Auspol March - C U Next Trollday, Auspol - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March - C U Next Trollday, Auspol

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hahaha we're trying to convince China that our [cane]toad juice is better than their toad juice at fighting cancer:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/26/cane-toad-venom-cancer-chinese-remedies

Researchers at the University of Queensland have discovered that cane toad venom is effective in fighting cancer, with the potency rivalling that of toads found in Asia that are used in Chinese traditional medicine.

The discovery opens up the possibility of sending millions of toads to China, where they would be systematically squeezed for their juices, which would then be mixed with herbs and consumed as medicine.

Harendra Parekh, from the university�s school of pharmacy, said Chinese companies were �queuing up� to get their hands on Australia�s cane toads.

�We don�t have any of the environmental pollution, such as heavy metal poisoning, that you see in China,� he told Guardian Australia. �So the Chinese see cane toads as living in a clean environment that doesn�t impact upon their venom.

------------------------------------------

Given how good "traditional" Chinese medicine is at decimating local wildlife populations, this might actually be a good thing.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 01:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 14:16

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

If they weren't bad enough wild now we're going to get people farming them.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 01:32

bowmore: Oct 6, 2008; Lipstick Apathy

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Hahaha we're trying to convince China that our [cane]toad juice is better than their toad juice at fighting cancer:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/26/cane-toad-venom-cancer-chinese-remedies

Researchers at the University of Queensland have discovered that cane toad venom is effective in fighting cancer, with the potency rivalling that of toads found in Asia that are used in Chinese traditional medicine.

The discovery opens up the possibility of sending millions of toads to China, where they would be systematically squeezed for their juices, which would then be mixed with herbs and consumed as medicine.

Harendra Parekh, from the university�s school of pharmacy, said Chinese companies were �queuing up� to get their hands on Australia�s cane toads.

�We don�t have any of the environmental pollution, such as heavy metal poisoning, that you see in China,� he told Guardian Australia. �So the Chinese see cane toads as living in a clean environment that doesn�t impact upon their venom.

------------------------------------------

Given how good "traditional" Chinese medicine is at decimating local wildlife populations, this might actually be a good thing.

Could be a good idea to combat cane toads as long as people don't try and farm them.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 01:41

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Why you gotta hate on small business like that?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 01:44

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

bowmore posted:

Could be a good idea to combat cane toads as long as people don't try and farm them.

http://freakonomics.com/2012/10/11/the-cobra-effect-full-transcript/

# ? Mar 27, 2015 01:58

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm going to start farming cane beetles to supply cane toad farms.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 02:13

Negative Entropy: Nov 30, 2009

Australia is now (from the perspective of the rest of the developed world) actively hostile to any research at all.
Not just military research, but any "dual use" research.

http://www.cla.asn.au/News/defence-pilloried-by-senate-test-pilot/

quote:

Defence pilloried by Senate test pilot

A law just enacted severely jeopardises expansion and growth of Australia�s research expertise, particularly in academic and science circles, in the name of Defence. The effects could be profound.

Worse than TPP? Defence pilloried
By Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia

The Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2015, expected to become law within weeks, regulates high-tech research and development in Australia�and may drive the nation�s best researchers and academics overseas for good.

If they don�t leave for their own sanity and safety, they face $400,000 fines and 10 years in jail just for sending an �inappropriate� email. Who decides �appropriate�? Big Brother, the Government.

The new law is a government assault on freedom of speech and association, and entirely disproportionate to the legitimate protections it is trying to put in place. The penalty regime can literally take a researcher�s life�s work away.

Some critics say the DTCA law will have a worse effect on Australia than the useless-but-dangerous Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. (1)

Defence BillThe DTCA Bill aims to control who can share what with whom in defence- and security-related research. It passed the Senate on 18 March 2015 , but with a rider clause that major penalties under the law would be suspended for 12 months during a �suck it and see� process.

�It�s highly unusual for the Australian Parliament to pass a law, but suspend the operation of part of it so as to find out what problems it causes,� Civil Liberties Australia�s President, Dr Kristine Klugman, said. �The government must know how bad the legislation potentially is to act in this way.�

The problems associated with the new research law are legislative overkill, kow-towing totally and without thought to US interests, and flagrant disregard for consultation by Australia�s Department of Defence. This third problem evinced severe castigation last month by an Australian Senator who once headed up a Defence research establishment.

