see justice, kindness, caring, "Many the Head of State is very focused on people's human rights!" Swastika morality "and" truth "so that people are no longer subject to" blockade, ban screen of the internet "of the evil beast chinaman control! Western European allies is so" open and fair "to treat people! This is the most good "role-model to 2016!- And Our Huge Chivalrous Anonymous On Twitter -" רוח רפאים מפקד "-The Best Anony , We Folower n the end!~Melody.Blog Sincerely Thanksgiving ~
-更新[27/12-2015]-By Facebook.com - The Huge Chivalrous Anonymous " Anonymous Perth " plus the news- 看公正,仁慈,關愛"的國家元首們是非常注重人們的人權!"卍道德觀"的"真理"使人們不再受到"封鎖,禁屏"的控制!西歐盟國是如此的"開放,公平"地對待人們!這便是2016的最良好"模范人物"!Melody.Blog感恩敬上~~
Anonymous Perth 分享了 The Daily Telegraph Pole 的相片。
The Daily Telegraph Pole
George Williams
PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NSW:
'An extraordinary number of Australian laws now infringe basic democratic standards. All up, I found 350 such laws in areas as diverse as crime, discrimination, anti-terrorism, consumer law, defence, migration, industrial relations, intellectual property, evidence, shipping, environment, education and health. The scale of the problem is much larger than might be thought, and extends well beyond a few well-known examples...
Of the 350, around 60 per cent have been made since the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks, with a high number also enacted since 2013.
That event marked an important turning point. It and subsequent acts of
terrorism have given ever greater licence to politicians to depart from
long-accepted understandings about democratic rights. As a result,
measures that were unthinkable have become commonplace.
....since September 2001, enacting laws that infringe democratic freedoms has become routine. Rights are not only being removed in the name of national security or counter-terrorism, but for a range of mundane purposes. Speech offences now apply to many public places and occupations, and parliaments have greatly expanded the capacity of state agencies to detain people without charge or arrest. Laws such as these have become so normal and accepted that they tend to be enacted without eliciting a community or media response.
As a result, our elected representatives can abridge democratic rights without paying a political price. Indeed, in many cases, such laws pass with the support of the opposition, and after only cursory debate in parliament.
...not only has the number of laws infringing democratic freedoms increased, but so has their severity. The survey reveals many laws enacted prior to September 2001 that run counter to democratic rights and freedoms. However, for the most part, these laws have a significantly lower impact upon those freedoms than the laws enacted after then.
For example, laws such as section 18C enacted prior to 2001 target freedom of speech, but impose relatively minor penalties, such as the possibility of having to pay compensation. The contrast with more recent laws is stark. A number carry the possibility of a lengthy term of imprisonment merely on the basis of a person's speech.
These observations reveal that Australia has entered an era in which politicians cannot be counted upon to uphold our most important rights. Rather than acting as a check upon laws that infringe democratic values, politicians are now campaigning for such infringements. Often, they are doing so with impunity.
This is especially a problem in Australia. We are unique among Western nations in lacking a national bill of rights or human rights act. In our system, rights usually exist only as long as they have not been taken away. This is not an issue if politicians exercise self-restraint, but if that disappears even the most important rights become vulnerable.
Something needs to change if the slide towards ever greater government power, and fewer rights for the people, is to be stopped. The long-term health of our democracy depends on it. The most obvious answer would be to follow the path of other nations, and to introduce a national bill of rights.'
Source and read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/…/the-growing-assault-on-the-democ…
....since September 2001, enacting laws that infringe democratic freedoms has become routine. Rights are not only being removed in the name of national security or counter-terrorism, but for a range of mundane purposes. Speech offences now apply to many public places and occupations, and parliaments have greatly expanded the capacity of state agencies to detain people without charge or arrest. Laws such as these have become so normal and accepted that they tend to be enacted without eliciting a community or media response.
As a result, our elected representatives can abridge democratic rights without paying a political price. Indeed, in many cases, such laws pass with the support of the opposition, and after only cursory debate in parliament.
