Australian Gov't: Not In The Public Interest For The Public To Be Interested In Secret Anti-Piracy Negotiations
from the transparency?-what's-that? dept
Last month Techdirt wrote about yet more secret meetings between the copyright and internet industries, this time in Australia, where the federal government there was "encouraging" them to come up with ways of tackling online copyright infringement.
The public, as usual, was not invited to offer their views on plans that would obviously affect them more than anyone. And so people filed a freedom of information (FOI) request to find out belatedly what was going on. But the answers they received were unsatisfactory, to say the least:
the Attorney-General’s Department responded to that Freedom of Information request, providing a series of five documents. However, using a variety of justifications, the department has redacted almost all of the information previously contained in the documents -- including 14 pages of notes taken by a departmental staffer at the event and other four pages of notes taken by a senior staffer from Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s department.
Some of the excuses for not providing the requested information are pretty far-fetched:
the Attorney-General’s Department stated in its response to Delimiter’s FoI request that it "does not hold" a list of the attendees who actually attended the meeting.
So the Australian government organized a secret meeting, but doesn't know who attended? If that's true, it suggests a stunning level of incompetence that ought to require heads to roll; and if it's not true, then heads should still roll, for being economical with the truth.
But perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the response to the FOI request is the underlying justification for providing a content-free non-reply:
"Disclosure of the documents while the negotiations are still in process, would, in my view, prejudice, hamper and impede those negotiations to an unacceptable degree," wrote [Attorney-General’s Department senior legal officer] Purcell. That would, in my view, be contrary to the interests of good government -- which would, in turn, be contrary to the public interest."
What this really means is: "All hell will break loose when the public finds out what is being discussed behind closed doors. So what we're going to do is to come up with an agreement in secret, and then present it as a fait accompli, without offering citizens any options to change anything substantive. By contrast, to release the documents, and allow the public to have a say in how they should be allowed to use a critical 21st-century technology, would be contrary to the interests of this very good government, which by definition is identical with the public interest."
It's really extraordinary that, in 2012, governments can still trot out this nonsense that what is good for the government is by definition good for the public interest. How about letting the public have a say on the matter, by inviting them to join the debate using the means devised by the open government movements around the world during the last few years?
Instead, once the back-room deal finally emerges into the light of day, and is predictably met by a barrage of anger, the Australian government will profess itself stunned by the ingratitude of the public that is rejecting all that hard work done by its faithful public servants. And then perhaps, following in the footsteps of their German colleagues, Australian politicians will use that anger over lack of transparency as an excuse to justify further lack of transparency.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, copyright, public interest, secret meetings
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is, how can it be good for the government? The public that is voting for/against the government is far bigger than the number of voters supporting these special interest groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why I will always prefer the other model, the direct democracy: It doesn't covertly imply that "ordinary" people are just not intelligent enough (aka to dumb) to make good governmental decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the public has every right to boss around their government. Please keep in mind the meaning of the words "civil servant".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does that mean, practically speaking? That you can "fire" them (aka not elect them again) AFTER they have done a bad job? Or, to put it in other words: Can you stop them BEFORE they do a bad job?
I do. The problem is that it's merely a label an elected politician gets, it's not a spell laid on the elected person to behave as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apologies for the off topic political comment ... it wont happen again :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why are the Greens the only ones kicking and screaming about this in Parliament? *Because the Opposition agree with the way the government is handling this*
You seriously think a party that can't even admit the NBN is a valuable nation-building activity on par with the main roads network will see a problem with doing backroom deals with legacy content players?
Technologist votes are lying there for the taking, but the Federal Opposition refuse to pick them up because of what they would have to do to retain them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: representative democracy
But representative democracy is based on the idea that the people know what their elected think and do. If you take that away it's no longer a democracy, even if you have fair elections.
This transparancy is also put preasure on the representatives to not do anything too stupid since they wont be reelected.
For the direct democracy... people are dumb and ignorant.
Having us decide every little detail is in my opinion a bad idea. I rather vote on a representative to take their time studying the issue and make the decission.
The important thing is that i know what he/she is doing and so i can choose someone else next time if needed. Very few misstakes can't be corrected in one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: representative democracy
I never said that you need to have a form of direct democracy where EVERY decision has to be voted by the people - just a more direct form where countermeasures to bad legislation can be implemented by the people more easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In order for representative government to work, the public must be properly represented. This requires the public to know what their representatives are doing and to pressure their representatives according to the public's preferences.
A representative government does not work if the public simply elects them and lets them act solely at their own discretion. That's simply a softer form of tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And they know this how if all is done in secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting a little tired of this argument
There are platforms whereby the voices of the masses can be heard and even addressed if needs be. That is not to say that we should devolve into anarchy or even mob rule, but when it comes to new tech changing the way we live, it's really past the time for that to be taken into account.