Poor drafting of the law means academics in Australia face greater hurdles to publishing, cooperation and exchange of information than do counterparts in the US and UK, for example. They will need Department of Defence approval before they engage in many normal research activities, like collaboration, supervision of PhD students and other non-publication releases of information.

�It�s like one part of government is trying to build a three-lane research highway, but the Defence area of government is putting concrete barriers randomly every 100m along the lanes,� Dr Klugman said. �If it doesn�t stop progress entirely, it slows it to a crawl.�

The law in Australia has been broadened to cover �dual-use� technology, including:

high-performance, neural, optical and fault-tolerant, computers,
electronics,
wavelength research (remember, wi-fi was �invented� in Australia),
heat-shielding,
telecommunications,
information security research,
robotics,
human, animal and plant pathogens, both bacterial and viral,
fibre optics,
cryptography.
satellite technology.
sensor technology.
signal and image processing.
composite materials, and�the list could go on and on.
Some categories have special case exclusions�but how do you know which, and when?

Also tucked away in the over-broad legislation is the fact that software for research in key areas is automatically covered. How would anyone know at what precise point utilising the partly-proscribed software, on some parts of some research, suddenly switches from being legal to illegal? Which bit tips you over the cliff?

Anyone working on non-defence-related research in these and similar fields in Australia is captive to the law�s excessive rules, regulations�and punishments.

These can be draconian. If a university academic shares an �inappropriate� email with a fellow academic overseas on dual-use research, the Australian faces a $400,000 fine, 10 years in jail and forfeiture of work. Meanwhile, in reverse, the overseas academic could communicate exactly the same information to an Australian researcher without fault or punishment.

The McCarthyist intent may be honourable, but the delivery through this legislation is dangerous. It is jeopardising our commitment to a research sector in Australia that I would have thought is important to all of us in the many fields that we deal with in this chamber, from food and fibre production all the way through to the medical and health sciences. � why on earth are we therefore including a criminal offence for a researcher in that space?�
� Rob Oakeshott (photo), then independent MHR for Lyne NSW

It is easy to see why some researchers and academics believe the new law will force the best and the brightest to leave Australia. The law will also stop the brightest coming to Australia to do research: already one PhD student has consulted with his embassy here, and decided to undertake his research in the UK instead of Australia, academic sources say.

Links with China will be particularly scrutinised, just at a time when Australian universities are forming formal relationships with Chinese universities at an accelerating rate. There are academic and student swaps, joint research and collaborative writing of papers�all of which will now be under threat from the poor DTCA legislation and the uncertainty surrounding it.

Like with the TPP trade agreement, the new law stems from US hegemony.

When the Australia-United States Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty was signed in 2007, Australia was forced to succumb to the rules of the US International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). Hence, the new rule that intangible �supply� or �publication� (including email exchange) of technology listed on the Defence and Strategic Goods List would be a criminal offence, attracting the harsh penalties.

The US refuses to supply Australia with �smart� (electronic) weapons and technology unless we are signed on to their system for trying to control intellectual developments in research. This is ironic, because the US system leaks like a sieve, and China is thought to know as much about US research as the Obama Administration does. Edward Snowden � the man who leaked America�s innermost secret communications � was not an Australian.

Most of the people who could face huge fines and jail time under the DTCA have no idea the new law applies to them. Dual-use restrictions mean the new law affects researchers even if they have no relationship � and have never had a relationship � with the Department of Defence.

The third major criticism of the new law is that Defence virtually encouraged public ignorance of its ramifications, and actively refused to engage in proper public consultation.

Speaking in Parliament as the Bill passed the Senate, Senator David Fawcett (2, and photo), a Liberal from South Australia, former Army helicopter test pilot and commanding officer as a Lt-Colonel of the RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit, delivered a withering rebuke to his former alma mater in a speech pillorying Defence�s approach:

One of the things the committee found was that the consultations undertaken by the Department of Defence in this case were inadequate, and that would be understating the extent of the consultations. As someone who served for over 23 years in Defence, I am ashamed to have to tell this chamber that the consultation was inadequate.This lack shows that many in Defence are put into roles�they might be working with an industry sector or an academic sector that they have never been a part of�and sometimes their concept of what will have an impact is not informed by their own life experience; and that is why consultation is so important. Consultation is important not only to transmit information but also to provide real opportunities to listen and understand what the practical impact of measures that the parliament legislates may have on industry or on academia.�

According to some working in the field, lack of consultation is the least of Defence�s sins.

