Adblock Plus detection=0 | uBlock Origin detection=0 | Ghostery detection=0 | Privacy Badger detection=0


December 7, 2017

All email services for have been migrated to a new domain name. All previous email addresses on the old email domain will cease to function with immediate effect. All the same email addresses have been activated on the new domain of

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. But this was an unplanned, yet necessary move, as a result of our recent server migration.


Please use the "Find" function in your web browser to find specific content. The following hashtag search terms may help you find something specific.

Search tag index:



Freedom Publishers Union

#freedom #transparency #privacy #mass-surveillance #civiliancasualties #openinformation


Opening the gates of freedom of information and transparency. Making the internet and open-source software more accessible. We publish articles, documents and files on topics of interest related to, but not limited to:

At Freedom Publishers Union, our Staff Writers try to test all software we write about and recommend. In some cases, it may not be possible to test the application in-full. In such a case, we can't be held liable/responsible for any loss/damage/discomfort occurred to you personally or your own software/hardware as a result of using an application or product we've published information about, reviewed and/or recommended.

No personal information is gathered by any server owned and physically and directly controlled at the hardware-level by Freedom Publishers Union. Any data that is sourced, obtained, collected and stored will not be released, sold, shared or leased to any entities or individuals outside what is authorized by Freedom Publishers Union, or that of any third-party services required for Freedom Publishers Union to remain operational in-full and must adhere to our internal data retention guidelines.

Data Retention Guidelines

Data Retention Guidelines are to be adhered to by Freedom Publishers Union. Data retention includes data obtained by web servers and web delivery technology and its related software(s). This data is to be ONLY sourced, obtained, collected and stored and removed under the following provisions:

Freedom Publishers Union or any associated persons linked directly to Freedom Publishers Union is not responsible for the content of external internet sites which are either linked or recommended by us. You are advised to read the Privacy Policy of any external sites before disclosing any personal information to all external parties outside of Freedom Publishers Union network of associated websites and services.

Freedom Publishers Union was founded by Chris McGimpsey-Jones and Dinesh Raja.

It is a small Web Publishing Organization which owned and operated by GC Media Publishing Management.


Amit Gautam (Spokesperson) - [email protected]

Dinesh Raja (Co-Founder and Public Representative) - [email protected]

Chris McGimpsey-Jones (Co-Founder, Director and Editor-in-Chief) - [email protected]

Brett Brennan (Sub-Editor) - [email protected]

Mel Khamlichi (Technical Advisor) - [email protected]

Advisory Board Members

Associated Persons Not Publicly Disclosed

Due to the 'sensitive' nature some of the content published on Freedom Publishers Union and ongoing potential of legal threat against our Organization and operations, we CAN NOT disclose the Names, Contact details or the Email address(es) of specific persons associated with Freedom Publishers Union.

We have many people who work in the shadows to keep our Organization thriving and publishing content which SHOULD be published and NEEDS to published and openly available for public access. To protect specific persons who assist us in a range of different ways, we choose to keep their identities and personal details private and NOT publicly disclose who these people are. We regularly publish works by other Publishers and Journalists such as Julian Assange, Sarah Harrison, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden. We integrate and publish their works into Freedom Publishers Union. However, we must point out that these Journalists are not directly associated with any original publication or website owned by Freedom Publishers Union.


To contact our Spokesperson, please send to [email protected]

To contact our Public Relations Department, please send to [email protected]

To contact our Main Office, please send to [email protected]

Secure/Anonymous Contact

We can also be contacted securely via encrypted service WhatsApp. Just add our cell phone number +61 402650018

Freedom Publishers Union Social Media

To view our OFFICIAL Facebook Page, please visit

To view our OFFICIAL Twitter account, please visit

Tecseek Technology Social Media

To view our OFFICIAL Facebook Page, please visit

Please note: The social media accounts listed above are the ONLY official accounts authorized to be associated with Freedom Publishers Union and have been authorized by GC Media Publishing Management. Please ignore any other accounts that claim to be associated with us or claim to be "Official", as they are not.

Virtual Offices

To direct our publications through appropriate jurisdictions and locales which is most relevant to the information and documents being presented, we rely on a network of international media bodies which are used as portals to distribute our publications.

Head Office - GC Media Publishing Management (Gold Coast, Australia)

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

European Press Office - Moscow Press

Quality Publishing Works - International Media Group

Reykjavic Press


With the gradual emergence of frequently used terms of "fake news", "post-truth" and "alternative facts", Freedom Publishers Union wants to make a brief Statement to reiterate our commitment to our readers.

Freedom Publishers Union Editorial Team is absolutely committed to ensuring our writing and publishing strictly adheres to our internal publication principles. We will always ensure we remain non-bias and remain as neutral as possible. We will only present fact based content which we believe to be authentic, genuine, accurate, well-researched and fact checked by our in-house Editorial Team, against sources we believe to be the best and most reliable and reputable in the media and publishing industry.

The President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, has shaken the traditional media landscape. Some media organizations have succumbed to falling to the same low-level remarks, commentary and views that Trump assumes. Whilst the more respected media organizations have remained true to their publishing principles and continue the practice of true journalism and publishing.

Freedom Publishers Union will not be moved by Donald Trump's erratic and intolerable commentary and behavior. We, along with our US-based media partners, will not be moved by any such media reforms, bans, blockages and/or censorship that he attempts to implement which may potentially impede on freedom of the press in the United States and any after-effects it has in the global circuit. We remain committed to publishing exactly what our moto states - "Publishing what is right and what is important". We will always operate within the boundaries of the law. Yet, as a representative of the free press, we also have an ethical responsibility to publish content that is in the public interest, regardless of whether its legally questionable according to Donald Trump's media reform(s) or own political agenda.

If we see journalism and publishing is under threat, then we will respond accordingly through our publications, regardless.

Freedom Publishers Union - Editorial Team


Our Editorial team is absolutely adamant that we maintain strict editorial and publishing standards and will always ensure our process remains open to public scrutiny, as much as possible.

The following list of websites are our trusted sources of news, information, facts and research material. We consistently rely upon and use these sources for research, data gathering, comparison, fact checking and to ensure source diversity.

We use all of the information gathered from these sources on a specific story or topic and create a basis for our own publications to ensure fact, accuracy and reliability remains at the forefront of publishing importance.

(In alphabetical order)

We specifically rely on a selection of these media sources as our prime basis, as they are among the few outlets that still employ their own reporters, so their stories aren't going to be 'rip-and-read' from a wire service or web aggregate service that simply drops the breaking headlines onto the wire.

These sources are almost always guaranteed to report with an 'eye-witness' point of view, not some third-party being re-quoted repeatedly. Because of their private news teams, they tend to each pick up something different about a story - slightly different details and perspective.

Further, because they aren't in the 'first to print' mode full-time, they tend to publish detailed follow-up stories withing 48 hours that more thoroughly sort the facts and clarify verified information from rumors.

Then we proceed to review all of our other sources on the same story for several days after the initial story goes to press. If all are reporting the same core facts, then those are most probable to be true, or at least perceived to be true from several perspectives.

We use internal editorial categorization techniques of liberal and conservative sources and determine if their publications echo the same core facts as what we consider our master sources. Then we can make an assessment to conclude that everyone saw the same thing. We then look for the starkest differences between the baseline, left and right sources. These are what we call the bias indicators.

On rare occasions, we use source information from media entities and individuals not listed above. We call these 'outside sources'. When we use outside sources, we take the information and will always attempt to back up the information we receive with our trusted sources, in accordance to the standard process.

During the entire process, we also rely on independent media outlets for either document source or source information to accompany our publications.

The entire process is not streamlined in a strict sense, as we allow for much flexibility during the writing and editorial process. But we are always extremely careful to ensure that at the time of publication, all information and material that we publish and release remains as accurate as possible, based on all available information that we have access to, through our media sources.


We regularly and continuously use our media status and reach to press and advocate on various important international issues, working with Democratic Pirates Australia, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Software Foundation and other key advocacy groups.



The 9/11 Report

The 9/11 Report (28 Pages)

CIA Torture Report

CIA Review CT Detention and Interrogation

CIA Interrogation Guidelines

NSA Report into Russia Spearphishing

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)-Full text

Royal Commission Report into Protection and Detention of Children in NT


August 15, 2016 | Changes to ABC Transcription Service

To Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC);

As the Director of a small independent publishing business, I write to you today expressing my genuine concern over media reports, published today at The Guardian, which outlines future changes to ABC and its transcription service.

I can not possibly explain how disappointed I am that the ABC has made the decision to either reduce the service of providing timely transcripts of important news and current affairs programming, whilst abruptly proceeding with the discontinuation of others.

Transcripts provided by the ABC are a crucial source of reference and citation for publishers and journalists. Through my work with GC Media Publishing Management and other associated roles within the publishing business, I personally will be affected by this latest decision, by the ABC.

I use the transcripts on a weekly basis from a range of different ABC programs. They are used for a variety of roles within our business and their discontinuation will place a major hurdle in our publishing operations as our staff would be forced to source other references of source media, which we believe to be more biased, less accurate, less reliable and less reputable than what is currently provided by the ABC.

It would be a massive loss for so many Editors and Journalists and the industry as a whole, which already fights many challenges in the digital era of media - a sector GC Media Publishing Management understands very well. The decision by the ABC is unjustified and will be devastating for the public broadcasting sector.

I would like to see the ABC review its decision, without further delay. I believe the consequences will be devastating for the accuracy of information in the publishing and media landscape of Australia, if this decision is to be implemented as described to the best of our understanding.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Director


December 16, 2017 | New Foreign Interference Laws Will Compound Risks to Whistleblowers and Journalists

File 20171206 31528 cwi4t0.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Increasingly, the language of ‘national security' is invoked to protect a government's broader interests. AAP/Mick Tsikas
Keiran Hardy, Griffith University

The Turnbull government has announced a crackdown on foreign interference in Australian politics and national security. Proposed laws include a ban on foreign political donations, new criminal offences, and a transparency register for those acting on behalf of foreign governments or organisations.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull carefully emphasised that the proposals are not focused on China's influence in Australia. But, as the Lowy Institute's Euan Graham put it, there's an “800-pound panda” in the room.

The proposed criminal offences will significantly expand the scope of existing laws against espionage and treason. This will make it easier to prosecute spies and other foreign nationals who seek undue influence over Australian business or politics.

However, the new laws pose risks to whistleblowers and journalists. They suggest the concept of “national security” is continually expanding.

Further reading: Ban on foreign political donations is both too broad and too narrow, and won't fix our system


The Criminal Code currently sets out an offence of espionage that is punishable by 25 years' imprisonment.

The main offence applies where someone communicates or makes available information that concerns Australia's security or defence. The person must intend to prejudice Australia's security or defence, or advantage another country's security or defence. Under the proposed changes, this offence will attract a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Where a person recklessly endangers Australia's security or defence, this will be punishable by the current penalty.

The new espionage offences will apply to possessing or receiving information, in addition to communicating it. They will protect a broader range of information, including unclassified material.

Other new offences, punishable by 15 years' imprisonment, will target preparation for espionage and the theft of trade secrets.

Foreign interference

Proposed offences for foreign interference will target conduct not ordinarily considered to be espionage or treason.

Currently, the federal offence of treason describes very rare and serious conduct, such as assassinating or capturing the Queen or prime minister.

These new offences will target covert, deceptive or undisclosed conduct that is directed, funded, supervised or undertaken on behalf of a foreign interest. The penalties will range between ten and 20 years' imprisonment.

To constitute foreign interference, the conduct must be intended to:

Other new offences will target the support or funding of foreign intelligence agencies. These will be similar to existing crimes for supporting or funding terrorist organisations.

Are the new offences needed?

The changes will make it easier to prosecute foreign nationals who intentionally interfere with Australia's business, political or foreign policy interests.

Where such influence cannot strictly be described as impacting on security or defence, successful prosecution under the existing espionage or treason offences is very difficult.

The government's other justifications are much weaker. The current espionage offences already extend beyond the communication of information to making, obtaining or copying sensitive records. The Crimes Act includes offences that are triggered when an Australian public official discloses official secrets or other information obtained in the course of their employment.

What are the risks?

The proposed offences will target some conduct that should clearly be a serious criminal offence, such as intentionally supporting a foreign intelligence agency.

However, the proposed laws go well beyond such clear cases to target a broad and vague range of conduct affecting Australian interests. This includes possessing unclassified information and any deceptive or undisclosed conduct that influences government processes.

Most importantly, the proposed changes pose risks to whistleblowers and Australian media organisations. These risks were compounded in 2014 by changes to national security legislation in response to the threat of foreign fighters.

Further reading: National security bills compound existing threats to media freedom

A journalist could face serious penalties under the proposed espionage offences for receiving information leaked by a government official or intelligence whistleblower, before they even decide to publish that information.

It seems the information need not even be classified for the penalties to apply, provided making the information available would benefit a foreign country or organisation.

The government needs to ensure that journalists publishing sensitive information in the public interest will not face criminal prosecution for espionage or other federal criminal offences. This should be done by drafting legal protections for journalists who act in a professional capacity in the public interest.

Assurances from Attorney-General George Brandis that journalists will not be prosecuted for doing their job are not enough.

The proposed laws should be viewed not only as a response to increasing Chinese influence in Australia, but also as symptomatic of a post-Snowden crackdown, in which all potentially embarrassing information about government is closely protected.

Similar debates about expanded espionage offences and press freedom have already taken place in the UK. These debates confirm that “national security” is no longer simply about physical threats like terrorism or traditional forms of spying.

The ConversationIncreasingly, the language of national security is invoked to protect a government's broader interests – political, business and economic.

Keiran Hardy, Lecturer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Member, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

December 14, 2017 | Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Votes to Kill Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to repeal the rules that were put in place under the Obama Administration in 2015, which were aimed to protect internet access from abuse of speed restrictions from internet service providers of specific services whilst prioritizing others, and to keep the internet open and fair. Essentially, the rules were to ensure net neutrality was protected.

Yesterday, everything changed when the FCC voted 3-to-2, to repeal the net neutrality rules.

Freedom Publishers Union advocates for net neutrality and condemns the latest vote by the FCC to repeal the rules. We believe the internet should be free and accessible to everyone, without restriction, censorship, interference and/or speed manipulation.

The repeal of the rules are set to favor big telecommunications companies and internet service providers. The path is now clear for service providers to prioritize specific services over others. Freedom Publishers Union Director, Chris McGimpsey-Jones says, "It is unclear as to how this will affect consumers at this early stage. But it is almost certain that the repeal will make it more difficult for smaller service providers on the internet deliver their goods against the giants of the internet - Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix.". The internet delivery power these four giants of Silicon Valley hold is a growing concern. Whilst Netflix still has some competition, moreso now an agreement has been made for Disney to acquire a major chunk of 21st Century Fox in an effort to compete directly with Netflix, Google, Amazon and Facebook have almost nil competition. Now that net neutrality has effectively been killed by the FCC, their power is guaranteed to increase. This will accelerate the challenges startups face when trying to grow their services and make it more difficult for them to compete for their space on the internet, as internet service providers are now free to prioritize service delivery to Google, Facebook and Netflix (or any other service they reach a commercial deal with). This is a slap in the face for both startups and consumers, and will undoubtedly result in startups and smaller service providers being locked out of the internet fast lane.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to advocate for a free and open internet - net neutrality. We are not alone. There have been millions of internet activists speak out on the potential dangers of killing net neutrality rules, as have many of the large internet companies and service providers. Chris adds, "The FCC outright ignore the purpose of the fundamental design and foundations of why the internet was created. Instead, they view it as a money making machine of which they insist on handing control to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.". These are the big three internet service providers that deliver a huge chunk of internet access to consumers in the US. Chris continues, "Instead, the internet should remain free and neutral, and data should be allowed to flow freely in an organic nature, with absolute minimal regulation. Where regulation is applicable and necessary, and that's another matter for argument, that regulation should not include placing impediments against net neutrality. As someone who is actively and aggressively involved with fighting for digital rights, I view this as a big sticking up of the middle finger by the FCC, accompanied with a big f**k you.".

Freedom Publishers Union expects there will be much negative feedback that follows from the FCC decision. We also expect to see legal action launched against the FCC. Jay Stanley of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has referred to the telecommunications companies as the "online gatekeepers". Jay continues on to state, "nobody should think that network neutrality is dead. We at the ACLU and our allies will be fighting back at the federal, state and local level to restore the protections that the FCC has now eviscerated. And there is plenty that citizens can do. But the clock is now ticking because Americans may soon begin to see negative changes in the internet they've always known.".

Chris of Freedom Publishers Union concludes, "The fight is not over. Net neutrality can still be upheld.".

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News
| Permission to republish | Donate

November 15, 2017 | Illegal Access to Financial Data of US Citizens, Not Necessarily Intentionally Illegal

On October 6, 2017, Buzzfeed revealed details of accusations that US Government departments and intelligence agencies have been illegally spying on American citizen's financial data.

Freedom Publishers Union always put forward our strong opposition to government surveillance programs. Most often, they are deemed illegal and are extremely complex and sophisticated, intertwined networks.

The aforementioned details that emerged of the financial data of American citizens being illegally accessed is slightly disturbing, but Freedom Publishers Union does not believe that it is cause for too much concern. This can be justified by the fact that it gained very little follow up media coverage. And the Buzzfeed publication itself was of questionable quality journalism. Instead, the publication was typical of Buzzfeed's usual hyper point-and-print method of presentation. But that's not to say they've brought up an important issue which requires closer analysis.

Questionable access to this type of data is what happens when different committees of the US Congress write laws unintentionally (or with intentional forethought) don't coordinate their legislation to the extent they should. Especially under what Congress would consider 'crisis' situations, like the common response to 'terrorism' or situations which are quickly, yet unnecessarily deemed a threat to 'national security'.

Money laundering and other financial mischief has become a catch-all for financial transactions that don't smell right to investigators from a wide variety of law enforcement agencies, investigative departments within the banking sector, federal intelligence agencies and the many other organizations involved with investigating cases of money laundering and other illegal financial activity.

Lest we forget the Treasury, which has responsibility for the accounting for the US Government - including the ability to print money. Which is not the same as the Federal Reserve, which has direct responsibility for the economy outside of the Government. Then there's the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and the now dissolved Office of Thrift Supervision - those are just some of the federal agencies. Every US State also has the same panoply of agencies that don't report to the US Government. Worse still, there are areas of financial law that are truly gray areas where depending on a multitude of factors, a crime may or may not have been committed.

It's a financial oversight minefield, yet with very good intention. But the legal/illegal access of financial data and sharing of the data between these oversight agencies in cases of legitimate investigation into genuine illegal financial activity, is equal a minefield with the after-effects creating just more minefields. The question of legality spreads like a virus.

This must all be taken into perspective, before anyone can begin to assess whether access to financial data is concluded as legal or illegal.
All of these agencies have some responsibility for monitoring financial crimes. Which of course, involves both identifying a financial crime and then enforcing the criminal statute. And therein lies the problem: The necessary information to identifying and prosecuting a financial criminal is their finances and their identity. Pure and simple. Thus, you're going to get overlap in finding this information, and in the process, you will have agencies that are looking at data that is potentially outside of their oversight jurisdiction, but required for them to do their investigation.

A certain amount of back-door cooperation between agencies is hardly unknown. Until the advent of data mining, this wasn't even a concern to defense attorneys. It was always assumed to happen. The required financial brief and accompanying identification details would be initially logged and eventually the correct agency would get the data and collate it into an enforcement context allowing them to act on the final gathered information and data.

In order for any enforcement to work today, each and every transaction in the chain from start to end needs to be identified, reviewed and traced before the actual criminal activity is identified.

Many of these schemes involve regular, everyday citizens that get sucked into part of that chain whether the transactions be for work or private purpose. Many of which will appear to be completely normal unless you find them in the longer chain of tracking the activity trail. This is precisely why we have all these different agencies looking into individual bank accounts, which is now being labeled "illegal".

An ugly combination of the hairball of uncooperative laws, the separation of expertise into isolated agencies, and as much as anything, the unjustified media hype surrounding all these actions portray the government as snooping on your $20 withdrawals from your bank. This is not exactly true and must be completely examined and put into proper context.

It could be the simple result of someone (or a group of individuals in any number of the aforementioned departments) may be either disobeying the law because another law requires them to, disobeying a law intentionally, or just doing gray area research in order to legitimately carry out their investigation in an effort of genuine pursuit of criminals. It doesn't really matter to the individuals swept up in the financial data analysis, as they are just anonymous points of data in a much, much larger pattern of possible illegal activity.

So the whole "If you are not doing anything illegal, then you have nothing to hide" statement, actually does apply in this case.

There's two vital questions which must be asked: Is this a consequence of too zealously pursing illegal activities that suck millions of innocent citizens into the confusion? Or is this the price we (Americans specifically) have to pay to get the criminals that are allegedly ruining our lives?

Finally, we propose a possible afterthought and ask further: Is this actually making us safer? Or is it just another consequence of modern-day prohibition where everyone is assumed a criminal?

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News
| Permission to republish | Donate

October 27, 2017 | Russia Mass-Surveillance Revelations

September 19, 2017, Wikileaks dumped an unusual set of documents related to mass-surveillance programs inside Russia.

The Wikileaks Press Release states that, "While the surveillance of communication traffic is a global phenomena, the legal and technological framework of its operation is different for each country. Russia's laws - especially the new Yarovaya Law - make literally no distinction between lawful interception and mass-surveillance by state intelligence authorities without court orders.".

It continues by stating, "Russian communication providers are required by Russian law to install the so-called SORM components for surveillance provided by the FSB, at their own expense. The SORM infrastructure is developed and deployed in Russia with close cooperation between the FSB, the Interior Ministry of Russia and Russian surveillance contractors.".

Information provided to Freedom Publishers Union details SORM as the technical infrastructure for the Russian surveillance networks and is operated on a national scale. It dates back to 1995 and has evolved from SORM-1 (capturing telephone and cell phone communications) and SORM-2 in 1999 (interception and collection of internet traffic), to the current SORM-3. SORM now collects information from all forms of Russian communications networks, and provides long-term storage of all information and data, including the possibility of storage of actual recordings and locations. The infrastructure was expanded in 2014 to include social media platforms. The Ministry of Communications ordered companies to install new networking and technical equipment with Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) capability. In 2016, SORM-3 added additional classified regulations that apply to all internet service providers operating inside Russia. The European Court for Human Rights has previously deemed Russia's SORM legislation in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, in 2015 (Zakharov v. Russia).

Whilst most of the Wikileaks documents are in Russian, there are a couple of English language documents in the collection which come from PETER-SERVICE, a Russian billing services provider and now a major software supplier of for the Russian mobile telecommunications industry. According to information provided by Wikileaks, technology developed and supplied by PETER-SERVICE extend beyond traditional billing services and into mass-surveillance. PETER-SERVICE goes beyond simply complying with strict Russian surveillance laws and is apparently initiating partnerships and establishing commercial business opportunities with Russia's state intelligence departments.

Data retention is a crucial piece of the surveillance program operating inside Russia. According to a Data Retention System document released by Wikileaks, the Data Retention System service "is an add-on product for the Core Subsystems of SPS Family of Products (SVC_BASE). It provides access to the main functions of PETER-SERVICE SVC_BASE by means of the web interface". Details inside the documents cited by Freedom Publishers Union include meta-data search functions, filtering and search export options. The descriptive details resemble that of what we learned from documents provided by former intelligence and security contractor, Edward Snowden, about the PRISM and ICReach programs which are part of the mass-surveillance network operated by the National Security Agency (NSA). Previous evidence published suggests that some NSA operated programs extend accessibility to fellow agencies throughout the ¿Five Eyes' intelligence network - USA/UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand - and to the CIA, then filtered all the way through to the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Access is vast and wide. Therefore, there is every possibility that the Russian mass-surveillance network that operates inside the country will have the same level of data accessibility and free sharing of citizen's meta-data throughout Russian Government departments, primarily the FSB.

Meta-data is required to be collected and stored for a duration of 3 years. According to PETER-SERVICE, their data retention system components can handle 500,000,000 connections per day, in one cluster. The data retention laws and required time-frame for the data to be stored is not unusual and has stark similarities to meta-data laws in Western nations.

As PETER-SERVICE operates in the Russian mobile telecommunications sector, it has put itself in a unique market position to be able to collect meta-data, cell phone communications data, cell device identification information, network connections information and cell phone tracking through cell phone tower connection monitoring. We do not know exactly the types of data that is being monitored and collected, but potentially, the amount of data could be huge and resemble that of other global mass-surveillance programs that operate.

The Russian documents release is a game changer on how we approach the notion of mass-surveillance because now we have learned that these programs that effectively spy on a country's citizens are operating on a global scale - inside all types of oppressive, repressive, communist and democratic regimes.

It's no longer safe to assume any country is free of mass-surveillance. We need to stop focusing on any given country and start talking about surveillance generically. But we must also be careful to not accept that mass and dragnet surveillance on sweeping scale is the norm and we must always raise immediate concerns over potential violations of privacy and civil liberties.

Ultimately, a set of United Nations guidelines on how all mass-surveillance initiating countries should disclose and monitor their compliance would be appropriate. However, Freedom Publishers Union still believes it is still almost impossible to achieve any kind of United Nations standards for surveillance oversight and transparency, simply because many nations still are not publicly admitting that many of these programs actually exist and are operating. Despite confirmation from the many documents that have been published which prove their existence and continued operation, and despite questionable legal right to operate.

Privacy in nearly all aspects of life is no longer possible, so it is time that we focus on establishing what the different expectations of privacy are, how they're defined, and how the scope of each can be legally protected from abuse and whether lawful and realistic transparency and public disclosure can be applied. Because it's the abuse that is the driver of our fear against mass-surveillance and fear of losing our privacy.

We need to define what abuse of privacy means in each of these legal and illegal instances and continue to provide input and feedback to governments and political legislators on how to define abuse and misuse, and how to appropriately use laws to prevent abuse and compensate those who are victims of any actual abuse that occurs.

The Russian-sponsored revelations are effectively the launchpad needed to reboot public discourse on the dangers of mass-surveillance, the dangers of passing laws that permit (and in some cases force) dragnet surveillance through hardware and software data gathering technologies and also the lack of sufficient oversight backed up by meaningful transparency.

It is no longer about throwing out the message that surveillance should be stopped completely. Ultimately, we believe that it should be. But realistically, surveillance must be structured according to our aforementioned points of oversight, transparency and accountability for abuse.

European Press Office - Moscow Press
| Permission to republish | Donate

October 27, 2017 | Australian National Identification Database is an Extension of Existing Mass-Surveillance Programs

The Australian Government is pushing its privacy attacking agenda onto the State Governments, in an effort to harbor support which would see the possible implementation of a national identification database.

As Freedom Publishers Union understands it, the national identification database which would require the complete cooperation by State Governments to proceed and citizen's identities and accompanying information collated by using current photo identification from drivers licenses, proof of age identification and passports.

We condemn the move and deem it unnecessary. The Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is claiming that the creation of the database is necessary in Australia's fight against local terrorism. He continues to advocate that a national identification database would greatly benefit law enforcement and intelligence agencies in their fight against extremist behavior, particularly in events of mass gathering of citizens.

We believe the creation of a national identification database has major security concerns which need addressing which have been raised by privacy advocates and civil libertarians, yet seemingly are being ignored and brushed aside by the Government. Instead, the Government presses ahead by claiming that it's an important issue of national security. Furthermore, the Australian Government with initial support from the various State Governments, are making public claims that in the interest of national security, the national identification database must be established as national security is more important than civil liberties.

We dispute this claim, directly. Nothing is beyond maintaining the civil liberties of a democratic country's citizens. It's these very civil liberties that exist within the foundations of democracy which makes democracy function so well. Particularly in Australia, where our democracy is the envy of the world.

Legislation has already been implemented in Australia which is directly targeted at combating terrorism - locally and abroad. Some of the current legislation we have opposed as civil liberties have already been impeded. Establishing a national identification database is a step too far and is moving beyond fighting terrorism and into technological territory of monitoring the behavior of innocent citizens who simply go about their daily business, without harm.

We also fear further attacks on encryption and security technology is next on the agenda for Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian Government's continued attacks on Australian's rights to privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union makes no apologies for upholding civil liberties and rights to privacy. We see a national identification database as a primary centralized target for international hacking groups, who seek easy access to mass data on Australian citizens, through sub-standard computer security.

Systems and networks handled by the Australian Government contractors do not have a good track record when it comes to maintaining strong security. There have been breaches in the past - some acknowledged, some unacknowledged. In some case, details of alleged breaches have to some degree been denied or even ignored as nothing serious. A classic case of 'nothing to see here'.

We do not trust that security surrounding any such central identification database will see any further enhanced security than what Australian Government systems are currently protected by. The security is lapse and citizens that face their photo identification and information being stored in a core database with sub-standard security should be concerned - purely on merits of privacy concerns.

Additionally, Australia is a democracy which comes with natural civil liberties. The country's intelligence community and network of surveillance programs, which is essentially connected to the 'Five Eyes' mass-surveillance network, have become victim to surveillance creep. Programs are established with good intention, but unfortunately get integrated into more extensive programs and information further collated into what essentially becomes a mass-surveillance program similar to what we've seen exposed in the past by Edward Snowden, Wikileaks and other media outlets - programs run by the NSA, GCHQ and the CIA.

Australia's intelligence agency, ASIO, is also a partner to these major US and UK-based mass-surveillance initiating agencies who thrive on data gathered by dragnet surveillance programs. It seems Australia has simply followed the global mass-surveillance trend, which continue to operate, gather more data and become more complex, despite governments touting their efforts to reign in these often illegal programs.

Freedom Publishers Union sees an Australian national identification database as an extension of more extensive dragnet programs and therefore can not support such creation of such an unnecessary and unjustified central database, as it directly impedes on civil liberties and outright breaches the privacy of Australian citizens.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center
| Permission to republish | Donate

October 9, 2017 | Let's Face It, We'll Be No Safer with a National Facial Recognition Database

A commitment to share the biometric data of most Australians - including your driving licence photo - agreed at Thursday's Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting will result in a further erosion of our privacy.

That sharing is not necessary. It will be costly. But will it save us from terrorism? Not all, although it will give people a false sense of comfort.

Importantly, it will allow politicians and officials to show that they are doing something, in a climate where a hunt for headlines demands the appearance of action.

Your biometric data

Biometric data used in fingerprint and facial recognition systems is indelible. It can be used in authoritative identity registers, featured on identity documents such as passports and driver licences.

It can be automatically matched with data collected from devices located in airports, bus and train stations, retail malls, court buildings, prisons, sports facilities and anywhere else we could park a networked camera.

Australia's state and territory governments have built large biometric databases through registration of people as drivers - every licence has a photograph of the driver. The national government has built large databases through registration for passports, aviation/maritime security and other purposes.

Irrespective of your consent to uses beyond those for which the picture was taken, the governments now have a biometric image of most Australians, and the ability to search the images.

COAG announced that the governments will share that data in the name of security.

Sharing data with who?

Details of the sharing are very unclear. This means we cannot evaluate indications that images will be captured in both public and private places. For example, in retail malls and libraries or art galleries - soft targets for terrorism - rather than in streets and secure buildings such as Parliament House.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has responded to initial criticism by clarifying that matching will not involve "live" CCTV.

But the history of Australian surveillance law has been a matter of creep, with step-by-step expansion of what might initially have been an innocuous development. When will law enforcement agencies persuade their ministers to include live public or private CCTV for image matching?

We cannot tell which officials will be accessing the data and what safeguards will be established to prevent misuse. Uncertainty about safeguards is worrying, given the history of police and other officials inappropriately accessing law enforcement databases on behalf of criminals or to stalk a former partner.

The sharing occurs in a nation where Commonwealth, state and territory privacy law is inconsistent. That law is weakly enforced, in part because watchdogs such as the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) are under-resourced, threatened with closure or have clashed with senior politicians.

Australia does not have a coherent enforceable right to privacy. Instead we have a threadbare patchwork of law (including an absence of a discrete privacy statute in several jurisdictions).

The new arrangement has been foreshadowed by governments over several years. It can be expected to creep, further eroding privacy and treating all citizens as suspects.

Software and hardware providers will be delighted: there's money to be made by catering to our fears. But we should be asking some hard questions about the regime and questioning COAG's statement.

Let's avoid a privacy car crash

Will sharing and expansion of the biometric network - a camera near every important building, many cameras on every important road - save us from terrorism? The answer is a resounding no. Biometrics, for example, seems unlikely to have saved people from the Las Vegas shooter.

Will sharing be cost effective? None of the governments have a great track record with major systems integration. The landscape is littered with projects that went over budget, didn't arrive on time or were quietly killed off.

Think the recent Census and Centrelink problems, and the billion dollar bust up known as the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record.

It won't be improved by a new national ID card to fix the Medicare problem.

Is the sharing proportionate? One answer is to look at experience in India, where the Supreme Court has comprehensively damned that nation's ambitious Aadhaar biometric scheme that was meant to solve security, welfare and other problems.

The Court - consistent with decisions in other parts of the world - condemned the scheme as grossly disproportionate: a disregard of privacy and of the dignity of every citizen.

Is sharing likely to result in harms, particularly as the biometric network grows and grows? The answer again is yes. One harm, disregarded by our opportunistic politicians, is that all Australians and all visitors will be regarded as suspects.

Much of the data for matching will be muddy - some street cameras, for example, are fine resting places for pigeons - and of little value.

As with the mandatory metadata retention scheme, the more data (and more cameras) we have the bigger trove of indelible information for hackers. Do not expect the OAIC or weak state privacy watchdogs (which in some jurisdictions do not exist) to come to the rescue.

As a society we should demand meaningful consultation about official schemes that erode our rights. We should engage in critical thinking rather than relying on headlines that reflect political opportunism and institutional self-interest.

The incoherent explanation and clarifications should concern everyone, irrespective of whether they have chosen to be on Facebook - and even if they have nothing to hide and will never be mistaken for someone else.

Bruce Baer Arnold, University of Canberra

Re-Published by Freedom Publishers Union

Original link, published under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0)

September 23, 2017 | Increased Usage of CIA Drones Raises Questions of Morality

Last week, the NY Times reported of new efforts underway within The White House, to garner the appropriate measures required to remove any legal restrictions currently imposed for operations of unmanned drones used by the CIA for air-strikes, in Afghanistan.

There are three questions that require closer analysis by international academics. Right now, not enough questions are being asked by academics with global influence. This story was only covered by the NY Times, as most other reputable media outlets ignored the story. And the smaller agencies that did publish information on the story simply produced recycled content from the original NY Times piece. It's time that we start to begin asking the most vital and fundamental questions as to the role the US plays in the world.

1. Is the US really in a position to declare itself the world's 'police force', engaging 'criminals' at the regime level around the world?

2. Is this simply justification for being war-mongering racists?

3. Are we continuing to pursue the Taliban and al Qaeda because they have political resonance in America, or because they are a real danger to global stability?

As the continuing terrorist attacks in London and wider-Europe illustrate, these terrorist groups and loyal followers are going to do this no matter what. Whether they are religious zealots or simply anarchist extremists, terrorist acts will continue to attempt to disrupt our modern way of life and our very democracy, as long as there are malcontent people.

The Jonestown massacre of 1978 in Guyana, or the Aum Shinrikyo subway sarin attack of 1995 in Tokyo - there is no redeeming aspect of a cult that exists solely to kill others, just because they believe they are better off or live the better way of life. The real question isn't can we take action to stop terrorism, because we can't. As long as there are malcontent people, there will be terrorists. Historical evidence cements the theory. What we need to know, is can we use military actions - overt or covert - to significantly reduce terror attacks.

If al Qaeda is the fan club for terrorists (they get their membership card, stickers for their notebook and cars, and a 20-page instruction manual that gives them a public brand for their actions), then destroying the club house is probably worthwhile.

If you are view al Qaeda as simply a Creative Commons-type service that anyone can use (like a hash-tag) then it's pointless to try and destroy leadership, because there isn't any. It very much resembles the concept of the Anonymous computer hacker collective. You deal with them like any other brand that you want to eliminate - you dilute the relevance of the brand by shifting the exposure of the brand to totally meaningless gestures. If they try to claim responsibility for a terrorist act, refuse to credit them and give it to someone else with a more specific meaning focusing on the individual who carried out the attack.

Media have a huge ethical responsibility here and must take action. Unfortunately, we believe that won't happen. News will continue to report terrorist attacks by brand name as it grabs viewer's immediate attention and we will continue to use military options. Not because military options work. But it's one of the few things governments can point to and say, "we're working on it".

Just like the TSA searches at airports, the symbolism of inconvenience makes people think 'something' is being done, even though the actual activity does absolutely nothing to improve security procedures over previous methods.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that drones do have a role in military conflict. However, we also have a strict view that they must be used for specific targets which are based on very reliable source information. CIA drones are too easily used as a tool to exclude all aspects of human responsibility for civilian casualties, when they occur. The fact can not be ignored that they will occur. When civilians are killed, then the CIA, the US Military or any other government associated killing force must act, own up and someone must take full responsibility for civilian casualties from drones.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

September 20, 2017 | North Korea Peace Opportunities Are Becoming Increasingly Difficult to Foresee

Freedom Publishers Union fears the time that the United Nations (UN) could negotiate any kind of sustainable and effectively peaceful settlement with North Korea ended back in the early 1960's, when North Korea raised their million-man army.

If military conflict is to eventuate between North Korea and the United States of America (USA), perhaps with assistance from its allies, then it will likely be a very short war and remain conventional and without any nuclear weapons being used by either side, other than rhetorical threats to the effect of deterrence. The issue is not that the USA, China, Russia or any UN coalition force could not defeat North Korea, but the real problem is South Korea.

South Korea is one of the major manufacturing powers in the world, yet unfortunately happens to share its border with a country that has the ability to pretty much annihilate the South in a matter of minutes, without any use of nuclear weapons. North Korea has a massive amount of troops and equipment right on the North/South Demilitarized Zone. The artillery alone is capable of destroying 80% of the South Korean capital of Seoul and the surrounding area in about one hour, with severe punishment delivered within just the few first minutes. Effectively, this holds the South to ransom in addition to its key ally, the USA.

The million-man army of the North can literally be across the border and enter the South and into what would be left of Seoul within hours, not days, with the potential to extend through the rest of the country in just weeks.

