunately in the ruling class they all know each other, they discuss the Boards the are on and they have their own agendas. Business is business.

The video I produced today is on greed. I see the blindness of economic objectives outside of human wellbeing. The disconnect is furthered as industry profits become the goal and the impact on civil society a minor issue. This becomes increasingly evident when one investigates the range of views about 5G and the race between the US and China with IT industry lobbyists taking up positions in Communications as the regulator of the industry. Clearly it is not possible to regulate an industry in the public interest if a person has come from the very industry that is to be regulated. That means they know the people, and often, if not always, have an agenda to promote that industry. This is where the public interest is neglected. We have seen this in the United States and the health implications for civil society are sending out alarm around the world.

The article below informs that the former Victorian Premier John Brumby was on the board of Huawei. There is discussion about Chinese criminality and the potential for the Communist party to spy and gather data. I would assert all the IT companies are spying and data gathering and are contracted to share data with intelligence agencies, notably the 5 Eyes spy network. When you investigate the Boards of IT companies you see the vested interests sitting there which include multinational companies, big data, IT companies, military, intelligence, Accounting firms, universities, former government ministers or public servants and the list goes on. In the country they operate in, the people believe the company is owned by the nation or they have no idea that their data is traded without real consent and used to sell products and services. The greed is what moves this disregard for privacy.

Clearly Huawei would be influenced, if not directed, by the Chinese Communist Party, they are the largest telecommunications company in China note $8.7 billion in profits. Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huawei

The issues for Australia are to what extent can the Chinese government penetrate Australia through high level appointments and economic power? Refer foreign ownership of homes (real estate): https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/buying/fears-one-million-aussie-homes-could-soon-be-owned-by-foreign-buyers/news-story/c50a4112bab4f3ed8fae27277f313f54

Australian land sales https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/china-increases-its-stake-in-australian-land-20181220-p50ng0.html

I recall Alexander Downer some years ago attempting to ban protests of Falun Gong outside the Chinese Embassy in Canberra. The government went to court with Falun Gong and the latter won. Refer http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1389732.htm

I interviewed on radio a Chinese woman whose husband had been murdered in China as they practiced Falun Gong. Just last week I noticed they were protesting in Melbourne about organ harvesting of practitioners. This is the very core of the argument about recoupling human rights to trade. Clinton was the one who decoupled human rights. This link refers to Hiliary Clinton favouring economics over human rights when it serves US interests refer https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/4735087/Hillary-Clinton-Chinese-human-rights-secondary-to-economic-survival.html

The issue of Guantanamo Bay, 911, the Middle East wars, rendition and its own human rights violations inclusive of leaving the UN Human Rights Council are largely ignored internationally. One rule for one another rule for others. It is all about the money but the argument will frame it as benefiting the people.

The core issue is the economic war that seeks to use issues to weaken the competitor. This is where the nation state serves economic interests and is not representing the people. Refer https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/10/sanctions-over-china-human-rights-may-strengthen-us-position-in-trade-talks.html

Therefore, where do executives and high profiled people draw the line or is there no line? If the focus is strongly on career, profits, political and business interests at the expense of the public interest then where do we end up? We are walking in the shadow of the United States and the ideological economic rationalism of privatisation of public assets. This utilises government taxation to take on the risk in projects to enable the private sector to lower risk and project high profits and in some cases the public asset is transferred to them. This dominates the discussion as equity financing replaces government taxation attracting high interest rates (exponential) and demands profits through users pay e.g. toll ways. The original purpose of government provision of public services quietly transforms into private provision of government services in million and billion dollar public/private partnership deals.

The contraction of global markets with a mentality of cut and move on (acquisitions, arbitrage, futures markets, speculation in profit maximisation) diminishes the public purse which typically had longer horizons with cross subsidisation built into government funding planning to ensure egalitarianism as advancing Australia Fair and public order.

Ultimately under the new rules of private engagement the public pay more (in taxation, GST, direct fees, fines, taxes) out of ever more diminishing incomes. The multiple propensity to consume (MPC) shrinks which impacts economic growth but is hidden by activity from both foreign and domestic companies. The chairs rearrange.