Brendan Jones, a longtime critic who used to run an Australian Defence-related research business but who now has emigrated his business because of these and other anti-inventiveness laws, says Australian industry�s concerns have been ignored.

�A very big problem with the DTCA is the lack of protection for commercial confidentiality. The Department of Defence has a history of stealing intellectual property, abusing inside information for commercial gain, and an ongoing corruption problem.

�They also have their own business enterprises (Defence actually bids for its own contracts!) and business partners.

�The DTCA �forces� companies to reveal their intellectual property to Defence, with no protection against it being abused.

�The DTCA also imposes a considerable financial burden on businesses; even by Defence�s own rubbery numbers, compliance will cost your business $152,188 just for the first year,� Jones says.

ENDS

(1) The TPP is a trade treaty between 12 Pacific Rim nations, expected to be signed by the Australian government in 2015. The US Dept of Agriculture has estimated it will result in 00.00% benefit to Australia. Critics says it will raise prices on medicines, audio, video and streamed products and services, and be to the detriment of Australian copyright and intellectual property regimes.

(2) Senator Fawcett is also chairman of the Defence sub-committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and a member of the parent JSCFADT committee.

http://defencereport.com/australias-defence-trade-control-act-clamps-down-on-researchers/

quote:

Australia�s defence trade control act clamps down on researchers

London, UK � 5 January 2015
by Mark Collinson

Australia�s Defence Trade Control Act (DCTA) has been described as an overtly strict and complicated defence policy that sails far too close to turning Australia�s research and development sector into what would appear to be Soviet-styled regime where an email to a fellow academic could land you a 10 year prison sentence. This may sound like fiction, but the DCTA lacks an exclusion clause that researchers and academics elsewhere enjoy.

Something as seemingly innocent as a university academic sharing an unrelated email with a fellow academic, who happens to be overseas, punishable by ten years in prison or a AUD 425,000 (GBP 221,700) fine and forfeiture of work.

As the internet makes sharing of research an ever easier process the DTCA is meant to tighten and control who can share what and with whom, and stop sensitive military research falling into the wrong hands. Unfortunately, this new set of guidelines can also make something as seemingly innocent as a university academic sharing an unrelated email with a fellow academic, who happens to be overseas, punishable by ten years in prison or a AUD 425,000 (GBP 221,700) fine and forfeiture of work.

The DTCA is based on the United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) regulatory system which also has its fair share of critics. Although both the ITAR and the DTCA work along similar lines there is one key difference: where ITAR has an exclusion clause (section 120.11) which covers academic and public research, the DCTA has no such clause. This is bad news for Australian academics who will soon find themselves at a huge disadvantage when the DCTA is enacted on 17 May 2015.

When asked why academics were not excluded from the DTCA, the Australian DoD responded as follows:

Some academic research uses proliferation-sensitive controlled goods and technologies. While the sensitive items are used for legitimate civilian research by Australian researchers, they can also be used for the proliferation of military, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The overseas transfers of these proliferation-sensitive controlled items must be regulated to ensure that the controlled goods and technology do not end up in the hands of states or groups of proliferation concern.

The looming power of the DTCA has forced many academics that DefenceReport contacted to speak anonymously or not to comment at all. One defence researcher, who spoke to DefenceReport on the condition of anonymity, stated that the legislation is ill-conceived and the intellectual property rights of the DTCA are far worse than the controversies sparked by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP).

Hastily Put Forward
The DTCA was rushed through parliament during October 2012 in such haste that not only did it manage to avoid any major media coverage, but it also seems that the Australian senate committee were given very little time to debate and draw an adequate conclusion, or to fully consider the full implications to Australia�s research and development sector.

Although the DCTA is certainly intended to ease import regulations when dealing with the US by removing restrictions on importing military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) technology, there is a real and likely fear the over reliance on the goodwill of the US is simultaneously stunting Australia�s own research and development sector.

The Australian MoD told DefenceReport:
The Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (DTC Act) does not remove export restrictions with the US. The DTC Act contains two separate measures: measures to implement the Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty between Australia and the US; and measures to strengthen Australia�s export controls. The Treaty measures in the DTC Act commenced operation on 6 June 2013 to create a framework that facilitates the export of controlled goods within an Approved Community, without the need for an export license.