...not only has the number of laws infringing democratic freedoms increased, but so has their severity. The survey reveals many laws enacted prior to September 2001 that run counter to democratic rights and freedoms. However, for the most part, these laws have a significantly lower impact upon those freedoms than the laws enacted after then.
For example, laws such as section 18C enacted prior to 2001 target freedom of speech, but impose relatively minor penalties, such as the possibility of having to pay compensation. The contrast with more recent laws is stark. A number carry the possibility of a lengthy term of imprisonment merely on the basis of a person's speech.
These observations reveal that Australia has entered an era in which politicians cannot be counted upon to uphold our most important rights. Rather than acting as a check upon laws that infringe democratic values, politicians are now campaigning for such infringements. Often, they are doing so with impunity.
This is especially a problem in Australia. We are unique among Western nations in lacking a national bill of rights or human rights act. In our system, rights usually exist only as long as they have not been taken away. This is not an issue if politicians exercise self-restraint, but if that disappears even the most important rights become vulnerable.
Something needs to change if the slide towards ever greater government power, and fewer rights for the people, is to be stopped. The long-term health of our democracy depends on it. The most obvious answer would be to follow the path of other nations, and to introduce a national bill of rights.'
Source and read more:
http://www.theage.com.au/…/the-growing-assault-on-the-democ…
The growing assault on our democratic rights
This year has borne out former prime minister Tony Abbott's prediction that "for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift". Government agencies can now access the metadata of every person, journalists can be jailed for reporting on matters of public interest and Australians can be banished after having their citizenship revoked. This has led one Liberal MP, Andrew Nikolic, to suggest that the idea of protecting civil liberties in the context of national security has become "redundant".
Comments such as this reveal how far the Coalition has travelled since it took office in 2013. As a new government, it cast itself as the champion of basic freedoms, and lambasted restrictions on speech such as section 18C of the racial discrimination act. Any such pretensions have since been demolished by the government's own rhetoric and actions. It has moved on from section 18C to introducing laws that jail people for up to decade for disclosing information about intelligence operations that show a misuse of power.
Something needs to change if the slide towards ever greater government power, and fewer rights for the people, is to be stopped.This shift by the Coalition is more than just an example of changing political priorities. Indeed, the same change has been evident in Labor, which has voted for every one of the government's national security measures. Something deeper and more troubling is at work.
This year I conducted a survey of the statute book to find out how often our politicians have passed laws that infringe upon democratic rights. The results were surprising and disturbing.
First, an extraordinary number of Australian laws now infringe basic democratic standards. All up, I found 350 such laws in areas as diverse as crime, discrimination, anti-terrorism, consumer law, defence, migration, industrial relations, intellectual property, evidence, shipping, environment, education and health. The scale of the problem is much larger than might be thought, and extends well beyond a few well-known examples.
Second, what is striking is not only the number of laws raising a problem, but that so many have been enacted over recent years. Of the 350, around 60 per cent have been made since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, with a high number also enacted since 2013. That event marked an important turning point. It and subsequent acts of terrorism have given ever greater licence to politicians to depart from long-accepted understandings about democratic rights. As a result, measures that were unthinkable have become commonplace.
Third, since September 2001, enacting laws that infringe democratic freedoms has become routine. Rights are not only being removed in the name of national security or counter-terrorism, but for a range of mundane purposes. Speech offences now apply to many public places and occupations, and parliaments have greatly expanded the capacity of state agencies to detain people without charge or arrest. Laws such as these have become so normal and accepted that they tend to be enacted without eliciting a community or media response.
As a result, our elected representatives can abridge democratic rights without paying a political price. Indeed, in many cases, such laws pass with the support of the opposition, and after only cursory debate in parliament.
Fourth, not only has the number of laws infringing democratic freedoms increased, but so has their severity. The survey reveals many laws enacted prior to September 2001 that run counter to democratic rights and freedoms. However, for the most part, these laws have a significantly lower impact upon those freedoms than the laws enacted after then.
For example, laws such as section 18C enacted prior to 2001 target freedom of speech, but impose relatively minor penalties, such as the possibility of having to pay compensation. The contrast with more recent laws is stark. A number carry the possibility of a lengthy term of imprisonment merely on the basis of a person's speech.