This most favoured status given to the megolithic multi-nationals (changing names, subsidiaries, rebranding) gives the impression of wealth but the reality is equity finance is expensive, the risk is carried by the firm and attracts high costs and interest rates. It deepens indebtedness which is the lever that can be used to influence domestic policy that would have funded social programs. This is the opportunity cost in favour of business. Thus the left/right propaganda is used to weaken calls for public expenditure as unrealistic and economically unviable. This is how the middle class becomes pauparised as the extremes start to polarise between those with extreme wealth and those living in extreme poverty. This is how policy creates social unrest and blames the public through repressive techniques. The shape changer of democracy takes on a totalitarian profile with increasing calls for surveillance, funding a security apparatus with intrusive technologies (purchased from these IT companies) removing human rights and privacy to ensure control rather than squarely facing the reality of an economic mismanagement and greed as the driver of market concentration and serving of specific foreign interests. Egalitarianism and social democracy transforms into a compliance framework that favours the few over the rights of the many and is ultimately de-stabilising globally as we are all connected. The public believes the propaganda that budgets are balanced when the debt is off the balance sheet as the risk was transferred.

So powerful companies like Huawei and Google for example, both titans in the IT industry have disproportionate concentration of power and hence, political influence and penetration into markets to serve interests and agendas that may provide token jobs (benefits) but ultimately are the old paradigm of profit maximisation. The profits move off shore and we see the economic cake unravel to be replaced by AI and automation. At the same time ‘greed’ as dis-ease is not in balance with ecological limits (silent spring) takes more than it needs and is non responsive to natural rhythms that rebalance planetary systems. This is why the titanic is sinking and the planet is groaning under the strain of humans who have no real connection to themselves, each other or the natural sytems. The nature of ‘greed’ is to follow selfish interests not respond to expanded best interest that includes resources (natural bounty). This disconnect renders many of the capitalist/communist (whatever) business interests blind to the dangerous situation they have set up. Some may smile and decide to fly to the moon or mars, but ultimately karma follows as the real problem was never solved at its inception. The real insecurity, fear and greed fuelling imbalance. When this is investigated inequality disappears, natural imbalances recalibrate and we begin to see ourselves in each other. This is the shift in consciousness I refer to in my video. I felt the video permeate this blog as I feel inspired to integrate it into an example given by the article.

So a few questions for society to consider:

Is it in the national interest for political or influential figures to join with foreign multinational companies and share their knowledge, resources and networks?
Given the US trade war any persons or entities involved in Huawei becomes a ‘threat’ as US penetration in Australia evokes its influence in networks, government, policy, security and regulatory environments. Is this in the Australian public interest?

Thus the wicked webs we weave that continues on a trajectory spiralling to the bottom until we awaken. Only the truth sets us free.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/brumby-quits-huawei-board-days-after-us-criminal-charges-outlined-20190201-p50v10.html

Brumby quits Huawei board days after US criminal charges outlined

Former Victorian premier John Brumby has resigned from the board of Huawei’s Australian operations in a damaging blow to the Chinese technology giant just days after the US government outlined a criminal case against it.

Mr Brumby’s decision to quit comes two days after The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that Meng Wanzhou, the Huawei executive at the centre of the alleged global criminal conspiracy, established and oversaw the company’s activities in Australia between 2005 and 2011.

The former Labor politician’s future at Huawei Technologies (Australia) has been under a cloud since June, after he announced he was reviewing all his directorships upon assuming the role of Chancellor of Melbourne’s La Trobe University.

This week’s release of an indictment against Huawei and key executives by the US Justice Department has increased interest in Mr Brumby’s position on the company’s board.

Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou arrives at a parole office.

NATIONAL SECURITY

China exec accused of criminal conspiracy set up Huawei in Australia

Mr Brumby said on Friday that the timing of his resignation, which will be effective from next month, was unrelated to the scandal enveloping the company.

He said he had informed the board a year ago of his intention to resign and was proud of the firm’s local growth.

‘‘We have had some challenging times … Huawei Australia has continued to go from strength to strength.’’

Ms Wanzhou is alleged by the US to have been a key player in a conspiracy to defraud international banks and US officials about the company’s Iran operations. The criminal case against Huawei also involves allegations it stole trade secrets from rival T-Mobile.

Though there is no suggestion that Ms Wanzhou was engaged in any criminal activity in Australia, the US Department of Justice case against her and the company includes the period of time she was overseeing Huawei’s corporate governance and strategy in Australia.