Freedom Publishers Union believe China and Russia are the reasonable ones at the table, because they realize what the instant loss of South Korea would mean. China and Russia do massive trade and business with the South. Even more than the USA and Australia, of which do privately recognize the instant threat posed to the South, but are shy to go on public record of the acknowledgement. The dark realization is that unless the rest of the world is willing to write-off South Korea and spend multiple trillions to rebuild it, there will be no action against North Korea that we can foresee.

Whilst China and Russia have given support for some important sanctions, they are on record at the UN for not increasing some sanctions and actually relaxing them if North Korea sits still for a while. Additionally, tough sanctions proposed by the UN have effectively been watered-down by China and Russia in effort to gain their support through the UN but to also protect important trade with the North. Both countries have sternly warned the USA and its allies against launching any military action against North Korea. At least to preemptive strikes. If North Korea was to attack first, then it might change the language of China and Russia, and indeed may result in actual launch of military action from them. To what extent exactly, would remain a mystery.

To be frank, Kim Jong-un is not an idiot. His actions and behavior may appear to present him as an idiot, but his strategy is absolutely brilliant and to a large degree, is working. He understands very well that he can rant and rave to keep the constant media attention focused on his country and dictatorship. He has the power and is using it to its fullest potential on the global stage, albeit not in a peaceful way.

Kim also knows that the only card he holds is the potential of obliterating South Korea within just minutes of any outbreak of war in the region. This goes to explain the sudden rush by the North to master nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Before their nuclear programs came to realization, North Korea would still be able to destroy a large part of the South before any allied response could follow. But that would most likely guarantee that the any allied response would certainly use nuclear arsenal and send the North back to the stone age almost immediately and carry on to disassemble what was left of the country's dictatorship regime and handing it to a democratic South.

A bi-lateral nuclear exchange is a completely different story. Short range nuclear weapons - even carried in trucks and detonated after the initial invasion - would make South Korea unrecoverable. It would literally be the world creating a new Israel for the remaining Koreans, as well as investing in the massive cleanup of hydrogen bomb devastation on such a scale never attempted to this very day, and a scenario we remain confident we will never see.

There is another ugly alternative on the Korean peninsula. And it's not good. South Korea could possibly be utterly destroyed at some point, because there is no possible way to prevent it. Even with the allies using tactical nuclear weapons to try and clear the border threat - which is actually becoming the most realistic option to solve the immediate border problem if you ignore the flow-on problems such a response would generate - would be the only way to delay ultimate destruction is to force the South Koreans to just accept that they are living on a nuclear fault line and reach out to their neighbors and make genuine efforts to achieve peace and acceptance. But it also means that the South would continue to survive and would open up the potential for trade with the North, which would increase their standard of living and eventually integrate them into a single trade entity.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center
| Permission to republish | Donate

September 11, 2017 | Paid News Subscriptions Are Key to Sustainable Media and Journalism

There was a moment in independent media history when I was a staunch advocate against all forms of web advertising and paid news subscriptions. I thought the formula was just all wrong and thought it would be death of media and news on the internet as we knew it. It was some years ago, but to be fair, my strict opinion of the time was probably justified and reflective of most people's opinions towards the concept of paying for news. Boy how times have changed. I can unashamedly declare that I have gradually formed a view which could be deemed polar opposite of the view that I used to have. I now proudly pay for a number of news subscriptions and for those services, among others, I actually allow web advertising through my ad-blocking browser extensions. Yes, a view completely of opposites. Shock.

It's difficult to pinpoint a single time in history that I could state that my opinion changed. Rather, it's been a gradual shift through a combination of reflection of the media industry as a whole, careful analysis of the differences between mainstream commercial news and quality journalism and how journalists and their work are both appreciated and not appreciated by the audience. As a result of my slow, yet careful and calculated reflection which has been an assessment drawn out over the last two to three years, I've come to a better understanding of all things media, the true benefits of targeted web advertising for respective media agencies that actually deserve the revenue they receive through advertising and also how funds received through paid subscriptions not only benefits the quality of journalism produced, but also carries on to breed and nurture further quality journalism.

If I was to break it all down even further, I could say that paying for news is paying the journalists for their work and tireless effort. It's all about creating a and sustaining a creative media platform. If you don't show your appreciation for the hard work, then there will no longer be quality journalists in media to produce such quality content and instead we will see news being produced, recycled, facts twisted, published and re-published by robots. The sad fact is, this is already happening with some online media producers. Somewhere in my complicated unexplainable personal media analysis algorithm, I guess this point was also included to bring me to any kind of conclusive judgment of why we should be paying for news.

One can present the obvious counter-argument of why would you pay for news when you can still read it for free. Well, it's a fair argument to make as no one can deny there are still many free news sites remaining online and don't look like they're going to disappear anytime soon. Still, if you are one of these people to assume the position that they're always going to remain online, remain free and regarded as quality journalism, then you're taking both a naive view towards the media industry and showing not only lack of appreciation for proper quality journalism which is fact based and properly researched, but also shows your obvious display of no appreciation for the services you consume - most likely every single day.

Running a media agency or publishing business is expensive. Although it mat not seem so obvious when you are staring into the glow of a computer screen, everyone must understand that all aspects of the operations cost money. That money has to come from somewhere. It must come from a combination of commercial interests through targeted advertising and paid subscriptions. I will refrain from publicly naming the news agencies and websites that I now subscribe to, in effort to avoid promoting one agency over another and to also avoid being shamed to taking a particular media bias or political media perspective. In fact, it's the opposite of that. My own selection of media subscriptions that I have chosen to support covers a range of left/right political bias and spreads across a national Australian and international spectrum.

I also wish to make the point that if you pay for news through subcription services, it not only has benefits for the media agency producing the news you consume and retains the quality of the journalistic efforts, but your support through subscription also has a greater personal meaning when you visit that website. When reading content through paid subscription, you begin to appreciate the words you are reading. They almost take on a completely different meaning and you begin to respect journalists instead of taking it for granted.

The benefits are apparent for journalists, publishers, consumers and the entire media industry.

This Editorial is written by Chris McGimpsey-Jones, who is the Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

September 8, 2017 | Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

"Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is also more commonly known as "The Google Manifesto", first cicrulated as an internal memo within the ranks of Google offices. The manifesto is dated July 2017 and since its original publication on the Gizmodo website, the author has been revealed as US-based Google software engineer, James Damore.

The manifesto specifically outlines Damore's concerns on Google's diversity policies and argues that Google continues to shut down conversations about diversity within the Silicon Valley company.

Since the release of the manifesto, Damore has been fired from Google. We believe the manifesto is important in the issues that it raises and should be published, not censored. We also believe that the firing of Damore was completely unjustified. Although Damore's actions probably did violate Google's employee code of conduct, we think the actions of firing the employee for his actions of speaking out justify the issues he outlines in the manifesto - speak up, and you get shut down.

Freedom Publishers Union has published the most complete and unedited version of the text of the manifesto available, below.

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.


Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it's a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google's biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

Right Biases

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognisant of this, but it's far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed because:

Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Men's higher drive for status

We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:

Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimising for Google ¿ with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google's biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we're blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the "God > humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what's being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google's left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we're using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women's oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of "grass being greener on the other side"; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn't harbored the violent leftists protests that we're seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.


I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

Stop alienating conservatives.

Confront Google's biases.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

De-emphasise empathy.

Prioritise intention.

Be open about the science of human nature.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak."

[11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

August 31, 2017 | Xenix: The Microsoft Unix That Once Was

One would not normally associate Microsoft with Unix. While Microsoft's interest(s) in Unix may remain minimal in recent times, history tells a very different story. Let us take a quick journey down memory lane, back to the late 1970's and into the early-mid 80's.

In 1979, Microsoft formed an agreement with AT&T Corporation to license Unix from AT&T. Then Microsoft licensed out its renamed Unix to OEM vendors, including Intel, Tandy and SCO. Those companies then ported it to their own hardware architectures and requirements. Microsoft was hit by a legal problem of the ¿UNIX¿ name not being able to be used. Therefore, Microsoft was forced to come up with their own distribution name. Xenix was chosen. To put it simply, AT&T licensed Unix to Microsoft and then Microsoft passed on the same Unix software re-branded as Xenix.

Microsoft's intention was to take Xenix to the 16bit microcomputer market. The initial port of Xenix was to the Zilog Z8000 series and then followed on the the Intel 8086/8088 architecture. By the time Microsoft reached the 7th edition, it was incorporating elements of BSD. Xenix became the most widely installed base of any Unix distribution. This was largely due to the continued popularity of the relatively inexpensive x86 processor. There was lots of modifications being done to Xenix by many different companies. Microsoft Xenix originally run on the PDP-11. It was then ported to the Zilog Z8001. Altos ported it to their Intel 8086 based computers. Tandy Corporation ported it to their 68000 based computers. SCO released a port to the IBM PC in September 1983. There was even a port for the 68000 based Apple Lisa.

During this time, Xenix was based on AT&T's Unix System III. Xenix version 2.0 was released in 1985, based on Unix System V. Microsoft then released the updated 2.1.1, which added support for the Intel 80286 processor. There were several more compatibility releases based on Unix System V. In 1987, SCO ported Xenix to the Intel 386 processor, which was a 32bit based chip. Xenix 2.3.1 was released and included support for i386, SCSI and TCP/IP. SCO's Xenix system was the first 32bit operating system available for the x86 architecture.

By the mid 1980's, Microsoft signed an agreement with IBM to develop OS/2. The code name for the project would be called CP/DOS. As Microsoft continued to develop CP/DOS with IBM, they gradually lost interest in Xenix. It took 2 years for IBM and Microsoft to develop the first release of CP/DOS, which was released with the name OS/2. It was released in 1987. And in the same year, ownership of Xenix was transferred to SCO. The agreement left Microsoft with a 25% ownership in SCO. History would repeat itself with Microsoft and OS/2. Microsoft lost interest in OS/2 development and focused its future and company strategy towards Windows NT. Despite Microsoft losing almost complete interest in Xenix, the company is said to have used Xenix internally right up until as late as 1993.

SCO released SCO Unix which was based on System V Release 3. SCO had included a number of improvements over Xenix. Although, Xenix did remain in the services line-up for SCO. AT&T and Sun Microsystems collaborated on merging portions of Xenix, BSD, SunOS and System V in to what became System V Release 4. Although SCO Unix was based on System V Release 3, it did include most of the advanced features that were included to make up System V Release 4. The last version of Xenix ever released was Xenix 2.3.4. At that time, Microsoft had little or nothing to do with the release or development. The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) has gone through several transitions of company re-organization and re-structuring. The former SCO and SCO Group are now owned by UnXis Inc. Derivatives of Xenix and SCO Unix continue on today and is now known as SCO OpenServer. It could be considered that if Xenix development had of continued, OpenServer is what it would now have been. The latest OpenServer 6.0 release still maintains backward-compatibility for software applications developed for Xenix 286 forwards.

Wikipedia proved to be a great resource for my research on Xenix and provided me with enough information to write this article. Anyone can go to Wikipedia and read the whole story for themselves. But I have attempted to simplify the details in to a more friendly and readable format. Personally, I find it an interesting story to find that early in Microsoft's history as a software company, for many years there was a serious reliance on Unix based operating systems for its initial survival. It probably ensured their long-term survival too. Whether you agree with all the past, present and future decisions that Microsoft made and continue to make, they're an interesting company to observe and one that always presents an interesting story.

It's also worth noting although Microsoft don't necessarily have a Unix or Linux based system available nowadays, they do contribute plenty of source code to the Linux kernel tree and other software projects. They have also rebooted their open-source initiatives in recent years with the launch of an internal department titled Microsoft Open Technologies. Microsoft now provides access to native Ubuntu Linux running inside Windows 10, as a sub-system. And development continues to bring Fedora and OpenSUSE sub-systems into Windows 10 also.

Microsoft can't really be famed for actually releasing any source code for their own crucial software products and services. But things are much better than they used to be. This is highlighted by the company throwing PowerShell source code out to the open-source community which has resulted in PowerShell binaries running natively on Linux. Also worth noting is the open-sourcing of the ChakraCore JavaScript engine that remains a core component of its Edge Browser package. These are all positive signs that Microsoft is beginning to accept that free and open-source technology is a real and viable alternative to proprietary. The best thing we can at least expect is much better interoperability and compatibility with FOSS alternatives.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen. The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the article is published under the Creative Commons license model. The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the terms of the Creative Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own. This is incorrect. Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original author and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

August 30, 2017 | The Children of Linux

Linux - It's really not a hard operating system to learn. In fact, that statement is quite wrong. Linux is not an operating system. Linux is a kernel which is used as the very core to build an operating system around. But these are the things that children of today are not learning. At least, not in the public schools anyway.

When I was a teenager, I was very interested in computers. I looked forward to and really enjoyed my Information Technology classes. But it wasn't just the computers that I was interested in. The more I got involved with them, the more I wanted to know about what goes on to make them work. Or to be precise, the operating system. It's a long time ago now, but I remember when I was talking to my teacher one day he briefly said something about "Unix".

Until that time, I had never heard of this mysterious Unix system. He mentioned it only this one time. At the time, I really didn't know anything about Unix but was intrigued of what Unix could be. It was some years later before I got my first glimpse of anything to do with Linux. Which is the widely-accepted modern alternative to Unix. My first encounter with Linux was SUSE 8, which came free on a magazine at the time. I might mention, it later came to my attention the magazine was not actually meant to be giving the operating system away on the front cover as they were. Not long after my acquisition of the disc, I learned that I was the one responsible for having the copies of the disc recalled by the magazine publisher. How many were actually returned out of ethical duty is anyone's guess. I suspect it was not many. But ever since my first experience with SUSE 8, I never let go of Linux and have always been involved with it in one form or another.

Now as you all know and are well aware, Microsoft Windows is basically the only operating system taught in our public schools. I understand that the Windows operating system is the industry standard and I can accept that. But I don't believe teaching children how to use Windows solely, is the way forward to a positive IT future. And it is definitely not going to solve the problem of being able to fill the coming flood of positions that are set to become available in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) sector. If Linux even got a mention, it would be progress.

My high school years are well gone now, yet nothing has changed. Public schools are still teaching children Windows and (unintentionally) presenting it as the only operating system you'll ever need to learn and the only operating system than can cater for your daily computing requirements. This assumption is just so untrue and Linux has now evolved to become a great challenger to the Windows operating system in the home and office.

There arises many issues and setbacks with the aforementioned lack of Linux teachings in high schools. One of the primary reasons, being the IT teachers themselves having no concept of how to use Linux. There are many issues from many different angles. We are very lucky in some ways that we live in a world of fast broadband access where anyone can download and install Linux for free. This is accompanied by the huge wealth of technical information, guides and open-source development communities waiting to help, with a quick search in your favorite search engine. When I was in high school, a 56k dial-up internet connection was a true privilege and there was only one computer in the whole school that had internet access. I'm probably still on that waiting list to use that computer, as the list was always a mile long and your turn never seemed to arrive.

All my 15 years of Linux experience that I have today has all been self-taught. I have put myself through free courses and done my fair share of tinkering, configuring and certainly my fair share of breaking systems - sometimes accidental and sometimes intentional by motive of learning. I continue to get yelled at by family members because I've broken the computer once again or changed something! I'm sure it will continue for a very long time. Why? Because Linux offer endless learning capabilities. And despite being a Linux veteran, I am still learning things on Linux on a daily basis and still intentionally break things to see how they work in detail. In fact, I continue to experiment with third-party distributions and development packages which have potential to provide a very different user experience from the usual mainstream Linux distributions like Ubuntu and Fedora.

That is where we begin the see the whole point. There's endless possibilities of learning when it comes to Linux. And perhaps that's the problem when it comes to public schools and teaching Linux. It is such a large scale eco-system with so many different facets, where would one begin to teach. I see that as an excuse for not teaching Linux and not a valid argument. Because even giving children a glimpse of Linux in their high school studies will no doubt have a flow-on effect to further private studies and courses. Linux must be taught to future high school students. Otherwise, we are going to experience a severe shortage of knowledgeable Linux administrators in the future. We are already seeing the first signs of this problem and unless we start arming the young nerds of today with the knowledge they require to make up their own mind, we are going to continue to have even more problems than we do at present.

If things don't change soon, I can only hope that today's students come out of schooling as open-minded as I did and choose to at least give Linux a try and see for themselves the true raw power of free and open-source computing that is modern Unix - Linux.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

Disclaimer: This article was originally published on Unixmen. The original author of the article is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and the article is published under the Creative Commons license model. The article remains published on Unixmen, however the website breaks the terms of the Creative Commons license and additionally, Unixmen has changed the name of the author and claims the article as their own. This is incorrect. Chris McGimpsey-Jones is the original author of the article and it is now published to Freedom Publishers Union, with permission by the original author and under Creative Commons license as permitted by the correct terms and conditions in accordance to the license.

July 18, 2017 | Civilian Casualties Abused and Disrespected by Coalition Forces. Bodies Just Become Collateral Damage Statistic

On July 11, 2017, ABC News in Australia published scathing details of civilian casualties in Afghanistan which includes the lethal shooting of children and unarmed men which have fallen at the hands of Australian Military involvement. This is followed up by details of abuse of bodies of the deceased in Afghanistan, with documents dating incident from 2009 right through to 2014.

The Afghan Files publication by ABC News is very alarming and brings to light the question of potential misconduct of Australian Special Forces soldiers in the Afghan warzones and the broader aspects of the culture that bonds these elite forces together, which mostly operate in secrecy and under what appears to be very limited oversight from the Department of Defense.

The details were based on leaked documents which authenticate the horrific allegations of abuse, which the ABC has chosen not to publish in full as many of them are marked with AUSTEO - Australian Eyes Only. Additionally, the reports are said to include details of a secret internal military inquiry into the cases of the civilian casualties and abuse claims.

Understandably, there has been growing frustrations within Afghan communities. The frustrations are directed towards the Australian Military for the many alleged cases of Australian soldiers killing innocent civilians, who are often determined post-incident to be unarmed, uninvolved in the conflict or in some cases found to be children. As further details are revealed, unarmed civilians who have been killed are often subjected to Australian soldiers setting up a 'scene' by placing knives or guns onto or surrounding the bodies of dead victims to portray them as being armed at the time of death by the Australians.

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply concerned by the details found in the ABC publication and we urge the Australian Government and the Department of Defense to look into the many outstanding issues surrounding these claims, which have been documented, leaked and published by the ABC, yet previously shrouded in secrecy from the wider public by the Department of Defense.

Later details reveal disturbing details of Australian soldiers mutilating dead Afghans by severing the hands off the bodies, in a so-called effort of identification-related purposes. As we understand it, Australian Military personnel are required to collect fingerprints and eye scans as part of the identification process of the deceased. But only if possible to do so. We are so disturbed that soldiers are resorting to what we view as desperate measures of body mutilation, in an effort to gain identification of the civilian casualties when they are not actually required to do so if it is deemed not possible.

The published details are graphic, disturbing and raises many questions of whether Australia's Military require closer oversight in war operations and also raises the potential question of whether a review of the current Rules of Engagement and other related military response and operations guidelines should be further reviewed. For obvious national security reasons, Rules of Engagement and other related military operations techniques and guidelines are usually kept secret and out of the public domain by the respective country's military.

Therefore, it remains nigh on impossible for Freedom Publishers Union to put exact parts of such operations and techniques under further scrutiny due to the surrounding secrecy measures implemented. However, we feel we have every right to call out possibilities of operations breaches if we have suspicion that there is in fact a breach or multiple breaches which have occurred.

The allegations and details publicized by ABC News bring many of these allegations to light, but it's also backed up by documented evidence that these cases did occur and that the Australian Military was aware of the possibility of multiple breaches, yet it was kept secret and out of the public domain.

The latest documents were dated as late as 2014, yet the atrocities carried out by Coalition forces, which includes Australia, continues today. It is important to view the violence from both sides of the coin and understand that these acts of aggression and violence is not just carried out by Coalition associated military forces, but also from Islamic State (IS) forces.

On July 10, 2017, Amnesty International released a 50-page Report titled "At Any Cost - The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul, Iraq". The Report notes that in March and May 2017, Amnesty International visited Northern Iraq to examine and investigate possible violations of human rights abuses and international humanitarian law.

The Report outlines the war atrocities and horrific and often unimaginable violence directly and indirectly involving civilians which is carried out by both Coalition and IS Military Forces.

IS continues to disrespect and outright ignore the laws of war, international humanitarian law and the most basic elements of human rights. The basic importance of human life also seems completely irrelevant in many cases. IS rounds up thousands of civilians at a time, moves them into known war zones and uses them as human shields. Essentially, this creates a very big problem. When you can't distinguish the 'Enemy' from 'Civilian' - as is the case fighting IS militants and the various off-shoot groups which are present in so many of these places across Iraq and Syria - you're going to get civilian casualties.

Furthermore, some of them are going to be deliberate killings. You can report, document, investigate and prosecute the soldiers retroactively, but as long as your are making war, this will continue to happen.

What we do need and what Freedom Publishers Union immediately calls for is civilian casualties properly acknowledged and respected, through proper documenting of the incidents surrounding their deaths. At present, we constantly see vast differences in the numbers of civilians killed based on the figures from Amnesty International and independent monitoring groups such as Airwars and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in camparison to 'official' acknowledged and documented civilian casualties published in the public domain by The Pentagon.

With such vast difference in numbers of civilian casualties released to the public, suspicion grows and questions need to be asked. Somewhere between the high count of independent organizations and the relative low count of documented civilian casualties published by Government representative departments, we need to get a more accurate figure.

We need greater transparency and we need to see better public disclosure, whilst allowing independent monitoring groups better access to limited military data for the purpose of documentation of civilian casualties. Where classified information and sensitive data is involved, we urge better collaboration between independent monitoring organizations and the military to ensure proper security protocols are followed and respected.

This must also be followed up by ensuring that Rules of Engagement and military operations manuals and techniques are adapted to better accommodate the process for documenting incidents of civilians casualties in a secure, respectful way without the secrecy and constant denial of which we are currently witness to.

Too many civilians are being killed in Iraq and Syria and whilst being denied recognition of their untimely and unexpected deaths, they are equally being denied the respect they deserve. These civilians of foreign countries being caught up in military conlfict zones are still human and are therefore entitled to have their human rights respected, inclusive of their dignity.

There is a deep problem. It is war. Civilian casualties happen. The only way to not have civilian casualties is to not go to war in the first place.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

June 30, 2017 | Elon Musk's Multi-Planetary Civilization Essay, a Blueprint for Serious Consideration

During the month of June, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk, released a 16-page essay on multi-planetary civilization, the science community was a little surprised. Some academics were critical of the essay's contents and expressed concern it has no scientific credibility and that it was nothing more than a fantasy.

Before you go head and read the essay, one must open up their mind to the concept of multi-planetary civilization. In reference to Musk's essay and from a scientific stand point, there are many innaccuracies and clear expressions of ignorance of some of the major scientific and engineering challenges that such a cosmic venture would pose. Additionally, from an engineering perspective there remains many problems which would potential make or break any plans for humans to settle on Mars. However, we need to take a step back for a second and look at the structure of the essay. Musk presents the essay by going through each challenge in the appropriate steps which would be required to be completed for any such plan to become reality and to be successful.

The essay starts by outlining humanity's necessity to consider migrating to another planet. In Musk's proposal, he has chosen Mars as his focus. This is not just a random planet pick out of our solar system, he actually does make his case for choosing Mars specifically. The essay continues on and outlines in brief, the requirement for a little more exploration of Mars prior to initiating plans for civilization inhabiting the planet and to start building self-sustaining cities. He is not completely ignorant to the challenges posed by such an ambitious plan. Musk outlines the common challenges that require immediate attention. Technology challenges are very present which would require heavy investment, much research, technical and engineering development and vast improvements to existing technology. We also can't ignore the fact that in some cases we are considering technology that does not yet exist and scientific challenges that have not yet been explored, analyzed and produced any kind of unaninous academic and scientific conclusion. But it's not just the technical challenges that are of immediate concern, there are additional multitudes of engineering challenges too.

The essay continues to detail space ship types and sizes required to transport equipment and actual humans, along with the rocket and propulsion technology required to launch, operate, direct and land these massive ships of which the world has not yet witnessed anything that comes close to resembling the size that Musk proposes is required. Again, we need to remind people that it's a very ambitious plan which will require much more detailed analysis and research.

Finally, the essay concludes with plans for refuelling these ships mid-flight and even goes as far as detailing eventual requirement for fueling 'stations' located in various parts throughout solar system and beyond.

The main problem with the essay is it remains very brief. The entirety of the essay is just 16-pages and it includes information, technical details and diagrams to help illustrate the proposal. The plan is all clear and for such a short essay with only brief information, Musk does a great job of getting his point accross. He deserves credit for that. But where the essay remains very brief, is also the subject of its negative critique. For such a vast plan to be drafted and proposed in just 16-pages could be viewed as ridiculous. And if the proposal is to be ever taken serious, we feel that it would require much more detail, technical specifications, scientific and engineering analysis than this. A serious proposal would most likely run into thousands of pages of text and diagrams.

Elon Musk should not be ignored nor should this essay be treated as ridiculous science fiction. Some might make the assumption that Musk has fallen victim to his own work to the same degree that Ron L. Hubbard succumbed to his own science fiction stories by actually believing what he was writing, to be the truth. The concept of multi-planetary civilization is nothing new and Musk is not the first person to come up with such a concept. When reading the essay you can't help but feel the enthusiasm in Musk's words. His passion for the concept and further development to make the concept a reality is very obvious. On this front, he should be credited for spawning the idea. After all, he founded Tesla and SpaceX to much critique in the early development stages of the companies. Despite the criticism, both Tesla and SpaceX have succeeded and continue to make milestones in technologies and development in their respective fields of business.

We should not discredit Musk and in fact, we should be embracing the passion and thought put into the essay. It's a starting point and all great ambitions start with a basic plan. Even if that plan is to come across as initially crazy. There are obvious challenges present which humans have not yet been forced to deal with. But that leads us to the point where we start believing that Elon Musk's essay is not so ridiculous as you might think. He has outlined problems. He has only provided basic and vague ideas to overcome these challenges. He is just one man. But he is a visionary. Imagine what the brilliant minds of humans could achieve if more thought, research and development was put into multi-planetary exploration with an eventual plan for civilization and establshment of self-sustaining cities on Mars and beyond.

As humans continue to destroy Earth at rapid rate and continue to absolutely outright ignore the problems we are already facing and will face in the future by climate change, and take into consideration the undisputed resource problems that our planet will face, we need a plan B. Elon Musk has proposed an alternative. Is it really such a bad thing to put forth a plan which could possibly see the continued existence of our species? We say it again - He is just one man. But he is a visionary.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

June 25, 2017 | 'Five Eyes' Calls for Better Security Cooperation Could Still Lead to Attacks on Encryption and Forced Backdoors

Momentum is gaining traction for 'Five Eyes' nation's respective leaders to (re)commence their attacks on encryption. The new front is being led by Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. It comes not so long after the newly re-elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, released a Party Manifesto which detailed in disturbing detail a future vision for digital rights and the potential for the UK to lead the way through introduction of legislation which would see regulation of the internet.

Freedom Publishers Union advocates for freedom of information which includes freedom of accessibility and spreading of digital information on the internet, without government intervention, tampering or mass-surveillance. It is the whole purpose of the open design and development of the internet and the infrastructure that binds it together. We will always aim to protect the organic nature of its design.

It has become increasingly clear since the revelations of government sponsored and initiated mass-surveillance programs that governments were unhappy about their secret programs becoming public knowledge. Political discourse followed and legislation was gradually introduced by a variety of parties and nations which aimed to regulate and reign in the what were previously secret mass-surveillance programs which operated under the radar and on sweeping scale. The amount of data these sweeping programs were gathering and the rate of collection was vast and in some cases required completely new data centers to be built, purely for secure storage of the data.

For a short while, Freedom Publishers Union was positive with the actions that we were witness to. There were signs that government bureaucrats were taking notice of citizen discontent with their every move being tracked and logged. But the path to surveillance cleansing has once again gone off-track and we could comfortably conclude that we are going backwards and on a path to mass-surveillance which if goes unchecked and unchallenged, will undoubtedly grow to a scale larger than anything we've yet learned.

Privacy is important. It is a civil liberty of citizens to enjoy and uphold their right to privacy. This right to privacy is enhanced through the use of encryption. Before the revelations of secret mass-surveillance programs was revealed, citizens were ignorant to encryption not through intention, but through lack of knowledge and understanding of its purpose to protect their data from the unwelcome eyes of sweeping surveillance programs like PRISM, XKeyscore, Tempora, MUSCULAR and STATEROOM.

On the eve of the secret 'Five Eyes' security meeting in Canada, Australia is calling for better cooperation from technology companies with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Malcolm Turnbull stops short of stating what specific measures he and his Australian Attorney General, George Brandis, would be proposing. But he did state that calls for increased cooperation does not mean that pursuit of forced backdoor inclusion is on the table.

Freedom Publishers Union warns citizens, we must not be complacent in trusting our democratic country's governments to always do the right thing and protect our data. It has now become all too clear that governments want our data, therefore we must protect it. We must not conclude that it is a war between governments and the citizens. Because it is not. And this is a scenario which we prefer to avoid, frankly. We believe that governments do have genuine intent when legislation is passed that legalize surveillance programs under the banner of protecting citizens through fighting terrorism. Intent is there. But the temptation for sweeping surveillance on mass scale is there, it does happen and will continue to happen is pressure on governments and intelligence agencies is not maintained.

Freedom Publishers Union reminds our supporters and readers that protection of your data is your priority. Encryption is available for free and much of it open-source. You can openly and freely use it to protect your data right now. There are tools for beginners and tools for advanced users. But use of encryption to protect your data should not be your only mission. You should also be advocating for the use of encryption and other software that protects privacy and data. Help others download and install privacy software when you become comfortable with how it works. Let it be your mission to advocate and spread the message that our data should remain exactly that - "Our data".

It is no longer the sole responsibility of advocacy groups and crypto-anarchists to do the hard work and advocate for right to freedom and privacy. We have moved beyond that and it is now up to everyone to unite. It's no longer a movement or a political activist campaign. It is your right. If you do not own your rights to privacy and continue to fight for your civil liberties, they might very well be taken away from you by overreaching governments and intelligence agencies. It was all happening right under our noses prior to the courageous leaks of Edward Snowden as a former NSA security analyst working on these secret programs. It could easily happen again if we don't stand up, unite on the privacy frontline and speak out in support of encryption, privacy and civil liberties that enable freedom to thrive to its truest form.

Never be complacent.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

| Permission to republish | Donate

June 19, 2017 | Misrepresentation of CIA Spying Activities, Following Latest Vault 7 Release by Wikileaks

Wikileaks continues to disperse information which reveals just how deep the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spying techniques really go. The latest documents leak from the Vault 7 cache paints a true picture of what we already suspected of the CIA intelligence gathering methods - there really is no boundaries for their targets. Essentially, everything is a target.

The latest documents contain information which detail with frightening certainty that network hardware, routers, switches and firewalls are a focus of the CIA's vast spy program. The network routers that are the forefront of the Wikileaks publication don't just single out one or two brands or models of network hardware, but entire series of routers which the CIA has methods of tampering with, typically by installing unauthorized modified firmware.

The hardware range targeted are some well known brands of D-Link, Belkin, 3Com, Linksys and Cisco. Oddly, the equally popular consumer brands such as the Billion, Netgear and TP-LINK network hardware are not mentioned. We could make the assumption that the brands targeted have less security and are easier for the CIA to manipulate and supposed non-targeted brands have better security. It's important to note this is assumption only and we have absolutely no substance of data to back up this assumption. We can not confirm whether there is more routers which have fallen into the cross-hairs of the CIA, but there is some notable absences.

There has been some over-hyped reporting on the latest release. But it's important to keep the entire Wikileaks publication in context. The CIA has the ability, as we've now learned through these publications, to install modified firmware onto these network hardware devices. There is a mix of consumer level hardware and also business centric hardware. We do not urge panic. We urge caution. But we should never remain complacent and should always aim to stay one step ahead of security contractors that work for government intelligence gathering agencies and ahead of the intelligence gathering agencies themselves. ie. CIA, FBI, NSA, GCHQ, ASIO and others.

Most good network administrators know their hardware very well and should therefore know when/if firmware has been changed or updated without their consent. Freedom Publishers Union considers our own network security to be quite strong. Our server resides on a network behind multiple routers, multiple switches and firewalls. We are confident of our network security and always maintain priority of our network activity at software and hardware level. There are certain indicators which would draw immediate attention to network hardware that has been tampered with. However, in large corporate environments with large and complex networking infrastructure, it would be fair to say that one could not expect the administrators to be able to monitor their state of health and security of every single hardware device connected to these networks. It would be unfair to expect this and outright unrealistic to imply that such undertaking could even be possible without appropriate resources and personnel to carry out such a massive task.

This most likely explains the absence of most consumer level networking hardware. But we can not be sure whether there is more information that accompanies what has been published by Wikileaks, or whether Wikileaks has purposely held some information back. Or it could be a case that such information never leaked through to Wikileaks as part of the Vault 7 cache because it simply does not exist.

This much is speculation. What is not speculation is the very fact that the CIA does carry out spying, hacking and all other forms of intelligence gathering without boundaries or morals. We must remember to always go back to the source documents themselves and analyze the finer detail where required.

May 9, 2017 | Facebook Having Identity Crisis. Must Look to Google for Inspiration

Facebook is facing a huge identity crisis. To the initial public eye of familiarity, Facebook is still the daily social media habit. They are still a social media company, to be fair. But things are changing at Facebook, yet we're not convinced that the company is aware of the change that is underway and whether they are working to best position themselves to accommodate its evolving identity.

To elaborate further and to find a possible solution to Facebook's identity crisis, we need to take a look at one of its largest Silicon Valley rivals - Google.

When Google made the announcement that it was being integrated into a portfolio and under the banner of a brand new company called Alphabet Inc., the corporate world was at first a little confused. Google loyalists were equally confused and bewildered what was happening to this giant of Silicon Valley. The initial confusion was justified. When you take a closer look at what Google done and the reasons for their corporate shake-up and integration into a new parent company, we quickly conclude that it was probably one of the smartest corporate choices Silicon Valley has witnessed.

Google created Alphabet Inc. to become the parent company of Google and its other company holdings, subsidiaries and corporate projects. The public will usually associate Google with being the friendly search engine that pops up on most internet web browsers when you first open it. Google is friendly, happy and familiar to everyone. There was a more complex side to Google though, which may not have been so obvious to anyone unfamiliar with the company's operations. Google was much bigger than just a search engine. Over the years of its existence, Google had acquired many other businesses and also diversified into other areas of science, research and development, computing, operating systems, software development and smart phone development and operations. If you were to summarize the operations of Google in just a couple of words, you could only state that it was "huge and complex". It had become so diversified and complex that it entered an internal identity crisis itself. But Google was quick to recognize this. Quicker than what the public and corporate analysts had determined. And it was upon this recognition that Alphabet Inc. was founded and the divisions created.

Facebook must look to Google for inspiration. Facebook has moved beyond the realm of being just a social media company. It is (and has been for some time) involved in scientific research, software development, gaming and hardware. The next big thing for Facebook looks to be media and news. It has somewhat experimented in this sector, with Trending Topics. However, actual Trending Editors were replaced by internal algorithms. This was not a major setback for Facebook media ambitions, if there are any actual ambitions. But it's safe to say the algorithms failed and were certainly not a suitable replacement for actual content editors. Trending Topics seems to have been brushed to the side in the Facebook interface and it remains unclear how much focus this area will get.

So where does this take us? It leads us to question whether Facebook has legitimate media ambitions or whether it is being pulled unwillingly into the sector by internet market forces. Change at the top could be key to regaining control. Facebook potentially have two options to initiate change and regain control of the company's direction. One option is for them to create a Board of Directors. Some believe that as long as Mark Zuckerberg has sole (majority) control, there will be confusion. To be fair, Facebook hasn't really reached the diversity of Google, yet. Google's Board together with Eric Schmidt, Sergei Brin and Larry Page figured out that Google has become a holding company without intending to do so. They understood the necessary changes and formally made the shift. The changes also allowed them to formalize their company philosophy and define what criteria each sector of the business needs to meet for success and growth under Alphabet Inc.

Facebook hasn't diversifies as far from its roots and it's still mostly about information sharing with advertising thrown into the mix, which is not only keeping the business successful, but generating huge amounts of cash reserves to be invested in other projects. The trend is set to continue and Facebook is undoubtedly set to diversify even more. Unlike Google, it is apparent that Facebook has not yet learned how to plan management and monetization as part of a new project. They are still primarily focused in the one industry - information collection and delivery. In some ways, Facebook is closer to resembling News Corporation than what it does Google.

There's lots going on at Facebook. To be honest, it is confusing. The company needs to define what it is. Without even knowing it, it's trying to be too many things. Splitting it would go some way to allowing it to focus on being a company with different divisions which could focus on each sector more appropriately. Emulating exactly what Google has done. It's almost becoming a media company in its own right, but not quite there yet. When Facebook reaches this point, it will be a very different kind of media company. Like nothing we've seen yet. That is where the challenge lies - defining what it is and what they do.

We draw back to the point of Zuckerberg holding control of the company operations, which is also our second option, of letting Zuckerberg retain that control. Although a Board of Directors at Facebook would not be the worst decision, one could also be forgiven for believing that Zuckerberg has an 'ultimate' vision and is still the one person that should have sole control to achieve that vision.

Looking outside the spectrum slightly, there is a problem with America versus the rest of the world. In the United States of America, corporations are treated as human entities. Whereas in Europe, the majority shareholder or Managing Director is personally responsible for the actions of the company. US corporations act as proxy for owners and management, which therefore allows the company to pay any penalties and results and no responsibility assigned to leadership level. It's the moral equivalent in business of saying all the Nazi atrocities were carried out by Germany and that Germany needs to go to jail, not Hitler or the Nazi leadership.

Google made the transition from the duopoly of Brin and Page to a diversified Board that allows responsibility to rest in the corporations, while providing the measurement framework for these to meet. Facebook must look for inspiration. They're very lucky. They don't have to look hard as the inspiration is right on their door step. Alphabet Inc. is a proven success. Facebook must recognize what it is, how to present itself to the public and win back ultimate trust of investors and public users.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

| Permission to republish | Donate

April 17, 2017 | CIA Director Takes Aim at Wikileaks, Assange and Publications of Leaked/Secret Information

In a recent spiel by the CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies he spoke out about what he believes are unfair injustices of sections of the publishing industry, followed up by making several references that the Trump Administration will be seeking to reform the media industry.