These observations reveal that Australia has entered an era in which politicians cannot be counted upon to uphold our most important rights. Rather than acting as a check upon laws that infringe democratic values, politicians are now campaigning for such infringements. Often, they are doing so with impunity.
This is especially a problem in Australia. We are unique among Western nations in lacking a national bill of rights or human rights act. In our system, rights usually exist only as long as they have not been taken away. This is not an issue if politicians exercise self-restraint, but if that disappears even the most important rights become vulnerable.
Something needs to change if the slide towards ever greater government power, and fewer rights for the people, is to be stopped. The long-term health of our democracy depends on it. The most obvious answer would be to follow the path of other nations, and to introduce a national bill of rights.
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales. Twitter: ProfGWilliams
=====
日益襲擊我們的民主權利
艾伯特已經被證明是正確的。照片：亞歷克斯Ellinghausen.
評論像這樣揭示多遠聯盟已經走過，因為它上台在2013年作為一個新的政府，將其轉換為自己的基本自由的冠軍，並抨擊如種族歧視行為的第18C條對言論的限制。任何這樣的抱負，至今已拆除了政府自身的言論和行動。它已移動從第18C條引進的法律，監獄的人達十年披露有關，顯示權力的濫用情報行動的信息。
需要的東西如果滑動改變對越來越大的政府權力，為人民權利較少，被停止。這種轉變的聯盟更不是改變政治優先事項的只是一個例子。事實上，同樣的變化是顯而易見的勞動，這已經投票支持每一個政府的國家安全的措施。更深層次的東西，更麻煩的是在工作。
今年我進行的法律文本進行了調查，以了解如何往往我們的政治家已經通過的法律，侵犯民主權利。結果令人驚訝和不安。
首先，澳大利亞法律不平凡的數字，現在違反基本的民主標準。所有的時候，我發現了350這樣的法律等不同領域的犯罪，歧視，反恐，消費者保護法，國防，移民，勞資關係，知識產權的證據，運輸，環境，教育和衛生。這個問題的規模遠大於可能會想，遠遠超出了一些著名的例子。
二，什麼是引人注目的不僅是提高一個法律問題的數量，但有這麼多已經頒布了近幾年。在350中，大約有60％的已自9月11日，2001年恐怖襲擊事件，具有較高的數量自2013年還頒布了這一事件標誌著一個重要的轉折點。它和恐怖主義行為，隨後給了越來越大的許可證政客對民主權利的長期認可的理解出發。其結果是，這是不可想像的措施已經司空見慣。
第三，由於2001年9月，頒布侵犯民主自由的法律已經成為常規。權利不僅被刪除維護國家安全或反恐的名義，而是一系列的世俗目的。語音罪行現在適用於許多公共場所和職業，議會已經極大地擴展了國家機關拘留人未經起訴或逮捕的能力。法律，如這些都變得那麼的正常，並接受他們往往沒有徵求社區或媒體回應頒布。
這樣一來，我們選出的代表可以剝奪的民主權利，而不付出政治代價。事實上，在許多情況下，這些法律通過與反對派的支持，並經過在議會中只有粗略的辯論。
第四，不僅具有侵犯民主自由的法律增加的數量，但如此有其嚴重程度。調查顯示在2001年之前頒布九月許多法律，違背民主權利和自由。然而，在大多數情況下，這些法律有在這些自由比在此之後頒布的法律一個顯著較低的衝擊。
例如，法律，如第18C條頒布前的講話2001年目標的自由，但實行相對次要的處罰，比如必須支付賠償的可能性。與最近的法律的對比是鮮明的。一些攜帶僅僅一個人的講話的基礎上監禁的漫長任期的可能性。
這些觀察結果表明，澳大利亞已經進入政客不能在被計算到維護我們最重要的權利的時代。而不是作為在侵犯民主價值觀，政界人士現在正為爭取這樣的侵權法律進行檢查。通常情況下，他們正在這樣做而不受懲罰。
這是特別是在澳大利亞的一個問題。我們是在缺乏權利或人權的行為國家級賬單西方國家中是獨一無二的。在我們的系統中，權利通常只存在，只要他們還沒有被帶走。這不是一個問題，如果政客們自我克制，但如果消失了，即使是最重要的權利變得脆弱。
需要的東西如果滑動改變對越來越大的政府權力，為人民權利較少，被停止。我們的民主制度的長期健康發展依賴於它。最明顯的答案是仿效其他國家的道路，並引進了權利的國家法案。
喬治·威廉斯是法律的安東尼·梅森教授在新南威爾士大學。微博：ProfGWilliams
=====
Our #stoneagesloth on climate change government is at it again.