The December arrest of Ms Wanzhou in Canada at the request of the US government triggered a strong response from Beijing, with two Canadian citizens and Chinese-born Australian writer Yang Hengjun detained in China.

Mr Brumby will become Chancellor of La Trobe University in March.

Ms Wanzhou is the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, a former engineer in the Chinese military.

Mr Brumby joined the Huawei board in Australia in 2011 shortly before the departure of Ms Wanzhou. Former foreign minister Alexander Downer and former Navy rear-admiral John Lord were also appointed to the Huawei board in an effort by the company to build political and defence credibility.

The high-profile Australian trio have been outspoken in defending Huawei against criticism from Australia and the US, whose respective intelligence agencies fear the company could be vulnerable to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party to spy on or sabotage data and phone networks.

Mr Brumby, Mr Lord and, until his 2014 appointment as Australia’s high commissioner to the UK, Mr Downer, have all previously pointed out that there has been no hard evidence produced anywhere to show Huawei was involved in espionage activities on behalf of the Chinese government.

The company has made a priority of ensuring its Australian directors have been looked after well at home and abroad. It is understood some Australian-based directors have been paid as much as $250,000 a year, though Huawei has declined to confirm this.

Despite its high-powered Australian board, Huawei has been prevented by successive Australian governments from participating in the NBN rollout and the 5G mobile network, with security agencies warning against the involvement of the Chinese firm.

Australia’s hard line position on Huawei has emboldened other western allies to restrict the Chinese company’s involvement in sensitive infrastructure.

In a statement released in the wake of the US charges, Huawei said it was disappointed to learn of the charges and believed the US courts would find no evidence Ms Meng or the company breached US laws.

Criminalising Dissent in the Media

The tactic of criminalising dissent is not only in the media but legal processes are used to shutdown voices those in power and influence want silenced. In my view there is an attitude at the senior echelons of power that believe they are above the law. The very act of seeking to silence dissent suggests they are hiding activities that need to be scrutinised not only by journalists but civil society.

This article is by the Conversation. I really like the campaign of redacting the newspapers. It makes clear that Our Right to Know is being challenged along with the notion of democracy. It is evident that those in power (inclusive of those unelected) are deciding what the people are to know and what they aren’t. There is a contempt for freedom of speech and transparency, it is given lip service to along with many other values and virtues as part of public relations.

I would be interested to know what the police think about this and whether they will comply with politicians or whether they will adhere to democratic values. I will be watching to see who they are and who they represent.

I believe Australia is a test case of seeing how far the criminalisation of repression can go. What happens here will affect other Western countries who have enshrined in their Constitutions rights and who believe in democracy as fundamental. We are in times where there are those in power who do not want democracy as it is viewed as an impediment but rather are seeking to move us towards a technocracy where life is about compliance and social credits given to those who don’t rock the boat. Those favoured in my view will be of economic value and will be compliant. Those who are principled, who speak up will (and are) vilified. I am one of them for sure. I believe I have a right to freedom of speech. Where did I get that idea from?

We are in interesting times.

http://theconversation.com/australia-needs-a-media-freedom-act-heres-how-it-could-work-125315

The “Your Right To Know” campaign is supported by an unlikely coalition of media outlets. This is what Monday morning’s papers looked like in support of the campaign. Lukas Coch/AAP

Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, The University of Queensland

Author

Rebecca Ananian-Welsh

Senior Lecturer, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

Disclosure statement

Rebecca Ananian-Welsh receives UQ Advancement funding.

Partners

University of Queensland provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Australians picked up their morning papers yesterday to find heavily blacked-out text instead of front-page headlines. This bold statement was instigated by the “Your Right to Know” campaign, an unlikely coalition of Australian media organisations fighting for press freedom and source protection.

A key reform advocated by a range of organisations and experts – including our research team at the University of Queensland – is the introduction of a Media Freedom Act. Unlike human rights or anti-discrimination legislation, there is no clear precedent for such an act.

So what exactly might a Media Freedom Act look like and is it a good idea?

Raids and response

It was the June raids on the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC’s Sydney headquarters that revealed the fragile state of press freedom in Australia. Two parliamentary inquiries into press freedom are on foot, with public hearings before the Senate committee starting last Friday.

Parliament will soon face the question: can we protect national security without sacrificing that cornerstone of liberal democracy, press freedom? If so, how?