Media reform is not the problem, nor is it the simple fact that Pompeo spoke out about his narrow-minded view of a supposed injustice. Under the very free speech that Freedom Publishers Union advocates and supports he is perfectly entitled to do so. However, there are many aspects of his comments which must be scrutinized in closer detail. Specifically, Freedom Publishers Union is concerned of the direction of which Pompeo's complaints were directed. He complains of the publishing actions of Wikileaks and its Editor, Julian Assange. But he didn't stop there. He continued on his rant to declare the apparent injustice and illegal actions of leakers which provide media organizations with their caches of information, data and/or documentation. He describes the modern independent media trend as a "celebration of entities like Wikileaks" and what he describes as being "both perplexing and deeply troubling".

We disagree.

Freedom Publishers Union must make it very clear that we do not dispute that much of the material that media organizations, including leak websites such as Wikileaks, obtains probably is illegal. However, there is a fine line, which remains quite gray and blurred, which constitutes as news that is in the public interest and should be released regardless of how it was obtained or whether the source obtains the information by legal or illegal means. When it comes to media, sure, we must all act accordingly and within the boundaries of the law. Yet we must also uphold our publishing responsibilities by sharing the information that we obtain and provided to us, by our sources. We point out that this extends rights across the media industry as a whole and is not limited to Freedom Publishers Union, Wikileaks or any other media organization. Not at all. It's a constantly growing industry, thanks to digital publication tools readily available for anyone to utilize.

Why Pompeo's comments remain so tight in scope and focuses on Wikileaks, remains a mystery. Additionally, it concerns us that his comments also put Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning in his cross-hairs. Snowden resides in Russia on temporary visa and Manning is still detained in a military prison, awaiting her early release in coming months. But this didn't stop Pompeo by using them as an example by claiming their actions are carried out to "seek to use that information to make a name for themselves". A notion that we absolutely dispute. And he claims, "As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security".

These are reckless comments coming from the Director of the CIA, as to date no evidence has been presented to make the case that any such publications by Wikileaks has ever put any persons or individuals at risk of harm. Disclosures released by Snowden have been dribble fed to small selections of media organizations. Although he has never stated why his disclosures are dribble fed at such slow pace, Freedom Publishers Union can only conclude that this is done to minimize political fallout and to minimize risk to persons associated with such disclosures and the usually scathing details that he provides through the source information.

Despite Pompeo claiming that Manning was directed by Assange to collect the information that she was able to obtain, we must say that this is absolutely false and is outright stupid to make this claim. And it's obvious that Pompeo is making this a definitive claim, rather than an accusation. It is well known that Chelsea Manning acted alone, disturbed by the activities she witnessed by the US Military in Iraq and Afghanistan which prompted her to collect and forward the data onto Wikileaks. Freedom Publishers Union understands that Assange had limited contact with Manning during the transmission of data to Wikileaks, but it certainly can not be claimed that Manning was under the direction or orders of Assange.

Are the Director's comments truly aimed directly towards Julian Assange and Wikileaks, rather than the media industry as a whole? We believe yes. Careful analysis of the Pompeo's speech makes this an obvious point.

Are the frustrations of the political stalemate which sees Assange still detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London beginning to reach boiling point and the Trump Administration is seeking a quick resolution? This is very possible.

Is this boiling point finally going to see the US legal system act on its outstanding Grand Jury against Wikileaks and Assange? While the US Government continue to shroud the Grand Jury in secrecy and deny its existence, we believe this is still unlikely in the short-term, unless more evidence of actual illegal activity becomes available.

In a Statement released by Julian Assange, he believes that the CIA Director should have focused on more important and current issues of international politics surrounding China and North Korea. Interestingly, Assange failed to mention the outstanding US tensions present with Russia. This will be sure to add fuel to the fire of continued accusations that Assange continues to speak out and work for the interests of Russia.

Freedom Publishers Union does not support this view and believes it is completely unjustified. But Assange could have put a stop to these unjustified accusations, by at least mentioning Russia as a topic of concern in the same context he does of China and North Korea - which we believe are justified by mention.

Assange concluded his response Statement very well, "Pompeo's speech attempting to stifle speech only serves to underscore why Wikileaks' publications are necessary. Wikileaks will continue to publish true, newsworthy information that contributes to the public debate".

Freedom Publishers Union echoes this statement and strives to always follow the same publication path and standards, enhancing the free press to a wider audience through publication of well researched and fact-based information. We hope that all independent media organizations follow the same path and strive to do the same.

Freedom Publishers Union actually goes one step further and releases our Editorials and original material under a combination of Creative Commons and Konomark, which guarantees a careful and responsible balance of the associated freedoms of sharing of this information and helps to ensure it can not be removed or censored.

Pompeo continued to justify the points he makes in his tirade by quoting hand-picked comments from The Intercept, which criticized Wikileaks for "stretching the facts" and documents published were "not worth the concern Wikileaks generated by its public comments". Freedom Publishers Union does not work directly with Wikileaks or The Intercept. However, their work is part of our information gathering and Editorial processing, often providing vital research material that can not be found in mainstream media coverage of certain stories. But we have also previously made direct judgment onboth Wikileaks and The Intercept. We have also directly criticized Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald (and Edward Snowden), on various issues in the past. The point is; even if a working relationship is in place, official or unofficial, we still retain our right to openly criticize and put pressure on each other where we feel there is justification for criticism. It's the democracy embedded in open and free media and it's this criticism which keeps the free press healthy and goes to ensure accuracy of information and helps to present non-bias, factual presentation of information.

Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept sums it up well, "Trump's CIA Director stood up in public and explicitly threatened to target free speech rights and press freedoms, and it was almost impossible to find even a single US mainstream journalist expressing objections or alarm, because the targets Pompeo chose in this instance are ones they dislike - much the way that many are willing to overlook or even sanction free speech repression if the targeted ideas or speakers are sufficiently unpopular".

Greenwald goes on to quote Pompeo further, "A little less Constitutional law and a lot more of a philosophical understanding. Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a US citizen. What I was speaking to is an understanding that these are not reporters doing good work to try to keep the American Government on us. These are actively recruiting agents to steal American secrets with the sole intent of destroying the American way of life. That is fundamentally different than a First Amendment activity as I understand them. This is what I was getting to. We have had administrations before that have been too squeamish about going after these people, after some concept of this right to publish. Nobody has the right to actively engage in the theft of secrets from American without the intent to do harm to it".

Greenwald responds by stating, "Given how menacing and extreme this statement is, it is remarkable - and genuinely frightening - that it received so little notice, let alone condemnation, from the US press corps".

Freedom Publishers Union can not comment in legal terms, but Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept claims that "the notion that Wikileaks has no free press rights [under the US Constitution] because Assange is a foreigner is both wrong and dangerous". We can however express our own frustration among independent media circles, when mainstream media fails to pick up on these issues or outright ignores to cover them.

We believe there are greater implications to press freedom if the US were to criminalize publication of classified information. it is common practice among the free press, including mainstream US media, to publish classified documents and information which is deemed in the public interest by that media organization.

Furthermore, legally charging and prosecuting Wikileaks and its staff members for publishing secret documents and information are a huge threat to press freedom and also bring into question the purpose of the purported protections and legal standing of the US Constitution. This whole issue of drawing the line with First Amendment protections is a huge can of worms.

Essentially, the official secrets protections are nothing more than a Government Non-Disclosure Agreement which means that before you are allowed to see the secrets, you agree to be prosecuted if you reveal the secrets, without permission. Let's be honest - you're never going to get permission to release information which details secret government operations or mass-surveillance programs.

Freedom Publishers Union points out that we must recognize illegal activity when we see it. We wouldn't even blink if Microsoft launched criminal proceedings against someone who stole and published the source code to its Windows operating system. Or if someone published the complete text of J.K. Rowling's next Harry Potter novel. The person committing the theft is certainly guilty of a criminal act. But that's where the free press has an ethical responsibility and needs to make a decision - to publish if they deem it to be in interest of the public or to refrain because it was sourced illegally.

Upon receiving the Iraq and Afghanistan material, Assange made an ethical decision as Editor of Wikileaks, to publish the material. Albeit, initially in redacted form. Yet nobody must ignore that Chelsea Manning committed a criminal action in stealing the information. Justified or not, there is a fundamental breach of law involved.

Wikileaks obtained the documents. Manning was caught and imprisoned. That much is fact.

Where this gets complicated is what happens at the next level, after the initial theft, the act of publication is essentially removed from the theft. If Glenn Greenwald publishes the verbatim text of aforementioned hypothetical Harry Potter novel, knowing that it is the unpublished book, he would also be committing a crime as an accessory to theft. In effect, the second publisher becomes a fence of stolen property. Even if criminal actions are discovered on the part of J.K. Rowling, the theft and fence are still guilty of a crime. Although charges would likely be dropped if the revelation of the other crime was sufficiently heinous.

Under the same theory, the theft and publication of secret documents are also crimes. Just against a different victim. The prosecution of the theft and publication of secrets is dealt with the same as a Harry Potter theft. If there is the revelation of criminal activity in the stolen material, it is likely that the theft charges would be dropped - at least against the journalist(s) that publish it.

A slightly different perspective, interestingly, the US Government could probably make a case for copyright infringement stick. Even if there is question about whether the publication of the stolen documents are justified by revealing a more criminal act. And that is if they copyrighted the secret documents in the first place. Admittedly, this is taking a slightly different view on the issue. But it is interesting nevertheless.

Freedom Publishers Union outright condemns the CIA Director, Michael Pompeo, in taking a blatant stance to violate First Amendment guarantees. But it must be acknowledged that somewhere in the mess of leaking and/or stealing classified secret information and documents, there is a point where a real criminal action occurred.

Where that happened and who bears responsibility for it is what legal scholars will be debating for years to come.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

| Permission to republish | Donate

March 21, 2017 | Are We Forgetting About the CIA's Lack of Morals and Ethics?

The Julian Assange and Wikileaks bashing has proceeded once again. When the notorious publishing organization released the first dump as part of the Vault 7 cache, the same old arguments were launched and carried on for the days that proceeded. These arguments are quite unjustified. Assange, through Wikileaks, is constantly finding himself under scrutiny for the controversial releases and files dumps of the content that the publishing organization gets it hands on, through anonymous user submission.

The work and data dumps of Wikileaks shouldn't be about Assange. Nor should it be about Wikileaks. Yet for some abhorrent reason, we constantly find mainstream media outlets questioning the journalistic responsibility and integrity of Assange and Wikileaks. Again, Freedom Publishers Union reminds these select media groups that it is not about Assange and it is not about Wikileaks. The real focus of the story should be exactly what the data dump presents - The CIA operating an internal hacking network and of which its activities should be questioned for morals and ethics against the spy agency's mandate.

The CIA should be put to scrutiny. That is what should be the focus of the story. It is precisely what Assange makes clear in his Press Statement which accompanied this release.

The CIA has a mandate. They have regulations and the agency must (and should) operate within the boundaries of its mandate. If it operates outside of its limitations, then it should be put in the public spotlight and put on the stage of public debate.

Whether this is by means of internal whistleblowing and leaked data - it's irrelevant. The public debate on the actions of the CIA must ensue.

It will not come as a major shock to anyone to find out the CIA regularly dabbles outside of its mandate. Due to the serious nature of the agency's activities and operations that it is tasked for, there should remain a certain amount of flexibility within its operating activities.

It's also well known that the NSA operates mass-surveillance and spying programs. We have all put eye ball to the documents that prove these programs exist through the very public discourse and extensive media coverage that followed the initial release of the Snowden leaked documents from the NSA and its intelligence sub-contractors.

Now we've learned through the most recent release from Wikileaks, the CIA is also carrying out spying programs of its own, somewhat in competition with its fellow spy agency, the NSA.

One thing is so obvious that you might as well head to the CIA Headquarters and paint it on the front door - The agency has no morals and no ethics. It is that obvious.

One could make the argument that the CIA et al are spy agencies tasked with spying. It's what they do. One could back up that argument with another, by stating that based on those activities the agencies do not have to adhere to morals and ethics.

Freedom Publishers Union disagree. The CIA, NSA and all government operated intelligence departments should operate with a certain level of understanding of their moral and ethical obligations.

Morals and ethics exist and should be followed. The obvious absence of them is what should be reported. These agencies are essentially behaving at free will, creating the tools to initiate as much discomfort and annoyance they feel satisfies their incredible need for knowledge and power over citizens and their civil rights.

Please don't bring out the old 'we only perform these operations on targets' card. That card has failed every other time and it will continue to fail. Much the same as the argument that everything is done to ensure 'national security' from 'terrorists' and the other 'bad guys'.

Come on, please.

If these agencies think we sit idle and actually take notice of their pathetic justifications for their over-use and overreach of their surveillance and spy powers, then these agencies will continue to be forced into the public spotlight by willing whistleblowers and brave publishers such as Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

March 21, 2017 | Spying May Be Unethical But it Must be Done, Within Legal Boundaries of the Law

The morality of spying. This is not a new issue. For many millennium, spying has been classified as an immoral operation. Indeed, spies have been subjected to torture and ignominious death since the Chinese and Egyptians ruled civilization because of their moral turpitude. In parallel with this, however, the amount of spying and its scope certainly has never decreased. So obviously there is a double standard in the way governments and rulers see the utility of espionage vs morality. Even the world's citizens see spying with two views. We hail the men and women that worked in the underground against Germany in World War II; stealing information and sending it on to the Allies for action. Indeed; the defeat of the German U-boats was only possible after espionage was able to break the German (and Japanese) military codes.

Domestically, Americans have for decades known that the FBI uses espionage to counter criminals, from wire-tapping to intercepting messages and ciphers. This has proven to have prevented many acts of crime and violence.

Our agencies - and indeed, the rest of the "Five Eyes" - do adhere to standards of morality and legality. And secrecy. For nearly every person in America or elsewhere in the "Eyes", this has been one of the foundations of our freedom. We know that our privacy is being protected, because we aren't all being arrested for committing the 'crimes that everyone in America commits'. It is not against the law to bash our government; it isn't illegal to trash talk our leaders; hell, it's not even illegal to discuss revolution in public! If we were being spied upon, America would be a lot more like Turkey or Egypt. This must be remembered.

We have a tolerance for the morality of spying, so long as we feel that it isn't being used on us. I'm not going to discuss the way Americans and the rest of the world were duped into questioning individual privacy. But recognize that we, as citizens, look upon our privacy through a many-faceted glass, causing us to reflect on freedom and privacy in many different and often diametrically opposed ways.

On Wikileaks and their information; the publishing organization performs a service that is critical to the functioning of freedom in the abstract and practical sense. It provides information about activities that are being done that may or may not meet with our intellectual and moral approval. Some of these actions may truly be illegal as well as immoral. It is important for these actions to be revealed and corrected in order to ensure that our freedom is based on the 'Rule of Law', both in its scope and in the limits that we, as a civil society, must have.

However, we also need to look at Wikileaks with the same caution that we use on any other media source. While the information Wikileaks releases is usually verified by the same agencies that stand accused of the actions in question, the information does come from anonymous sources with little provable veracity - at least until someone at NSA 'fesses up that 'it's true'. Even then, 'first impressions' authenticity can still be put to question.

One of the problems with getting this information is that it is often impossible to verify it before it is released. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the perpetrators usually admit to the act and corrections are made. However, over time it becomes more and more difficult for Wikileaks to not be duped by cleverly created 'propaganda dumps'.

The release of the "DNC emails" during the election is an example of something that - in and of itself - was not a really surprising or shocking revelation for anyone that has worked in politics. However, the cachet of being release by Wikileaks, a source we trust for revealing hidden facts and secret stuff - and the fact that we were in a contentious elections - caused the story to carry far more weight than the facts it contained inside the documents. It also can not be ignored that the DNC emails publication revealed a bias in the Editorial staff of Wikileaks, that had been underplayed in previous releases - A bias that has somewhat undermined the credibility of the organization.

All of our intelligence agencies and all of our other Government departments need to be held up and inspected on a regular basis through genuine auditing and oversight. It is far too easy to commit criminal acts where you're behind the line of the law instead of in front. But at the same time, everyone needs to put this information into a true perspective, rather than simply take the spin a certain news organization put on it.

As an example, the 'revelation' of the Samsung TV recording [spying] capability - It is well known and documented elsewhere that nearly every connected device in a home [Internet of Things (IoT)] can be hacked to perform some form of spying or disruption. Learning that a spy agency has that in its closet is completely obvious, really. And we must understand this isn't the first time this has happened. Back in 2014 the Chinese company, Huawei, was banned from selling their excellent switches in some countries because the CIA discovered that they had malware baked in by the Chinese government. No outcries from that!

It isn't government surveillance that I am concerned about. It's the basis of the government itself. Both the US and Australia are governed under a "Constitution" that establishes the "Rule of Law" and how it is applied and enforced. The Rule of Law ensures that when freedom or rights are violated, it is redressed with the full force of the government of the nation. Thus, if someone were to be harmed by unwarranted surveillance and invasion of a guaranteed right, the agency committing the harm would be fully liable under law. Even if there is no known harm, once the violation is discovered, legal proceedings to prevent future violation are undertaken.

You spy without legal permission, you and your agency are punished. It has worked in the case of the Snowden revelations; it will continue to work as long as the American Constitution is held supreme, as it must.

The bottom line is how intrusive the surveillance is.

Scanning phone records meta-data doesn't violate privacy in nearly all cases. If I call someone in country X, yes, that record will be scanned. But there isn't anything actionable about it, so nothing happens. It is, literally, the case of 'a tree falling in the woods'. On the other hand, if that record triggers an investigation into me and my actions, then, unless I've violated a law or I'm under suspicion of violating a law, any result of that investigation constitutes a violation of my rights under Constitutional law. And I'd have a prima facia case in court.

Agencies like the CIA, NSA, GCHQ, ASIO and other members of the "Five Eyes" DO NEED TO BE AUDITED TO PREVENT ILLEGAL ACTIONS. But the line must be drawn at when the agency actually breaks a law, not merely that their action can potentially break a law. Scanning meta-data is legal, so long as the results remain anonymous. Listening to my conversation is illegal without a specific warrant - and a FISA court warrant is still completely legal. And adding software to a device to perform surveillance may be legal so long as it doesn't immediately violate my Constitutional rights. Especially if that software is actually in place for another purpose and isn't specifically introduced for surveillance - like the inadvertent ability to enable a web-cam already present in existing software. Solong as a warrant is obtained to use it for surveillance purposes, it's legal. On the other hand, if the 'bug' is intentionally introduced, then a FISA warrant better be in hand because that action borders on illegal - and would be if it is used.

At Freedom Publishers Union we must stress that we are not advocating for enabling a "Big Brother" state; far from it. But we all need to understand the need for some of these techniques and technologies: foreknowledge is forewarned. There are times where the "Ends Justify the Means. But in all cases, the agencies must work within the limits of their charter and the Constitution and be held to it. Even if sometimes the permission is retroactive.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

January 28, 2017 | Trump's Influence on Balance of Privacy and Law

There is growing fear spreading throughout digital societies that our privacy is being eroded. Fears continue to be sparked, largely due to the erratic and somewhat unpredictable behavior of newly elected US President Donald Trump and his Administration. A common term that we are beginning to hear get thrown around the office is, "There is no such thing as privacy". This term has a disturbing amount of truth to it.

If we specifically refer to modern computerized technology, our privacy as it existed pre-modern computers, is being leaked to the world at rapid rate and on a daily basis. If we disregard privacy, it is possible to have temporary secrecy. But even that can and will disappear as soon as there is value in doing so. It doesn't matter who is in charge of making the rules, because we already know that the rule of law doesn't apply when it comes to privacy and secrecy. If we make privacy a legal right, then covert surveillance will be conducted without legal oversight anyway. If we acknowledge that there actually is no privacy, then we will prepare ourselves for the consequences of our actions being revealed when we take them.

We can't deny the fact that President Trump will be no more abusive with privacy than any other President and Congress would be. Even with strong laws protecting privacy, if there is a compelling reason to violate the law and obtain the data, it will be done regardless of legal status or classification. By making it easy to obtain warrants publicly to conduct privacy invasions, at least we can ensure that there is some level of transparency, which therefore opens the door for accountability.

We can't ignore the possibility of the worst case scenario: strong privacy laws making it impossible for journalists and publishers to do their investigations and press duties legally. Anything that is considered private, confidential or secret is now a crime to reveal under various laws that already exist. Even if the information leads to more criminal actions, it would become inadmissible evidence, as obtaining it would violate the right to privacy in the first place. If it is leaked illegally, even if the leaker is captured and convicted, the damage is already done.

There can not be a guarantee to the 'Right to Privacy'. It needs to be clearly defined what constitutes private and privileged communications, and what does not. We must unambiguously create laws that define these boundaries, strictly. And we need to ensure that all privacy laws apply equally regardless of the station in life or publicity of the person or organization involved. The challenge comes with being aware of what the consequences of these laws are with regard to journalistic integrity and the response to illegal violations of privacy and secrecy.

We cannot condone the actions of Edward Snowden and Wikileaks on one hand and then condemn government agencies for doing the same thing - with the power of law and warrant on their side. Both parties need to be held to the same standards and those legal boundaries must be clear enough to prevent unwarranted snooping yet porous enough to permit reasonable investigative actions by both journalists and government agencies.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

December 17, 2016 | Australian Federal Court Orders Block of The Pirate Bay and Others

Freedom Publishers Union learned on December 15, 2016, the Australian Federal Court handed down its judgment on the blocking of BitTorrent website The Pirate Bay, along with several other websites - of which some are now defunct.

Primarily, the target of the case was demonstratively The Pirate Bay, as the Federal Court has ordered that the website must be blocked at the ISP-level, by whatever means the ISP deems necessary to the acceptance and standards accepted by rights-holders - in this case primarily led by Foxtel and Village Roadshow.

Freedom Publishers Union holds a very strong view on censorship matters and our position on this matter has never changed. We support freedom of information and any technology that allows for freedom of the flow of information. This includes BitTorrent software and websites that index and provide torrent and magnet information.

Copyright requires much reform. This is very well known. If proper copyright reform was to be pursued, with the intention of the addition of fair-use clauses and appropriate provisions, it would have a much greater effect on reducing piracy levels than simple attempts of website/domain blocking. ie. Censorship.

We believe the existence of The Pirate Bay and other websites that permit for the freedom and dissemination of digital information on a mass scale should be acknowledged for their technical expertise, abilities and implementation and the possibilities that they enable by allowing for the very freedom of information, distribution and dissemination that we refer to.

We believe that they should never be used as a pawn for fighting for copyright protection by incoherent media companies and rights-holders which continue to demonstrate their absolute lack of understanding of the larger issues. This is not new, as has been done in the past many times and continues with this latest case and judgment which has resulted in another country (Australia) paving the way for blocking measures to be implemented. We also believe that this is the very first step towards greater implementation of censorship of Australian internet.

We will continue to fight for and advocate for freedom of information and will always oppose against censorship and attacks against net neutrality.

Freedom Publishers Union will oppose the judgment to the fullest extent and advocate that all blocking measures be reversed and seriously reviewed so a better solution can be established with the pursuit and addition of copyright reform.

Additionally, Freedom Publishers Union will continue to distribute software that will bypass such blockages and offer a level of security and anonymity, through digital dissemination and distribution of Tor Browser packages and its source code. We will also continue to operate our own The Pirate Bay sub-domain which redirects to the official domain name. If this results in blocked pages being displayed, as it will be dependent on the blocking techniques implemented by the ISPs in Australia, then we will guide our website users to information that will instruct them to download and install Tor Browser, so that the intended website(s) and page(s) can then be accessed - securely and with anonymity.

Heading into 2017, we will strive to continue to oppose governments, their associated agencies and departments that implement any kind of censorship on Australian users, as we will proceed to do the same in any country implementing censorship on its internet users.

Finally, and in conclusion, we will continue to push for copyright reform and the addition of fair use clauses and provisions.

Copyright reform and fair use are the solution to combat mass global piracy, not censorship. Information should be free. That is what Freedom Publishers Union will continue to fight for.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

November 30, 2016 | UK Now Has Legalized Dragnet Mass-Surveillance. Carry On, Nothing to See Here.

Soon, the Investigatory Powers Bill will become law in the United Kingdom. The Bill is also commonly referred to as the "Snoopers Charter" or simply the "IP Bill", and has passed both Houses in the UK Parliament. Sadly, there was very little attention given to its finer details, nor was it really put under the required scrutiny. And, it seems there was very little interest in any amendments being put forth which put any kind of restraint on the powers that the Bill enables. The only effective amendment was protective measures that allow for Parliamentarians and specific Government officials to be excluded from exposure to the Bill's Provisions.

Under the provisions of the IP Bill, it allows for lawful hacking by police, security and intelligence services which can include computer networks, mobile devices and servers. Methods can include interference using existing vulnerabilities known, in software to gain access, to extract data or monitor the device and input/output data.

The only requirement for these tasks to be carried out and be deemed legal, is for a warrant to be obtained.

At the time of going to press, It remains unclear of the broader terms surrounding 'bulk hacking', with the Provision allowing for data gathering from a large number of devices in a specific location. This can include foreign regions suspected of terrorism activity. Concerns are present, that data of untargeted and unknowing civilians will be caught up in this mass-surveillance Clause, which uses terms much too broad and very non-specific and allowing for extended surveillance techniques to be carried out by UK law enforcement and intelligence officials. This is effectively dragnet surveillance.

Some measures are being taken to include steps are implemented to oversee activities and to attend to any problems that shall arise. This will be handled by an Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) and Judicial Commissioners, which will be appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, currently Theresa May.

The IPC will audit legislation compliance of hacking and surveillance operations and carry out investigations into operations mismanagement, if required. Reporting and recommendations determined by the IPC are to be made public.

Mandatory data retention of 12 months is to be maintained, with requirement for data to be stored which includes web browsing history and connections. This data will be accessible to police, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Combined, making these some of the most invasive data retention measures in the democratic world. Concerns over the precision and amount of data being required to be stored is mounting and the fact can't be ignored of the immense pressure which gets applied on internet service providers (ISPs). This has been witnessed first-hand by financial constraints and pressure on limited resources with ISPs in Australia - a country which has similar provisions for data retention requirements, albeit meta-data only being retained.

Under the IP Bill, data must include websites visited, servers accessed, day, date, time, where it was accessed from and using what device on what network. In short, the Investigatory Powers Bill has just legalized dragnet mass-surveillance in the UK. Again, warrants must be obtained, but we suspect this will be much too easy, enabling access of private data.

Privacy has been eroded to almost nothing, with the upcoming enactment of the Snoopers Charter. Civil liberties that lead to the right to privacy, has been eaten into, in large bites.

Freedom Publishers Union urges citizens to play on the side of caution. More thought and consideration of steps to implement encryption to enhance ones privacy must now become priority. Also, we need to make it difficult as possible for authorities to collect the data in the first place. This can be achieved by using tools which aim to implement anonymous internet access, by using Tor Browser which connects to the encrypted internet network of Tor, also referred to as "The Onion Router".

We must remember to call this invasive legislation out for what it is - Snoopers Charter. We must continue to apply pressure on future legislators which can make future amendments which will see even a slight amount of curbing of some of the worst Clauses and Provisions, which allow for this mass-surveillance to continue under the banners of 'legality'. And, we must continue to see that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the Judicial Commissioners are held accountable for their actions, if they fail to fulfill their duties of oversight of surveillance operations and their compliance with the legislation set before the citizens of the UK. Civil liberties have been violated - a common theme which has been replicated by many democratic governments across the globe.

Once invasive legislation which legalizes sweeping, dragnet mass-surveillance is enacted and made law, focus must shift to amending the legislation and implement the most important amendments which aim to curb at least some of the most invasive measures. Where violation of civil liberties has occurred, this must be counter-balanced by operations transparency and accountability being ensured through people power, by those who remain strong enough to stand up for civil rights, their liberties and the right to privacy in the digital sphere.

European Press Office - Moscow Press

November 13, 2016 | Australia's Refugee Situation Underscores Deep, Global Problems

Asylum seekers and refugees - these are incredibly messy topics because they need to be viewed with x-ray vision of economics and politics, and not just through the rosy glasses of humanitarianism.

There is one reason people become refugees: they want to survive. Sometimes this is a literal survival: escaping from Syria and ISIS is an existential issue for most refugees. But most of the time, survival is defined in quality of life terms. Starving in the streets of Myanmar might be existential too, but often it's a matter of wanting a better life, not necessarily escaping death.

Creating a "humanitarian crisis" is a well-known tactic used by governments to change their population and send messages. Consider the Mariel "boat-lift" that came from Cuba to Miami which resulted in an influx of about 125,000 political refugees to the United States of America. Mixed in to that were a small, yet significant percentage of hardened criminals and mental patients, intentionally released into the refugee stream by Cuba to clear the jails. Overall, the Mariel refugees integrated into the US with very few problems. Even in Miami, where a large number stayed after being processed through refugee camps, had no long-term impact in its economy with the large influx of Cuban unskilled labor.

The majority of these people were political refugees in the classic sense: they faced imprisonment in Cuba for their religious and political beliefs and therefore, met the international criteria for refugee status. But unlike many other refugees, they also had massive support from their associated community in America. The Cuban-American community of Miami stepped up to orchestrate and execute the rescue of these immigrants and provided support to the Government in processing and relocating the refugees. While there were some problems associated with what was perceived to be incarceration of the refugees (in Arkansas, a riot at the refugee processing center established at Fort Chaffee caused the then-Governor Bill Clinton to lose re-election because of racist campaigning triggered by the riots), the crisis was completely abated within 3 years.

Today, we see the same scenario playing out in many places around the world. However, this time the cases of the refugees aren't as easy to make as it was for those from the Cuban dictatorship.

A similar scenario occurred in the US at the end of the Vietnam war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees left Vietnam and came to the US. Like the Cuban situation, they received massive support from Vietnamese-Americans, mostly those living in Southern California, providing them the resources to integrate into existing Vietnamese enclaves in the area and entering the economy. Today these ex-refugees are well-integrated into American society.

Australia, on the other hand, is facing a different problem. Most of the refugees arriving on the doorstep are from war zones in Islamic countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Sri Lanka etc. Most of these people are legitimate asylum seekers: they are under threat of death and violence because of their politics or religious beliefs and see no alternative but immigration to escape death and torture.

Some are economic asylum seekers: they seek a better, not necessarily a safer, life in another country. But the majority can claim true threat to their lives and usually have extensive documentation to support their claims.

The problem for Australian refugees is that they do not have the same support structure awaiting them as the Cuban and Vietnamese did in the US. Most of them are Muslim and come from cultures that are radically different than the Western, Euro-centric culture that permeates America and Australia and Europe. Many aspects of their culture and religion run completely counter to the social norms of Western society, making their integration problematic unless they are willing to change their values and beliefs to potentially fit into their new society.

Without the social structure of enclaves of familiar religious and cultural environments in which to settle, these refugees are at an insurmountable disadvantage in attempting to immigrate to Australia. While they may be legitimate refugees, there is - literally - nowhere for them to 'go' in Australia. There isn't a large Muslim, Afghan, Syrian or any other community that has the ability to accept these people and provide the environment to integrate them into their new lives. (Some of the refugees are Christians: these people will most likely find sponsorship in Australia or at least support to assist them in relocating to an accepting environment.)

Australia is not the place these refugees need to escape to. They need to go to a country that has the cultural and support system in place to accept them as they are and help them transition to a more Western society in various progressive stages. Where would those places be? Often the places they are refugees from; Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt - basically any Muslim nation that isn't in the middle of a civil war. The only problem is that most of those places have the same problem with these refugees that their home country did; they are not a 'compatible' sect of Islam that fit in with the religion and mores of other Muslim nations either.

Australia is caught in a nasty situation here. These refugees don't (and won't) fit into Australian society. They are outcasts from their home countries, but not because they are adherents to the 'Great Satan' of Western culture; rather because they don't fit into the Muslim culture either. The are the equivalent of those crazy sects of Christians in the US that want to essentially create their own country and rules and won't accept that other people may not want to follow them. In the US, these people usually end up locked up in Federal prison for life, simply because they violate nearly every felony law there is; ranging from tax avoidance to child abuse to murder. Or they all die in a horrific shoot-out and fire with ATF agents.

The problem that Australia is having is not that the Government is intentionally being cruel and inhumane to these people through increased tightening of immigration policy and legislation, although it may seem that way. The problem is that Australia is actually trying to accommodate asylum seekers and refugees by keeping them somewhere safe and to themselves (rather than on Australian mainland) where they don't have to face the culture shock of Western life and society without the appropriate support mechanism in-place. The asylum seekers just keep coming faster than Australia can process them. And unlike the US, it doesn't have the relocation facilities at old military bases that can be used to manage the refugees until they can be absorbed by greater society.

If these people had come to the US, they would be sponsored by people from Detroit or Minneapolis - two of the largest concentrations of Muslims of all types outside of the Middle-East or the Far East. There would be support culture and people to help them and they would eventually fit in and maybe even move on to other places as American citizens. In Europe, refugees have been accepted into areas where there are culturally similar enclaves and accommodation is being made available for them. However, even in Europe, which has the largest number of Muslims overall outside of their home countries, acceptable space is running out to continue to accept more refugees. The sudden rise of anti-Islam feelings in Europe isn't just because of xenophobia: it's because the communities that can accept these people are saturated at present and as they arrive in Germany, Romania or other countries, they end up in yet another ad-hoc refugee camp. There's just no more space right now to take them in.

Australia could, given a couple of years and several hundred millions of dollars, build a proper refugee processing facility and create 'cultural cities' for these people to reside, while acclimatizing to Australian life. But not today. And given the images that are being pirated out of these camps, probably not ever. Anyone can understand why the Australian Government wants to keep these places and their operations secret. It's not because of the inhumane treatment of the asylum seekers and refugees, but that with the numbers arriving there is no other place for them to go. It's like the camps in Greece or other places in Europe where conditions are worsening each day. As quickly as one person is processed and relocated, twenty more show up in their place.

As military conflict continues around the world, in many zones increasingly getting worse, the cycle will continue and the global refugee problem will continue to grow.

Australia has been stating ever since the beginning: "DO NOT COME TO AUSTRALIA! STAY AT HOME OR GO ELSEWHERE! WE CAN'T HELP YOU!". The Government has been doing everything it can to help. It's just that is has become a case of too much, too quickly.

Finally, another factor in all of this is most of the asylum seekers heading to Australia are using illegal smugglers to get there. They aren't using relief agencies or Muslim organizations to coordinate their movement - although the Vietnamese that came to California often used the same methods. The difference is in the numbers of people doing it. Most of the Vietnamese came under the sponsorship of churches and organizations from the Vietnamese community. The Cubans were handled completely by the Cuban-American community of Miami, which did the outreach and coordination with the US Government to process the refugees. But even that had problems. When a paid smuggler ships people to Australia, they're not interested in making all the connections, doing the paperwork and ensuring those on board the boats have the appropriate documentation to legalize their arrival, as a refugee. All the people smugglers want is their money. Without those groups of churches and communities from the same background to help, asylum seekers are truly on a one-way ticket. There is no coordination - just boats appearing with more people.

Before condemning the Australian Government for its 'failure' at the asylum seeker and refugee situation, we need to think about what is 'really happening' here, and how different it is from the successful migrations of the Cubans and Vietnamese in the United States of America.

America is on the verge of another wave of migrants washing up on its shores very soon; all the people from Venezuela that are being starved to death because of their failure to deal with the real world. Already, many countries in South and Central America are taking refugees from there, but they're about to become overrun the same as Australia or Eastern Europe. And, of course, they'll just keep sending the refugees north until they wash up on the beaches of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. And once again, America will have to deal with them. The only problem; Americans are now very xenophobic and are not going to tolerate any humanitarian effort that they see as 'more Mexicans'.

The Catholic church will be key in handling this, but there's only so much even they can do. Outside of Louisiana, Catholics are not looked upon very highly (American Protestants have always had problems with Catholics, treating them almost as badly as the Jews), and they won't get a lot of help from other churches with this crisis. With Donald Trump as President and a full Republican Congress, the Government sure isn't looking like it's going to help. So we may have our own Nauru and Manus Island going on in the US soon.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News
| Permission to republish | Donate

October 14, 2016 | Yahoo Inc. - Initiator of Sweeping Surveillance

It was an explosive revelation when Reuters published details of Yahoo Inc. providing direct assistance to the conglomerate which has become internationally recognized as the world's mass-surveillance state, the United States of America and primarily, the NSA and its international intelligence partners.

Details have emerged that Yahoo has cooperated directly, with a demand from the US Government providing the platform for enablement of sweeping surveillance by scanning all incoming Yahoo customer emails, for specific keywords and character strings. The practice was carried out by Yahoo, by providing the tools to enable and perform the email scanning.

According to details since revealed, Yahoo performed the sweep by modifying existing source code for a program the company already uses to scan and identify malware inside its customer emails. The new program was developed through heavy code modification, which resulted in a complete new program going live on Yahoo servers. The program was then used at the hands of Yahoo, in direct and undisputed cooperation and as demanded by the US Government intelligence officials.

One of the most disturbing elements is that Yahoo representatives never disputed, questioned or resisted the demand. Exact details of the legal demand for Yahoo to perform the sweeping surveillance have not yet been revealed at the time of going to press. We do expect the precise legal details and documentation to be treated with a high amount of secrecy - much like all operations directly related to the US mass-surveillance programs.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns such undisputed sweeping surveillance and untargeted mass-surveillance on any scale. Any digital surveillance should be targeted and have a legally obtained warrant provided. When Apple was asked to assist the FBI with the cracking of one of the company's iPhone devices in the San Bernadino case, Apple stood by its company standards and refused to cooperate. Apple's decision must not be confused here, as it is to quickly make an assumption which is wrong. Whilst the legal side of this case gets much more complicated, what we learned from the public perspective is that Apple is willing to stand its ground, stand by its products and uphold the privacy which is enabled by the provided security on Apple devices.