TRAIN services across Perth seem set to be slashed as the Barnett Government makes major cuts to its transport budget.
Yesterday $500 million dollars was available to spend on a road for commercial trucks and to apparently to ease congestion through world renowned wetland, today they are saying $80.2 million dollars of cuts is required to public transport systems.
TRAIN services across Perth seem set to be slashed as the Barnett Government makes major cuts to its transport budget.
Yesterday $500 million dollars was available to spend on a road for commercial trucks and to apparently to ease congestion through world renowned wetland, today they are saying $80.2 million dollars of cuts is required to public transport systems.
In the words of our government,
'The poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases.'
Who's interests do they have in mind? That's pretty obvious isn't it.
Below I'm am going the mix their arguments for the Roe 8 extension and their reason for cutting services to public transport because they go hand in hand.
Transport Minister Dean Nalder explained “No, No. Um, I haven’t, my office isn’t and I aren’t doing any investigation on cutting services within transport,” he said. “I haven’t asked the department to consider any cuts and they haven’t come to me with any specific cuts in transport, so it is not true.”
Mr Nalder the State Treasurer however said the department was “constantly talking directly with Treasury and they are always looking for efficiencies.”
Mr Nahan released a Midyear Review which clearly outlines about $75 million in cuts to the PTA over the next three years.”
Mr Nahan said declining patronage and smaller fare increases meant the Government had to “focus rigorously on getting costs down in the public transport sector”.
“The best way to find savings is to shed staff,” he said.
Transport officials have been told they must find about $30 million of savings annually over the next four years.
“If you take the axe to train services you push more cars out on to the road and only make congestion worse,”
"Roe 8 is an important road project for Western Australia, particularly for getting heavy vehicles off suburban roads," the Premier believes.
“There’s been a downturn in the construction industry, there’s competitive pricing and it’s a great opportunity to construct infrastructure projects."
"But it's very expensive, I think running up towards $800-$900 million. We'll never recover that sort of money.” Said the premier
Wetlands Conservation Society secretary Felicity McGeorge said the North Lake reserve was “unique” and the State Government was going to destroy it.
"There are still issues of environmental approval and the like and a lot of design work. There's also public opposition about the wetlands it would need to go through. I actually believe that's manageable." explained the premier.
“We’re in a very fortunate position,” he said.
“This is a great outcome for Western Australia.”
'The poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases.'
Who's interests do they have in mind? That's pretty obvious isn't it.
Below I'm am going the mix their arguments for the Roe 8 extension and their reason for cutting services to public transport because they go hand in hand.
Transport Minister Dean Nalder explained “No, No. Um, I haven’t, my office isn’t and I aren’t doing any investigation on cutting services within transport,” he said. “I haven’t asked the department to consider any cuts and they haven’t come to me with any specific cuts in transport, so it is not true.”
Mr Nalder the State Treasurer however said the department was “constantly talking directly with Treasury and they are always looking for efficiencies.”
Mr Nahan released a Midyear Review which clearly outlines about $75 million in cuts to the PTA over the next three years.”
Mr Nahan said declining patronage and smaller fare increases meant the Government had to “focus rigorously on getting costs down in the public transport sector”.
“The best way to find savings is to shed staff,” he said.
Transport officials have been told they must find about $30 million of savings annually over the next four years.
“If you take the axe to train services you push more cars out on to the road and only make congestion worse,”
"Roe 8 is an important road project for Western Australia, particularly for getting heavy vehicles off suburban roads," the Premier believes.