DCTA is supported by the Defence and Strategic Goods list (DSGL) which lists goods that are targeted for regulation which are strictly military and also goods that could be used for military purposes, or so-called �dual-use� goods. The DSGL itself is a 360-page document that only the most dedicated of lawyers could hope to fully comprehend.

Defence Research Brain Drain

Without the exclusion for academics, as enjoyed by the US and UK, university researchers would need prior permission from a Minister at the Department of Defence (DoD) to communicate new research to foreign nationals or to publish in any research journals. The logistics, not to mention the time, needed to obtain such permissions without any guarantee they might be granted will probably mean a very large number of students and professors choosing not to undertake research projects.

The broad scope of the DSGL also makes it a confusing document to read and one that requires a lawyer�s interpretation. The list seems to be growing weekly and includes everything from carbon fibres, plant pathogens, image processing and robotics.

Even if they do make revisions there is still going to be a huge amount of risk involved for anyone intending to study new research. Many will realise the opportunities abroad and take their innovative research elsewhere.

Critics say the DTCA was hastily rushed through Australia�s parliament and senate, and the lack of debate shows. The DTCA is intended to simplify trade between Australia, the US and the UK, while also tightening control over the exchange of the intangible transfer of military goods. In reality, while the Australian government may be doing their best to please their most important allies, it risks driving their top military and academic researchers from Australian shores for good. The very controls that were put in place to supposedly protect Australia�s interests are actually Australia�s biggest threat.

I just can't take much more of this. :smith:

Negative Entropy fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Mar 27, 2015

# ? Mar 27, 2015 02:26

oilatsnep: Sep 5, 2011

Emigration looks better and better every day.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 02:45

iajanus: Aug 17, 2004; NUMBER 1 QUEENSLAND SUPPORTER
MAROONS 2023 STATE OF ORIGIN CHAMPIONS FOR LIFE

Murodese posted:

Linkable version at https://murodese.github.io/

I imagine there'd be a bunch of ways to echo HTTP requests and make traffic appear as if it's coming from inside a corporate network, flagging an investigation. Hide a 1x1 iframe to a terrorist website on some clickbait article and go to loving town.

Thanks for that, shared

# ? Mar 27, 2015 02:55

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Senator Brandis said access to so-called "metadata" was essential for authorities.

"Metadata is the basic building block in nearly every counter-terrorism, counter-espionage and organised crime investigation," Senator Brandis said after the bill had passed.

But this morning he said some criminals may be able to evade the laws.

"Smart criminals will devise ways to get around the law, I mean that's been the case with the criminal law for as long as the criminal law has existed," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/criminals-may-evade-metadata-laws/6351962

# ? Mar 27, 2015 03:39

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

Smart criminals may plan their crimes using Facebook, gmail, or one of the many other obscure darknet tools.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 03:42

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

drat, here I was thinking we finally had a criminal proof law.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 03:42

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

Guess we have to hope predator rings and terrorist groups aren't smart or computer savvy in any way then.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 03:54

Murodese: Mar 6, 2007; Think you've got what it takes?
We're looking for fine Men & Women to help Protect the Australian Way of Life.

Become part of the Legend. Defence Jobs.

Kommando posted:

Australia is now (from the perspective of the rest of the developed world) actively hostile to any research at all.
Not just military research, but any "dual use" research.

http://www.cla.asn.au/News/defence-pilloried-by-senate-test-pilot/

http://defencereport.com/australias-defence-trade-control-act-clamps-down-on-researchers/

I just can't take much more of this.

Wow, that's absurdly fuckin' dumb. For reference, that lists covers literally all of the research I've ever done (fault tolerant computing, sensor networking, data mining and high-performance computing).

I don't think they've realised that Australian PhD theses have to be sent overseas for marking, either. PhDs: now with a free 10 year jail sentence

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:01

Endman: May 18, 2010; That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even anime may die

katlington posted:

Senator Brandis said access to so-called "metadata" was essential for authorities.

"Metadata is the basic building block in nearly every counter-terrorism, counter-espionage and organised crime investigation," Senator Brandis said after the bill had passed.

But this morning he said some criminals may be able to evade the laws.