If nothing else there is no longer a reason for a complete lack of transparency in government. Oh wait, I forgot.... The TERRORISTS are watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting a little tired of this argument
The limitations of previous communication mediums wasn't the main reason (if a reason at all) why most democracies deemed it the best option. To cite wikipedia:
James Madison: A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
John Witherspoon: Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state � it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.
Alexander Hamilton: That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument
I suspect in the not so distant future some very smart people will likely say the same thing about Representative Democracies too, since they appear to suffer from the same afflictions when not done properly.
The problem I see with the current system is clear in this post -- the government is subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage -- terrorism (and in this case, money from a small interest) sets them off into a rage and they pass all sorts of do nothing laws which will likely be rejected by the courts eventually. They don't need to act to every perceived threat and money alone should not be a motivator for them passing laws. The fact that very few of them read the laws they pass should say something to them about their failures.
What this government needs is less money from small interests and more transparency. What they want is free-reign and opacity, so they can collect their millions and move on without getting into trouble, and quite frankly, that sort of government is just as unsustainable as a true democracy.
I still agree with Douglas Adams -- there has to be a better way of electing politicians. Term Limits is a good idea, removing money from politics is a better one, but I am still a fan of political positions being like Jury Duty -- nobody wants it, but when someone gets it they try to do the best job they can while they have it -- nope, that won't work well either. I don't know what the answer is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument
Thank you for this interesting reply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting a little tired of this argument
Of course, the real terrorists (read: people who profit from scaring you) wouldn't like to not have scapegoats for their own failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But I turn to history for solace. There are a lot of examples where the good fight seemed pointless and hopeless, where the injustice was so entrenched and well-funded that it seemed unassailable, and where in the end the good fight was won. In almost all of these examples, what won was perseverance and continued action despite the appearance of hopelessness.
We do make progress. An agonizingly slow, lurching, two-steps-forward-one-step-back kind of progress, but progress nonetheless.
Do not let despair take away future victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got the same type of response from the UK
"I regret that the other draft negotiating and further texts that you have requested are withheld as they are exempt under the following sections of the Freedom of Information Act: s.35(1)a (formulation of Government policy) and s.27(2) (international relations).
These are qualified exemptions and are therefore subject to a public interest test. After careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the conclusion reached is that the public interest in maintaining these exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing this information."
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/104330/response/259997/attach/html/3/Andrew%20P rice%20response.docx.html
I put my request in for ACTA documents after negotiations had finished. There were previous FOI request while negotiations were ongoing but they were refused for the same reason Australia has given, because negotiations were ongoing.
Seems citizens are buggered either way - no docs while negotiations were ongoing, no docs afterwards for other reasons.
I have put in a Review request, that can be read here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/anti_counterfeiting_trade_agreem_4#incoming-259997
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Ambassador Kosh--Babylon 5
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
< / sarc>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We are talking about measures that impact the general public. Taking your own failed analogy it would be like not inviting the population and building a bill, secretly, that allows the police to raid any house any time to check for drugs.
You, sir troll, fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I fail to see how these are similar myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Term limits
Greed. . .it all boils down to greed and money. Evil is alive and well in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Term limits
Problem is, they know that they will not be subject to these laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update: Senator asks for release
Again from Delimiter (Renai LeMay - the editor - is making good headway with this enquiry) http://delimiter.com.au/2012/03/21/senate-order-greens-demand-secret-piracy-docs/
You have to love the reply Delimiter got from Steven Dalby (iiNet chief legal beagle) when delimiter took a dig at iiNet in a previous article and wonder just what the hell the government and organisations like AFACT are playing at.
Especially when the GDP of the whole Entertainment Industry (all levels) in Australia is around 0.5% (yes less than 1%)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those who need more TPP Info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For those who need more TPP Info
It's also mildly amusing to see that these negotiations are almost as leaky as ACTA was and some of the issues seem to be exactly the same around IP issues, and that's a reluctance to follow the American route. Though I'm hard pressed to say what's worse the American route or the "three strikes" and you're off the Internet route that seems so popular in Europe right now.
All that said various governments do need to be shot for conducting these negotiations in so much secrecy. There's really no need unless, of course, they're hiding something.
And they wouldn't do that, would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For those who need more TPP Info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shady Dealings
Well if they want to lock the public out again, and the technology experts, then we will only shoot it down again just like we did we SOPA, PIPA and soon ACTA.
It is clear to see here that this is only a power grab where they even bypass the WTO. So we fairly ask "can these people be trusted?" only to have all access denied. So the only conclusion is they would not be hiding things form us unless they did have anti-public and anti-Internet shady dealings to hide.
Then anyone who supports this anti-democratic status should have their names noted down and removed from their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all in all, they have previously claimed that there would be no change to existing laws to comply with the ACTA provisions, however common law maybe affected as it seems to suggest a sense that a law in American can apply to Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they don't have a list
If they don't have a list of who attended, then there is no select few and thus they do not have a reason for keeping it secret.
It therefore must be made public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]