“There’s been a downturn in the construction industry, there’s competitive pricing and it’s a great opportunity to construct infrastructure projects."
"But it's very expensive, I think running up towards $800-$900 million. We'll never recover that sort of money.” Said the premier
Wetlands Conservation Society secretary Felicity McGeorge said the North Lake reserve was “unique” and the State Government was going to destroy it.
"There are still issues of environmental approval and the like and a lot of design work. There's also public opposition about the wetlands it would need to go through. I actually believe that's manageable." explained the premier.
“We’re in a very fortunate position,” he said.
“This is a great outcome for Western Australia.”
Anonymous Perth 和 Vickie Minaso。
Merry Christmas everyone and to those that don't celebrate it Happy Holidays and all of us here hope everyone has a Happy New Year!
Anonymous Perth
The
Epilepsy Association of Western Australia and a Perth-based medical
marijuana company are rejoicing at the federal government's decision to
introduce a national scheme to legalise medicinal cannabis by licensing…
watoday.com.au.
Perth set to embrace medicinal cannabis in 2016
Emma Young
Journalist.
Perth-based medicinal marijuana company MMJ PhytoTech is on the rise.- National scheme to regulate medicinal cannabis growers
- Perth's mum's frustration: 'medicinal marijuana' legal in WA but inaccessible
Health Minister Sussan Ley said on Wednesday the government had drafted legislation to establish a single scheme for growers of medical cannabis in all states and territories, which would be introduced in Parliament's first sitting fortnight next year.
Perth-based company MMJ PhytoTech,
already selling its products overseas, is poised to enter the Australian
market. Photo: Emma Young
Mr Rajan said about 25,000 Western Australians had epilepsy and a third of those were known to be struggling to manage the condition.
"People do not realise the impact," he said.
Perth-based medicinal marijuana company MMJ PhytoTech is on the rise. Photo: Gary Malerba
"But many people are having up to 500 seizures a day. They just move from one to the next to the next. One child of a mother I know had a seizure lasting 13 hours. It is debilitating."
He said the cost of hospitalising people for epileptic seizures was about $20 million per year.
Many Australians already use cannabis
medicinally, albeit illegally, especially for chronic pain. Photo: Max Mason-Hubers
"If we can reduce that cost to both the economy and to families, this will be worthwhile," he said.
Perth-based MMJ PhytoTech, which made its ASX debut in January, is poised to enter the Australian market as an organisation which is able to grow, extract, refine and supply medicinal cannabis in pharmaceutical grade forms for controlled delivery.
An ASX announcement in October announced the company's intention to enter the local market after the federal government said it was considering the legislation.
Spokesman Gaelan Bloomfield said the company had since then appointed leading Australian law firm Piper Alderman to act as legal counsel on this entrance.
He said it looked as if the Australian system could be very similar to the Canadian system in terms of its licensing scheme, a market where MMJ PhytoTech was already engaged.
MMJ PhytoTech already has operations in British Columbia, Canada and is currently selling its products in Europe.
"We know the Canadian licensing system so we are very well positioned to be on the front foot as Australian regulation evolves," he said.
"The Canadian system is by far the most well structured regulatory system for medicinal cannabis [globally].
"As a company we support any regulatory reform in this area and we're encouraged by these discussions at a federal level.
"This regulation is going to provide people with access to medicine that could dramatically improve their quality of life.
"As someone who has met with people who suffer from drug resistant epilepsy and MS I know that access to these medicines has the potential to improve their quality of life. We support any regulatory reform that will allow this to happen."
The federal government had previously planned to introduce a law before the end of this year to allow the states and territories to licence growers in their own jurisdictions, but the Minister changed her mind after consultations with governments and law enforcement agencies showed some states were waiting on a federal regulatory scheme.
"I am confident creating one single, nationally-consistent cultivation scheme, rather than eight individual arrangements, will not only help speed up the legislative process, but ultimately access to medicinal cannabis products as well," Health Minister Sussan Ley said.