The iPhone in the San Bernadino case was eventually cracked and data accessed with the efforts of a third-party security company and without any involvement from Apple. Yet we must note that Apple never relented or caved into the mass-surveillance institute led by the US Government. Yahoo Inc. has let its customers down, by simply cooperating with the mass-surveillance regime, without question and with a certain amount of enthusiasm from the company's CEO, Marissa Mayer. According to sources inside Yahoo, it has been said that Mayer's actions, judgment and lack of questioning of the reasons for the demanding of email sweeping caused some major disunity among the executive ranks of Yahoo.

Freedom Publishers Union maintains our view that digital surveillance measures should be carried out as targeted operations based on a legally obtained warrant and must be absolutely justified.

As we continue to debate privacy, encryption and civil liberties, this case could easily become a reason to begin to question whether any progress has in fact been made since the debate become mainstream back in 2013. We believe it is fair to point out that progress is being made by a majority of the big technology companies, who wish the gain back the trust of their customers through providing better security and encryption for their services. Things are much better that just two years ago. Yet equally, we still have a long way to go.

The institute of American-led mass-surveillance continues and the legal loopholes that exist are being found and abused by the institute as a means to justify their actions and be able to publicly claim their operations 'are legal'. Legal - perhaps. Ethically responsible and acceptable - absolutely not. Mass surveillance must stop. Sweeping surveillance must stop. The constant attempts of intelligence agencies and their legal goons to use whatever means to find these legal loopholes and policy makers deliberately creating the loop holes so they can be exploited by the mass-surveillance institute must also stop.

Finally, technology companies must continue to provide better security for their customers, not only through their services and products, but backed up by said company standing firm against untargeted surveillance.

In this latest case, Yahoo Inc. has failed on all counts. We have lost what little respect we had for company. Will it hurt the company's bottom line? Probably a little bit. But probably not much. What is guaranteed to stain Yahoo's immediate public image and become a sore spot of its history, is its failure to stand by and protect the privacy and rights of its customers in favor of preferring to collaborate with the US mass-surveillance program and becoming a direct initiator of a sweeping surveillance program through the development of software that Yahoo developed.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

September 1, 2016 | France Leading Charge for EU and Global Push for Anti-Encryption Legislation

For just once, we wish that all sides of the encryption wars would agree on a cease fire and public and governments accept that encryption is a tool and not an end-all in itself.

Freedom Publishers Union has published much content and documents supporting encryption. We are known advocates for encryption and see it as a vital tool to enhance individual's privacy. But not just encryption - strong encryption. We understand its abilities to protect the privacy of an individual's data - which is the purpose of encryption.

Equally, we understand that it is not a government's place to tamper with or modify to any extent encryption algorithms or access methods - ie. implementing government sponsored compulsory back-doors.

We stand by and always aim to protect the civil liberties of individuals and their absolute right to protect their own privacy. The connected world as we know it (as the internet) is under constant mass-surveillance. Thankfully, in a relatively short amount of time since we learned of PRISM and its associated spying programs, the digital world has come a long way, as has encryption. But there is still a long way to go, as we are nowhere near where we should be for protecting ourselves from these mass-surveillance programs. The tools are readily available. The software is already out there and most of it already open-source and known to have not been tampered with. When potential vulnerabilities are detected, patches are quickly developed and pushed out to the public through the open-source distribution model.

During the month of August, France made calls for nations in the European Union to unite and campaign against the use of encryption. It has specifically called upon Germany for help, to get the country to start drumming up support for a campaign to stop implementation of strong encryption. This is a time when the citizens must equally unite and fight back, in support of strong encryption.

Why is France complaining about encryption? According to a recent article published by news giant Reuters, France believes one of the reasons they are struggling to thwart terrorist attacks on home soil is because of encryption. The article specifically points out Telegram and its implementation of end-to-end encryption.

This all needs to be kept in perspective; there are lots of good people, businesses and non-profit organizations that use encryption software on a daily basis, in a completely innocent manner - which is to enhance their privacy and protect important data. No harm intended, encryption used for protection of data and to maintain privacy of legitimate behavior. Whether this data needs to be protected or should be protected is not for governments to make that judgment. It is the right of civil liberties of any individual to make the call whether they want their data protected. Simply standing up and touting that the 'terrorists are using encryption, let's stop all use of encryption' is not only taking the entire thing out of context and perspective, but it also underlines the failings, again, of the understanding of the purpose of encryption.

Telegram has been heavily criticized for its method of encryption and the implementation of its algorithms which used to protect the communications of its users. This criticism has mostly come from respected members of the crypto community. However, there are some conflicts in the validity of the criticism and the actual reliance of the security measures by Telegram. The claims by French authorities that Telegram is a major cause for concern because terrorists are using the software's encrypted chat ability to organize and communicate their operations and their apparent inability to penetrate the software's encryption provide much merit to the software security mode, despite the criticism posed by security researchers.

Freedom Publishers Union takes encryption seriously and we would actually like to see more software services take encryption and its security abilities much more serious. There are still many software services that are used on a daily basis that are still rendered insecure because there is simply no implementation of encryption. However, technology companies claim to be working on more secure implementations of their services, albeit the development and roll out has been slow to date. Despite the Silicon Valley consistently telling us 'we are working on it' and 'it is coming'.

The new French-born attack on encryption (with more EU countries most likely to join), is unjustified. By claiming that use of encryption must be reduced, stopped or back-doors implemented (by law) so governments and their law enforcing and intelligence agencies can snoop around their respective citizens' data is just another gross display that governments still do not understand the pillars of encryption, its purpose and how it actually enables security conscious citizens to protect themselves and their data from the 'bad guys'. Even worse, they're having to use it to protect themselves from their own governments too.

When citizens become scared of the bad people in society, there is most likely issues with rising crime. But when citizens become scared of the bad people within the governments they entrust their confidence, yet who have apparently become absolutely and certifyingly obsessed with knowing everything about everyone and then sharing that information with their international allies, then its another demonstration of the veracity of the ongoing crypto wars and the wider implications of the ongoing mass-surveillance programs.

Unfortunately, the war is between the government and the citizenry - rather than between the government and the bad people.

It's about how we look at it.

Encryption can be viewed and examined from many different aspects. All issues surrounding encryption need to be kept in perspective, otherwise it can be confusing and information that should be of relevant importance becomes just a mess.

Strong encryption is no different than a strong safe. A safe is used to store valuable or secret information, with the assumption that it will be very difficult for anyone to open it without authorization. Law enforcement has been dealing with safes for centuries. If the owner refuses to provide or authorize access, they are held in contempt and law enforcement then has the authority - under a legally obtained warrant - to break into the safe.

Companies like Chubb or Diebold certainly do not build back-doors into their products simply because law enforcement would 'like to have them'. And any attempt to pass legislation that would require a master key to all safes - including banks - would be stopped at the doors of Congress.

Encryption should be treated the same way. In the most famous case to date - breaking into the iPhone that was used by the San Bernardino murderers - the phone was effectively cracked without the assistance of Apple, the carrier or the deceased owner. No one was forced to reveal secrets that made every other device insecure. Although challenges were made to weaken the safe of encryption, nothing was actually legislated and no contempt charges against Apple or the carriers were filed.

This is exactly the way it should be. Treat encryption and safes the same way and be done with these legislative tantrums. It must be understood, if law enforcement does break encryption while executing a warrant, they do not have to share the method with anyone. If they can keep the 'secret' to breaking into an iPhone, then they are welcome to it. All this means is that the defense has to keep working to fix bugs and improve safety. Just as the offense continues to work on breaking through into the safe. Because eventually any such 'secret' will be revealed, the bug fixed and everyone goes back to square one.

Remember that this approach is completely within the boundaries of the Constitution or Charter of most Western nations today. Receiving court permission to gather evidence means that a robust case was made that convinced a judge that there was merit in allowing the action to proceed. And if the warrant was issued without due process, there is redress in law for the plaintiff. If the laws surrounding the execution of these very important components of fair jurisprudence and law enforcement are broken in the execution or obtaining of a warrant, then this can be raised immediately and further legal action taken. We know that this works, as there are hundreds of cases dismissed because of improper procedure every year, including some high-profile cases dealing with exactly this issue in the mass collection of citizen's information in America.

So we come to the conclusion.

Security researchers and cryptologists have been here so many times before. We pose the same argument for encryption, defining it's importance and presenting scenarios to attempt to justify our argument. Those against encryption do the same.

If one was to be uninformed of the definition and purpose of encryption and read media accounts of the arguments and government calls for anti-encryption legislation, it would all seem so simple. "Bad guys are doing bad things with software that allows them to mask their operations and communications." When looking at it through the glasses of realism, you understand the complexities of encryption - its history - its intended purpose - and how it surrounds us already through technology integration. This is too often over-looked when calls are made to reign in encryption use.

We remain confident that common-sense will prevail in the long-term, however it does not mean that we must remain complacent. We will not stand by and watch encryption and security software be attacked. Freedom Publishers Union remains dedicated to upholding civil liberties for all citizens around the world, including encryption and privacy.

Freedom Publishers Union is yet to view any actual EU legislative proposal which has potential to affect, change or outlaw encryption from the current form. We will watch with a keen eye and publish any documents as they become available.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

August 27, 2016 | European Copyright Leak Exposes Plans to Force the Internet to Subsidize Publishers

A just-leaked draft impact assessment on the modernization of European copyright rules could spell the end for many online services in Europe as we know them. The document's recommendations foreshadow new a EU Directive on copyright to be introduced later this year, that will ultimately bind each of the European Union's 28 member states. If these recommendations by the European Commission are put in place, Europe's internet will never be the same, and these impacts are likely to reverberate around the world.

The 182-page document identifies three general objectives-ensuring wider access to content, adapting copyright exceptions to the digital and cross-border environment, and achieving a well-functioning marketplace for copyright. In this initial article we examine the recommendations that fall under the third of these three objectives, which are amongst the most alarming proposals, including new obligations on Internet platforms, and new copyright-like powers for news publishers.

More specifically, this article will look at two of the proposals for what the Commission calls "upstream" problems, or difficulties faced by copyright owners in extracting value from the use of content online. We'll deal with other parts of the document in later posts.

"Sharing of Value" Proposal Exposes Rights-holder Greed

The assumption that copyright owners should be entitled to share in any value created by online platforms is never really examined by the Commission. The theory is that because online platforms are doing rather well in the digital environment, and because traditional publishing industries are doing less well, this gives the publishers some kind of claim to share in the profits of the platforms. It's a questionable starting point, and as we'll see, the recommendations that flow from it are ill-considered and harmful.

The first of the two problems that copyright owners supposedly face in extracting such value is that there is a large amount of user-generated content uploaded by users to sharing platforms, and that European law does not place an obligation on platforms to proactively police this content for possible copyright infringement, but instead relies on the latter to identify that the material has been uploaded without authorization and to request its removal. That existing law strikes a reasonable balance, similar to Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US.

Major entertainment companies characterize this as a problem because it means that copyright owners have less ability to ask online platforms to pay licensing fees for their content. In the case of user-generated content platforms (think YouTube and SoundCloud), the platform can simply offer to remove a copyright-owner's content rather than paying for it-or, in practice, to voluntarily offer a compromise such as YouTube's Content ID that automatically scans uploaded content and shares ad revenues for content identified as the copyright owner's.

As for platforms that offer access to their own library of content (think Netflix and Spotify), rights-holders contend that they may be willing to pay less in order to remain competitive with the user-generated content platforms. In either case, major copyright holders contend that platforms should be paying them more for the content that the platforms make available online.

The European Commission's proposed solution, however, is worse than the supposed problem. The Commission is proposing that user-generated content platforms should be forced to seek, in good faith, to conclude private agreements with copyright owners and to put in place "appropriate and proportionate content identification technologies". In short, the use of something like YouTube's Content ID system is being made compulsory.

This is a treacherous idea for many reasons, but just to give two:

More broadly, this kind of insidious regime of private agreements pushed by government is the kind of cop-out from good lawmaking that EFF calls "Shadow Regulation"; a concept that we'll be introducing in more depth in subsequent Deeplinks posts, where we will give some other examples of the same. But in short, such agreements can embody the worst of all possible approaches, by combining the coercion of government regulation, with the lack of accountability of corporate self-regulation.

A Link Tax in Favor of News Publishers

The European Commission doesn't stop there, but also has a similarly ham-fisted proposal to address the declining revenues of news publishers from their print publications, which leaves them with fewer resources to continue to invest in journalism.

We have previously agreed that this is a real problem. But where the Commission errs is to pin responsibility for this problem on the reuse of news content by web platforms under exceptions to copyright; and it compounds this error by seeking to limit their use of such copyright exceptions going forward.

The Commission's proposal is to award publishers a new copyright-like veto power, layered on top of the copyright that already exists in the published content, allowing them to prevent the online reuse of news content even when a copyright exception applies. This veto power may last for as little as one year, or as many as 50-the Commission leaves this open for now.

This kind of veto power has been described as a link tax-notwithstanding the Commission's protestations that it isn't one-because when the publisher controls even the use of small snippets of news text surrounding a hyperlink to the original article, it essentially amounts to a tax on that link. The result, as seen in Spain, will be the closure of online news portals, and a reduction in traffic to news publishers.

A new wrinkle on this link tax proposal is that the Commission also proposes that publishers who have received a transfer of copyright from authors should also be entitled to collect revenue from whatever copyright levies member states may impose to "compensate" authors for use of their content under copyright exceptions. The notion that "compensation" is needed for users exercising their rights under copyright is a thoroughly perverse one, as we have previously explained. This addition to the link tax proposal is a gift to copyright collecting societies that will further increase the cost and complexity of lawfully reusing content.

What Happens Now?

The impact assessment is not yet a draft law, but it is a crystal clear indication from the European Commission about the content of the law that is is proposing to develop as a draft for approval by the other European institutions, namely the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union. Users will have further opportunities for input into the proposals when they reach that stage. But we'll have the best chance of stopping these misguided proposals if European officials are alerted to our concerns right away. They need to understand that Internet users won't accept the "Shadow Regulation" of intermediaries by requiring them to enter into expensive and error-prone arrangements with copyright owners for the automating flagging of user content. Neither will they accept a new "link tax" for news publishers that could stifle the dissemination of news online.

Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Re-Published by Freedom Publishers Union

Original link, published under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States (CC BY 3.0 US)

July 13, 2016 | An Appeal for the Reduction of Confinement of Chelsea Manning

Freedom Publishers Union has consistently called for better treatment of Chelsea Manning and our call for Clemency remains.

Most notable Chelsea Manning leaks:

Chelsea Manning completed her 6 years of imprisonment by May 21, 2016. While it is still a point to ponder whether she should be called a whistleblower or a traitor, as she violated the terms and conditions of her employer. She was charged with 16 charges including those under the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

At Freedom Publishers Union we do not declare whether her confinement is right or wrong, but to analyze the fact that her punishment is much more than her crime (if whatever she did should be referred to as a crime).


Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) is responsible for the biggest military leak in history [at the time of going to press], which showed the 'other' face of modern warfare. An aspect our governments do not want us to know.

The first leak was a video of a US Army Apache helicopter brutally killing civilians in Baghdad, Iraq. Helicopters misidentified two Reuters journalists as terrorists carrying guns. Without any warning or opportunity to surrender, the video shows the helicopter's engagement, killing the innocent civilians.

Later, they also fired on a van which came on-site to collect the bodies of injured and dead. The people from the van also received the same fate. Two children were also injured due to deliberate civilian firing. The children were sitting in front seat of the van yet the pilots ignored the fact and claimed that it was their fault that they bring children to a crime scene.

The video was leaked to Wikileaks which then produced the video and released it under the title of "Collateral Murder". Many activists agreed on the name as the video clearly describes just that. Manning also leaked ~91,000 reports covering the war from 2004 to 2010 known as "Afghan War Diary". Reports also describe the number of persons stated to be killed, wounded or detailed during the course of the war in Afghanistan.

The Afghan War Diary is the most significant archive about the reality of war to have ever been released during the course of a war. The deaths of tens of thousands is normally only a statistic but the archive reveals the locations and the key events behind each most of these deaths. "We hope its release will lead to a comprehensive understanding of the war in Afghanistan and provide the raw ingredients necessary to change its course", says Wikileaks Editor, Julian Assange.

Manning is also responsible for ~390,000 classified military documents on the war and occupation in Iraq, from 2004 to 2009, as told by soldiers in the US Army. Notably, the months of May 2004 and March 2009 are absent. This is known as "Iraq War Diary" and is one of the biggest military warfare data leaks in history. The majority of deaths in the Iraq war is civilians (60%) which is [average] 31 civilians dying everyday over the span of 6 years. During that time Iraq was five times more lethal with respect to equivalent population.

"Cablegate" is another affiliation of Manning's data leaks, in which ~250,000 US diplomatic cables were leaked which comprised of talk from 274 embassies around the world. This data shows the spying nature of US Government and how governments have many faces.


Since her confinement, Manning has been awarded many times. She is also three time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Which clearly indicates her good deeds towards the data leak concept. But as the charges are applied on her, it is clearly a battle between law and ethics. Everyone must agree that no law is flawless and ethics are the same throughout the world. We are taught from our early childhood about how transparency, truth and honesty are essential qualities and one must do good no matter what. Chelsea Manning did the right thing and got many appraisals for that but the law is clearly not happy with her.

She was reported to authorities by one of her confidants, a renowned hacker [at the time]. After confinement she stated that her intention was not to hurt anyone or give the leaked information into the wrong hands, but to ensure transparency. Manning's leaked documents showed us how modern warfare looks and how innocent civilians are caught up in conflict and killed because of corrupt and unethical politics.

Many of us will agree that the Iraq and Afghan war(s) changed the world, but not for the better. The Arab Spring is a result of multiple failures of US operations in these countries and their neighbors.

Then we have the violent terrorist group, known as "Islamic State [also known as ISIS, ISIL, Daesh]" which effectively developed as a result of the power vacuum left by the Western invasion in the Middle-East.

War is bad and these documents are proof of that.

Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die. --Herbert Hoover

This was not the first time when documents regarding the war became helpful and showed wider harms to the rest of the world. The Diary of Anne Frank describes the situation of war [World War II, 1947] and today we can imagine the torridness of that era just by analyzing such documents. Back in those days when Adolf Hitler was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize [1939], these documents show us their importance. Some of us agree that single photo of Napalm Girl helped end the Vietnam War. So we can say that the data leaks by Chelsea Manning is good for whole mankind.


Now, the more important thing is how this whole incident is going to affect all of us. Whistleblowers are definitely seen as selfless martyrs doing the right thing for the right cause. But this incident shows how whistleblower protection must be a real thing with real powers. And Manning's imprisonment for this duration [35 years] is too much punishment and this contrasts with the decision of the rest of the world where Manning is appreciated for her contributions. If the confinement period is not reduced very soon, then surely whistleblowing will be a thing of the past and we will keep struggling with corruption and selfishness of our leaders.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

July 9, 2016 | Data or Just Numbers? British Intelligence Gathering Dates Back to 1990's

On April 21, 2016, The Guardian published an article referencing documents released by Privacy International which detailed extensive surveillance, which dates back to the 1990's and how it was to be the primary source of intelligence gathering for Britain's intelligence organizations - GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.

Freedom Publishers Union has viewed the documents, which includes 116 documents detailing intelligence gathering information across many hundreds of pages.

The document dump was provided by Privacy International.

Through our US Press Office, upon closer review of the document dump by Freedom Publishers Union Sub-Editor, Brett Brennan, he provided the following analysis of the history of intelligence, whether privacy still exists and how encryption is still so important, as failing on encryption marks you as just another 'suspect' on a very long list.

I work with clients that take available data sources - most of them open in the public record - and use data warehouses to compile multiple sources of information into a detailed profile of literally millions of people. Financial institutions and risk analysis firms have access to additional private data which they can legally, whilst following privacy guidelines, combine with other data sources - often the same public data - to create even more detailed profiles of individuals. Then, law enforcement can take the data and combine it with their legally obtained sources to create an even more detailed insight into people's lives.

There are rules and laws surrounding what can and cannot be done with this information. Most of these agencies work within those rules. Many of the rules didn't exist a decade ago, far less back through the 20th century. FOIA works both ways: I can walk into a courthouse or records office and look at data about anyone that is on public record, then take that information with me and composite it with other information that obtain - legally and openly - from other sources and build a profile that would be scary to anyone other than a data scientist.

What we all need to consider is not so much the collection and correlation of this data. What is far, far more important is the uses that this data is often compiled for. Taking a bulk collection of CDR's (Call Detail Records - telephone bills) and using it as an input into a profiling system doesn't violate legal privacy. No one is identified in the bulk data, it's just data - impersonal, anonymous and massive. Creating a profile of anyone based on the data in that data-set also isn't an invasion of privacy - it's still just data, with more attributes.

It's only when that data is put through a filter and a model is created to use the data that we first start getting close to pin-pointing the individuals contained within. It's all in the 'context of the use', not the data itself, that defines an invasion of privacy or anonymity. And in most of the Western world, that last step requires legal oversight.

Let me put it another way. My Wife mines huge amounts of data from public records doing genealogy research. Most of the data she dumps, simply because it doesn't fit the model (family history) that she is using as the filter criteria. She has "viewed" private information that is in the public domain, but doesn't act on it. When she does use the data and enhances it with other sources, she can paint a more detailed picture of the people that she is analyzing. Cheating husbands and wives can be identified, splits in a family that even the family didn't know about at the time, along with a lot more information about the financial and even mental state of those individuals that have their data in public records.

But even armed with that information, she still has not violated any privacy laws of morals. Her correlation is not the causation of the events that happened to these people. If she publishes the newly correlated data - which she (and everybody else involved in genealogy research does) - she still hasn't violated privacy laws. The data is in public domain and effectively, anyone can do the same process and arrive at the same data-set. The consequence of this publication may cause people who are unaware of the information to feel as though their privacy has been violated, simply because this new view of the data breaks their preconceived and strongly held belief of what the 'story' of their ancestors and living relatives is.

When a Government or other associated agency collects data, it is simply taking the data-sets and correlating them into a suitable model. The result set is still nothing but just data, but it is now data that meets the criteria of the model - the filter - being applied to it. It is only when that data is used to precipitate an action does it trigger consequences.

This brings us to the 'real' fears about data collection. When there are thousands of laws being enforced, all of us are in violation of some law at some point. Maybe we skipped out on paying a parking ticket back in 1979 and that minor violation has gone to warrant for arrest due to the failure to comply with the parking law. If that data is put into a database that any law enforcement agency can access and they choose to check the ownership record of a vehicle against outstanding warrants (mostly looking for stolen vehicles and criminals known to possess a specific vehicle), they might just find that the person who skipped that $12 parking ticket is wanted back in Kansas City for a criminal charge. They can then stop and arrest that person legally - and because there is a crime involved - perform additional actions to determine if more crimes have been committed by that individual. Like having an open beer can in the car, which remains a crime in most of the 50 States in the US, that requires arrest and arraignment. So an unsuspecting person who has completely forgotten about a trivial crime committed 20 years in the past and who has some trash in his car, ends up incarcerated for a day or two, loses their driving privileges and pays a hefty $2000 fine.

People are scared of being arrested for something minor. This is simply because with new data collection capabilities, law enforcement can uncover the violation and make a legal arrest. Cops have been doing this for centuries without the help of bulk data collection. All computers do is make enforcing the law - even completely trivial laws - that much easier.

Privacy is about hiding information. The same as State Secrets. The reason we hide information is to prevent moral or legal implications to change our lives. If we had a single law - one single law - in force throughout the world, there would be people who had violated it always worrying about being caught. Discovery of this violation through data analysis would be a violation of their privacy. A completely legal and acceptable violation because laws protect the rights of the many against the transgressions of the few.

It can not be disputed that privacy is dead and gone. Never collecting any data won't change that. We simply return to the halcyon days of the 1960's where testimony (unreliable) and opinions (less reliable) substitute for evidence. Any laws we enact around the use of data to prevent unauthorized use are completely mooted when we live our lives on Facebook and Twitter, literally.

Until strong and evolving encryption is used by everyone, then anyone who uses encryption will be flagged by traffic analysis as a suspect. Instead, let's deal with privacy from the root cause backwards. Let's fix the laws so that anyone can understand which law they violate immediately, rather than worrying about something that they just don't know.

Data is extra-judicial. It has no value, use or worth as a raw piece of information. Phone numbers are just a random string of numbers, until a model translates them into a useful piece of information. Data is a Heisenberg uncertainty: until you give it context and a model, it doesn't exist. Only by understanding the context of the data we generate in our life-wake can we understand its value. And by removing the cause of the fear most people feel, more so in a post-Snowden era, they can get on with their lives without worrying about who has access to their data. Because without laws to provide context, it's just Heisenberg numbers.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

June 17, 2016 | Death Penalty: Is it Justified or Just Plain Wrong and Unethical?

May 13, 2016, The Guardian published an article on pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, and their decision to ban its products, through increased control in an effort to ensure that the company's products are not used for the purpose of lethal injection in prisons.

Freedom Publishers Union as an organization takes a strong stance against the death penalty in any country. On June 9, 2015, we released a Press Statement which initiated our global condemnation against any nation that practices the death penalty.

Death as a punishment has been the reason of debate for a long time. Before we start analyzing the pros and cons of death as punishment, we must consider the opinions and mindset of whole humanity.

In many religions, people celebrate the death as it appears to them as a gateway of another life. But there are very few communities that celebrate the death of young ones.

It can not be questioned that death penalty is extreme punishment. Usually, we humans try to separate some individuals from the rest of us because we think that these individuals are dangerous to others as they violate some laws who are made for betterment of everyone. We hope that within the time of solitude, that criminal will either learn to live as everyone or he/she will be too weak to commit a crime after the solitude.

But a criminals perspective is totally different. Punishment for them is not related with introspection but pain for them and their loved ones. They fear to commit crime because they and their loved ones will be tortured for their heinous act. The gentlemen who decide the punishment for a criminal hope that during the imprisonment, the person will look into their inner-self and he/she will try to be good. But that is not true always.

Death punishment comes as a liberty to some criminals. They do not think much while committing a crime because their pain is for once only. Above all these, terrorists affiliated with Jihad embrace death. Their mindset tells them that death while committing a crime is guarantee to be martyr. They believe and hope that after death they will go to heaven, so-called Jannat, where they'll be caressed by fairies. These criminals are more worried about their after life. Death is not a punishment for them at all. But these incidents encourage others like them to commit crime and reserve some place in heaven.

While we are talking about artificial death, we must make equal consideration of euthanasia. It is also known as "death due to mercy". Euthanasia can be categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is illegal in all countries, as we understand.

Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder.

Methods which are used to carry out euthanasia are selected in such a way that the candidate feels the least amount of pain. But the same is true for the death penalty as well, or supposedly. We stress there are many cases and claims of abuse of the practice of the death penalty through lethal injection. And these claims can not be ignored. Some countries do not kill people for crime. Other countries who still believe in law and democracy attempt to use the least painful method for death. In India, where hanging is method for death, the executioner prepares a special rope for hanging. He will even go to lengths to apply wax on the rope so that death is instantaneous and painless.

So we can see that criminals fear of pain and the ultimate penalty of death does not provide the pain they should in-fact be afraid of. While a majority of criminals embrace death. In all ways, the death penalty is totally illogical because people who commit the heinous crimes and get punished by death are abnormal people. They are mentally unstable and not enough attention is paid to this fact and the immediate need for more medical treatment, as an alternative to the death penalty.

However, the death penalty itself is not designed to impact the mental state of the individual being killed. Rather, it is intended to act as a deterrent to those elements of society that may be contemplating the commission of a heinous crime. It also acts to provide a sense of justice to other, 'decent' people in that society: the perpetrator of this horrid, heinous crime is being removed completely from society for all eternity.

It is this distinction that centers the debate on societal ritual killing for justice. The debate is whether the death penalty is a sufficient deterrent to others and if it truly provides society with the catharsis and closure needed to heal from the emotional upset of the crime.

In most modern societies, the majority of murders are committed as crimes of passion. They are the result of a momentary event that causes insanity in the perpetrator. Enough to override their instilled morality. It is difficult to see societal value in death as punishment for these crimes. Many of these perpetrators end up committing suicide on their own when the impact of their actions finally hits them.

The few murders that remain - those committed by psychopaths and fanatics (which are just a special case of psychopath) - are not going to feel remorse over their crime. Indeed, most feel satisfaction as a result of their actions and are expecting complete release and approbation from their deaths. Keeping them alive does nothing to cause remorse; killing them does nothing but satisfy them.

In these cases, the benefit to the greater society needs to be analyzed. If society is going to benefit psychologically from their killing, then it would be best to provide this closure, as the perpetrator just doesn't care. However, the way that the killing is done may need to be altered in order for it to not only assuage society's feelings, but to send a message to other potential murderers that this will not get them the satisfaction they want. This would probably involve setting aside the "cruel and unusual" punishment clauses that promise a humane death. How this is done is a topic for another debate on this already very complex and sensitive topic.

US Press Office - Salt Lake City News

April 28, 2016 | Australia's Continued Attempt to Silence Off-Shore Detention Center Whistleblowers

Freedom Publishers Union originally raised concerns over Australia's Border Force legislation in an Editorial published on June 25, 2015.

The Border Force Bill 2015 contains disturbing elements which aim to gag whistleblowers who could potentially speak out against Government wrongdoing or from associated organizations contracted by the Australian Government.

Detainees on Australia's off-shore detention facilities of Nauru and Manus Island are held under conditions which have been deemed to violate international treaties on human rights. Amnesty International called the conditions witnessed on Nauru "a human rights catastrophe".

Freedom Publishers Union has continuously raised concerns over the conditions of detainees of Australia's off-shore detention facilities. Additionally, our calls have remained consistent that the conditions on these facilities that asylum seekers and refugees are held under is ethically and morally unacceptable and a violation of human rights.

In another Editorial published on October 2014, questions were being raised whether Australia was following the basic principles set out in the United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Then on April 26, 2016, came a landmark decision from Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court, which concluded that the detention of asylum seekers and refugees on Manus Island is illegal, a violation of the country's Constitution and a violation of human rights and civil liberties. Further, the Supreme Court urged both Papua New Guinea and Australia to take immediate steps to ensure detainees have freedom of passage and movement. Justice Terence Higgins said that to continuously have those seeking refugee status "as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status, is to offend against their rights and freedoms".

Freedom Publishers Union has accessed the legal document released from the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea. Australia's public broadcaster ABC, aired on its television program Four Corners, details of the stories from former medical staff who have worked on off-shore detention centers, under the operations of International SOS and its subsidiary, International Health and Medical Services.

International Health and Medical Services runs the medical services provided on Manus Island.

The medical practitioners who have spoken out on the program are essentially defying the restrictions put on them under the aforementioned Australian Border Force Bill. Under the Bill, the medical practitioners could potentially be prosecuted and jailed for revealing the disturbing details and mismanagement of medical staff and the operations that have been occurring on Manus Island.

The details revealed by the former staff who have either worked directly at the facility or associated with its operations, are alarming. Equally alarming is the gross mismanagement and sheer ignorance put forth by Australia's Department of Immigration and Border Force who are outright ignoring the advice and recommendations of medical staff and healthcare workers, which is resulting in an already dire situation of detainee's health conditions, getting worse. This very mismanagement and ignorance from Department of Immigration and Border Force resulted in the death of Iranian detainee Hamid Khazaei.

It was advised from several medical workers on Manus Island that Hamid Khazaei be transferred to a better equipped medical hospital, without delay. Immigration officials in Australia halted any transfer of Mr. Khazaei citing that there were issues with his visa. His medical condition continued to deteriorate further and the Department was again advised that Mr. Khazaei be transferred, but this time to mainland Australia and to a hospital in the city of Brisbane. This request from medical staff was also initially ignored and delays continued.

After much delay by Australian Immigration officials, a transfer to Brisbane was eventually approved for Mr. Khazaei. This decision came at a time when doctors already suspected him to be "brain-dead", as revealed by medical staff who have spoken out about the details. Their suspicions were proven correct when Mr. Khazaei arrived at Brisbane's Mater Hospital. His condition was so bad he was kept alive only by life-support machine. Mr. Khazaei's life-support was switched off several days after his arrival on mainland Australia.

It's important to understand the two different sides to the story. However, Freedom Publishers Union believes they are directly related. The rules which have been set out in the Border Force legislation are a clear indication of the policy's failures. By disallowing and restricting visits from journalists and media into the detention facility on Manus Island, making it illegal to report on operations of the facility and scaling back all forms of operational transparency allows the detention center to operate in near-secrecy which resembles something of a military base.

Section 42 of the Act is titled "Secrecy". The term "Entrusted person" essentially means employees, consultants and contractors. In short, everyone involved in the operations of these torrid facilities. "Protected information" means A information held by detention centers.

Continued attempts to restrict the exposure of the concerns expressed by whistleblowers by gagging and the lingering potential of 2-year imprisonment for those who reveal such operational details and information, is not how democracy should function.

By disallowing and literally shutting down every window of opportunity which sees off-shore detention centers scrutinized by the wider public, we will almost certainly continue to see more examples of clear mismanagement and dysfunction at these centers and also in the operational back-end of the Department of Immigration and Border Force. This is not simply an administration error which has resulted in the death of Mr. Khazaei. It is a direct result of flawed and failed Border Force legislation and immigration policy which has enabled this to happen.

If the Australian Government or Government appointed contractors are violating the United Nations and Papua New Guinea human rights laws (or any other Constitutional or civil liberties laws) then there is clear justification for a legal case against Australia. [As we go to press with this story and following on from the legal decision from PNG deeming the Manus Island detention center illegal and violating the PNG Constitution through loss of civil liberties, the PNG Government has now ordered that the center be closed. The PNG Government and Australia are currently making arrangements to resettle/move current detainees held at the Manus Island facility. No final decision has yet been made as this is currently developing news.]

One can not question the knowledge and understanding of the direct operations and what occurs on off-shore detention centers which house asylum seekers and refugees. The Australian Government is well aware of the problems that are present in off-shore detention facilities, in addition to its clear administrative problems present which are on display by the Department of Immigration and Border Force being unable to cope with the workload of everyday operations, let alone deal with serious problems when they do arise. Such is clear with the terrible case and tragic death of Hamid Khazaei, which if dealt with swiftly and as recommended by medical staff as they are experts in their field, the fatality of an asylum seeker/refugee who is under the care of Australia could possibly have been avoided.

What are the real and viable options Australia has in dealing with its asylum seekers and refugees? Well, there are options of establishing a new facility on mainland Australia which can be operated with much closer supervision and which should allow for media and journalists to visit the facility, paving the way for much more transparent operations than what off-shore detention currently offers. Such proposals have been made by some Australian Politicians and Senators. The concerns continue to grow as more details of human rights violations are exposed. In-fact, it has become party policy of some small political parties in Australia that the off-shore detention centers of Nauru and Manus Island be closed immediately, following the establishment of a new facility of the mainland. Such a solution would also have a realistic added benefit of a more cost effective solution than the current expensive operations of off-shore detention. Human rights of those seeking asylum and those with who have acquired genuine refugee status could also be closely scrutinized and to some degree, we would see their civil liberties be upheld. After all, seeking asylum is not illegal. Violating human rights and stripping people of civil liberties in a democratic sovereign State is illegal. That is what is being carried out by the Australian Government, its contractors and its Department of Immigration and Border Force, through the use of the Border Force legislation and allowing it to all occur in secret whilst gagging those who speak out of this abuse.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

| Permission to republish | Donate

February 19, 2016 | Site Blocking and Censorship Will Not Reduce Piracy

As reported on the torrent news website TorrentFreak, the attacks against Australian internet users has jumped into another stage.

The next stage of the attack is being led by Australian premium cable subscriber, Foxtel. Additionally, in a separate yet related legal filing, Village RoadShow have also launched their own legal action.

Combined, the legal action of the two entertainment entities is supposedly in-favor of site-blocking mechanisms through DNS blocking. Any site blocking implemented would aim to block mainstream file sharing websites and websites that 'supposedly' promote and enable piracy.

Freedom Publishers Union has always advocated freedom of information flow on the internet, without blocking, without censorship and without restriction. We do not condone piracy and do not believe a majority of Australian (and International) internet users are mass-pirates. This majority use file sharing websites for a combination of reasons, including lack of access to compatible legal material which is free of any type of digital rights management (DRM) and a genuine intent of personal viewing/listening and fair use.

Detailed in a Report compiled for the Australian Department of Communications, released on June 24, 2015, which focused on online copyright infringement of Australians aged 12+, key findings revealed that 28% of users who downloaded illegal content in some form, had also paid for legal content. So there is a positive perspective. There is definitely room for improvement, yet there is equal room for improvement from entertainment companies offering digital content to Australian internet users which can match or better the quality that can easily be accessed for free through file sharing websites.

Let's be realistic; Apple has done a fine job for delivering music tracks and albums through its iTunes service. However, if a user chooses to use the Linux operating system, iTunes is simply not an option for them as the operating system is not supported by Apple. Movies are much the same. Movie files are normally accessed through some type of portal which requires a user to register to all kinds of untrustworthy services and way too many sign-up details required. And if a user is patient enough to tolerate all the associated sign-up rubbish and reach a point where the movie is ready to be delivered to the user digitally via download, it usually requires them to download and install a proprietary media player distributed by the studio providing the digital download. Both mainstream options for music and movie entertainment and limited, restricting and highly inflexible. This is why internet users pirate music and movies. More so in Australia because the access and options are often limited in comparison to that of the United States.

So let's get to the crux of the entire problem; flexibility. It is what internet users want. Music lovers want to be able to simply click DOWNLOAD on that MP3/AAC file or album and get exactly what they want within minimal effort and getting a resulting digital file free from all DRM. And the scenario is exactly the same for movies. Movie buffs simply want to perform the same actions as above and get a resulting file, again, free from all forms of DRM and in MKV/MP4 format.

Internet users like files in formats which can be migrated, moved and copied to their personal music devices, smartphones and media players. Only when the music industry and movie studios can emulate the ease-of-access and flexibility that file sharing websites offer, and on all operating systems and platforms will the legal alternatives offered become equally attractive. So far, both the music industry and movie studios have failed. In fact, they have failed so badly that they have not even commenced to recognize where the problem lies. Well, there it is. It's ironic that they spend millions of dollars every year attempting to counteract piracy levels, when the real solution is so simple and written right in front of their eyes - Ease-of-access, DRM free and flexible file format.