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s immediate response to the raids was to state that journalists would be prosecuted if they received top-secret documents. A month later, Dutton issued a ministerial directive to the AFP that emphasised the importance of press freedom and the need for restrained action against journalists.

Attorney-General Christian Porter’s subsequent directive was more moderate, ensuring that he would have the final say on whether journalists would be prosecuted on the basis of their work “in a professional capacity as a journalist”.

The AFP raided the ABC’s Sydney headquarters in June this year. David Gray/AAP

These directives may reflect a burgeoning appreciation within government of the importance of the press in ensuring democratic free speech and accountability.

However, the laws that undermine press freedom by targeting journalists and their sources remain on the books. These laws include many of the now 82 (and counting) national security laws enacted since September 11 2001. This is more than anywhere else in the world and some of these laws grant the government uniquely severe powers of detention and interrogation.

A Media Freedom Act could serve three key roles, making it an appropriate and advantageous option in the protection of national security, press freedom and democracy.

Recognise the fourth estate

First, a Media Freedom Act would recognise and affirm the importance of press freedom in Australia. This recognition would support the fourth estate role of the media and demonstrate Australia’s commitment to democratic accountability and the rule of law. It would carry the weight of legislation rather than the relative flimsiness of ad hoc directives.

In this way, a Media Freedom Act would represent a clear commitment to the public’s right and capacity to know about how they are governed and power is exercised.

The act would also recognise that press freedom is not an absolute, but may be subject to necessary and proportionate limitations.

A culture of disclosure

Second, it would support a transition from a culture of secrecy to a culture of disclosure and open government across the public sector. This role could be served by requiring the public sector (including law enforcement and intelligence officers) to consider the impact of their decisions on press freedom and government accountability and to adopt the least intrusive option that is reasonably available.

This requirement echoes Dutton’s directive. It is already part of the law of Victoria, the ACT and Queensland, where free expression is protected within those jurisdictions’ charters of rights. Like the charters, a federal Media Freedom Act would aim to bring about a cultural shift and contribute to the gradual rebuilding of trust between government and the media.

At federal level, the parliament must already consider the impact of a new law on freedom of expression under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act. A Media Freedom Act could reinforce the importance of parliament and the public sector considering the impact on press freedom when it debates and enacts new laws.

Journalism is not a crime

Third, and most importantly, a Media Freedom Act would protect press freedom by ensuring legitimate journalism was excluded from the scope of criminal offences.

It is important that this be in the form of an exemption rather than a defence. This has no substantial legal impact. But, crucially, an exemption conveys that the journalist had not engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

It also places the onus on the prosecution to prove the exemption doesn’t apply. This therefore alleviates the chilling effect on press freedom caused by the threat of court action.

The framing of the protection will attract debate (what, after all, is a journalist? And what is journalism?).

A good starting point is the existing journalism defence to the general secrecy offence in section 122.5 of the Criminal Code. For that defence to apply, the person must have:

dealt with the information in their capacity as a “person engaged in the business of reporting news, presenting current affairs or expressing editorial or other content in news media”
have reasonably believed that engaging in the conduct was in the public interest.

A single act or many amendments?

A Media Freedom Act is not a panacea; it would not avoid the need for a detailed review of Australia’s legal frameworks for their impact on press freedom.

In particular, protections for private sector, public sector and intelligence whistleblowers need attention. Suppression orders and defamation laws also have a serious chilling effect on Australian journalism. However, the present approach of considering dozens of individual schemes for their discrete impact on press freedom, and seeking technical amendments to each to alleviate that impact, is cumbersome, illogical and destined to create loopholes.

Australia’s national security laws are uniquely broad and complex. At present, an inconsistent array of (notably few) journalism-based defences and exemptions from prosecution are scattered across these laws. Inconsistency leads to confusion, and overlapping offences make it even more difficult for journalists to know when they are crossing the line into criminal conduct.

The imperative to protect press freedom is fundamental and deserving of general recognition and protection. In light of these concerns, our international obligations and the rule-of-law concerns for legal clarity, consistency and proportionality, it is time for a Media Freedom Act.

For The World

Category Archives: Criminalising

Whistleblowers on Intel face up to 10 years in prison

Australian bill sees whistleblowing on intel ops punishable by up to 10 years in jail

Former Victorian Premier Brumby Quits Huawei Board and Joins La Trobe University