It is unclear whether the scheme will attract enough support in the Senate, as it still differs significantly from the Greens' model to create a new national regulator that would oversee the growth, manufacture and distribution of medicinal cannabis.
=====
珀斯設定擁抱藥用大麻在2016年
艾瑪青年
記者.
西澳大利亞州的癲癇協會和珀斯的醫療大麻公司都在歡呼雀躍，聯邦政府決定引進一個國家計劃通過授權種植者合法化藥用大麻。衛生部長Sussan萊伊週三表示，政府已經起草立法，建立醫療大麻在所有各州和地區的種植者，這將在議會的第一次會議兩週在明年推出一個方案。
總部位於珀斯的公司MMJ PhytoTech，已經海外銷售產品，正準備進入澳大利亞市場。圖為：艾瑪·揚
拉詹先生說，大約25,000西澳大利亞人有癲癇和那些有三分之一被稱為是努力管理的條件。
“人們沒有意識到的影響，”他說。
總部位於珀斯的藥用大麻公司MMJ PhytoTech正在崛起。攝影：加里·Malerba
“但是，很多人擁有最多一天500發作。他們只是從一個移動到下一個母親，我知道有一個癲癇發作持續13個小時的下一個。一個孩子。這是衰弱的。”
他說hospitalising人們對於癲癇發作的成本約為$ 2000萬只的一年。
許多澳大利亞人已經使用大麻藥用，儘管非法，尤其是對慢性疼痛。圖片：最大梅森- HÜBERS
“如果我們能減少成本，無論是經濟和家庭，這將是值得的，”他說。
總部位於珀斯的MMJ PhytoTech，這使得它的ASX亮相在一月，有望進入澳大利亞市場作為一個組織，它能夠生長，開採，提煉和醫藥級形式控制下交付提供藥用大麻。
一個ASX公佈十月份宣布，該公司有意進入本地市場聯邦政府表示，正在考慮立法後。
發言人Gaelan布盧姆菲爾德說，該公司自那以後任命領先的澳大利亞律師事務所派市議員，作為這個入口法律顧問。
他說，這看起來好像澳大利亞的系統可能非常相似，加拿大的制度在其發牌制度，一個市場，MMJ PhytoTech已經訂婚的條款。
MMJ PhytoTech已經在加拿大不列顛哥倫比亞省運營，目前其產品暢銷歐洲。
“我們知道，加拿大的牌照制度，讓我們很好的定位要放在前腳的澳大利亞管理制度的發展，”他說。
“加拿大的系統是迄今為止最良好的結構監管制度的藥用大麻[全球]。
“作為一家公司，我們支持這方面的任何監管改革，我們正在通過這些討論在聯邦層面鼓勵。
“這項規定是要為人們提供獲取藥物，可以顯著提高他們的生活質量。
“正如有人誰見了誰的人從耐藥性癲癇和MS受苦我知道，獲得這些藥物對提高他們的生活質量。我們支持任何監管改革，使這種情況發生的可能性。”
聯邦政府此前曾計劃在今年允許各州和領地在自己的轄區許可種植者在年底前推出一項法律，但總理與各國政府和執法機構協商後改變了主意表明一些國家正在等待一個聯邦監管方案。
“我有信心創造一個單一的，全國一致的人才培養方案，而不是八個單獨的安排，不僅有利於加快立法進程，但最終獲得的藥用大麻產品以及”衛生部長Sussan萊伊說。
目前還不清楚該方案是否能吸引足夠的支持，在參議院，因為它仍然顯著從綠黨“的模式不同，創建一個新的國家監管機構，將負責藥用大麻的生長，生產和銷售。
=====
=====
已轉推
✨
Caliphate Crusher
Ka8Line carlste30 ISISrGoatBngrs baqiya108 WHOOP! The only thing expanding with you are your daydreams of an IS
China Passes Anti-Terrorism Law; Here's What You Need to Know
If
you rely on encrypted services to keep your data private and,
unfortunately, you are in China, then you are about to be worried.
As of now Chinese government could snoop into the operations of
technology companies as well as circumvent privacy protections in
everyday gadgets.