Freedom Publishers Union and our media partner Quality Publishing Works has released many Press Statements, combined with the many Editorials on the same topic, all in support of freedom of information flow and fair use policy of digital media and access to file sharing websites. We do believe that file sharing websites and legal media entertainment websites offering the same files for reasonable cost can live in harmony on the internet.

On March 6, 2015, Freedom Publishers Union along with limited collaboration with Pirate Party Australia, made a 8-page submission to Communications Alliance Ltd. in response to the Copyright Notice Scheme Draft Industry Code.

In the submission's opening Statement, former Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union, Chris Jones, made claim that the Copyright Notice Scheme was on the right track to becoming a viable code, if Clauses and Provisions were included which enable "fair use". The terms of "fair use" can not be under-recognized, as they always are. It is not a method of escaping penalty for illegally downloading content. It is simply something that actually does occur and should be recognized exactly for what it is - fair use of the media accessed.

Currently, all legal action filed from Foxtel and Village RoadShow, along with the potential for more in the future, are still outstanding and it will take time to go through all the usual legal channels of process. So nothing will change without prior warning. File sharing websites are not going to suddenly become inaccessible for Australian internet users.

In conclusion, we must point out the obvious; piracy is real. We have never denied this. But so is the realistic scenario of genuine innocent internet users who do use file sharing websites for genuine personal entertainment listening and viewing, often on a very reasonable scale. It's well documented that these types of users also do purchase legal material in addition to testing the waters with illegally downloaded content. Again, this is why we strongly advocate on fair use policy as it would potentially eliminate time wasting legal pursuit of these types of users.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support and advocate for the open access and freedom of information flow on the internet, which also extends to file sharing websites. Finally, as a precaution of concern for internet security and privacy of users, we also take this opportunity to re-iterate our call for internet users to use Tor Browser where appropriate and where specific blocking and censorship measures are implemented.

Internet censorship must stop. Freedom of information and data must flow freely without interference or limits and net neutrality must be upheld.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

| Permission to republish | Donate

June 25, 2015 | Australia's Democracy, Freedom and Civil Liberties Under Threat

The Australian Government has gone out of its way to make a dramatic shift towards ripping the democratic freedoms and civil liberties from its citizens.

Since the Liberal Government was elected to Parliament in September 2013, under the leadership of Tony Abbott, Freedom Publishers Union has witnessed too much controversial legislation which directly attacks multiple facets of Australia's freedom. Intertwined inside all the complex legislation, freedom of expression has been attacked and freedom of the press has also taken a hit. As has journalism and publishing.

The current Government has been heavily criticized for legislation which literally stampedes on these freedoms, which Australia has previously enjoyed. Unfortunately, Australia's Liberal Government has not solely had Australian citizens in its cross-hair. Refugees and asylum seekers have also had a target painted on their backs and their boats, along with the country's digital society, with recent passing of copyright reform legislation and measures to implement website blocking and filtering technology - paving the legal path to a censored and filtered internet for Australia.

Australians holding dual-citizenship (also known as dual-nationals) are now in the political spotlight, as the Government has just introduced measures to enable easy revocation of Australian citizenship and deportation to a country of origin, through amendments being made to the Citizenship Act 2007. The final details are yet to be finalized.

On almost every occasion, the opposition Labor Party of Australia has effectively failed the Australian public by providing almost nil opposition or alternative proposal to counteract the controversial and unfair legislation which attacks Australia's freedom and citizen's rights.

The Labor Party of Australia has simply followed suit, based on misinformation (and often lies) and rhetoric from the Liberal Party, in an effort to get its suite of counter-terrorism legislation passed through the Australian Parliament and Senate.

The Border Force Bill 2015 raises concerns in relation to gagging potential whistleblowers. In the legislation, there is potential 2-year imprisonment for health workers who reveal details and information on conditions of detention centers, where refugees and asylum seekers are detained, such as Nauru and Manus Island. Both for which have been criticized internationally and by Australia's own Human Rights Commissioner in a recently released detailed report, for human rights abuse and treatment of detainees.

Australia's national public television and radio broadcaster, ABC, points out-Section 42 of the Act is titled "Secrecy". The term "Entrusted person" essentially means employees, consultants and contractors. In short, everyone involved in the operations of these torrid facilities. "Protected information" means any information held by detention centers.

The terminology used and for which the Border Force Bill contains, is vast and very wide-spread. This is deliberate in an effort to ensure no leaks occur from inside Nauru or Manus Island - an attempt at gagging and preventing any potential whistleblowers.

We have grave concerns for both of the aforementioned bills and their included provisions. Specifically, we have concerns with the proposed changes for the dual-citizenship legislation. The changes would be made through expansion of Section 35 of the current Citizenship Act 2007. Under the new laws, Australian citizenship status can be revoked from Australians holding dual-citizenship and can then be forcefully removed from Australia and deported back to country of origin.

How is this decided? By one single Government Minister. Yes. There is no judicial oversight or involvement in the process and the decision will be handed down by the Australian Immigration Minister of the day, currently Peter Dutton MP.

The process and final decision from the Minister is supposedly based off evidence and information on the individual and their activities, both home and abroad, as provided and sourced by Australia's intelligence and spy agency, ASIO.

And it doesn't end there. The Liberal Government has flagged proposals for getting the new laws to apply to retrospective cases, which raises the concern of what so-called evidence and information the Government is using to apply the new laws to old cases and how reliable this information can be. How far back does it want to go? As yet, this much is unclear.

As we have typically seen with all this over-hyped legislation, it all comes presented and shrouded under the buzz-terms of the day - "terrorism" and "national security". Media outlets have publicly criticized the proposals. The ABC has deemed the dual-citizenship changes "unconstitutional" and possibly "illegal". Whilst one of Australia's most prominent advocates for refugees, asylum seekers and human rights, Julian Burnside, has also been critical of the legislation.

At the time of going to press, the proposals are under closer review of the Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Update: On July 1, 2015, The Guardian published an Open Letter written and signed by 41 professionals, ranging from health workers, medical practitioners, school teachers, youth workers, social services workers and humanitarian officers.

The Guardian reports, "More than 40 staff who have worked at detention centers on Manus Island, Nauru and across the Australian mainland have spoken out on the same day that a new offence comes into force that criminalizes the disclosure of information.".

The letter effectively defies the new law and challenges the Federal Government, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to prosecute the signatories of the letter, so the matter can be resolved in the public presence in open court proceedings.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center

| Permission to republish | Donate

October 4, 2014 | Australian Government May Be in Violation of 11 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Freedom Publishers Union is publishing our growing concerns that with new amendments and legislation the Australian Government is currently implementing, it genuinely raises the legitimate question of whether Australia is violating human rights, based on the United Nations' very own document.

Freedom Publishers Union is not claiming that any specific legislation or section of any legislation does actually violate any of these rights. We simply note there are specifics in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights document, which we believe require very careful consideration from the Australian Government.

We also understand that the said document from the United Nations is not a legally binding document and United Nations countries are not legally bound to abide by the Declaration. But it does provide the basic fundamentals of civil and human rights within a supposed free and democratic country. Something Australia is quickly shifting away from.

As the Declaration is not legally binding, it begins to raise the question of whether there is a valid point of having the Declaration in the first place if countries are to simply outright ignore the civil rights of its citizens and go ahead and introduce legislation which legally wavers the country responsible for these human and civil rights.

Australia proudly touts itself as being one the eight original countries involved in drafting the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australia also so proudly chants how much of important role it played in the founding of the United Nations and the UN Charter. If Australia is so proud of its achievements and its involvements in the United Nations, then it raises further questions of the integrity of the current Australian Government and how it so proudly and possibly, breaks up to 11 of the Articles in the United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Asia/Pacific Press Office - Mumbai Press Center


January 25, 2017 | Increased access to Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Data Retention Data/Meta-data

Freedom Publishers Union would like to make a formal Submission in response to the Access to telecommunications data in civil proceedings matter.

We are frmly against any extension of access to data/meta-data collected from the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Data Retention regime, to civil proceedings. Freedom Publishers Union is against the regime which legally allowed for surveillance to be implemented in Australia, on a mass scale in comparison to the operations that were already being carried out by intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

We do respect that Australia's democratic and Parliamentary process allowed this Bill to pass, and we must respect it. However, we believe that any extension of access of any information, data and meta-data collected through this program is completely unjustifed and unnecessary. This is backed by the Advisory Report, carried out by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security - where it has clearly been defned in the Report that it is not recommended that civil proceedings be allowed access of the said data.

We echo this recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Freedom Publishers Union would like a better explanation of what any new law will do. We express concern and do not want any court to be able to do an unnecessary 'NSA - style' data grab for civil proceedings. To our understanding, no reason(s) has (or have) been outlined by the Attorney General's website for any specifc scenario that could justify any extension of access.

Copyright remains at the heart of our concerns, that any new law(s) that permit increased access would be used to pursue cases of copyright infringement , which we must point out is not the reason this surveillance Bill was established. There are already copyright laws that allow for investigation into possible copyright infringement. We believe that current copyright laws are sufficient and provide enough access to allow for investigations into copyright infringement. Albeit we acknowledge these laws are very much outdated and advocate that any amendment to these laws should remain separate.

Additionally, and in conclusion, we do want to preserve access to court records as required, to permit appropriate appeals and legal research. But we specify, this should remain completely separate to permitted access of data/meta-data from the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Data Retention regime.

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson

May 12, 2016 | Productivity Commission Publication of Intellectual Property Arrangements Draft Report

Freedom Publishers Union would like to make a formal Submission in response to the Intellectual Property Arrangements Draft Report.

We commend the report and its greater detail, as it provides the best source of information related to recommendations for reform to intellectual property and copyright in Australia.

Freedom Publishers Union has always advocated and supported calls which demonstrate the need for a sensible and realistic approach to assist the reform of the aforementioned laws and legislation in Australia, whilst upholding current outstanding international obligations.

We commend the following key recommendations as presented in the Intellectual Property Arrangements Draft Report:


We support a free and open internet across the entire world which provides unrestricted flow of information and adheres to proper net neutrality principles. Geoblocking is a major hurdle which puts restrictions on internet users rights and permissions to access specific content. Companies and persons who carry out technical operations which go towards implementing geoblocking mechanisms are failing to uphold the very basic principles of net neutrality and Freedom Publishers Union condemns this behavior of restricting specific internet users to specific content and deem it unacceptable.

Internet users who aim to and successfully circumvent geoblocking in an effort to simply access legal content which should be available to them without having to resort to the use of such circumvention techniques, should not be presented as criminals and should not be punished, in cases where they are accessing and paying for legal content and of which has no financial burden or effect on the content producers and/or distributors.

Essentially, we would support any recommendations made by the Productivity Commission which would support and legally allow for use of geoblocking circumvention techniques.

Copyright reform

In its current form, we believe that Australia's (and the entire world's) copyright laws are much too restrictive, are far out-dated and are a major contributor to high levels of piracy. Consumers have demonstrated their frustrations with out-dated copyright laws which do not reflect current content and media use in a digitally connected world. When copyright laws were devised, digital media and the way it is used by consumers today (legally and illegally) was not considered, for obvious reasons.

Therefore, we would support the Productivity Commission's recommendations to have copyright law reformed and the duration of copyright reduced to a more reasonable time frame. Currently, copyright is having a negative effect to what it is supposed to control - fair-use of material, content and media covered under copyright law.


Emphasis must be made on fair-use of copyrighted material, content and media. Currently, we can see no fair-use provisions or clauses which accommodate the behavior and methods of how material, content and media is sourced, used and shared in the 'modern age'. It's a trait of our very human nature to want to use, try, test and share everything that we access, at a personal level. Copyright laws put heavy restrictions and burdens on consumers and do not allow for any type of defined fair-use of such content.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the Productivity Commission to place emphasis on recommendations that promote implementation of fair-use provisions and clauses to be amended into copyright reform. With legally allowable fair-use, we believe that this will ease the burden off content and media producers who feel that their content usage that is copyrighted is being abused or the copyright being ignored. In many cases it is not and in-fact, the content and media is being used or shared in a very fair, acceptable and what we consider 'reasonable' manner which has absolute minimal or no financial impact on producers of copyrighted content.

With all of the above taken into consideration, Freedom Publishers Union believes that the Productivity Commission's key recommendations which primarily promote reform of intellectual property rights in Australia, whilst maintaining our international obligations under current (and future) international trade agreements is a great start to achieving overdue reform of the IP sector and to assist in promoting a positive approach to legislative reform that could potentially be fair for all parties.

Amit Gautam - Spokesperson


December 12, 2017 | We Support Wikileaks, Despite Obvious Bias

We refer to recent revelations of Wikileaks corresponding with Donald Trump Jnr. on matters related to the Clinton/Trump Presidential Election campaign.

It has now become clear that Wikileaks has expressed its bias. To a certain degree, this does change our position of support towards Wikileaks in which we want to make very clear.

We will continue to support the work of Wikileaks. However, we trust them as a document source. Additionally, we support the articles presented on Wikileaks that accompany their publications, but now take on a fresh view that it is presented with a certain amount of bias. A view of bias that we did not carry before.

This brings Wikileaks into line with our acceptance and determination of trust towards other media organizations that are part of our trusted sources through out strict editorial methods and standards.

We believe Freedom Publishers Union has some of the strictest editorial standards of independent media and we intend to remain strict, to ensure our focus on accuracy and fact-checked information remains.

December 4, 2017 | Appointment of Barrett Brown and Biplab Das, as Freedom Publishers Union Advisory Board Members

We are proud to announce the official appointment of Barrett Brown as the newest member to be appointed to the Freedom Publishers Union Advisory Board.

We are also proud to make the additional announcement of the appointment of Biplab Das, also joining as a member of the Advisory Board.

Freedom Publishers Union will use their combined extensive and rich knowledge of the greater importance of independent media and freedom of information, and integrate it into the already existing collective knowledge of the Advisory Board.

The Advisory Board appointments have taken immediate effect.

November 17, 2017 | Appointment of Dinesh Raja, as Freedom Publishers Union Public Representative

We are proud to announce the official appointment of Dinesh Raja as Public Representative for Freedom Publishers Union.

The appointment of the position is to become effective immediately.

The appointment is accompanied by some small changes to our Advisory Board. Two seats have been vacated, as we seek new candidates to fill the positions.

When any appointment has been made to the Advisory Board positions, we will release Press Statements accordingly.

November 5, 2017 | Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Pact Reemerges, as Possible TPP-11

Discourse surrounding the highly controversial trade agreement officially known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), has reemerged.

It has remained relatively dormant since earlier this year when the announcement by US President, Donald Trump, that he will officially withdraw the United States of America as a signatory from the TPP.

The withdrawal of the US put the future certainty of the agreement in jeopardy. Doubt was immediately raised as to whether the agreement could proceed without the inclusion of the US, which effectively brought the tally of 12 nation signatories down to 11.

This week, the trade agreement has made news headlines again. There is renewed calls by the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to get negotiations underway that would see the TPP revisited and reformed into an agreement which could proceed without the inclusion of the US, but with included provisions that would allow for the possibility of re-inclusion of the US in the future. Which if re-inclusion were to eventuate, it would most likely occur under a new US Presidency, as Donald Trump has continued to vow his opposition to the TPP.

We stand by the decision of Donald Trump to withdraw the US, as Freedom Publishers Union oppose the TPP.

Freedom Publishers Union has previously made our concerns public, highlighting specific elements of the TPP. Our position remains firm and will remain firm for any reformed trade agreement, dubbed "TPP-11".

Despite our firm opposition to the TPP, as a compromise, we will continue to urge the 11 remaining signatory nations and their governing political parties to renegotiate the agreement in a completely open and transparent fashion, allow for free passage of regular updates to media, along with drafts of chapters that have been amended to be placed in the public domain rather than relying on leaked copies having to be released through whistle-blower platforms.

We conclude by stating that despite our push to have future amended draft chapters released through both mainstream and independent media channels, we will continue to offer our full support to whistle-blower platforms such as Wikileaks, as their importance for providing source documents in the media for journalists and reporters is greatly under-appreciated.

August 21, 2017 | Freedom Publishers Union Continues to Support Free and Open Internet, and Oppose Censorship

Late last week, following on from a series of lengthy legal attacks led by Village Roadshow, Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, Disney, 21st Century Fox and Australia's cable subscription network, Foxtel, the Federal Court of Australia ordered in favor of blocking specific internet sharing services and torrent index sites that are claimed to be directly or indirectly assisting in copyright infringement.

The Federal Court has ordered that the site blocking measures must be implemented by affected internet service providers within two weeks of the court's ruling.

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned of the continuing trend in censorship being implemented and pushed onto Australian internet users, through these blocking measures which are getting authorized in the Federal Courts under copyright infringement, in continued legal attacks from the major production studios who use their market dominance to force the blocking (with intention of shutdown) of legitimate file sharing sites and their associated networks, which some enable legitimate and completely legal file sharing services for creative and organic content.

We always advocate for a free and open internet without government interference and with minimal international regulation, which includes open access without restrictions and without any form of internet blocking or censorship. Freedom Publishers Union has never bent or moved on our position to uphold these digital rights for all internet users around the world, including Australia.

We remain firm in our position and always advocate that users facing censorship through website and/or domain blocking, should consider using Tor Browser as a means of bypassing these relatively meaningless and ineffective censorship techniques.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to fight for digital rights on the internet, alongside copyright reform and always advocate against and oppose censorship to the fullest extent possible.

August 9, 2017 | Israel Ordering Closure of Al Jazeera Office, an Attack on Global Press Freedom

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply concerned at the latest attacks on press freedom, specifically aimed at censoring Al Jazeera. This week, the state of Israel announced plans to force closure of the Al Jazeera office in Jerusalem and also revoke outstanding media credentials of its journalists in Israel.

The announcement from Israel echoes that of other leading countries in the Middle-East who have issued condemnation of the Qatar-based media organization. Middle-Eastern states who continue to attack independent journalism and the free press are constantly making false public claims that Al Jazeera is supporting terrorism and their related terrorist organizations. It is not. These claims are false, misleading and are simply aimed to attempt to undermine the editorial independence of the network and damage its model for revealing the truth and facts about the true events and nature of these repressive regimes which falsely claim to be democratic. The attacks are a targeted distraction from the facts of repression.

Al Jazeera strives off the independence of its journalism model and holds a massive amount of respect in the media industry for its independent and non-bias stance on the issues it reports on. Freedom Publishers Union absolutely supports the independent journalism model and firmly believes in a free and open press. Al Jazeera holds our dedicated and absolute support, as does its journalists.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns the state of Israel for the latest attempt to silence Al Jazeera and its journalists. While Israel remains a key ally of Western nations, including the United States of America, the very nature of the forced closure and stripping of media credentials of journalists puts the repressive actions of the Israeli Government on public display. It's counter-productive to what Israel claims.

Al Jazeera remains a grave threat to repressive regimes, specifically in the Middle-East where repressive regimes continue to flourish, through threats to any form of any independent voice. Only through a free and open press can unjust events and actions be reported and published for the public, for citizens to make their own determination of whether their respective governments are in fact operating a democratic system, or continue to suppress freedom of information through their governing model of power, force and secrecy.

Despite the attacks on the news agency and forced closure of its Israeli-based office, in a Statement released by Al Jazeera, the agency has vowed to continue to report and detail important issues that they always have and have said despite the office closure, "Al Jazeera will continue to cover the events of the occupied Palestinian territories professionally and accurately, according to the standards set by international agencies, such as the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom)." Additionally, Al Jazeera has indicated that it will pursue legal action as a result of the decision.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support the excellent, independent and quality journalism of Al Jazeera, based on the principles of the free and open press model that we so strongly aim to serve, support and advocate.

In conclusion, we urge Middle-East states to immediately stop the attacks on the freedom of the press and if differences of opinion are present, to accept the difference is real whilst commence to realize the greater importance of free and open journalism which comes from an independent publishing model.

December 3, 2016 | Release of Barrett Brown

Journalist, Writer and Internet Activist, Barrett Brown, has been released early from serving his sentence in prison.

Freedom Publishers Union has been in support of Mr. Brown receiving fair treatment and early release from prison.

We remain confident that he will continue his writing through his work as an independent journalist and activist.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support his legal cause, as Mr. Brown is still obligated to pay restitution and other legal fees.

We wish him the best of luck for the future and we are proud that our Organization was able to support such an incredible talent and independent journalist, by assisting to keep up the public pressure for early release.

July 28, 2016 | Shutdown of KickAss Torrents (KAT) Website

Freedom Publishers Union is extremely disappointed to learn of the recent shutdown of the torrent website KickAss Torrents, or more commonly known as KAT. In addition to the website shutdown, its Founder has also been arrested and is currently detained.

Our Organization has always advocated and supported services and infrastructure that allow for the dissemination of information and data in a free and open internet environment.

We have witnessed continued attacks against torrent indexing website, The Pirate Bay (TPB). It has been consistently attacked, at the domain level with countless domain seizures. Although the website has experienced downtime, it continues to make a full recovery and returns online. Ironically, it is now located and accessible at its original .org domain. Freedom Publishers Union has supported The Pirate Bay and called for the constant attacks from authoritative figures, representative bodies and media industry behemoths, on TPB services and infrastructure to stop.

Our full support extends to KAT. We support the website and the operations from its owner(s). We should hope that KAT will make an eventual return to the internet. Whether it be in official form or a new service dedicated to uphold the KAT legacy in the torrent sphere, is yet unclear. Until we see an official endorsement from an entity associated with the official (and original) KAT website, we warn torrent users to be cautious about accessing websites that attempt to replicate the original website. As we have witnessed by previous TPB shutdown attempts, unfortunately scams are born from closures of popular torrent websites.

Freedom Publishers Union supports and advocates freedom of internet and data flow. BitTorrent is a protocol that allows for the freedom of this data to flow, with minimal interruption. Therefore, we support the BitTorrent protocol, its associated technologies and all indexing websites, in-full and will continue to do so.

Attacks against websites and persons associated with the core functions of BitTorrent operations that allow for torrent indexing and access, must stop immediately.

We do not endorse piracy, rather Freedom Publishers Union supports fair-use provisions of copyrighted material, along with further copyright reform. We believe that aggressive pursuit of copyright reform would be much more productive as a counter-piracy measure. We will continue to seek out measures and consult with organizations and political entities across the world, to advocate the importance of a free and open internet and the equally important matter of copyright reform and fair-use.

June 29, 2016 | Acquisition of Tecseek Technology

GC Media Publishing Management has completed the acquisition of Tecseek Technology. The successful acquisition will see the website and its entire operations integrated into the business and publishing services under its new parent owner, GC Media Publishing Management.

Tecseek Technology will remain a separate website and its operations will operate as normal. Going into the future we will see even closer integration with the website of Freedom Publishers Union and closer integration with current server technology which is utilized throughout our business.

We are proud and positive for the future of Freedom Publishers Union, as the acquisition of Tecseek Technology gives Freedom Publishers Union the absolute best opportunity we could possibly have to extend our reach with technology based publications. This has been a core focus for our business in 2016 and we openly admit that we have lagged in our efforts and we see this as a great opportunity to reinvigorate and accelerate our focus on technology publications across the IT sector.

Freedom Publishers Union supports open information sharing through releasing all our content through the Creative Commons license. This will also be followed on to Tecseek Technology and all content published through Tecseek Techology will also be released through Creative Commons licensing.

The acquisition will see former Editor-in-Chief and current Director, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, return to his former position and be reinstated as Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union and all its integrated publication services. Mel Khamlichi will become the Technical Advisor for all operations.

Furthermore, the acquisition of Tecseek Technology will see a change of the share of ownership to GC Media Publishing Management. This will have no public operations or publications impact and will remain solely an administrative task.

January 15, 2016 | Death of David Bowie

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply saddened by the recent passing of Singer, Songwriter and Musician, David Bowie.

Bowie passed away on January 10, just 2 days after the release of what would be his final album, Black Star. The album was quickly dubbed to be a farewell gift to his fans and the wider music world.

He was a unique individual and never seeked rock-star status and many times almost disappearing from the public eye, fueling speculation that he had quit the business of music. However, all through his career he continued to release quality music with equally impressive lyrics. Sometimes controversial and sometimes quirky. Bowie is said to have inspired the rock music of the early 70's and influenced punk rock with his style of dress, music and stage performances.

No words can truly explain the impressive career of Bowie which spanned over 50 years. David Bowie will be sorely missed by the music industry and the wider music world.

Freedom Publishers Union pays respect to this special individual who never failed to produce topshelf music which was very much appreciated by his fans. To some extent, Bowie will never know how much he was loved and appreciated for his contributions to the music industry.

July 30, 2015 | Suppression of Grand Jury Documents, in Eric Garner Case

Freedom Publishers Union condemns the decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department to suppress the Grand Jury files, on the case of the death of Eric Garner.

Eric Garner was killed by a police officer on July 17, 2014, in New York City, by methods of a banned "choke-hold".

Freedom Publishers Union has backed support for calls to have the Grand Jury files released to the public, for increased awareness and information purposes for the wider community on the truth of the details of the case. Instead, we see the files have been suppressed and kept secret.

Freedom Publishers Union supports the New York Civil Liberties Union in their appeal of the decision and calls to have the documents released to the public.

September 25, 2015 | Presidential Pardon of Al Jazeera Journalists, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed

Freedom Publishers Union commends the efforts made by the Egyptian Government, under Presidential orders to officially Pardon the Al Jazeera Journalists, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed.

We have continuously campaigned against the unjust detainment of all three Journalists, including Peter Greste who has not yet been officially Pardoned.

The latest development has restored some degree of confidence in the Egyptian Government and International relations.

Peter Greste has been released and is now residing back in Australia. His criminal convictions remain in place. Although Mr. Greste enjoys freedom in his own country, the criminal convictions that remain in place do however limit his journalistic work as a Foreign Correspondent and limits the countries that he can now travel to.

Freedom Publishers Union urges the Egyptian President to take the next step, restore much more confidence in its Government's control over International relations and extend the Presidential Pardon to Peter Greste, so all crimimal convictions can then be cleared.

With all three men now free from unjust detainment in Egypt, the landmark decision also draws our campaign to a close.

August 30, 2015 | Retrial Verdict of Peter Greste and Al Jazeera Colleagues

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply disturbed and concerned by the verdict of the retrial of Al Jazeera Journalists Peter Greste, Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed.

Our Organization has been at the forefront of the campaign for freedom of these Journalists and our support remains with them, on the basis of human rights, press freedom and democracy.

On June 24, 2014, Freedom Publishers Union released a Statement raising the initial concerns expressed from our own Organization on this matter. This is when our campaign for freedom of the Al Jazeera Journalists commenced.

On July 12, 2014, Freedom Publishers Union contacted the Egyptian Embassy in Canada and Australia, pleading for equal justice for all three men and for recognition that their human rights and fair legal justice had been violated.

Since our initial contact with the Egyptian Embassies, our campaign has been relentless and have always called for a fair trial based on truthful information, evidence and a legal justice system. To date, the trial and retrial has been completely flawed, falsified and the justice system and prosecutors have failed to present truthful evidence of any illegal activity from all three Journalists.

Our concerns remain firm and the announcement of the latest verdict from the retrial is equally disturbing and flawed as the first attempt at a fair and just legal proceeding.

With the support of all staff members involved at Freedom Publishers Union, we intend to continue to pursue complete equal freedom for all three Journalists, in honor of press freedom and democracy.

July 11, 2015 | Condemnation of Government Interference with Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Questions and Answers (QandA) Program

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia express our condemnation of the Liberal Party, under the leadership of the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, in its handling of the Coalition's response to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and its Questions and Answers (QandA) program.

The ABC is funded by the Australian Government and the Australian taxpayers. However, it is an independently operated entity without Government interference or control over its operations.

Australia is a democratic country with a free and open media ecosystem. Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia wish for it to remain free, open, transparent and off-limits from all attempts of bureaucratic interference.

We will continue to advocate absolute media freedom in Australia and condemn any attempts of any member or party of Government that attempts to suppress or stamp upon these freedoms.

June 9, 2015 | Global Campaign Against the Death Penalty

Freedom Publishers Union condemns the use of the death penatly in any country, for any crimes committed.

The April 29 execution of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia, demonstrates a lack of respect for the human rights of the individuals and complete lack of respect for their human dignity.

It remains true the individuals did commit crimes; however, Freedom Publishers Union firmly believes the individuals did serve the necessary time imprisoned in detention in Indonesia, to become reformed citizens.

It can not be disputed our views were echoed in the media arena, both in Australia and on the International circuit.

Freedom Publishers Union is moving to consider ways to step up our campaign against the use of the death penalty and will continue to advocate against its use, regardless of country the horrific practice is undertaken.

March 21, 2015 | Response to Unexpected Passing of Malcolm Fraser

Freedom Publishers Union is deeply saddened by the unexpected passing of former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.

Malcolm Fraser was very much respected and a great source of inspiration for many people, during his time serving as Prime Minister of Australia and for the entirety of his life.

He always provided insightful and intriguing commentary on all current issues and was a regular on Australian television broadcasting networks, for interview.

On many occasion, Staff Members at Freedom Publishers Union used the commentary of Malcolm Fraser as a preliminary analysis of our own contributions.

Malcolm Fraser, 1930 - 2015.

February 20, 2015 | Equation Group and its Cyber-Espionage Activities

In a joint Statement, Freedom Publishers Union and Quality Publishing Works denounce the activities which have been published through information revealed on the "Equation Group" and its involvements in cyber-espionage.

We are deeply disturbed and were immediately concerned by the technical sophistication of the finer details of the activities undertaken, as revealed by information security researchers at Kaspersky Labs.

The technical cyber-espionage activities undertaken by the mysterious group, dubbed "Equation Group" by Kaspersky Labs, use very sophisticated techniques of which have not been witnessed before, with effects that have the potential for results that pose alarming concern for how widespread the actions are and how integrated the activities and the originating entities are potentially and most-likely connected to Government Agencies and the greater mass-surveillance landscape.

Freedom Publishers Union and Quality Publishing Works jointly condemn this kind of illegal, wrongful, unwarranted, immoral behavior and activities of any group involved in cyber-espionage.

We will continue to analyze any further information and details revealed on this matter and publish as appropriate.

February 9. 2015 | KickassTorrents and the Potential Threat of More Domain Name Action

The domain name extension used by KickassTorrents website, .so has been seized. The website is no longer accessible by this domain name extension as it has apparently been banned by means of domain name system blocking.

The website soon moved to utilize the .to domain extension and is now accessible through using the .to extension.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns these continued attacks on freedoms of the internet. Torrent websites are consistently at the forefront of the ongoing threat by movie and music production studios, in their attempts to limit and shut down file sharing websites and their associated services.

We will always continue to support freedom of the internet and services that continue to provide the means and technology that promote and provide those very freedoms to any internet connected user anywhere in the world, regardless of locale and state and country borders.

It's a continuing threat from worldwide authorities and production studios, in their bid to restrict and have absolute control over media and information flow on the internet. Attacks such as domain seizures, domain name blocking, website shut downs and confiscation of hardware and other personal property from the respective operators; Freedom Publishers Union views all of these events as attacks on freedom of information and internet information flow and will continue to fight, defend and support those very freedoms when under threat.

January 23, 2015 | Response to Sentencing for Barrett Brown

Journalist, Writer and Internet Activist, Barrett Brown, has been sentenced to 63 months imprisonment and ordered to pay the amount of $890,000.

There has been worldwide outrage over the conviction and sentence with many well-respected journalists and media organizations expressing their disappointment in the sentencing.

Freedom Publishers Union echoes the concerns of many others and express our own disappointment with the result.

We believe the case and entire judicial process has been seriously flawed. Many valid points and facts have been brought forth by Brown and his Legal Defense, yet outright ignored by the judicial system. Again, a systematic fail of the United States legal process.

Combined with information that has been twisted and/or concocted by the FBI (as Brown points out in his own Statement) and falsely presented to the Court, along with information that is just plain wrong, makes the Barrett Brown case absolutely ridiculous.

What is equally concerning is the fact that the case of Barrett Brown is not limited to this case only, there are others which compare. There will undoubtedly be more in the future, which we intend to ridicule where necessary in defense of Journalist' who do their job all too well and get punished by the highly flawed and pre-determined verdicts that extend from the Unites States of America legal system.

Freedom Publishers Union is very disappointed with the decision and intends to examine what avenues of support we can now offer the Free Barrett Brown movement.

We hope that the gifted Journalist and Writer that Barrett Brown is, continues to write from the walls of the concrete confinements of prison as we will continue to publish future works of Barrett Brown and Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support his legal defense.

January 9, 2015 | FBI Accusations Against North Korea for Sony Hack, Seemingly Unfounded

There is undoubtedly much more information to be released about the alleged origins of the recent "Sony Hack". In the United States, the FBI has consistently pointed the finger at North Korea as being behind the incident.

The release of the Sony Hack archive and associated detailed information dealt a massive blow to the planned release of the movie which supposedly prompted the cyber attack on Sony, "The Interview".

Freedom Publishers Union is concerned the FBI consistently points the finger at North Korea, yet to date has not publicly released any actual-physical information which gives respect to the claims made by the FBI and the US Government. The FBI has gone as far as classifying the so-called evidence it contains; as secret, in which supposedly proves the cyber attack on Sony did originate from North Korea.

At the time of release of this Statement, North Korea have denied being responsible for the Sony Hack.

Following the Sony Hack archive release from the hacking group who call themselves, Guardians of Peace (GoP), the world witnessed a complete outage of North Korea internet access. Speculation quickly mounted that the US Government was behind the country-wide internet outage.

The US have denied being responsible for the N. Korea internet outage.

Freedom Publishers Union is skeptical of both sides and can only describe the entire political bashing between the two countries which has spilled into the public domain, as ridiculous.

We are concerned that the US Government is seemingly using the Sony Hack as an excuse to implement further sanctions on North Korea. If sanctions are to be placed on North Korea from any country, a legitimate reason and political purpose and agenda should be publicly declared and backed by information that gives cause and merit to the sanctions.

To date, the US Government and the FBI have released nil information which can be backed by conclusive evidence which proves the origin of the Sony Hack was North Korea.

Cyber-Security Experts, Cyber-Security Analysts, Cyber-Security Researchers, hacking group Anonymous and even ex-hacker turned FBI informant, Hector Xavier Monsegur (aka. Sabu), have all publicly declared that there is very little chance North Korea could be behind the Sony Hack due to the complexity required to carry out the hack and the amount of material which was sourced.

In a recent interview with CNET, Monsegur goes on to describe his own analysis of the Sony Hack, claiming the amount of material sourced by the hack was gathered in a highly-sophisticated manner and undoubtedly not stored on one single server within Sony's infrastructure, concluding there was very little chance a rogue country such as North Korea with very little [known] technical capability could be the masterminds behind this kind of cyber attack.

Based on the information that Freedom Publishers Union has viewed, we echo the claims made by Hector Xavier Monsegur, that the hacker(s) would have to have had some pre-knowledge of the internal server structures of Sony and its technical infrastructure.

As we go to publish with this Statement, technology media organization ZDNet has released an article on its website with information which displays how easy it could potentially be for anyone or any country to essentially 'take down' the internet access for North Korea.

Freedom Publishers Union reserves judgment on any country, any group, any persons or entity in the case of the Sony Hack incident. We make judgment based on clear facts backed by clear and conclusive evidence which gets presented in the public domain. We can not base judgment to anyone on any matter based on the rhetoric of the US Government, the FBI and North Korea.

We will continue to follow developments in this ongoing and constantly unfolding story and publish information when it gets released to the public.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to call on the US Government and the FBI (and potentially the NSA), to release any conclusive evidence it has in its possession, into the public domain for public scrutiny and judgment.

January 9, 2015 | Charlie Hebdo Incident, an Attack on Freedom of Expression

Freedom Publishers Union condemns the attacks on French media and publishing organization, Charlie Hebdo.

The attacks can only be described as horrific and cowardly. Freedom Publishers Union views the attacks on Charlie Hebdo as a direct attack on the world's open media platforms and freedom of expression.

What concerns Freedom Publishers Union, is that the story is much more detailed than what has initially been reported by mainstream media organizations. Independent media organization, The Intercept, has published information and details of a Statement it received from persons allegedly officially associated with 'al Qaeda' and claim 'full responsibility' for the attacks in Paris, France.

We feel much more detail is yet to be revealed on the matter. Freedom Publishers Union will continue to monitor the ongoing investigation into the attacks and publish relevant information as it comes to light.

In closing, on behalf of all the Staff at Freedom Publishers Union, we express our sincere condolences to the friends and family of the victims who have been caught up in the violence of the sensitive political incident.

January 7, 2015 | Welfare and Human Rights Concerns for Asylum Seekers, Detained on Manus Island and Nauru

The living conditions and welfare of Australian Asylum Seekers and Refugees detained on Manus Island and Nauru has rapidly deteriorated under the control of the Liberal Government and under the guidance of Australia's [former] Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison MP and [current] Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton MP.

Freedom Publishers Union has been witness to some alarming information in the last 3-6 months. In recent weeks, we have viewed information in which demonstrates an absolute injustice and willingness to ignore the welfare of Asylum Seekers on Manus Island and Nauru.

As recently as November-December 2014, claims of homosexual rape, have leaked to media by an anonymous Asylum Seeker who is currently detained at Manus Island. The alleged rape victim and detainee has stated they are reluctant to report the alleged rape offenses to security officers within the detainment facilities for fear of further abuse, both sexually and physically, including mental torment.

On Nauru, there is constant claims of horrific child abuse, self-harm and suicide attempts, from Asylum Seekers being detained under torrid living conditions.

Amnesty International has previously visited the detention center at Nauru and officially described the living conditions as "a human rights catastrophe". Whilst the United Nations has also publicly condemned the living conditions on both Manus Island and Nauru detention centers, deeming them unacceptable.

Based on information Freedom Publishers Union has witnessed, there appears to be absolute lack of welfare awareness from Australia's Immigration Ministers, former and current. Equally concerning, is the lack of concern by the companies that are employed to operate these facilities and manage the security personnel.

The Manus Island detention center is operated by Transfield Services. The Nauru detention center is operated by SERCO.

The facilities on Manus Island and Nauru are operated in such military-like secrecy, with no information publicly accessible as to the physical locale of these facilities and detention centers.