"Smart criminals will devise ways to get around the law, I mean that's been the case with the criminal law for as long as the criminal law has existed," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/criminals-may-evade-metadata-laws/6351962

What was the point of this law other than to make the government, the opposition, and subsequently most of the population that voted for them, feel stupid?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:06

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

choke on this auspol

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:09

bowmore: Oct 6, 2008; Lipstick Apathy

how long did it take for data retention legislation to go from introduction to be debated to passed?

it seemed like it was a very short time

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:14

norp: Jan 20, 2004; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

let's invade New Zealand, they have oil

I really do try to read first dog, and I used to really like it.

These days my brain shuts down before I get to the third panel.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:15

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

I read every word

Thank you First Dog On The Moon poster

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:19

Negative Entropy: Nov 30, 2009

Shadeoses posted:

I read every word

Thank you First Dog On The Moon poster

I too like reading firstdog and the occasional diagrammatic picture.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:27

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Joke's on you. Workplace filter ate it all.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:29

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

I'm having a back and forth with someone on facebook now about FDOTM and he was laughing along with it at how this weeks 'strip' is about how little effort the guy is making these days. Takes all kinds.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:30

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Murodese posted:

Wow, that's absurdly fuckin' dumb. For reference, that lists covers literally all of the research I've ever done (fault tolerant computing, sensor networking, data mining and high-performance computing).

I don't think they've realised that Australian PhD theses have to be sent overseas for marking, either. PhDs: now with a free 10 year jail sentence

They're just legislating to make sure that a PHD is an actual 10 year jail term, rather than an implied one. At least the prison food is better than the university cafeteria.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:30

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

What ever happened to first dog without first dog?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:41

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

open24hours posted:

drat, here I was thinking we finally had a criminal proof law.

That's pretty stupid of you. On the other hand, if somebody was expecting some return on the expense or privacy taken away, that might be reasonable. That's just as likely to happen as your version, with this government, though.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:55

bowmore: Oct 6, 2008; Lipstick Apathy

Would an ordinary Australia who doesn't evade metadata retention be more watched than a prisoner who doesn't have a phone or internet records?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:55

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

katlington posted:

if somebody was expecting some return on the expense or privacy taken away

Why would anyone expect that?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:57

bowmore: Oct 6, 2008; Lipstick Apathy

In 2013 they were arguing whether using GPS devices on convicted criminals and whether it was a breach of privacy, how is this bill any different if it tracks the metadata from our phones?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:59

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

The most I expect is reassurances that this government will minimize the amount of poo poo it's trying to get us to swallow.

They'd still be lies, but at least try.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 04:59

Murodese: Mar 6, 2007; Think you've got what it takes?
We're looking for fine Men & Women to help Protect the Australian Way of Life.

Become part of the Legend. Defence Jobs.

bowmore posted:

how long did it take for data retention legislation to go from introduction to be debated to passed?

it seemed like it was a very short time

Introduced in the HoR 30th October 2014, debated 17-19th March 2015. Introduced into the senate 24th March 2015, passed 26th March. Effectively 4 days.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:00

Endman: May 18, 2010; That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even anime may die

LNP was a trojan horse. Labor clicked a popup ad, now Australia has spyware.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:03

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Labor shouldn't be visiting torrent sites in the first place.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:05

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

open24hours posted:

Why would anyone expect that?

Stop posting.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:12

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

It's a perfectly reasonable question.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:16

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

Clearly the answer now is to communicate by fax.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:18

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

Time for us all to Face the Fax.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:20

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

Also: Mail Robot

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:24

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Birdstrike posted:

Clearly the answer now is to communicate by fax.

I'm torrenting using smoke signals. The only problem is the bushfires cause terrible packet loss.

EDIT: Flooding ruins my upspeed too.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:27

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

open24hours posted:

It's a perfectly reasonable question.

Nah it's you trying to squirm out of your smart rear end white noise posting. Instead of wasting time that you're not worth in a back and forth I'm just gonna tell you to stop posting.

I guess this law isn't perfect heh. I'm so cynical youse have no idea. I'm so jaded artisans carve my feces into jewelry, you just post yours online.

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 14:16

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

...OK? Feel free to attribute whatever motivation you like to my posting. It's still a perfectly reasonable question. Why did you think that Brandis' admission that the law wasn't perfect was so relevant?

# ? Mar 27, 2015 05:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March - C U Next Trollday, Auspol

«‹›156 »