China So-called Anti-Terrorism Law
Despite months of objections from major technology firms and concerns over human rights…
China passed its controversial new anti-terrorism law on Sunday that requires tech companies to help decrypt information or hand over encryption keys to officials when they want to spy on someone's communication in order to counter terror operations.
However, the officials swear that the law wouldn't require technology firms to install "backdoors"
in their products, but it doesn't make any difference when the
government mandate companies operating in China to provide encryption
keys and passwords when requested.
Just like recent proposals from the intelligence agencies in the UK and US after the deadly assaults in Paris and California, China claims such law is necessary to fight against terrorism.
"Nowadays, the Internet is increasingly used by terror groups to spread their extremist ideas, recruit fighters, channel fund and plot attacks," said Xinhua, China's official news agency.
Concerns over New Anti-terrorism Law
However, critics are worried that the so-called anti-terrorism law could
give the Chinese government right to snoop into the operations of major
tech companies and ways to circumvent encryption protections in
everyday gadgets, including smartphones, home routers and Smart devices.
Earlier this year, President Barack Obama raised
his concerns over the then-draft law with China's President Xi Jinping,
saying that the law would amount to a dangerous "back doors" to
internet companies.
However, the government official assured that this law is meant to fight
terrorism, so it will neither affect the normal operation of technology
companies nor install any "backdoors" to infringe intellectual property
rights or freedom of speech of every citizen on the Internet.
New Law in Effect from January 1
The country's first anti-terrorism law goes into effect on January 1st.
But, despite the requirements set out by the new law, major tech firms,
such as iPhone maker Apple, do not hold the encryption keys, making
itself incapable of providing access to users' data even if requested by
the government.
That sets up a potential conflict.
So what will happen if Chinese authorities order these technology
companies to fork over encryption keys that they can not possibly
deliver?
Would they ban such companies from the country?
‘OR’
Would they fine those companies to pay an enormous amount? Just like US government imposed $5,000 per day fine on Lavabit founder for refusing to turn over the encryption keys.
But always keep in mind that no matter what, there would be many
companies that will sacrifice your privacy in order to continue
operating their business in the world's most populous nation.
About the author
=====
中國傳反恐怖主義法; 這裡就是你需要知道的
如果你依賴於加密服務，讓您的數據的私密性，不幸的是，你在中國，那麼你要擔心。
截至目前，中國政府可能窺探到公司技術操作以及規避隱私保護的日常小工具。
中國所謂的反恐怖主義法
儘管主要的技術公司和在人權問題個月的異議？
中國通過上週日，需要高科技公司，以幫助解密資料或交出加密密鑰的官員 ，當他們想要窺探別人的溝通，以應對恐怖行動及其爭議的新反恐法 。
但是，官員們發誓，法律不會要求科技公司安裝“ 後門 ”，在他們的產品，但它並沒有任何區別時，在中國經營政府授權的公司時要求提供加密密鑰和密碼。
“如今，互聯網正在越來越多地被恐怖組織來傳播自己的極端思想，招募戰士，渠道籌集和情節的攻擊，說：” 新華社 ，中國的官方通訊社。
由於擔心新反恐法
然而，批評者擔心，所謂的反恐法可以給中國政府有權窺探到各大科技公司，以及如何規避加密保護，在日常的小工具，包括智能手機，家庭路由器和智能設備的操作。
今年早些時候， 美國總統奧巴馬 提出了他的擔憂與中國國家主席習近平法當時的草案，稱該法律將達到一個危險的“後門”，以互聯網公司。
然而，政府官員相信，這部法律是為了打擊恐怖主義，所以既不會影響到科技公司的正常運作，也沒有安裝任何“後門”，以侵犯知識產權或互聯網上的每一個公民的言論自由。
新的法律在影響從1月1日
該國的第一個反恐怖主義法生效1月1日。
但是，儘管設置了新的法律規定，各大科技公司，如iPhone製造商蘋果公司，不持有加密密鑰，使自己沒有能力，即使要求政府提供訪問用戶的數據。
這建立了一個潛在的衝突。
那麼究竟會發生什麼，如果中國當局下令這些科技公司到餐桌上的加密密鑰，他們不可能兌現？
他們會從國家禁止這樣的公司？
'要么'
他們會罰款這些公司支付大筆？就像美國政府徵收$ 5,000一天罰款拉維畢特的創始人拒絕交出加密密鑰。
但始終要記住，不管是什麼，會有很多公司會犧牲自己的隱私，以便繼續在世界上人口最多的國家經營業務。
關於作者
=====