Freedom Publishers Union is current exploring avenues of action we can pursue in raising awareness of the concerns we have towards the violation of the human rights of the Asylum Seekers and Refugees, being detained on Manus Island and Nauru detention centers.

January 5, 2015 | Peter Greste Released, Colleagues Remain Imprisoned

After more than 400 days, Australian Journalist, Peter Greste has been released from imprisonment in Egypt.

Freedom Publishers Union is proud to have contributed to the global campaign to have Peter Greste released from Egyptian imprisonment.

Our contribution consisted of consistent calls for release for all three of the Al Jazeera journalists, who were imprisoned as a result of flawed and falsified legal proceedings against the journalists.

Additionally, Freedom Publishers Union contacted the Egyptian Embassies in Canada and Australia, to plead for Presidential Pardon of the three journalists.

Freedom Publishers Union is grateful to the Egyptian Government for allowing the release Peter Greste to proceed without further interference, as we requested in our correspondence with the Egyptian Embassies.

The release of Peter Greste is the result of a global media campaign, condemning the imprisonment of the journalists and calling for their immediate release.

The focus of our campaign at Freedom Publishers Union shifts to a different stage, as we now focus on calling for the release of the remaining two Al Jazeera Journalists, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. Their civil and human rights must be upheld and immediate release of the remaining two men must proceed as quickly as possible.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support and call for the release of Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, as we did for Peter Greste.

Additionally, in coming weeks we will be contacting the Egyptian Embassies again, in an attempt to [re]state our case that Freedom Publishers Union believes the civil and human rights of these men, has been violated through misleading and falsified legal proceedings.

January 2, 2015 | The Resurrection of The Pirate Bay and Future

Effective February 1, 2015, The Pirate Bay is back online.

The website has defied recent legal action and emerged once again under the same domain name of

The current site is partially operational, with some services still not yet functional.

The investigation by Swedish authorities continues into the website and its activities. Although no official Statement has been released by The Pirate Bay's owners and administrators, articles published in TorrentFreak detail that there is tension among the administrators on a range of issues related to how the website should now be operated and into the future.

Additional reports go on to suggest that former associates of The Pirate Bay have been so dissatisfied with the way the website has been reformed and defectors are drawing up plans to relaunch a new The Pirate Bay website, which could be claimed as being the original and only official The Pirate Bay.

Freedom Publishers Union can not independently verify these reports from TorrentFreak

Freedom Publishers Union is proud that the website has defied its critics and authorities, in a bid to exercise the principles of freedom of information sharing.

At current, The Pirate Bay is considered by name the [un]official Godfather of torrent file sharing eco-system in a modern digital landscape. We believe the hydra behind The Pirate Bay is key to its success into the future.

The time has come for other websites to adopt The Pirate Bay hydra and contribute in their own way to the torrent, peer-to-peer, freedom of information and information sharing eco-system that should and deserves to exist on the internet.

We conclude by stating that we will continue to monitor the ongoing and always unfolding story of The Pirate Bay legal investigation.

However, we are concerned the website is slowly heading towards disrepute and eventual mainstream abandonment by wider audience, if it proceeds and continues to flood the website with pornographic and suggestive advertising banners.

We have previously documented the former Owners and Founders of The Pirate Bay "" have also expressed concerns that the website does not resemble what they set out to achieve and preach.

How The Pirate Bay website proceeds from here, will ultimately determine its longevity into the future in its current form.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to support The Pirate Bay and its service, as it actively demonstrates the very principles of freedom of information flow on the internet, without censorship and without borders.

December 19, 2014 | Response to Probable Shutdown of The Pirate Bay

Since we received the initial word that The Pirate Bay had been raided and sent offline by order of the Swedish authorities, there has still been no official word in black and white from official representatives of The Pirate Bay.

Torrent news website did however receive word from a person supposedly associated with the project, that The Pirate Bay will not be back online for the foreseeable future. This person went on to state that they hope the BitTorrent community and former TPB users go on to keep their legacy alive, in any form.

At this stage, it seems unclear whether the website, its owners and which associates are still being investigated as the Swedish authorities have been very tight-lipped about revealing much detail related to the investigation. There has also been no official word of the domain names used to access the website "", which redirected to "".

One of the original Co-Founders, Peter Sunde, has been outspoken of his former bay's demise, by stating that he would be pleased if it were to not return to online status. Sunde felt that the current owners had killed the site's spirit he helped create with the other two Co-Founders, Gottfrid Svartholm (anakata) and Fredrik Neij.

Peter Sunde's words were very strong and there was no holding back in his Statement published on his website.

Perhaps Sunde was right. Perhaps now was the time TPB in its current form set sail for the horizon and let the community of users behind ultimately decide its fate.

It seems that TPB and the BitTorrent user community have responded to keep the TPB legacy alive. We wish to point, specifically, to the work of, who have put in a great amount of effort to launching, which leads users to a powered torrent search engine which keeps the legacy of The Pirate Bay alive by mimicking the former website's appearance with a tweaked blue theme.

It looks fantastic and functions very well. Search results are equally fast, if not better than they were on TPB.

A massive kudos to the group of developers at who put this site together. If there was any website that aims to keep TPB legacy alive, has succeeded.

Freedom Publishers Union believes that The Pirate Bay was much more than just a torrent search index website. The symbolism of what TPB stood for is what mattered; freedom of information flow and freedom to share, without restriction. Unfortunately, law enforcement authorities and music/movie studios beg to differ and it is now left to the BitTorrent community to decide what gets remembered and what gets forgotten about The Pirate Bay.

Freedom Publishers Union wanted to do our part to support The Pirate Bay legacy and keep the spirit of freedom of information flow and file sharing alive.

For now, that is where The Pirate Bay has left its legacy. If anything is rebooted and presented in the future for The Pirate Bay, it is undoubtedly guaranteed to be positive. Until then, we watch with great anticipation to see whether The Pirate Bay returns.

The original website might be now offline, but the powerful spirit and symbolism it created a decade ago under the control of the original founders, is certainly still online and felt.

Freedom Publishers Union will continue to monitor the current case that is still in its infancy and undoubtedly yet to reveal much more detailed information. We will continue to publish information as it becomes available.

We also warn of torrent users to be mindful of the many scams and websites attempting to cash-in on The Pirate Bay name and website logo. We can't stress enough that these are not the original The Pirate Bay website and are actually re-creations, alternatives, mirrors and reboots using the same name and logo, but are not making this clear to their users. Beware of these kinds of websites and please use them at your own risk.

December 11, 2014 | Initial Response to Raid and Shutdown of The Pirate Bay

It's now well documented that The Pirate Bay has been shut-down and its data center raided by Swedish authorities.

As yet, there is no official comment released by the Swedish authorities, other than they were responding to complaints against The Pirate Bay website and claims of copyright infringements.

It's simply too early to attempt to predict where this case is heading. Media reports are showing mixed reactions, claims and predictions on the future of The Pirate Bay.

Some media organizations are reporting that this will be the end of the file sharing website and it may never come back online.

Whilst, pirate loyalists and those in favor and greatly supporting its return to online status, remain confident that 'something' is definitely happening in the background and continue to believe that it will return very soon.

Over the course of its existence, The Pirate Bay has endured rough conditions, treatment and legal battles on its journey, both under the leadership of its original three founders and also its current operators, currently unknown to the public and will most likely remain in the shadows for as long as needed.

Freedom Publishers Union will comment in more detail on the matter at a later date, when we have more information. But at the moment, the following key points are what we do know:

Freedom Publishers Union will follow the case carefully and release another Statement when we have more official information about the case.

Until we know and understand more information which comes from reputable and official sources associated or familiar with TPB operations, we urge torrent users to please avoid using TPB mirror/proxy sites and seek usage of alternative torrent file services, for the time being.

More to come.

December 8, 2014 | Plea for Leniency for Barrett Brown Sentencing

Journalist, Writer and Internet Activist, Barrett Brown, had his place of residence raided by the FBI back in March 6, 2012. It was not until September 12, 2012 Brown was arrested.

Brown had experienced several different encounters and harassment from US law enforcement prior to his indictment and arrest. He is currently detained, until his sentencing date which has been unjustly delayed, many times.

Freedom Publishers Union has followed the Barrett Brown case from the very beginning, as we have followed most major cases of this nature. Until now, we have been silent on the case, because only now we feel there is substantial reasoning for a lenient sentencing against Brown.

Our understanding of the case details tells us that the initial arrest of Brown was based on a scattering of some false and some often 'misleading' information. The experiences that Brown entailed dealing with law enforcement borders abuse of power from US authorities.

From evidence that we have read and viewed, the case against Brown is and always has been very weak. We feel the continued delay of sentencing hearing dates, is an effort by US legal representatives to attempt to manipulate a weak case and present Prosecutors something more fearsome than the actual finer details suggest.

Brown continued to be harassed by US law enforcement and at one point during his arrest experience, Brown has claimed that he was injured and received insufficient medical attention for his claimed injuries.

For a person being detained for alleged crimes such as what Barrett Brown is alleged to be involved in, his treatment has been unsatisfactory.

Freedom Publishers Union understands that there is a probable possibility of some wrongdoing on Brown's behalf, but we can not cite any direct consequence against any persons or entity that has come to harm from some of Brown's previous actions and alleged involvements.

From September 2013 to April 2014, Barrett Brown was placed under a Federal-issued gag order and was prevented from discussing details about the case, as was any of his legal representative(s).

Barrett was presented with evidence against him and entered a plea-bargain with authorities, primarily related to his alleged knowing of events surrounding the Stratfor hacking and leaked emails.

March 2014, many of the initial charges that were placed against Brown were dropped. Some still remain, for which he resides in detainment long-awaiting a sentencing hearing date.

Freedom Publishers Union suspects that the case against Barrett Brown has been very weak from the very beginning and based on unreliable information and evidence we describe as 'sketchy', at best.

We would like to re-iterate that again, no harm has come to any persons or entity from the alleged charges against Brown and we are confident he poses no risk to society when he is to be released.

For such minimal charges based on lackluster evidence, Brown has been through much already. Yet the legal system insists on delaying the sentencing hearing for Brown, which has now been set for December (no exact date cited) or possibly as late as January, 2015.

Freedom Publishers Union is currently seeking an official date, but as yet have been unable to seek such information.

The continued delays and setbacks of sentencing hearing dates adds to the confusion of the case against Barrett Brown.

Authorities involved in the Brown case have displayed absolute lack of respect towards Brown during this sequence of events. They have even gone as far as to claim that he is not a Journalist or a Writer and completely ignoring the work and writings of Barrett Brown and where his efforts have been published.

Additionally, Brown has received full payment for his published work by many different publishers. His professional contributions to journalism and writing can not be disputed and has earned the respect to use the title, Journalist and Writer.

This must be respected by law enforcement and authoritative figures.

US authorities seem determined to label Barrett Brown as a viscous, violent hacker who is ultimately responsible for the entire control of the Anonymous hacking movement.

In closing, Freedom Publishers Union does not dispute that Brown may have done something wrong, based on the official evidence we have read through, in official released legal documents. Specifically, his public statements, remarks and specific threats to specific individuals released through his YouTube videos, can not be disputed and these kind of threats to members of the public is unacceptable and inexcusable.

We do however believe that he poses absolutely no risk to society through his previous wrongdoing and other alleged matters.

We conclude that his previous offset behavior would be related more toward third-party issues in Barrett's life, rather than a genuine intention to carry out an action of such threats made to specific individuals.

It's well documented that Barrett Brown is a former heroin addict. Brown himself has gone on the record to declare his history of illicit drug use. This should be taken into account in the event of an eventual sentencing.

Finally, Freedom Publishers Union is and will continue to plead with Prosecutors, to be lenient with Barrett Brown and take into consideration the entire chain of events that have led to his arrest and detainment. And the time he has already spent under detention also needs to be considered when a final sentence is given.

We believe Brown should receive a minimal sentence as deemed appropriate to the actual instances according to US law and not a pre-determined sentence.

When Barrett Brown is released back into society, we believe if placed under the right conditions, in a suitable environment and with the right support, he can re-enter society a good citizen.

November 5, 2014 | Arrests and Detainment of The Pirate Bay Co-Founders

We echo our Statement released on November 1, 2014, on topic of verdict and unfair trial of The Pirate Bay Co-Founder, Gottfrid Svartholm (anakata).

The remaining The Pirate Bay Co-Founders have now been arrested and detained.

Peter Sunde was arrested in Sweden in May 2014. Fredrik Neij has been arrested and is currently detained, in Asia November 2014.

All three original The Pirate Bay Co-Founders have now been arrested and are currently detained.

The Pirate Bay was developed as a file sharing service to allow its users to share files and information via a fast peer-to-peer based network. That is what The Pirate Bay continues to do today.

Whether the charges presented against the detainees are presented as such or not, it's clear the arrests, detainment and sentencing of Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij is an attack on The Pirate Bay, its users and the worldwide network of file sharers which use the torrent-based protocol to share files of their choice.

The arrests and detainment of the aforementioned persons is a direct attack on the freedom of internet users and the free and open choice we have, to share files and information between our friends and fellow internet users.

Freedom Publishers Union condemns this type of behavior and provocation from the legal systems of the respective countries involved.

As we release this Statement, news of the most recent arrest of Fredrik Neij is still unfolding. At the time of publishing, torrent news website TorrentFreak is reporting that Thai media is claiming that "US movie companies" hired a law firm to search for and locate Neij.

There will be more updates and revelations as the investigations continue.

As the world has witnessed previously (too many times), with The Pirate Bay related court cases and other legal cases against renowned technologists, there will undoubtedly be a case based around false, misleading and absolutely inconclusive evidence that in a functioning legal court system, would fail.

Yet we continue to see pre-determined verdicts prior to the case being heard in court, which eventuates in the final verdict that was clearly determined before the case entered to judicial system phase.

November 1, 2014 | Final Verdict and Unfair Trial in Hacking Case Against anakata

As we go to publish with this Statement, The Pirate Bay Co-Founder, Gottfrid Svartholm (anakata), has been found guilty of the hacking charges he has faced since 2012. At the time of publishing, he is yet to be sentenced.

Freedom Publishers Union does not normally comment on public hacking cases such as the anakata case, but when the evidence is weak as the case against anakata, we feel it necessary to put forth our view to the public.

Whilst it is true that anakata has been caught up in legal battles in previous years, both related and unrelated to The Pirate Bay, it's important to understand that this case is stated as unrelated to The Pirate Bay.

Freedom Publishers Union, does firmly believe that in all previous cases against anakata, evidence has been what can only be described as weak. The latest hacking charges anakata faces are no different. Again, we are seeing a case built around weak and inconclusive evidence and the courts and judicial system has failed.

The anakata hacking case somewhat resembles that of the Bradley Manning case, in a sense that the prime suspect of the courts are suspects of so-called crimes based off computer crimes charges of a nature and proceed through the drawn out court procedures, ending with the expected "Guilty" verdict, in an effort to make a public example out of the suspect(s) and display publicly what the courts and judicial system can and will do to technologists who test and push the system to its limits.

In this case, it is anakata.

In previous (recent) cases, it was Manning. And there's been many more examples before them.

So what effect will the latest conviction of anakata have on The Pirate Bay (TPB)? Absolutely none.

TPB has been shut down previously, each and every time administrators have somehow managed to re-emerge from the depths of the dark and murky waters.

There has been countless attempts to shut the service down, through seizure of server hardware, IP blocking, domain blocking and domain snatching from countries and domain name providers.

TPB's technology has changed, evolved and adapted and has proven that it has become nigh on impossible for authorities to take down the service, permanently.

If the judicial system's intent was to use anakata as bait and make an example out of him, with the side-effect of taking down The Pirate Bay, they have failed at that task too. Almost as much as the failing of the lawful intentions of the judicial system itself.

It's not file sharers that are suffering;

It's not pirates that are suffering;

It's not The Pirate Bay that is suffering;

In fact, the only person to suffer out of the ordeal, is Gottfrid Svartholm, more well known as anakata.

A gifted programmer, anakata has also suffered from drug related problems and mental health issues in the past. All of which seem to have been ignored, along with the fact the evidence against anakata is ill, inconclusive and flawed.

Freedom Publishers Union does not condone illegal piracy. However, we do believe in and advocate that systems and services such as The Pirate Bay (and other torrent indexing websites) are provided so that users have the option and to make the decision for themselves, without laws and government interference. That's primarily why these systems were born and developed.

It's freedom. It's openness on a global scale. It must be protected.

October 16, 2014 | Use of Manning's Identity Reference in the Media

There is public conversation in the media at current, regarding specific references to US Army Intelligence whistleblower, Private Manning.

The center of the discussion is based around how to identify Manning and how to address the identity of Manning and which name to correctly use.

It's a complicated issue and something nobody will find any official reference of a way to properly address the identity of a person who has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Freedom Publishers Union needs to address this situation for our own readers and how our own Organization refers to the identity of Manning, officially.

At a moral level, it is important to understand that Bradley Manning has legally changed her name to Chelsea Manning. Therefore, when referring to Manning in a generalized context, it is respect to Chelsea that the media refer to her by her correct and legal name. Additionally, members of the public and media need to understand Chelsea is the name she wants to be called. Therefore, out of respect to Chelsea, that is what needs to happen in the media at a broader level than what is currently happening.

Freedom Publishers Union will refer to Manning according to the following guidelines:

Freedom Publishers Union firmly believes that Manning deserves recognition of his/her identity according to the time frame in the context the identity reference is being presented. It's not only respect for Chelsea Manning herself, but also what Manning was/is officially identifiable as, at the time frame of the referenced context.

September 11, 2014 | Concerns Over Security and Privacy Breach from Apple

Today, it was announced that Apple customers had received what is being referred to from the company as, "A Free Gift". If Apple's iCloud customers were to enter their accounts today, it may have come as a surprise when they find Apple had uploaded a free copy of U2's latest album release into their account.

From a security and privacy perspective, this is of great concern.

There are a few points we need to examine;

Unsolicited content being mass distributed - It is of concern, being of the very nature that Apple customers did not ask for the content to be uploaded to their account. Additionally, they were not given a choice to receive or not receive the content.

Choice - If the content in question is not wanted by the customer, they should be given the option to remove the content and have it deleted from their account. At the time of publishing, we are not aware of any users being able to delete the content from their iCloud account.

Forced data retention - iCloud users do have the option to 'Hide' the content so it is not visible. However, users must understand that simply 'Hiding' content from visibility is not removing the content the their accounts. When using the 'Hide' option to effectively remove the content from view, it does not physically remove the content from your iCloud (or any other Apple service) account.

Privacy - User's privacy is being invaded and ignored. It displays a lack of respect for user's accounts and their right to privacy. Apple as a company, have a global responsibility to respect the rights of privacy of its iCloud service and its customers.

Security - Forth-most, it raises more questions than what it answers, on the topic of not only iCloud account security, but the security of all Apple accounts and services. If Apple is able to simply upload data to any, all and everyone's accounts at any given time, without the permission of the account holder; then serious questions need to asked about the overall security of Apple and its services.

We advise that Apple customers be very careful and aware of what information and data they upload to iCloud accounts and other Apple services.

Additionally, users need to be aware that this latest move from Apple demonstrates that the company most-likely has full, unrestricted access to all its user's accounts and related content associated with their accounts.

Freedom Publishers Union is currently in the process of reviewing the Apple iCloud Terms and Conditions and additionally, the iCloud Privacy Policy, to see whether there is any breach of users rights according to the official Apple documentation.

August 25, 2014 | Pirate Party Australia, Membership Announcement

Freedom of information and the flow of information, transparency and democracy have always been very important to me. Moreso, as we continue to delve deeper into a digital world of information and internet presence.

Internet publishing plays a very important role in keeping the information that we consume, open and transparent. Since its founding, Wikileaks has consistently been at the forefront of pushing the limits of all traditional media organizations in an effort to keep governments open and transparent.

The efforts of Julian Assange and Wikileaks have continued with Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and the founding of Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Despite all major efforts from the aforementioned people and their respective and associated organizations, it is a continual uphill battle, due to the higher powers of world governments, otherwise known as the "Five Eyes" (United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), ordering, yet denying, the suppression of such information.

This a direct attack on democracy and freedom of speech. Both of which are basic civil and human rights.

The Australian Government continues to press ahead with intentions to close all forms of information transparency and censor information in which should be readily available to the public. Additionally, post-Snowden leaks, the "Five Eyes" nations continue to track, collect and store data on its citizens from many countries around the world.

I, along with my business partner founded Freedom Publishers Union to not only publish and promote the use of Linux and free and open-source software, but also mature the Organization into an open publishing platform of wider information. We are based on and adhere to the very same principles of Wikileaks and Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Politics doesn't have to be any different. I have been thinking of entering the political arena for some time. Years actually. But the truth remains that until only 2013, there has been no valid established political parties in which stand up for all of the issues that I have outlined above.

Today, I announce I have become a member of Pirate Party Australia.

The first Pirate Party was founded in Sweden, back in 2006. Pirate Party Australia was formally registered as an Australian political party on January 17, 2013. Key focuses of attention is given to many areas;

In addition to the above key elements of attention for the party, there is a strong focus of bringing to the attention of the Australian Government much outdated copyright laws. Which let's be honest, were not created for and do not cater for the era of digital information and media that we now digest at a rapid rate.

Through my involvements and membership with Pirate Party Australia, I hope to build on the efforts that the party performs and contribute to the platform and policies that it practices.

In closing, I must stress that Freedom Publishers Union has no affiliation with Pirate Party Australia or any other political party nor will it be used to publish or promote my political views and motives respective to Pirate Party Australia and involvements within the party.

The entities are separate, as is my role as Editor-in-Chief of Freedom Publishers Union and my role as a member of Pirate Party Australia.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones

August 20, 2014 | Julian Assange's "Leaving soon" Announcement

Wikileaks Founder, Julian Assange's recent announcement that he would be leaving the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, "soon", is as cryptic as the man himself.

We know as much as everyone else. We would safely say that Julian obviously knows more than the media and the truth behind his declaration to be leaving soon, is yet not known by a wider audience.

We certainly hope Julian Assange is released soon, as the man has been locked into the Embassy for over 2 years, without charge of any crime(s). That's not counting the time he has spent in house arrest prior to him entering the Embassy, for the purpose of political asylum.

Julian Assange's life has literally been a media circus. Equal to the circus of allegations and investigations (and the denial of investigations) into Assange and his freedom publishing organization, Wikileaks.

It's not only a war by ruling powers on freedom of publishing but also on human rights. The Julian Assange case in point, is a clear example of exploitation of all human rights by the United States of America and United Kingdom. It's unacceptable.

Freedom Publishers Union was founded on the basis and principles of freedom to publish any material related to free and open-source software. The same principles apply for the actual process of publishing itself. What we publish is our choice and we have the legal right to do so, providing we can ensure that the material we publish is backed up by facts and truth. As Wikileaks' published material is and has been proven to be.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange's efforts and advocacy for freedom of publishing is strong, unique and of inspiration to many publishing organizations, including our own.

We operate our publishing methods and standards based on what Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, their associates and media partners advocate. It's what we have done since we commenced publishing and what we plan to keep doing, long into the future.

July 25, 2014 | Official launch of FPUorg

At Freedom Publishers Union, we are passionate about being as generous to the world as we can, with what limited funds we have available at our disposal.

There are many Charities and Non-Profit Organizations, everywhere around the world in which rely on and require a constant flow of funds, sourced from donations from business and corporate entities. We contribute to some of these Charities and try to make even a small difference.

FPUorg has been founded to separate our charitable operations, so that Freedom Publishers Union can focus on the publishing side of the business and FPUorg can focus on where our donations and funds get allocated.

FPUorg is operated by Freedom Publishers Union.

The domain name is registered for Both entities of Freedom Publishers Union and FPUorg operate in co-operation with each other but are treated as completely separate organizations.

June 24, 2014 | Arrest and Sentencing of Al Jazeera employees, Peter Greste and Colleagues

Al Jazeera journalists, Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed have been arrested and sentenced, by the Egyptian Judicial System.

Peter and Mohamed received 7 years imprisonment. Baher received 10 years imprisonment.

The sentencing decision has been condemned by Amnesty International, the Australian Government and the US Government.

The recent events of the Al Jazeera journalists can only be described as unlawful (by International Standards), unfair, disturbing and a declaration of war against freedom of journalism and publishing, by Egypt.

At Freedom Publishers Union, we are not journalists. However, we are involved in internet publishing and media operations. Whatever direct field of work a person, persons and their associated organizations are involved in, whether it be journalism, news, and/or media publishing in any form; any declaration, statement or threat directly or indirectly related to the freedom of the press, is deemed offensive. We believe, rightfully so.

We must take a stand on such behavior and it can not be accepted by the broader publishing media industry.

Peter Greste and his fellow Al Jazeera employees were simply doing their jobs and taking on their responsibilities as journalists. For this, they should not be punished by a forceful and unlawful Government of Egypt.

Freedom Publishers Union operates on a freedom based principle, as do Al Jazeera and most other forms of world media organizations. This must be protected at all costs and enhanced where possible.

Our Organization can not and will not sit back and support such decision by Egypt and we will play our part in spreading the message across the industry, with the tools that we have at our disposal; that this behavior of Governments seeking to quash freedom of information and publishing will not be tolerated nor supported in any way, by us or any other respected media organization.



#philanthropy #charity

FPUorg is a separate entity which is fully operated under the close guidance of Freedom Publishers Union.

FPUorg was founded in mid-2014, with the intention to separate our charitable operations from that of our parent publishing organization, Freedom Publishers Union. Keeping the two separate, allows each entity to concentrate on their primary goals and objectives and achieve success.

Our goal with FPUorg is to give something good back to the world, through supporting various Charities and Organizations, which rely on community funding and donations to operate. Our donations and support are not always publicly documented, as we give to a wide-range of organizations, large and small.

Supported Charities and Projects

Making a small difference, where we can FPUorg might only be a small entity, as we do not donate massive amounts of money that corporate identities are capable of, but with the donations that we do make we aim to make small, yet much needed difference in the world.

The hand-picked Organizations we support through FPUorg allows us to support various Charities and filter our flow of donations to where it is needed most and where we believe our contributions will make the biggest difference.

For more information, you can contact FPUorg by emailing [email protected]


Tecseek Technology

#opensource #freedom #software #technology #linux #windows

December 16, 2017 | Fedora 27 Review

The time between the release of Fedora 26 and 27 (F26 and F27, respectively) was very short. You could be forgiven for taking a position to believe the release of F27 was not the full 6 month release cycle. It must be noted that in what was literally just a few months following F26, F27 was not released early. The close time frame between the releases was the result of F26 being delayed. But F27 is nowhere, it's running, so let's take a look at it.

Our initial thoughts follow on from F26, really. This is a good release. It's very sharp and nimble in operation. We have had it installed since its release and it's never gave us any problems since the initial installation. It's also an attractive release. But it doesn't just have good aesthetics, it has some solid goods underneath which make the release worth the real estate on your hard disk.

F27 comes with a Linux kernel 4.13.9 and GNOME Shell 3.26. The best feature in this release is that it comes pre-loaded with Firefox Quantum - the latest update to the popular Firefox web browser. We believe Fedora 27 is the first version of a Linux based operating system to have Firefox Quantum included out of the box. Obviously, any other distribution can update the Firefox package to Quantum. And the next versions of all the mainstream Linux operating systems will include Firefox Quantum also. Still, it's great that F27 had the timing right and was able to include Firefox Quantum, which we must stress is well worth the upgrade. There are still some reports of some extensions not working correctly with Firefox Quantum. So if you're a heavy user of extensions, you might want to do your research to ensure they will work correctly under Firefox Quantum. By the time this Review goes to press [delayed, due to unforeseen circumstances] most popular Firefox extenions should have been upgraded to work with Quantum.

Everything else inside the final F27 package is pretty standard stuff. There's not a lot of custom stuff that is visible to the eye ball. But it has the true feel and spirit of Fedora, where it counts. We recommend if you're already running F26, make the jump to F27. There's many good releases of Linux based operating systems available now. It's becoming difficult to differentiate one distribution from the other. But that's alright. Because if they're stable and they're secure, then we have no problem recommending any of the mainstream distributions to new Linux adoptees. Thankfully, Fedora is fast, secure and its development and funding is backed by Red Hat. Therefore, we place it towards the top of the Linux recommendations camp.

December 16, 2017 | Securing Windows 10 Doesn't Have to Cost You Money

Windows 10 is pretty impressive in its security, when compared to its predecessors. The firewall is resilient and stays out of the way whilst doing its job. And the default inclusion of Windows Defender is a nice security addition. Unfortunately, the Windows operating system platform does still suffer from being a prime target for hackers and virus writers. While it is possible to run Windows 10 without antivirus software, as many advanced users do, we don't recommend it unless you have serious knowledge and understanding of the underlying file system structure of Windows and the system registry and you're confident you can resolve any security issues that might infect the system while running naked. If you're not confident, then please install an antivirus program. Which one and how? Tecseek Technology is here to help.

Let us first start by saying that although there are some reputable commercial antivirus software packages available for purchase, many of them are extremely overpriced, overrated and bloated with unnecessary features that simply slow down your system and duplicate the same features already included within Windows and your web browsers. There are many free antivirus options available, but you need to be cautious about your choice. As with commercial packages for purchase, there are also some free options that you should avoid.

This article is not a round-up of all the free options available. There's plenty of those articles already on the internet. We're not going to flood the internet with even more of the same thing. Today, we're focusing on Kaspersky Free.

Kaspersky security software has been around for a very long time. But Kaspersky Free only emerged as an offering in 2017. Please note, it is offered for free on a non-commercial basis. Other than this limitation, there's not much that has been chopped from the free service. Kaspersky Free offers a full antivirus service which takes care of your operating system security, with additional security features which extend to files, web, instant messages and email. Independent third-party security testing demonstrates that Kaspersky holds its own when compared to its competition, consistently rating at the high end of the scale. Despite some allegations that Kaspersky has links to the Russian Government, the allegations have never been proven and remain just that – allegations. Therefore, we are not taking this into consideration with our recommendation.

The features that are not available in Kaspersky Free are extended application control, firewall, private browsing, webcam protection, anti-banner, network attack blocker, system watcher, anti-spam, application manager and a feature called safe money. Whilst these all sound like brilliant features, many of them are taken care of by features built-in to your web browser and the Windows operating system. The only missing piece which we recommend you need to pay attention to is malware protection. As good as Kaspersky Free is, there will be specific types of malware that will not be detected. This is common with antivirus services and by no means unique to Kaspersky Free. This is something that is easily resolved by installing Malwarebytes, which is also free. As with antivirus software packages, Malwarebytes offers a premium service. But we don't recommend you upgrade to any premium packages. The simple fact is if you are running Kaspersky Free plus Malwarebytes Free, combined with the existing Windows Firewall, Defender and the internal security features of Windows, then your system is going to be pretty difficult for viruses/malware to break. Albeit, not impossible.

With software and computer security, there is no such existing solution that will secure a system 100%. It's not technically feasible to demand 100% security. But installing the aforementioned services won't cost you a penny and is easily up to the task of keeping you and your system safe.

It's not just software that keeps you safe, it's also your own computer habits that you must pay attention to and improve in areas you know are failing. There are simply too many occasions where computer users start blaming their computer and its software for letting them down when things go pear shaped. But those that work within the computer security and service industry will tell you that in just about every case we review, it's the user that is at fault but is simply unwilling to accept the blame for their often unintentional and innocent stupidity. Stay away from pirated software and do not visit websites that you know to be a risk to your system, or have any possibility to pose a risk. There are so many free and open-source software choices now available for Windows (and Linux), there is no excuse for users to be running pirated software.

Upgrade your Windows operating system to Windows 10, patch your system with the latest updates, install Kaspersky Free plus Malwarebytes Free and you are sure to have one of the most secure home computer systems in your street.

October 20, 2017 | Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark) Review

Before we delve into the release that is Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark), we need to make a disclaimer. The staff at Tecseek Technology have vast experience in testing and reviewing lots of different free and open-source software and Linux distributions - especially Ubuntu. If you search our website for previous Ubuntu reviews, you might notice there is a severe absence. What you will find available to read on the website is limited. Our limited coverage of Ubuntu is a result of a major data loss event that we experienced recently. The data loss was not the result of anything malicious, rather the sole result of our own malpractice through a combination of hardware failures and data migration between servers. Therefore, despite our vast experience in publishing reputable Ubuntu reviews, we are unable to present to you our previous efforts. We apologize and is disappointing for us. But we are looking forward to the future and taking this latest Ubuntu release as an opportunity for a reboot.

Now with that out of the way, let's get to work and get rebooted in an attempt to restore the faith our readers once had in our Ubuntu reviews, which were always very much anticipated upon release of a new Ubuntu version. Read on loyal minions.

Equal to Tecseek Technology using this release as an opportunity to reboot, the release of 17.10 is a fresh start for the popular distribution. It's the first release which utilizes the GNOME Shell as the default desktop environment. Ubuntu has decided to ditch the relatively unpopular Unity desktop in favor of the much better developed and supported GNOME Shell. It was a great decision, we believe, as we absolutely loathed Unity and thought it was just unworkable. And no matter how many additions, changes and tweaks Unity received, it just never quite felt like it was workable as a desktop for daily usage. So we're really happy that Ubuntu has adopted GNOME Shell. That is the biggest update for 17.10.

We will happily declare that we've always had a soft spot for Ubuntu. It really is the darling of Linux distributions that is well deserving of the love that it receives from the open-source community. We instantly fell in love with 17.10 from the moment we began testing the development builds. Visually, it's so fresh and appealing. We love the aesthetics - the background, GNOME Shell and the semi-transparent side-bar and top navigation bar.

We commenced testing 17.10 from the earliest of the daily builds. As development has progressed, we witnessed 17.10 evolve into one of the finest, most polished and reliable desktop Linux distributions available at this very moment. The world of Linux and the rapid progress of distribution development and releases makes it really hard to pin-point the ¿best' distribution at any point in time. If we were to choose one right now, Ubuntu 17.10 would undoubtedly be our first pick.

At the time we go to press, we are using a completely updated build of 17.10 with the latest packages running on GNOME Shell 3.26.1 and Linux kernel 4.13.0. To be honest, we're really surprised to find such a recent kernel in a Ubuntu release. Traditionally, the focus has been on stability and as a result of this focus, the sacrifice has usually been made to drop back a couple of kernel version numbers for something a little more proven. By choosing to use a very recent kernel version it doesn't mean there's any sacrifice in stability. We put 17.10 through some pretty keen testing and experienced nothing that could take points away from any such stability rating.

The only issue we can take with the default behavior of 17.10 is the window control buttons. The developers have chosen to move them back to the right. Yes, you read that correct! The decision for Ubuntu to move them to the left was taken way back in 2010. Although it was controversial at the time, the decision was made on the basis that it was more natural and also allowed for less mouse-drag due to application menus also usually being located on the left of an application's graphical interface. It all made sense, really. Since the move, we have actually adapted very well to having them on the left and find it very natural indeed. So natural that when we use a Windows-based system, we habitually move the mouse over to the left. But we quickly find ourselves flicking over to the right, because Windows likes to stick to tradition.

Well, seven years on from the initial decision by Ubuntu to move them to the left, tradition wins over innovation and they've moved back to the right. We could go ahead an write a ten thousand word essay on the advantages and disadvantages of the specific location of the window control buttons on an operating system. Yet at the end of the day, it's going to come down to personal choice and what feels natural for the user in front of the screen. To us, we're sticking with our declaration that the left feels more natural and still makes sense. Therefore, switching them back to the left was one of the first tweaks we performed upon fresh installation of 17.10. This was easily achieved by one simple command in the terminal console. An annoyance, for sure. But certainly not a problem to resolve.

We don't want to focus too much on what applications you'll find pre-installed. But rest assured that all the usual applications are present. There's enough to get you going right out-of-the-box. For those software applications and packages you like to use that are missing, they can obviously be quickly installed in the terminal console in just minutes, using APT.

There's everything to love and nothing to hate with 17.10. It's by far the most attractive Ubuntu release to date and the switch to GNOME Shell has made it even more enticing. Whereas distributions like OpenSUSE have previously beat Ubuntu out of the gates on aesthetics and final system polish, it's a very different story this round. It has the goods - popularity, great community support, aesthetics, stability and ease-of-use.

If someone was to ask us right this minute which Linux distribution is the best to install on the desktop, we would find it hard to recommend any other distribution other than Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Aardvark).

October 8, 2017 | CentOS 7.4 (1708) Review

We've taken a look at CentOS 7.4 (1708), which is the latest community supported Linux distribution backed by the commercial giant, Red Hat. In past months, we've looked in closer detail the releases of Fedora 26 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4. Now it's time we take a quick look at the latest offering to badge the support of Red Hat.

Let's keep this simple - CentOS is basically RHEL, without commercial support through paid subscriptions. CentOS is based off the RHEL source code, however, it is supported through the efforts of the Linux development community.

Does it differentiate that much from RHEL? Not really. It performs well, is incredibly stable, very reliable and has fantastic support for an operating system intended to be installed in a small office environment or on enterprise systems that can be completely supported and managed under the guidance of a small to medium in-house IT department.

There's not much put into CentOS that sets it aside from RHEL. It's almost identical in every way with the exception of logos and branding. We gave it a quick run through using Oracle's VM VirtualBox software. It's stable and fast, yet still seems like an operating system limited in use. Whereas distributions like the more popular Ubuntu and Fedora have slightly more flexibility, CentOS feels like it should stick to its target market rather than thinking about mainstream wider adoption of Linux desktop users.

Don't misinterpret our opinion. The flexibility is there if you feel like doing some serious hacking and reconfiguration of the core CentOS components. But to be honest, we recommend you don't bother unless you're completely bored and have nothing better to do with your time.

The points we make should not be viewed as a negative reflection of CentOS. Absolutely the opposite. It's just set in its ways and fit for purpose, with no foreseeable benefits of trying to force it to do anything out of its comfort zone.

At the time of going to press, our test CentOS virtual machine contained the Linux kernel 3.10.0 and Bash 4.2.46. It also runs the GNOME Shell desktop environment that is basically identical to that of RHEL. CentOS also sticks with YUM and RPM, versions 3.4.3 and 4.11.3 for system package management, respectively. As does RHEL. Whilst Fedora opts for the more updated yet comparatively powerful DNF package management software.