Vladimir Putin ridiculed after giving 400-page book of his most 'prophetic' quotes to his favorite politicians http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3376424/Even-Stalin-didn-t-far-Vladimir-Putin-ridiculed-giving-400-page-book-prophetic-quotes-favourite-politicians-ordered-read-display-offices.html#ixzz3vdqRCWFz …
'Even Stalin didn't go this far': Vladimir Putin ridiculed after giving 400-page book of his most 'prophetic' quotes to his favourite politicians... who were ordered to read and display it in their offices
- Book entitled 'Words That Are Changing The World' given to 1,000 officials
- Said to contain Russian leader's quotes and speeches dating back to 2003
- In it, Putin claimed his wife's advice could have averted the refugee crisis
- It has been compared to Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung's communist bible
Russian officials have been sent a 400 page book of President Vladimir Putin's most 'prophetic' quotes as a New Years gift.
They
have been ordered to read the book entitled 'Words That Are Changing
The World' and display it in their offices at all times.
The
book, which is said to contain a collection of his sayings and speeches
going back 12 years, has been compared to Chinese chairman Mao
Tse-Tung's communist bible.
Russian officials have
been sent a 400 page book of President Vladimir Putin's (pictured) most
'prophetic' quotes as a New Years gift
It was sent
to 1,000 of Putin's 'favourite' senior politicians and bureaucrats by
Vyacheslav Volodin, the first deputy head of the Kremlin.
In
it, Putin is said to make the incredible claim that the migrant crisis
engulfing Europe could have been avoided if world leaders had listened
to his wife more than a decade ago.
The introduction states: 'These are the words which predicted and predetermined the global changes in the world policy.'
It
has been ridiculed by some historians, including Nikolai Svanidze, a
member of president's Human Rights Council, who said Putin had gone
further than dictator Josef Stalin.
He told news outlet RBK: 'The first parallel which occurs to me is Mao Tse-Tung's book of quotes.
'In
the countries with an authoritarian autocratic regime, they always aim
to publish the brightest sayings of leaders - even when those saying are
not so bright.
=====
רוח רפאים מפקד 已轉推
Cristina Laila
SDSU students demand Sharia law, want zero tolerance & punishment for Islamophobic speech http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/san-diego-state-university-muslim-student-association-demands-zero-tolerance-policy-explicitly-for-islamophobic-speech … 
*-Update[27 / 12-2015] -By Facebook.com - The Huge Chivalrous Anonymous "Anonymous Perth" plus the news- see justice, kindness, caring, "Many the Head of State is very focused on people's human rights!" Swastika morality "and" truth "so that people are no longer subject to" blockade, ban screen of the internet "of the evil beast chinaman control! Western European allies is so" open and fair "to treat people! This is the most good "role-model to 2016!- And Our Huge Chivalrous Anonymous On Twitter -"רוח רפאים מפקד "-The Best Anony , We Folower n the end!~Melody.Blog Sincerely Thanksgiving ~ -更新[27/12-2015]-By Facebook.com - The Huge Chivalrous Anonymous " Anonymous Perth " plus the news- 看公正,仁慈,關愛"的國家元首們是非常注重人們的人權!"卍道德觀"的"真理"使人們不再受到"封鎖,禁屏"的控制!西歐盟國是如此的"開放,公平"地對待人們!這便是2016的最良好"模范人物"!Melody.Blog感恩敬上~
http://melodyanony-anti-global-authoritarian.blogspot.com/2015/12/update27-12-2015-by-facebookcom-huge.html
===Melody.Blog===Thanksgiving===>/
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
沒有留言:
張貼留言