If you are already managing a small fleet of desktop systems running CentOS, or perhaps a server or two, you will naturally make the upgrade. In fact, by the time you read this piece, you're probably already running it. If it's fresh deployment with pretty strict control that you're looking for, CentOS will have you covered. But if you're running a support team and want your system's users to have slightly more flexibility and control of what they do with their systems, then we would probably recommend sticking with Fedora Linux, perhaps accompanied with a server running CentOS. There's absolutely no reason you can't accompany the two into the same network and configuration. It will all be dependent on the software requirements of your enterprise users.

Before making any quick adoption, be sure CentOS is the right choice for you and your production environment.

September 17, 2017 | Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Ardvark) Default Wallpaper

The default wallpaper for the upcoming release of Ubuntu 17.10 (Artful Ardvark) has been released.

You can download the files from Tecseek Technology on the links below.

Download @ 1920x1080 artful-ardvark-1920x1080.png

August 21, 2017 | Distraction Free Typing, With FocusWriter

When we are entering text into a computer, we usually use a word processor of some kind. The boring old standard has always been Microsoft Word. Some users may even opt to use the much slimmed down version which is included in the Windows operating system, WordPad. Many features are missing from WordPad but it does have the very basics to get the job done. The most obvious omission would have to be the absence of a spell checker. If you want a better word processing package which does include all the features of Word but simply don't want to fork out the cash for the hideously expensive Microsoft Office suite, perhaps you might want to take a look at the free option of LibreOffice. It is a free office suite which does include a feature-complete word processor, but it's large in size, takes up a lot of disk space on your system and in the same sense as Microsoft Word contains probably much too many features that just are not required or even considered for use by the average user. Or maybe you're the type of person that simply doesn't like a cluttered interface and wants absolute distraction free typing, without sacrificing the most important features used in a word processor. There are some notepad-type software packages that capable of doing exactly this, but it's somewhat of a case of using the wrong tool for the wrong job, despite the fact that it does do the job. Well, the great news is that we can tell you that you no longer have to make sacrifices. There is a word processor that offers absolute distraction free typing and includes a nice set of features that make a word processor better equipped for the task, than just a notepad. Tecseek Technology introduces FocusWriter.

FocusWriter offers complete distraction free typing and word processing, offers an in-built spell checker and saves files in the OpenDocument (ODT), OpenDocument XML (FODT), RTF (RTF) and Plain Text (TXT) formats. Also included is the usual expected features of Cut/Copy/Paste, Bold/Italic/Underline, Alignment, Find/Replace and even a session manager. There are also a few added extras such as Daily Progress tool, Symbols and a Timing function. Sure, all these features are pretty standard stuff and don't really differentiate it from any other word processor. That is true. But there is one feature of FocusWriter that puts this package one above the rest. That is distraction free typing.

FocusWriter is developed using QT and uses a distraction free mode by default. There is a small range of styles and backgrounds in the preferences. But we reckon if you want absolute distraction free typing with an easy-on-the-eye screen mode, we recommend you settle for the "Old School" theme. It presents the user with a complete black background and on screen text is matrix green. The black/matrix green presentation offers the best combination for achieving distraction free typing and the matrix green text color is excellent enough to read both during the day and at night, without any kind of eye strain or squinting (unless you have some other eye condition you're unaware of).

Since we commenced using FocusWriter, we have been asking ourselves how can it be that we have survived so long without it. The perfect combination of just the right amount of features, brilliance of the distraction free typing with the carefully designed mouse gestures when you move the cursor to the screen edge all functions well and feels so natural.

If you find yourself getting frustrated with the bloated interface of your current word processor and want something that stays out of your way without sacrificing the most essential of features to get the job done, then please consider installing FocusWriter. We have installed FocusWriter on Ubuntu using the PPA provided. It is completely free and open-source and is available on all popular Linux platforms in addition to Microsoft Windows and Mac OS.

August 17, 2017 | Easily Check System Uptime on Microsoft Windows 10

To Linux system administrators, a task as simple as checking system uptime is quite simple. You just open up a terminal and enter:

$ uptime

The simply syntax is such a routine task, we doubt that anyone has even really given it a second thought. But what happens when you jump onto a Microsoft Windows operating system?

PowerShell (PS) has eased the burden of many daily tasks you might perform inside a Linux terminal console. However, as good as PS is, it's not the absolute lifesaver that Microsoft will try and market to you that it is. We take nothing away from PS. We use it here in the office in addition to Command Prompt and Clink. But oddly enough, a simple task like checking uptime still can't be done with the same amount of ease as what it's done in Linux.

Thankfully, there is a company that has recognized this relatively simple void, in the world of Windows and provided a simple executable binary that can do exactly what we need.

NeoSmart Technologies has just released Uptime v1.0. It's a simple binary file that you just save to the default home directory for the user in Windows 10. You can download the binary for free from the NeoSmart Technologies website.

Once you have downloaded the binary, save it to:


You simply need to open up Command Prompt or PowerShell, then enter the following syntax into your console, depending on which one you're running.

For Command Prompt, enter the following:

C:\Users\username uptime.exe -h

For PowerShell, enter the following:

PS C:\Users\username .\uptime.exe -h

Once you've executed the correct syntax, you will be presented with the uptime output of the Windows system you're using just as simply as what you would when using Linux.

August 14, 2017 | Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4 Review

Red Hat have released their latest update to the company's enterprise Linux line-up. We set ourselves up to perform a full review of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 7.4. Although we're no strangers to RHEL, we must declare that this is the first time we ever set out to review the much respected enterprise-grade Linux operating system. It's a very different animal to tame from what we're used to here at Tecseek Technology. So we will happily admit, we had to move away from our tradition approach we take to Linux reviews and instead, rethink everything.

So what did we end up with as a result of our refreshed and rethought attitude? Read ahead and see.

When you work with software and Linux for the purpose of testing and reviews, you kind of get used to having the very latest in software source code and binary builds right at our fingertips. But then something strange happened. We unexpectedly got RHEL dumped on our desk for testing and review. The first thing we realized was the immediate need to wipe from our brains the usual expected results of what Linux kernel version is included in the build. The latest Red Hat update includes the longterm support branch Linux kernel 3.10.0-693.el7.x86_64, accompanied by Bash 4.2.46 as the default shell. Usually, we see the latest kernel branches included in the latest Linux distribution releases. But obviously RHEL is a very different beast and is primary focused on stability and support for enterprise systems. It is the very core of Red Hat's commercial business structure. So if you want a Red Hat endorsed Linux distribution that includes later Linux kernel(s), then you will have to look at Fedora Linux. The focus on stability is also visible when you take a look at Firefox, which opts for the Extended Support Release (ESR) branch. This guarantees support for extended periods of time. Much longer than what is provided by later builds of mainstream Firefox.

OK, enough of the garble. What how does RHEL perform as a daily Linux distribution? Let's look at it in a little closer detail.

RHEL has made the move to GNOME 3 and finally embraced the Shell by including a GNOME 3.22.3 desktop environment. Red Hat makes a surprise inclusion of the popular GNOME Tweak Tool. There are a bunch of extensions pre-loaded and enabled by default. These go some way as to make the GNOME 3 desktop in RHEL much more usable and friendly. It's labeled as GNOME Classic at the login screen and is the default environment. You can switch the full GNOME Shell to give the user a more complete GNOME experience, but we recommend sticking with GNOME Classic as the default login for RHEL. At the time of the announcement to move RHEL to GNOME 3, Red Hat was met with some criticism among some of the more dedicated Linux circles. Eventually, the change would have been inevitable due to support and development being dropped for the old GNOME 2 source code. The project was forked to eventually become MATE and is now a project primarily led by Linux Mint developers. But Red Hat decided it was in the best interest of RHEL to stick with the well supported GNOME desktop. They've made the necessary changes to make the transition as easy as possible, largely thanks to the inclusion of the GNOME Tweak Tool and the default changes Red Hat have shipped. It works very well and we see no obvious reason why anyone could have reason to complain about the desktop's behavior out-of-the-box. Although, we're sure there is some people out there in the darkness waiting to sit down at their desk in front of a shiny new workstation running RHEL, ready to complain about it. But we believe complaints are unjustified.

With an enterprise-grade operating system like RHEL that is focused on stability and support, you don't really see many new features. At least not visually. Although we do like the RHEL 7.4 wallpapers! RHEL does include a couple of features under-the-hood which grabbed our attention. Anaconda will now specifically wait for network connectivity to become available, in some installation environments. Previously, failed DHCP requests would result in Anaconda proceeding to installation. Now, system administrators can add the waitfornet=X syntax to the boot instructions. Where X is the set amount of seconds to wait before the installer continues on to a default installation. This neat addition eliminates the possibility of the installer unexpectedly proceeding before the network has been detected and an IP address assigned to the system. This is particularly useful on busy networks when detection of network connectivity and DCHP assignment might take slightly longer than what Anaconda expects. Another feature we like is a cool package called USBGuard, which is effectively a system protection tool that aims to protect the system in the event that an intrusive or unwanted USB device is attached. It functions on USB device attributes and according to a whitelist/blacklist determination to apply its system protection. Finally, more security enhancements have made their way into this release with updates included for OpenSSL, OpenSSH plus additional firewall changes for better system protection.

RHEL still uses YUM as the default tool for handling packaging and updates. It's interesting that Red Hat has not adapted DNF for RHEL, as they've deprecated YUM for Fedora Linux in favor of DNF. Although YUM is still included in RHEL, we feel that eventually it will be deprecated also, in favor of the newer DNF packaging tool. Regardless, YUM still gets the job done and is very fast. BtrFS will be deprecated in RHEL. It has previously included several technology preview releases, but Red Hat has decided that BtrFS will not be moved to a full supported version for RHEL and the popular filesystem will be deprecated in future versions. So if you're a system administrator planning on installing RHEL with BtrFS, then you might want to reconsider your options and requirements. If you're really keen on BtrFS, then you can still take up the options that CentOS and Fedora Linux offer as it is a brilliant filesystem which can hold its own against Oracle's ZFS and Microsoft's ReFS.

RHEL is only supported and updated by paid contract support by Red Hat. So if you go ahead and install RHEL without proper support contracts in effect, then don't be expecting to get updates filtered through to your system. You will also not be able to go ahead and install packages using YUM from inside RHEL. We bypassed the Red Hat subscription limitation (for testing purposes) by adding the CentOS repositories to RHEL. This is particularly useful if you want to add some software or additional packages to RHEL. But don't try updating the RHEL system using the CentOS repositories as it will essentially convert your system into a CentOS system. You will quickly see Red Hat logos and branding disappear and CentOS branding put in its place. If you want updates, then you will need to take a look at the community supported offering of CentOS. To summarize, CentOS is RHEL for the consumer, with financial backing and official endorsement by Red Hat.

As a side-note, we should mention Tecseek Technology will be taking a look at the new CentOS 7 (1708) release, which will be based on RHEL 7.4 source code. The update should be available by mid-September. We will take a look at it as soon as we get a build arrive on our desk.

In closing, RHEL 7.4 is a brilliant enterprise-grade Linux distribution. Red Hat have led the field in the area of subscription-based Linux for the enterprise sector, in addition to their massive development contributions through source code development and financial support to a whole range of Linux and open-source related projects. Canonical (Founded in 2004) has made significant advancements along the same lines, but don't seem to be able to grasp the same leverage that Red Hat has achieved on open-source software. But we need to mention the achievements Canonical have made on the brilliant quality release of Linux, that is Ubuntu. However, they have struggled slightly in the tight enterprise market. That's not an entirely fair summary though, as Red Hat has been around longer (Founded in 1993) and essentially had a head-start. But we really love Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.4. And if you need fully supported Linux in the enterprise and business sector, then it's going to be a no-brainer to use Red Hat as your first choice.

August 5, 2017 | OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 Review

The first thing you might notice about OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 is that visually it appears to be almost identical to Leap 42.2. If you were to look at the two side-by-side on identical systems, you'd be forgiven for not being able to tell the difference between the two. It's only when you jump into a terminal console and have a poke around underneath is where you're able to go hunting for key differences. ie. Linux kernel version, Bash version. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not. It just makes it more difficult for us to differentiate the parts that stand out the most for presenting this Review. But we promise we will do our best in presenting the most honest Review we possibly can to our readers.

As always, we proceeded our testing by updating the system through SSH and PuTTY. With very few updates required to be downloaded and installed, we had a fully updated system within minutes of boot. We opted to stick with KDE for Leap 42.3. As you always like to point out, the installer has the option for KDE Plasma, GNOME or Server instances. The latter option will install a console system only, intended to be used for servers or the very keen Linux user who has not yet moved on from the days of old and into the world of the desktop GUI. Or there might users out there that just simply have no logical reason to be running Linux with a GUI. Whatever the reason for your installation choice, OpenSUSE has all bases covered.

What we absolutely love about OpenSUSE in general is the verbose power it gives the user. Essentially, the user can really own the system. There is so much information that can be gathered by the user, it's almost ridiculous. This is largely thanks to the software management tools provided. Two of the most important would have to be YaST and KInfocenter. Combined, they provide all the power, control and information about your system. Add in the System Monitor and you have absolute killer system feedback and technical information right at your fingertips. Still, we find the System Monitor referenced under the very peculiar entry of KSysGuard in the application menu. Yet, when you actually enter the application and view the developer credits and version information, everything refers to System Monitor. This should actually be changed in the application menu to more suitably refer to what it actually is, to avoid major confusion.

On the software side of things, it's business as usual. And by that, we mean OpenSUSE and KDE have everything covered. Firefox handles your web browsing needs, while Kmail has email under control. To complement Kmail, you also have KAddressbook, Kontact and KOrganizer. It's great to have all these options available for all these different packages, but we're beginning to wonder whether there's room for consolidation in OpenSUSE, starting with integrating some of these packages via a third-party developed wrapper program and into one office productivity suite. It seems a little overkill when you could simply install Thunderbird and have basically all of those features in one software application. Instead, we see OpenSUSE including 3-4 different applications to get your emails, contacts and appointments organized. However, this is where the KDE Plasma desktop takes over and one of its biggest assets really shines. It has an advantage over any other desktop environment - graphical integration. Even though many KDE-based applications are completely separate packages, they remain tightly integrated thanks to KDE Plasma's unique ability to make everything appear as one nicely integrated system. Clever. OpenSUSE is probably better known for its support and pushing of KDE Plasma more than any other Linux distributor. They deserve credit for it and for sticking with it for so many years. Because KDE Plasma is a very different beast and has gone in a different direction to where GNOME (and the now defunct Unity) have gone. Still, we think application consolidation would not be a bad thing to consider for future releases.

We'll mention a few miscellaneous packages too, for interests sake. GIMP is still included, which is great to see. Too many Linux distributions have dropped the inclusion of GIMP by default, simply due to its size bloating the final ISO size. But we believe it should be included in all mainstream distributions, as size limits are not really a problem in 2017 with the benefits of digital distribution and ISO size no longer being restricted to the CD-R size of ~700MB. It's a moot excuse and we reckon it deserves its place to be included by default.

Codecs have always been a sore spot for Linux users. We still have to install codecs post-installation and Leap 42.3 is no exception. All popular codecs are located inside the Packman Repositories. There is a brilliant website that you can visit called and it includes the One-Click Installer buttons which will handle the entire codec installation process for you. Yes, it is a pain in the rear-end that we still have to go installing codecs, but there's really no justification for complaint when the process is made so simple. Kudos to OpenSUSE Developers and the wider developer community for filling the void here and making it simple. Once codecs are installed, OpenSUSE has Amarok included for audio playback and Dragon Player for video playback. It's a bit of an unusual combination as personally, we don't like either application. We recommend a much more powerful combination of Qmmp for audio and VLC for video.

OpenSUSE Leap 42.3 is a great release. There's not really anything brand new and not really any groundbreaking new feature that makes the release a must have. It's an update to Leap 42.2, which was respectfully a brilliant release. It works flawlessly inside a virtual machine with full support for everything we threw at it, including display drivers which give us proper screen resolutions without the restrictions that we experience with some distributions. Additionally, you get even better performance on bare metal. With brilliant support for any environment, great performance and fine KDE polish, we recommend you consider it as your latest Linux installation.

August 5, 2017 | Fedora 26 Review

We are still licking our wounds from the horror and torture we experienced from Fedora 25. In what was originally intended to be a Tecseek Technology full review of Fedora 25 (F25), resulted in complete disaster and to the outside reader could be read as a rant. That would be a fair analysis. It was absolutely a rant and we feel we had every right to publish a rant, considering what a shoddy build F25 was. We are still scarred from it. If you wish to go back and read about our traumatic experience, feel free to do so before reading our thoughts on Fedora 26 (F26). Is there positive news ahead? Absolutely. F26 is a completely different experience - a positive experience. The new release restored our faith in the distribution and has some fine polish to boot.

We always refer to Fedora as one of the most finely polished Linux distributions available. Probably on par with OpenSUSE which never disappoints in the competitive arena of Linux polish. F26 reaffirms this common perception and its overall aesthetics don't disappoint. We adore the default background for the Workstation build. The optional stock wallpapers are always worthy of equal appreciation. We logged on to our test build by through SSH using PuTTY and updated the system to the latest packages. The build we tested after a quick update containing ~500MB of package updates, contained a Linux kernel 4.11.11. Having a deeper poke around the desktop and we found some nice added goodies, including a Clocks application accompanied with a World Clock, a selection of Timers and an Alarm clock. Similar to what you'd find on any typical cell phone device. We found it a pleasant application to use on the desktop. This was complemented by the equally neat Weather application. You can add different cities into the Weather application or use location-based detection if you roam around lots. We find location-based services pretty ordinary on laptop systems as location detection is usually sourced off your internet connection, which if you're paying attention is more often than not, never actually where you are physically located. Effectively, this will produce weather feedback that may not be so relevant to your actual current location. Instead, we prefer to manually enter our locations of weather interest. To finish off what we would describe as the smart desktop, we recommend you take a look at the Maps and Contacts applications too.

The Workstation build is solid and we experienced nothing to complain about. The improvements that we've experienced in F26 compared to its predecessor are vast and impressive. Regardless of desktop environment of choice, we prefer dark themes. Unfortunately, there's no global dark theme option inside F26. So we installed the trusty GNOME Tweak Tool and enabled the global dark theme. While we were at it, we also changed the windows controls buttons to display Maximize and Minimize buttons. By default, the GNOME desktop shipped with F26 only displays a Close button for your windows. We find the absence of the Maximize/Minimize control buttons very annoying and unnatural. We were quick to reinstate them. The fix is rather simple if their absence annoys you too. For a little extra desktop juiciness, we added a Places button to the GNOME desktop panel. It makes the task of opening your files much quicker and it will have positive productivity results if you're a heavy graphical file manager user. One last recommendation is to install PCManFM and change it to the default graphical file manager. We hate the default Nautilus/Files application. It resembles nothing of the power that Nautilus once provided to the user and PCManFM goes some way to restoring the user that lost power. Or you can go full console file manager and install Midnight Commander (mc).

The rest of the GNOME desktop on the F26 Workstation release is pretty much GNOME standard, with the usual feast of Firefox for internet, Evolution for email and LibreOffice to take care of your daily paperwork requirements. The inclusion of Evolution is interesting. We prefer Thunderbird for email, however we can easily adapt to Evolution if needed. But if you really want to install Thunderbird, you can easily do so along with removing Evolution in the process. Overall, there is a nice blend of applications and if installed in the workplace, everything is there to get your day started. If there's anything that we would declare a must, post-installation, it would be the installation of the aforementioned GNOME Tweak Tool. Those few little extra tweaks it enables makes the GNOME desktop feel that little more complete and consumer ready. We like Fedora 26 and believe that if you're looking to install Linux fresh, then out of all the mainstream distributions available, this would be our recommendation.

July 29, 2017 | Atari Still Teasing Us With Ataribox Details

When Atari first hinted at new Atari-branded gaming hardware, through the release of its first teaser video, there was hysteria among internet users, gamers and older Atari fans.

The promotional teaser didn't show much at all, really. There is no mention of hardware type, specifications or what device was actually in the release pipeline from the legendary technology company. It was essentially a camera panning over a very traditional Atari design of ribbed finished plastic and also elements of its traditional wood grain finish. We learned very little from the teaser video. The video was released to simply achieve what it did - tease our Atari senses and give us the sudden feeling of wanting more Atari goodness in our fingers.

Tecseek Technology has been on the watch for any new information that may hint at some kind of detail about what Atari is planning to release. We suspect that it will be PC based hardware. We have not yet received much information from Atari other than a press email which recently arrived in our inbox.

We know it is currently being called the Ataribox. Whether this is the final name of the device or whether it will be changed when final release approaches, we do not know. The press email did show an image of a design of the Ataribox. Whether this image is the final design was not confirmed, but Atari are claiming that the design aims to stay true to the company's heritage and should please both old and new Atari fans. Based on the images we've seen, we think it looks good and we are so damn excited.

The Ataribox is sticking with the traditional ribbed design and contains specific design elements which pay homage to the original Atari consoles which made the company so famous. Also, there are intentions to release two different designs - wood and a black/red edition.

We have a basic understanding of the possible design of the Ataribox, but what kind of hardware are we likely to see inside? Well according to the press email we received, the unit will contain HDMI output, USB connectivity and SD memory I/O. There is no more information yet confirmed by Atari on internal hardware specifications or what operating system the device will run. Sony Playstation actually runs a BSD-based operating system whilst Microsoft Xbox is running a modified Windows platform. We watch with a keen eye to see whether the Ataribox gets a Linux-based operating system. Alternatively, Atari may very well choose to go down the same path as Sony and opt for a modified BSD-based platform.

The company states that any further technical details will be released as more information can be made public over the course of the duration of development. But Atari did confirm that the unit will deliver Atari gaming classics as well as new game content. In what kind of form the gaming experience will be delivered, remains a mystery.

As expected, there's absolutely no information about any expected pricing for the eventual Ataribox unit, games or accessories. Understandably, it's just way too early to even consider what price bracket the Ataribox will slip into. But the company does claim that they are listening to community input, reactions and social media feedback which hopefully, will be reflected in the final unit's design and content delivery.

We eagerly await for more information and specifications for the Ataribox. Tecseek Technology will publish more details as it arrives in our inbox.

July 6, 2017 | Google News Gutted Beyond Use

Google News has been one of the company's services that has seemingly remained untouched for many years. It wasn't a major problem, as the functionality was all there. Google News is and remains a very popular service provided by this behemoth of a company, Google which remains under its parent company Alphabet Inc., and is primarily developed around the core function of internet search. The News service collated and aggregated news from a variety of sources chosen by the user. Or if the user was not logged in or using custom settings for their own choice of news sources, Google would simply present the user with a selection of news from sources chosen by them. Essentially, this is done by Google's very advanced computer algorithms.

News was brilliant. It was often underestimated just how good it was and how useful it could be to news nerds and even those who work in the media and publishing industry. It would be safe to say that it was probably most likely a little underappreciated as well. Google knew this and undoubtedly it would have been taken into consideration when the News service recently received its first interface overhaul in many years.

Interestingly, there was very little excitement when Google recently upgraded the appearance of News accompanied by some additional functionality changes. Google will tout the changes are actually improvements. We absolutely dispute any comments from Google to suggest the changes are any kind of improvement. If that's what the changes were genuinely intended to be.

There has been a major loss of functionality and despite the Google News Team's blog post about the update touting that the company want to give the user more control, this is somewhat a little overstated as we have noticed a significant amount of reduced functionality since the introduction of the latest round of updates. Settings we used to be able to change and tweak to our liking have now been removed. Settings that were once easy to find have now been skinned alive and streamlined into a more simplified configuration interface and a more narrow choice of configuration options.

Google News has effectively been gutted.

The changes have also removed several news and weather sections which were very useful, based on the location set and locations detected. Now, it attempts to provide news and weather based on detected location rather than what you have set. We tried changing this setting inside the configuration options to no avail. It insisted on providing us with news based on the location of Perth. Our office is based on the Gold Coast in the State of Queensland. If our readers are unfamiliar with the country of Australia, then we can tell you our country is large. The Gold Coast is on the east coast of the nation, Perth is on the west coast. Therefore, news provided for Perth has absolutely no relevance to us. And neither does the weather for Perth.

We feel this is either a major oversight by News developers or a major bug which made it way into the update roll out. Or just a downright stupid decision. Whatever the explanation, Google needs to fix this to regain any kind of credibility to its News service.

News has been an important part of our office information gathering process. We operate in a shared office environment and news is sourced from a variety of online services, sources and wires. Google News provided us with a vital platform for news and information gathering and offered the great aggregation platform that we have required to get the news and facts in the one place, to be able to present our readers the content that we publish at Tecseek Technology. Now, we can't help but feel that we have been ripped off of all the progress and ease-of-use that News offered. All the advantages and gains that it has provided for news aggregation and all the giant leaps forward that News provided have now been lost - due to a simple yet effective update rolled out by Google.

As a result of the latest flawed updates, we have decided there is simply too much functionality lost and the reduction of user control required for the service to meet our need is no longer present. Whilst our office still uses Google for our email services, we have officially dropped Google News as our news aggregation platform.

Our decision to drop it was not taken lightly and has been more of a frustration. Google News was a vital service and it's very disappointing that Google did not roll out the updates whilst still allowing the user to have the same level of effective control over their news content, as before. Usually, we embrace changes by Google as their changes are usually useful, necessary and genuinely provide efficiency improvements. Sadly, Google has let down their users on this occasion. For us, it has let us down so much that we made the decision to drop the service altogether.

June 19, 2017 | Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch) Review

Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch) has made its way into public hands. Tecseek Technology has taken a look at the release. We usually find Debian releases to be quite boring. Yes, it's a brilliant base to provide other distribution developers a platform to build upon. Notably, Ubuntu being one of our favorites. But Debian in its raw form feels quite lacklustre. The release of Stretch is no different.

Don't be put off by our rather pessimistic perspective. It's a finely polished product, there is no doubt on that. Yet it just feels so naked. Installation is fast and matches that of more popular mainstream distributions. Red Hat's Fedora distribution is probably the first that comes to our minds when we think of fast installation. Debian comes in at a close second. Installation is easy and very efficient. But it's the follow-up configuration which will consume most of your time and hold most of your attention. You still need to make a quick change to the APT configuration file to get updates working post-installation. And we still find that display drivers are limited in Debian which resulted in us having a very limited display resolution. This has always been a major point of frustration for us with Debian. This release has that same frustration.

Overall, it's a stable release with no major problems that we can determine. There are some obvious niggles though. Lack of proper support for display drivers is one. LibreOffice launcher is present in the XFCE Application Menu is two. We find this quite strange considering that LibreOffice is not even installed in Stretch, by default. XFCE is the only graphical desktop environment offered in the default graphical installation. If you were to be a little more crafty with your installation method, you could easily enable some online repositories and pull in a new desktop environment for installation. But we took the lazy option and just installed with XFCE.

If you want a stable Linux distribution which commands your attention for customization, then you will enjoy Debian 9.0.0 (Stretch). It does demand your attention. But if you prefer a more complete Linux distribution where everything is installed for you and you don't have to spend too much time adding a whole bunch of software post-installation, then we recommend looking at one of the big four mainstream distributions as it's most likely what you're seeking for desktop Linux. Debian on the server is where it really shines. Perhaps not so much on the desktop.

March 1, 2017 | Is Facebook Killing Snapchat One App at a Time?

In its early beginnings, Snapchat was a unique kind of app. I guess you could say it was 'revolutionary', although we do despise using that term which has become so synonymous when used in relation to Apple. At the time Snapchat was developed, it took some time to find its feet for mainstream adoption. However, it had the advantage that there was nothing comparable.

The giants of social media, Facebook and Twitter, were still observers to what kind of threat Snapchat could possibly pose to their market share dominance. It was not until late 2012 heading into 2013 that Snapchat began to really gain traction and a 'following'. Then in the years that followed right up until present, Snapchat (deservedly) forged its way into the category of mainstream apps and that friendly little yellow Snap icon would be found on many smartphones, sitting next to the icons of Facebook and Twitter that you now find on most people's smartphones.

Facebook is long considered the behemoth of social media, closely followed by Twitter. Google+ is worthy of a mention with its various attempts at breaking into the sector. But let's be realistic - Google+ has failed to make any significant impact on the user base of Facebook and Twitter. But we're certainly not stating that Google+ is a bad service. Because it is not. It's important to understand that Facebook and Twitter both have different market focus and are constantly evolving to adapt to consumer demand for new services. While Twitter was a bit more complacent and didn't feel the same level of market threat from Snapchat, Facebook was feeling the heat or perhaps could see the potential of Snapchat if its development path was drastically overhauled.

It was late 2013 when the Wall Street Journal reported that Snapchat had turned down an acquisition offer from Facebook, of US $3 billion. Reports from various news agencies began to fluctuate the final offer figure and we witnessed reports of Facebook offering amounts between $1 billion to $3.5 billion. Despite the unconfirmed final figure of Facebook's offer, it proved what many analysts were thinking - Facebook was feeling threatened. Fast forward to late 2016 to right now and take a look at the feature set that Facebook has launched across the company's portfolio. FB Messenger, Instagram and the most recent update to WhatsApp have all had features included which blatantly copy the features and functions of Snapchat. Carbon copy!

This much can not be denied. It has been a major kick in the guts for Snapchat and despite the company still increasing its user base (statistics from 2016 report on average 150-160 million daily users) questions must be asked about how much longer the company can keep increasing its user base under the current software's design and feature set which on its current development path, seems limited in scope. Snapchat is limited in functionality. Its core functions remain the base of the product and everything is kind of built around this core. This is evident by its user interface and navigation gestures.

Snapchat has been criticized many times for its complicated navigation and lack of instructions of how to use it, for new users. Admittedly, it can be a little strange to navigate at times as it departs from what most people would consider normal navigation and gestures. It is sometimes much too difficult to discover how to perform the simplest of tasks and is an issue that the development team are yet to figure out how to overcome or improve.

Facebook is full steam ahead with its all-out assault on Snapchat. But it's not just the feature copying that Facebook is rolling out across its software, it's the tweaks it adds to these features which makes it work. Sometimes, we find that you can achieve the same (often much better) results using these 'Snapchat-like' or 'Story' implementations in FB Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp than what would otherwise prove very cumbersome and slow using Snapchat. Keeping all of the above in mind, combined with the market power of Facebook, its ability to make life difficult for its rivals and powerful access to developer resources, you can't help but wonder how much longer Snapchat can resist the competition in this relatively niche arena of social media.

When you have the world's most powerful social media company attacking your product, software and features and rolling it out across their entire software portfolio - it's in your face and can't be ignored. If you're working at Snapchat you have to begin to wonder whether your employer has a long-term future in Silicon Valley or whether the white flags will soon be raised.

We don't know. Where Snapchat has felt stale, Facebook has felt innovative. Snapchat developers need to seriously innovate their product and find new ways to stay relevant. The ever changing trends of social media habits and consumer loyalty will ultimately decide the future of whether Snapchat maintains its relevance in an ever increasingly challenging industry that is social media. From what we are seeing, there are dark clouds gathering on the horizon.

February 16, 2017 | Install Spotify on Linux

Linux users seem to be the last of priority for most software makers releasing their products for our beloved operating system. There is no technical reason behind the lack of priority given to Linux users. In many ways, our operating system is much more advanced than others. It's a simple fact that Linux is still not yet considered mainstream, or popular. Thankfully, although Spotify who run Linux don't experience quite the same amount of support that Windows, Mac OS, iOS and Android users might enjoy, we are grateful the company does at least provide a Linux client package for Spotify.

The packages provided for Linux are supportive for Debian and Ubuntu installations only. So if you head to the downloads page hoping to find a RPM package file, then you're going to be bitterly disappointed.

To install the Spotify client in Linux, you need to use the following instructions carefully.

First, we need to install the Spotify repository including the verification key. You can do this by entering the following command inside a terminal console:

$ sudo apt-key adv --keyserver hkp:// --recv-keys

The verification key has now been configured.

Now we just need to add the repository:

$ echo deb stable non-free
$ sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/spotify.list

Now the repository has been added, we simply need to update our repositories and then we can proceed to install the Spotify client. Update with the following command:

$ sudo apt-get update

Now we proceed to install Spotify for Linux:

$ sudo apt-get install spotify-client

Spotify client has now been installed successfully. To run the client, it should now be found inside your desktop application menu, or you can simply type the following into a terminal:

$ spotify

February 12, 2017 | Time to Dump Insecure Windows XP, For Secure Linux!

We are still shocked to hear stories of people running Microsoft Windows XP as their operating system. Support, security patches and all other updates for the operating system ceased way back in 2014. Since then, we've seen Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and the latest update which has also categorically become Microsoft's flagship software, Windows 10.

If you have missed out on the many free upgrade offers that Microsoft were throwing out for bait to boost your system to Windows 10, or you simply have an older system that will not run Windows 10 as good as what it runs Windows XP, then Tecseek Technology has the solution for you.

We recommend you install a very light version of Ubuntu Linux, called Lubuntu. It's a very lightweight version of the popular Ubuntu Linux operating system. Once installed, you will find it a nice simple replacement for your aging Windows XP system. That old clunky system will feel new once again.

Most software you use on a daily basis is already installed in Lubuntu, leaving you very little to do post-install. We still recommend you perform a simple update which does not take long and then you will be running a brand new operating system which is completely updated and secure, leaving Windows XP in the history books of Microsoft.

We believe Windows XP was a very good operating system, which is why it was one of the most popular of all Windows operating systems in the company's history (at the time of writing). But its time is up and we see absolutely no sense in continuing to condone the use of or support users who are still running this outdated and now very insecure software. Continuing to run Windows XP through ignorance or laziness to upgrade is the equivalent of running down the street with a terrorist flag hanging on your shoulders and cops yelling, "Let's get him". Yes, XP has become nothing more than a target for hackers looking for easy prey.

If we still haven't convinced you to ditch Windows XP, we seriously urge you to reconsider. Before you go ahead and install Lubuntu as your Windows XP replacement, please ensure that you backup all of your personal files and data onto an external hard disk or other means of external storage. When you backup all your data, double check you have everything off your drive that you want saved, because the installation of Lubuntu will completely wipe the entire drive. Also, please ensure that you unplug the backup storage device from the system before you install Lubuntu. While technically you can leave it plugged in, we recommend you remove it to avoid any drive conflicts or confusion when installing Lubuntu.

Once Lubuntu has been installed, you can then re-plug the external drive back in and copy your personal files and any other data onto the new Lubuntu system.

We hope we have convinced you to install Lubuntu operating system as a replacement for your old Microsoft Windows XP system. You can now plug in your external media that you backed up your Windows personal files on and now copy them onto the new Lubuntu system.

Linux is very secure and very simple to use. Lubuntu is the best choice for older systems as it is very lightweight on resources and is very simple to use. Even for beginners!

January 9, 2017 | NES Classic Hacked, Regenerated Interest in Retro Gaming

We believe Nintendo may have underestimated the extent of its fans and the potential of hackers and the lengths that they will go to, to get what they want, when it released the NES Classic Edition console.

The small console is a modern adaption of the much loved console of the 1980's and which spawned a trend that continued on well into the 1990's with the release of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System, or more commonly referred to as SNES. The NES Classic Edition has a limited selection of games pre-installed, for the retro enjoyment of a great gaming era for Nintendo.

Although Nintendo fans seemed super happy with the release of the neat little console, there was still a certain amount of discontent among gaming circles that it was locked down by not allowing users to modify the system to play custom ROMS and adding more functionality to this charming little beast of a box.

ROMS remain illegal in most countries, yet peculiarly remain really popular among retro gamers and are enjoyed by many by using software emulators. Just this week, news broke out that the NES Classic Edition had been hacked and users were able to play custom ROMS that are uploaded to the device by USB.

As we go to press, the news is spreading, technical information and instructions are being thrown around like rapid fire. Equally, information is changing in detail at the same rapid pace as more bugs are posted and improvements being applied.

Based on the information Tecseek Technology has read, the process is quite complicated. And unless you're technically advanced and skilled in this area, we advise that you leave this one alone. Or at least until the process becomes more streamlined and hacking methods simplified.

From our understanding, the process involves booting the Linux-based operating system that powers the console into a special mode known as FEL mode. It then requires you to inject ROM files into the device and make certain configuration changes for authentication. Warning are clear - there is a very real possibility of bricking the device if the process is not performed correctly. If you're not feeling confident, then we again strongly suggest that you avoid attempting it. You have been warned!

Nintendo has always had a loyal following. This is proven throughout the history of the company. The company has been written off many times by gaming industry analysts. Yet somehow, Nintendo seems to reinvent itself time and time again, whilst making significant dents in the gaming industry in the process. Its loyal following is also backed up by the many fan created and maintained websites and the myriad of software emulators available on all computing platforms. Many of these emulators are capable of playing the original games flawlessly, on modern computer hardware and modern gaming controllers which can have their keys mapped accordingly through the emulator.

If tried and tested is what you like, then we recommend checking out one of the popular emulators. If you want to get your hands dirty, then by all means, go ahead and try hacking the NES Classic Edition. But you must consider the risks of bricking the device and making it unusable. There's also the legal question - you most likely will be breaking the law. As a publishing organization, we can't condone illegal activity. However, we advise that you make your own judgment of what is illegal and what is ethically acceptable and who will really be at harm by your actions. One thing remains certain - interest in retro gaming remains strong and interest in Nintendo never ceases to surprise us. Even in the era of gaming of the 1980's and 90's that you thought was long dead, has been revived once again.

December 5, 2016 | Fedora 25 Released - Look Down and Keep Walking

The past few months have seen the latest updates to the big three mainstream Linux distributions of Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and now Fedora 25. This will be the last Linux distribution that we will be taking a look at for 2016. But Tecseek Technology plans to check out many more as part of our publications for 2017. Briefly looking ahead into next year we will be attempting to keep up with all the mainstream Linux releases, as well as taking a look at some of the more not so mainstream and obscure releases that probably don't really get the attention that they deserve. There is some incredible Linux development work going on out there in the wild, much of it goes unnoticed. We feel more recognition needs to be given to the third-party and sometimes 'better' options that are available. But bringing us back to the present, let's take a look at what we have right in front of us right now - Fedora 25 or simply referred to as F25.

We have taken a look at the default GNOME release and the XFCE release. Both of which are technically the same, yet just running a different desktop environment. As is always the case with Fedora, we see some of the most recent software and packages included. Not quite as bleeding edge as Fedora's Rawhide release, but still pretty on the edge regardless.

Fedora 25 follows on this tradition with a Linux kernel 4.8.6 on a fresh installation. Desktop environments we tested were GNOME 3.22.1 and XFCE 4.12. GNOME was just the usual offering provided by Fedora, nothing to really market that differs from any other release. We found GNOME performance slightly disappointing. There was obvious lag and in desktop use the responsiveness was just not up to par with the GNOME desktop components that make up OpenSUSE 42.2 Leap. We tried XFCE to find that performance improved a lot. This much should be obvious though, as it is a much lighter desktop environment than its GNOME counter-part.

We are going to sidetrack for a second and put it out there that we are finding XFCE to be a little boring. There's no innovation and development versions have stagnated. We understand it aims to provide a fast flexible setup, yet the same can be said from the GNOME 2 fork, now known as MATE. Despite MATE aiming to remain a lightweight alternative the developers have still managed to keep its desktop innovative and constantly updated. It's sad to see XFCE sitting out in the cold, freezing a slow death. We don't mean to sound so negative, as it's not all bad news as the project is not dead. But we would like to see some real attention and innovation get put into this once reputable package in the very near future. Otherwise, we feel its uptake will remain limited and only decrease over time and becoming a desktop that will be used by only a very niche bunch of users.

All of this is no reflection on F25, however we feel that considering we did test the XFCE version of F25, it is worth mentioning to those of you that might consider following our test path. Your desktop will remainpretty ordinary and looking a little dated, to say the least. However, you have that edge of speed to boast about. That's something.

Installation runs just fine. Nothing has really changed from previous version of Anaconda and installation was completed quite quickly. We still maintain that Fedora remains one of the most consistently fast full Linux distributions to install, that we regularly test anyway.

Post-installation, we were greeted with the usual Fedora screen that we were kind of expecting. Nothing fancy, just a desktop waiting for the user to do something. Unfortunately, things went downhill for us from this point. We immediately updated both F25 test systems using DNF at the terminal console level. Download of the updates proceeded just fine and the packages seemed to install without any indicative issues. Everything seemed to go as planned and routine, really.

Then when we attempted to reboot into the updated Linux kernel 4.8.10, we were greeted with a no-boot black screen. Nothing. Our system was dead. Initially, we thought it might be the updated kernel and thought something had gone awry during its update. So we attempted to boot back into the original 4.8.6 kernel which we knew worked prior to our update. Sadly, we entered the same no-boot black screen.

This is alarming and equally alarming when the recovery console can not be reached either. That system was absolutely useless and inaccessible in its current state.

We proceeded to try the same process on our F25 system running XFCE. We updated our fresh install using DNF and rebooted into the new kernel. Success. The XFCE system had no problems and would successfully boot into either kernel.

Out of pure determination and part-effort to discover where the root cause of the problem was, we proceeded to setup a new GNOME system from scratch. We went through the entire procedure again then updated the system using DNF. Upon reboot into the updated kernel, we were able to replicate the same no-boot black screen. Nothing had changed. It confirms that our issues were not one off instances, can easily be replicated and proves that there is an update in there somewhere which is affecting all installed kernels, making them unbootable and spreading across the entire system. This is serious and should not go ignored.

To throw a third scenario into the mix, we upgraded an existing and fully updated and functioning Fedora 24 system. The upgrade was simple and fast. It was all too easy. So easy that we don't really have anything more to say about it. All settings and configurations of the pre-existing user accounts was maintained and all packages were updated to the latest 25 core. Extra points for the effort put into making system upgrades so easy between build versions.

F25 is a pretty disappointing release with equally disappointing performance. Fedora loyalists will most likely find themselves upgrading out of simple routine and eventual requirement to do so. However, if you're looking for something fresh for a new system, then we recommend you take a look at OpenSUSE 42.2 Leap instead.

OpenSUSE is much more stable and much more predictable. Installing and running F25 feels like walking a Linux tightrope with no safety net. We found ourselves literally holding our breath way too many times, just hoping that what we were doing would work. If it did work, could it be done a second time with the same result? Sadly, we were let down on too many occasions and in a big way. We are just not confident enough to be recommending this release to anyone as there is just much better options available without the stress you will most likely endure with F25. We were really impressed with F23 and 24. But absolutely not impressed with F25. It resembles that awkward experience of approaching someone you know but don't like in the shopping mall, when you see them you deliberately look the other way and pretend you never seen them at all. When you see Fedora 25 coming your way, best to look the other way and keep walking.

November 11, 2016 | Linux Mint is Safe and Secure

There seems a certain amount of paranoia that has ensued since the revelation of the hacking of Linux Mint servers, which resulted in specific ISO images of the operating system being replaced with hacked versions which contained a backdoor.

If you're part of the Linux paranoia group that I speak of, then please limit your paranoia to yourself as it goes unjustified.

The paranoia has spawned from over-hyped media reports on the hacking and the circulation of the ISOs which contain the backdoor. It's important to understand that this kind of illegitimate web activity occurs all the time and it is not limited in case. Most of the time going unreported or deliberately not publicly revealed.

The team at Linux Mint did all the right things and immediately shut down its website, with the exception of its Blog which was used to notify its users of what had occurred. The team and developers were completely transparent of all details at all times. To the best of our understanding, the team knew what exactly had occurred, when it occurred, what specific ISOs were affected and where the backdoor was located in the ISO filesystem.

The team needs to be commended for its quick action, notification to users and its efforts of transparency. Attacks against Linux Mint, its operating system and spreading false rumors about the quality of the operating system and the project's team members are completely unjustified and outright unfair for the amount of hardwork and effort that goes into developing and producing this high-quality Linux release.

Staff at Tecseek Technology have witnessed Linux advocates publicly stating that they will "never use" or recommend Linux Mint anymore, as a result of the hack. The negative comments continue, with claims being made that the operating system is "no longer safe to use". But it doesn't stop there, with more concerning comments being made by Linux users saying they will never use a "Ubuntu-based" Linux again. Finally, at the extreme end of the scale and some of the more silly comments stating that Linux interest and potential uptake as a whole will "suffer" as a result of the hack, thanks to Linux Mint.

Let us be clear and put the whole scenario into its true perspective. Linux Mint is perfectly safe to download, install and use. The hacking of the project's servers has now been resolved and all images have been verified via MD5 signature verification methods, deemed safe and have not been tampered with in any way. Any information being spread that does not conform to the true facts can be misleading and verges on conspiracy theory and should be ignored.

I am a seasoned Linux user myself (Editor) - a veteran some might say. I can personally assure people that Linux Mint is perfectly safe. It is a top-quality Linux operating system based on Ubuntu, which also remains top-quality.

Linux advocates need to understand the core facts of the situation, move on and continue to do what we do best - advocate for free and open-source software and Linux. We can not let events like this deter us from our advocacy. Instead, we need to understand what occurred, how it occurred, what can be done to prevent this from occurring in the future and make efforts to assist the Linux eco-system in achieving our goals rather than putting our tails between our legs and running scared yelling "Linux has been hacked. It's not safe to use.".

Such comments and statements are simply false, reckless and unjustified.

November 9, 2016 | Brief Introduction to Sed

There is a really neat software package that is very powerful, yet so many *nix users are still unaware of its existence. It's called sed.

sed was developed by a Computer Scientist named Lee E. McMahon, who worked for Bell Labs from 1963-89, with most technologists knowing him for his work on early versions of Unix. McMahon has made contributions to a range of open-source software projects, notably grep and sed. He passed away in 1989.

sed is described as a stream editor and has been touted as a somewhat successor to grep and were both developed in the same year of 1974. However, it remains true that despite being over 40 years old, both are still being used and maintained, today. sed is written in the C programming language.

sed has been referenced as an early inspiration for the scripting programming language, Perl. This reference comes from its ability of using / for pattern matching and s/// for substitution. This was not original to sed and instead was a feature of ed, a line editor developed several years earlier in the late 1960s.

When AWK was developed several years later and when combined with the powerful functions of sed, the software for advanced text processing via the console became widely adopted in the field of computer science. sed has been developed further by the additions it received by GNU sed. There is also super-sed which adds Perl compatible regular expressions. Interestingly, there exists a reverse engineered version called minised, which was originally the work of Eric S. Raymond. He no longer maintains the package, yet it is still maintained by other developers. minised was a simplified form of sed and used by the GNU Project, until a more feature-rich version could be developed by GNU developers. Despite its lack of features, it was said to be very fast and memory resource friendly. minised is used with Minix.

sed is a powerful editor and processor which perform many advanced functions that are still unmatched by other software. Many other software developers have aimed to achieve many of the same functions that is achieved by sed. This has resulted in a multitude of small packages for text and string processing at console level, each with a specific focus on their intended usage. The advanced abilities and raw power at the fingertips of *nix users, thanks to sed, are often what makes people overlook it in favor of more simpler packages which are sometimes much easier to use due to smaller focus on a particular task.

Sometimes an important feature that can be overlooked by sed, is its scripting ability. Using sed scripting can often be a nice way to simplify advanced syntax. As an example, you can write a simple sed script in the same way you would a regular Bash or Perl script, starting with:

#!/bin/sed -f

Then just save the file with a suitable file name:


Then the sed script can easily be executed directly, by running it from the console.

If you haven't got around to trying out sed, then install it onto your system and try it out now. It can be used as an advanced, versatile yet flexible string editor and also a powerful scripting package. The more I've been using sed, the more I have realized its raw power underneath and what it has the potential to unleash, with just a few simple lines of code. Its power and complicated simplicity (does that make sense?) pays tribute to how this small piece of software has survived for 40+ years. If you're a *nix developer, then having sed installed on your system is an absolute must.

November 9, 2016 | Compile CipherShed on Linux

Anyone interested in cyber security should be ready to learn about CipherShed, the next big thing in on-the-fly data encryption. This open-source disk encryption program is available across almost all major operating system platforms (Microsoft Windows, Mac OS, Linux and even DragonFly BSD). However, it's important to mention that as of today, CipherShed still doesn't have a compiled Linux binary package for installation. On the other hand, seeing as this platform is still technically under development, chances are that it will become available in the near future. According to StatCounter for June 2016, Windows has more users than all the rest combined several times over. But in this guide, we will mostly focus on Linux users.

The program itself is quite promising in both its efficiency and user friendliness, so it probably won't be long until it becomes industry standard. With this in mind, here are a few guidelines on how to successfully set up this program, as well as use it with maximum efficiency.

Even though we've already mentioned this, CipherShed is an open-source program, which means that anyone can study, tinker or distribute it for any purpose [within the provisions of its distributed license]. It's also free, both as in free-of-charge and free speech. All you need to do in order to download the file is go to and then click on the link to the latest release of the program.

Builds for Linux and Mac OS are still unavailable, which means that the users of these platforms will have to find a way to compile it on their own. Also, 64bit editions of Windows Vista (in some rare cases, even 32bit) don't allow this program to run without an appropriate certificate, which CipherShed unfortunately doesn't possess. It's also important to mention that CipherShed is compatible with Ubuntu, Debian and many other similar derivatives. This includes: Peppermint, Linux Lite, Deepin, Kwheezy, Crunchbang, SparkyLinux, Linux Mint, Pinguy OS, Elementary OS and last but not the least, important LXLE.

The installation on any of these platforms is pretty much the same. The most unfortunate thing about Linux setup is that it has to be compiled directly from source code. The first thing you will need to do in order to get started is to secure the pinentry dependencies. Luckily, this is not that difficult and all you need to do is download gtk2 packages. You can easily install them by running this command in a terminal console:

$ sudo apt-get install build-essential libwxgtk2.8-dev nasm pkg-config git wx2.8-headers libwxbase2.8-dev libfuse-dev libfuse2 libgtk2.0-dev

After this is set up and done, you need to download the CipherShed Git source code, which you can do by typing in the following:

$ cd ~/
$ sudo git clone

Next, you need to find a way to compile CipherShed and you can do it by using following command:

$ cd CipherShed/src
$ make
$ LIBS=\"-ldl\" make

After you have all of this covered, you might also want to ensure easier use, which can be done with a simple symlink:

$ sudo ln -sf ~/CipherShed/src/Main/ciphershed /usr/bin/ciphershed

In the end, if you eventually decide to remove the program from your computer, all you need to type:

$ sudo rm -r ~/CipherShed /usr/bin/ciphershed

After you have it installed, to start CipherShed you just need to open the terminal console, type in its name and press ENTER. It's that simple!

The next thing you will want to learn is how to create and use CipherShed containers and this part is extremely simple (at least when compared to the installation). All you have to do is follow these few simple steps.

When the program opens, you first need to click on the Create Volume button or the button "C" on your keyboard. After this, enter the Volume Creation Wizard, where you need to choose where you want the volume to be created and then click on the Next button. You will also have the option of creating a standard or hidden volume you can choose from and, when the choice is made, all you need to do is click Next, again. Now, the wizard will present you with the option to Select File and then navigate towards the file you want encrypted. Here you will also have the opportunity to name the file. Next, you will be asked to choose the encryption algorithm; if you are not familiar with what they offer, the safest choice would be to opt for AES. In the next section of the process, you will be asked several questions regarding the volume size, the password and the volume format. After this is done, the volume will be successfully created.

In order to access the files you have encrypted, all you need to do is mount them and enter the password in the prompt window.

As you can see, encryption alone is no more complicated than with any other similar program. Even though Linux users still don't have the convenience of a compiled package for installation, going through a bit more trouble to compile the file and install it from the source is always worth it. According to most users of CipherShed, this program is a worthy successor of long since abandoned but never forgotten TrueCrypt, which was actually very much respected among cryptologists as one of the best encryption tools available and was used to encrypt the original leaked documents from former NSA Contractor, Edward Snowden.

September 28, 2016 | Firefox - The Power Under the Hood

If there's one thing that nerds love, it's statistics and streams of verbose output. The verbose part is probably more familiar with the Unix and Linux fellow among the crowd. There's a certain amount of unexplained mystique about verbose output that makes us feel almighty and powerful. It makes us feel in control. It gives us full understanding of what exactly is happening at that moment, often in real-time. Then we get to probably the most boring part of any modern desktop computer - the web browser. Let's admit it, when it comes to web browsers they're not exactly the most exciting and rich generator which seeds nerd conversation. Google Chrome users (and Chromium) are blessed with its built-in Task Manager. Whilst Firefox has a high amount of users, it also has a slightly incorrect and unfair reputation as being the browser that doesn't have a built-in Task Manager like Chrome, therefore it is not as powerful. Well, we disagree to a certain extent. Firefox is much more powerful and verbose than what people realize. The problem is, it is just made a little more difficult to find its included juicy goodness. But we've done the hard work for you, dug deep inside and found the inner sanctum of Firefox's workings. And because we're a friendly bunch here in the office, we're going to share our findings with our readers. Read ahead to find out more.


The first thing to learn about some of Firefox's advanced features under the hood is the about:config utility. It gives you access to all the customization options that change the default behavior of Firefox. But be very aware, inside contains much power to improve your browsing experience, but it has equal power to absolutely mess your configuration to a point of non-function. So please take care and do not tinker with anything unless you're absolutely 100% certain about what it affects.


This utility will provide you with a detailed summary and output of Firefox's memory usage. Be warned that the output given in this utility is extremely complex and confusing. Anyone short of being in possession of a masters degree in computer science will most likely fail to understand a majority of the verbose given here. But it basically allows for verbose reporting on memory usage of Firefox. We could see this being mightily useful for Firefox Developers when debugging new builds, as the memory information gathered and reported by this utility is truly staggering.


This utility actually requires the installation of a small add-on. Once installed, you simply enter the command in the navigation bar. It allows the user to view memory usage of installed add-ons. You can View, Disable and even Uninstall add-ons. It can be useful to see what add-ons are actually using (and in some cases, hogging) all your memory. According to the official add-ons page on the Mozilla website, it is described as experimental. Although we can confirm that it is solid and working just fine, despite the negative comments from some users who seem to have experienced some issues. We have no complaints and recommend you give it a shot as it's a nice complement to the default set of built-in utilities.


The performance utility is a useful tool that provides simple, yet focused feedback about the performance of installed add-ons and open web pages. The performance feature can be very useful when Firefox slows down and you wish to pinpoint the culprit of which add-on is causing the unexpected slowdown. Sometimes it can be a misbehaving extension or a website you have open inside Firefox. This tool allows you to disable the extension causing the slowdown or other problem or Close/Reload the Tab which is controlling the website causing you grief. Firefox used to be notorious for memory leaks and unexplained random slow-downs. Recent builds have improved greatly, but it does still happen on occasion. This utility could be your savior if it happens to you.


Last and probably the most important utility under the hood is the Firefox Health Report. It's the built-in tool which is used to measure and display Firefox browser statistics of performance and stability, recorded and generated over the browsers lifetime. The statistics provided can be useful for analysis and data feedback. Or in the case of developers, essential for debugging. The statistics gathered are also shared with Mozilla Firefox developers, which provides essential feedback on user performance and stability. The data is shared with Mozilla by default, but if you're privacy conscious data sharing for Health Report can be disabled. Other useful data reported is your Firefox build version number and update channel. Also, the number of extensions and plugins installed.


From the perspective of a software developer, we still have criticism aimed towards both browsers. We need an option to launch Chrome/Chromium and Firefox from the command-line with a verbose argument. There are limited options for this at current and we'd like to see more attention paid to this in future builds. We understand Chrome/Chromium is a little better and has some option for launching with verbose logging, but Firefox has nothing that we are aware of. If you know of a way to do this, then we'd love to hear from you. Shoot us an email and let us know.

Armed with the above information and knowledge we have been able to provide you today, hopefully you now understand that Firefox is just as powerful as Chrome/Chromium, when it comes to browser statistics and data reporting for analysis. Have a poke around and see what you find useful. You may even surprise yourself and be hypnotized by how interesting verbose output and data statistics reporting by your boring old web browser that you thought done nothing but load Google.

August 8, 2016 | Silicon Safe Device - Can it be Trusted as Safe?

In 2014-2015, we witnessed a large amount of database hacks which eventuated in the release of many personal details being dumped onto the internet. The scary thing about the hacks is their frequency is increasing and to see such massive scale hacks becoming all too common. We must not be complacent.

It seems that British company Silicon Safe may have developed the answer that the database security sector may be searching for, with the development of a new security device which stores passwords in a separate encrypted hardware box, off the main network.

In theory, the concept sounds great. How it functions in practice will really prove whether the device is up to the task of keeping client data safe and away from increasingly advanced hackers.

Silicon Safe company Founders, Dr. Will Harwood and Roger Gross in a recent interview with BBC stated that the concept came from an "academic exercise", as they were unsatisfied with existing database security technology and stated that current technology was increasingly "proving ineffective\, according to Dr. Harwood. The concept proved itself in a controlled academic environment, so it was decided to take the idea to a commercial venture.

The device is built-up from the hardware level. The device does not run an operating system like computers, rather the underlying software that runs the device is hard-coded into the hardware chip itself - firmware. According to Dr. Harwood, this eliminates the potential for the device to be affected from traditional software bugs and security holes. The Founders of Silicon Safe claim that their method of hard-coding the operating system into the hardware chip makes the device impossible to crack, using commonly used hacking methods.

The key to the device's security is its small hard-coded operating system, which was developed in approximately 10,000 lines of source code. The source code used in traditional software methods of storing secure passwords in database format exceed this by far. Silicon Safe claim that this gives the device an advantage over traditional database methods because the code focuses on only one task - securing the data. There is no log-in credentials required and also no way to log-in using a common username/password method via a web-interface and the system has no display output or graphical interface. Tecseek Technology has been unable to get information on the exact hardware specifications as they are kept secret.

Dr. Harwood claims that hackers can not access the device via the internet and only once they have physical access to the device, could they begin to even attempt to gain access. Therefore, extra security features were added to prevent this. Dr. Harwood details that after four attempts at unauthorized access, the device notifies the system administrator.

At a hefty price tag of $100,000, Silicon Safe is certainly not targeting the small-business end of the market or the general consumer. The target market will be financial and enterprise sector. With such a large price tag, we remain somewhat skeptical that the device will appeal to even that end of the market. Especially when large firms remain confident enough that their data is already secure, using traditional software and hardware methods. Although we do like the concept and hope it spawns a new open-source variety based on the concept of external encrypted hardware devices kept off main networks.

Nevertheless, we do hope that Silicon Safe find a market. The concept is great and gives an entire new meaning to data and password security. The company states that the device fits in with current server rack technology and infrastructure, including ease-of-integration with existing network technology with very few changes required.

Silicon Safe has been trialled at some large UK companies, including a financial institution and a telecommunications firm. But it seems we are not the only skeptics of the device's capabilities to secure data and passwords. According to the BBC, Professor Alan Woodward of the University of Surrey went as far as claiming that the way the device functions will make IT departments in large firms lazy. Professor Woodward went on to state that he believes system administrators should know and understand what they are doing and using a closed-device such as the Silicon Safe, which is engineered by one person and where the administrators don't completely understand the technical details and operations of the device, is not recommended and can therefore not be classified as secure. Tecseek Technology is concerned that according to the Silicon Safe website, Ashley Madison is one of the company's clients. We must point out that the Ashley Madison hack was one of the largest database hacks to eventuate in 2015, with many gigabytes of database and personal details dumped onto the internet. Below the Ashley Madison (and other company logos), the tagline proudly touts "Companies that may have benefited from Silicon:SAFE's Password Protect". The key-word in the tagline is "may have".

Ashley Madison did not benefit from Silicon Safe. It's somewhat of a false claim, on the company's website. This is a concern and we urge caution towards trusting this device.

Despite the skepticism expressed from Tecseek Technology and others, Silicon Safe is out to prove its worth as the company holds a "hacker challenge". The challenge was to access 100 encrypted passwords held inside the device. Silicon Safe states that over 2.5 millions hacking attempts have been made, yet not a single attempt has been able to crack the device and access the encrypted data.

July 19, 2016 | Taking Better Screenshots in Ubuntu

It was just two days ago that we seen a post on social media from popular Ubuntu website, OMGUbuntu, demonstrating a useful piece of software which makes taking screenshots and uploading them to the internet much more automated and hassle-free.

It is called Imgur-Screenshot. As Tecseek Technology is involved with lots of technology and software, taking screenshots is a daily task which can sometimes be a little cumbersome. So anything that makes the task a little more easier through automation and less user-interaction, is naturally going to grab our attention.

Upon visiting the website, we were was presented with an interesting piece which described what Imgur-Screenshot was and how it worked. Today, Tecseek Technology is taking a closer look and to give you a quick demonstration of what it can do to help you make taking screenshots and uploading them to the internet much easier.

It's important to understand that the entire package runs from the included shell script. Imgur-Screenshot is open-source, licensed under The MIT License and can be downloaded from GitHub. Once you have downloaded the package archive, you simply need to extract it to your /home directory.

It does require a couple of dependencies to run properly. These can easily be installed on Ubuntu using your terminal console using the following command:

$ sudo apt-get install curl grep libnotify-bin scrot xclip

The dependencies you have installed are very small and should only take under one minute to download and install. Once complete, navigate to the img-screenshot-master directory. Our suggestion was to put it into your /home directory, however we have chosen to place it in /home/Desktop.

We need to give the script permission to execute. This can be done by simply entering the following command:

chmod +x

Now we are ready to use Imgur-Screenshot. When you run the script, you will get a mouse cursor which allows you to select the section of the screen that you wish to capture. Once you have captured your selection, the script will automatically perform the following actions for you:

Capture > Upload to Imgur > Produce URL > Copy URL to clipboard > Open image in browser

The best thing about the script is the fact it's open-source and developers have the freedom to modify the script to their own preferences, in accordance to The MIT License. It's a simple shell script, so modifications are as easy as opening the script file in your favorite code editor and making the necessary changes to customize it to your own preferences.

We took the time to add some custom aliases to our Bash configuration file. We use scrot for some screenshot capturing, yet we'll be using Imgur-Screenshot for other capturing. It really just depends what you want to do with eventual image that is captured. However, aliases will not suit everyone and we encourage you to add your own aliases based on how you capture and use your own screenshots. You have all the freedom in the world to modify the software and its actions and how it is executed to function. It's open-source and completely free. Enjoy it, embrace it and take full advantage of it to customize it and perhaps learn something new in the process.

January 27, 2016 | Visual Studio on Linux, Now a Reality

Linux users are truly blessed with the sheer amount of code editors that we have at our disposal for our programming and coding requirements. But we all have our favorites and tend to stick with the same packages for our work. Or a dedicated collection of packages, at the very least. There was a time when I did use Microsoft Windows for software development. When you're using Windows as your software development environment, you're most likely familiar with Visual Studio. You might even use it yourself!

Many years ago, I migrated to Linux. At the time, I was forced to depart from my beloved Visual Studio package in favor of free and open-source alternatives. After many attempts of many different editors I settled for Emacs. These days, I still use and prefer Emacs and is definitely one software application that I have open on my desktop almost all the time, on a daily basis. It's my go-to tool of choice. Although I remain content with Emacs, accompanied by a selection of other applications, there is a place in my programming heart that will always have a soft-spot for Visual Studio.

So as a Linux programmer, what options do we have for a viable Visual Studio alternative? Up until December 2015 we didn't have much choice. There were options to explore for running Visual Studio through Wine, but all methods remained tedious and resulted in poor application performance. Let's be honest, it could not be taken serious. Times have changed. We now have a native Visual Studio application for Linux, called Visual Studio Code. Does it fill the void we've experienced for so many years? Let's find out.

If you're looking for a full-featured Visual Studio package on Linux, then Visual Studio Code is not for you. It is not what it's designed to be. If you want a more full-featured package, then you will probably be better off taking a look at something like Geany or Atom. Both of which we recommend as good code editors and development environments. Visual Studio Code is designed to be a minimal code editor which has just enough features to get the job completed, yet stay out of your way. It's a perfect blend and absolutely achieves exactly this.

There is limited syntax-highlighting, syntax detection for the most common used programming languages and split screen code editing.

Heavy coding inside Visual Studio Code is an absolute breeze and it's not hard to find yourself wired in to those long sessions that go deep into the hours of the night, usually accompanied by piles of junk food and a nice collection of red bull cans.

Digging a little deeper into the menus and you will find yourself a few extra goodies. Your usual suspects of Cut/Copy/Paste and Find/Find in Files options are all present. No grand surprises here. There is also Zoom options to make your code bigger. I guess this might only be a feature for the vision impaired. But if your eye-sight is good, you're probably not going to be using this feature. But extras points given for the accessibility options.

You can use the Full Screen option to make Visual Studio Code consume your entire screen real estsate. This can also be activated by pressing F11, which is a common key-binding found in many software programs for this feature. And then the same key to deactivate and return to normal window mode.

The color scheme of the interface is completely customizable to suit you own retina. Light or dark themes can be applied as default. I found the Dark (default color theme) the most suited for my eyes throughout day and night editing sessions. This will be personal preference and will differ for everyone. Simply choose one that works for you and allows you to work for extended periods of time without eye strain or having to squint your eyes from too much screen glare due to white eye burn.

There are a bunch of keyboard shortcuts which can be customized. But I will be honest here, I am not a massive user of keyboard shortcuts. So this was of little value to me. Some programmers love shortcuts and is literally built into their coding habits and work-flow. Those users will love the option to customize the shortcuts in Visual Studio Code.

I find the most useful feature in Visual Studio Code is split screen editing. You can literally open two different files at once and work on them simultaneously in the editor. This is also available in most other editors already. But it's great that Visual Studio Code has decided to also include the feature too.

A little known feature that you could be forgiven for overlooking is the Developer Tools. At first it can be a little confusing to use and unless you're editing HTML files inside Visual Studio Code, you will not find this feature all that useful. Loading up some HTML files made the Developer Tools very handy. It is similar to what you will find in Chrome and Firefox web browsers. Basically, if you're a HTML or web developer, you will appreciate these extra little goodies.

Visual Studio Code does not have an automated installer at the moment. The package can be simply downloaded, extracted and run from its own directory. This might sound difficult, but it's not. For this Review I was using Linux Mint and decided to get a little more crafty and extracted it to a directory inside the ~/ directory and then added a custom launcher icon on both my Desktop and Panel. Therefore, I can launch Visual Studio Code just like any other package installed on my system.

Visual Studio Code has it all. I had no problem with editing inside the application at anytime. It is a nice addition to my already crowded list of source code editing programs. The fact remains, I have started using Visual Studio Code equal to my use of Emacs. That has got to count for something. It tells me that it must be good. If an Editor can hold its own up to a package like Emacs, then it's worthy of maintaining its place on anyone's hard drive.

January 16, 2016 | A Positive Open-Source Vision for Microsoft?

It was at the JSConf Last Call event, last December when Microsoft's Gaurav Seth announced the core engine which powers Microsoft's latest web browser, Edge, would be open-sourced. The engine known as Chakra is a Javascript-based engine and has been released on GitHub and is referred to as ChakraCore.

While the announcement of releasing the code to was one major surprise coming from Microsoft, there was another announcement which surprised some software developers even more - plans for porting ChakraCore to Linux are in the pipeline. In its current form, ChakraCore can be compiled with relative ease for Windows 7 SP1 or above using Visual Studio 2013/2015, providing that C++ support is installed. Microsoft has gone one step further by calling on the development community for help and suggestions on what platforms they would like ChakraCore developed for.

A clear priority for the road-map is to get the engine developed to function natively on Linux, we see no reason that the same can not be achieved for Android. Developing ChakraCore for iOS is probably forward thinking a little too far. At least a development build supported by Microsoft. However now the code is out in the wild and released under the MIT License there is no genuine reason that no one in the open-source software development community can not develop the engine for Apple devices. Even if we were to witness a build solely for Android devices, it would be a major step towards entering a wider world in the mobile device margin and away from the somewhat niche market of Windows Mobile that Microsoft currently enjoys.

Under the leadership of its relatively new CEO, Satya Nadella, Microsoft has really changed their view of open-source and freedom in software and embraced Linux. The latest decision to release the source code of ChakraCore displays Microsoft's genuine intention to not only support free software, but specifically free and open-source software development. Releasing even small amounts of code or projects is its contribution.

Microsoft is no stranger to the open-source community and it has previously been recognized for making many code contributions to the Linux kernel, both officially as a company and through the work of its employees developing in their free time away from the office. Then in 2015 Microsoft embraced Ubuntu Linux as a platform, revealing that the company uses the operating system to function many parts of its cloud and networking software, simply because it made sense to use existing open-source software which could easily be tailored to their needs rather than developing and maintaining their own from scratch. This also has the added benefit of getting patches and updates provided by the open-source community and eliminating costs of maintaining their own proprietary, in-house developed software. Additionally, Microsoft now offers many different Linux distributions as virtual machine options on its Azure cloud service. According to official Microsoft sources, the Azure service supports CentOS, CoreOS, Debian, Oracle Linux, RHEL, SUSE Linux Enterprise, OpenSUSE and Ubuntu.

Reflecting on a recent article published to ZDNet, there is an apparent common perception among Linux and the common open-source users that Microsoft is evil and has no interest in free and open-source software. At some point in the company's history we're not going to deny the perception has some truth to it. The company vision under the guidance of former CEO Steve Ballmer could only be described as narrow-minded and dark. It was clear the company was heading in the wrong direction. It was clear for a very long time, yet Ballmer seemed determined to continue on its dark and misguided path. This was reinforced when the company replaced Ballmer in favor of Satya Nadella. The change in company vision was stark and was quickly embraced. The company's evil past has mostly been left in the shadows and with a new focus, vision and embrace of Linux and free and open-source software.

Whilst we would not go as far as to say Microsoft is going to open-source its Windows operating system anytime in the foreseeable future, releasing one service at a time and embracing open-source software and giving its development a small boost by occasionally releasing code can only be a good thing for the development community, with added benefits of increased interoperability between all software across all platforms.


Change Movement Initiative

#activism #hacking #privacy #politics

May 12, 2016 | Global | CloudFlare Failing to Support Net Neutrality and Improve Tor Access

CloudFlare has got the company into a position where it has a major influence on internet accessibility of certain websites. This is primarily evident for users of Tor Browser. The service has a major customer base of both independent and major owned and operated websites.

There are options and steps that website administrators can take which essentially make access to their website(s) much easier for users of Tor Browser, instead of hiding behind CloudFlare walls which force users to painstakingly attempt to gain access by toggling through reCAPTCHA. Too many times, web administrators do not make the necessary changes required to allow Tor Browser users easy access, as non-Tor users.

Change Movement Initiative would like to make it clear that although the primary responsibility lies with website administrators, CloudFlare also have a key responsibility to ensure their customers know of options to make access for Tor Browser users easier and to ensure free passage for internet access to these websites for everyone, whilst ensuring that the websites remain protected from DoS attacks using CloudFlare's technology and as intended.

We are calling on CloudFlare to continue to evaluate and explore options that the company can take to make its service cater better for all internet users and assist in the promotion of freedom of information flow which result in improvements towards net neutrality.

CloudFlare should take a leading role in the internet accessibility stakes, specifically for users of Tor Browser. The current limitations and roadblocks placed on Tor users is unacceptable and Change Movement Initiative believes that there is much more room for improvements to be made on behalf of CloudFlare and its services.

We are dedicated to advocating and promoting net neutrality. Current practices which CloudFlare implement do not follow the basic principles which enable for true net neutrality and freedom of the internet. Some could make the argument that the company's service is assisting towards promoting a form of internet censorship.

Change Movement Initiative has not contacted CloudFlare about our concerns, but clearly the issues are reaching the company as on March 30, 2016, a post appeared on the company's Blog, making claim that 94% of Tor traffic that flows through CloudFlare's network is "malicious". The company claims the source of the research data was gathered from network usage statistics from their service. Change Movement Initiative has concerns as to the accuracy and validity of the statistic of 94% and suggests it to be inflated to some extent. Our own organization intends to contact CloudFlare directly in response to these claimed statistics and ask for a release of documentation to support the claim.

The Tor Project made their concerns public by publishing their response the following day in a Blog post on March 31, 2016. The claimed statistic of 94% of Tor traffic flowing through CloudFlare to be "malicious", also raised the alarm bells inside the project's members. The Tor Project has also called for CloudFlare to explain how it arrived at this inflated figure.

Change Movement Initiative intends to contact and work with The Tor Project through advocating that CloudFlare continue to make improvements to its service, to make access to websites hiding behind the company's security walls easier for Tor Browser users and to strive for improved measures which aim to support the basic principles of net neutrality.

Update: Since the original publication of this article, Change Movement Initiative contacted both CloudFlare and The Tor Project. Despite repeated emails and us being bounced around to differentemail addresses within the company, CloudFlare was not willing to respond to our concerns and refused to comment. The Tor Project was more positive and did respond to our concerns and expressed a genuine appreciation for the efforts of Change Movement Initiative to press this issue.

March 28, 2016 | Global | Tor Usage in Public Libraries

In a ever connected world, user privacy has become essential to the protection of not only the private details of internet users, but equally as important is internet usage habits.

There is a global push towards increasing the level of privacy for internet users through increased use of encryption. We view the use of the internet no different and there are methods you can use to protect your privacy on the internet. Primarily, you can protect yourself and remain anonymous by using Tor Browser, which encrypts web traffic and routes it via The Onion Router (Tor) network.

A traditional safe-haven for people to go to use the internet is through using public computers in city libraries. Although city libraries offer quiet environments without the immediate threat of spooks looking over your shoulder, there are still remaining privacy concerns for people who use these public systems.

The level of security implemented for these public access systems will vary greatly from city-to-city and library-to-library. There is no unified rule of law that governs these public access systems in libraries. We certainly don't believe there should be. However, we do believe that much more could be done to go one step further in assisting users to protect their privacy and usage habits on library computers.

Change Movement Initiative believes that the tools to provide the security to achieve protection and anonymity already exist, with the Tor Browser Bundle. It is available for free, allowing anyone to download it and connect to Tor, securely and anonymously.

Unfortunately, there are still many public library computer systems which run old, outdated, insecure internet browsers which are often very controlled in their ability to browse the internet and in too many cases do not provide any form of security and anonymity to the user. This leaves users with very little choice to protect themselves in libraries.

We will seek to push our global agenda for libraries to implement and offer access to Tor Browser.

Change Movement Initiative will advocate Tor Browser to be made readily available for access to anyone using public library computers for internet access. We also encourage more resource friendly libraries who have the ability to run a Tor Relay, to do so. But at minimum, Tor Browser should be an option made available in all libraries in an effort to help protect the identity, usage habits and privacy of its user. This should also be accompanied by educational informational on Tor network and the Tor Browser, which details in basic and easily-understandable technical jargon what Tor is and how it works to protect the privacy of its users and allows users to remain anonymous on the network, through encryption.

February 23, 2016 | United States of America | Apple Fight For Encryption and Against Backdoors

February 16, 2016, Apple released a Statement which enforced the company's position on the request put forth by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The legal filing from the FBI compels Apple to cooperate in-full with the investigation into the San Bernadino terrorist shooter. Specifically, the request was made in relation to breaking into the iPhone smartphone device that was retrieved by law enforcement authorities.

The request implies that Apple are to develop a version of its operating system that runs on iPhone devices, with an intentional backdoor built-in, which would possibly allow Apple and the FBI to bypass or break the encryption and access the iPhone's data.

Change Movement Initiative supports the position taken by Apple and believes that if any custom developed operating system or its source code were to leak from the company and end up in the 'wrong hands', the overall effects would be detrimental to Apple's security of its smartphone devices and encryption.

We also believe the FBI request is part of a wider legal game which could, if proved successful, potentially see a flood of other US law enforcement agencies making legal filings against technology companies to develop methods (backdoors) of breaking and bypassing encryption.

This has a global effect on the rights to data privacy of customers of these devices and Change Movement Initiative condemns such action taken by any law enforcement authority in the USA and abroad.

Change Movement Initiative supports encryption and maintains that data privacy remains a key element of the civil liberties of all citizens of all countries.

To date (Feb 24, 2016), Apple has maintained its strong position against the legal filing and has not yet responded.


Democratic Pirates Australia

#pirateparty #politics #democracy #australia #government #copyright #civilrights #digitalrights #netneutrality #censorship


Party Platform, Principles and Policies

Democratic Pirates Australia is currently still in development stage. Our entire Policy set at present, is to be used as a guide only of what Democratic Pirates Australia and our members stand for. Until a full Party Structure is established, consisting of a Party Constitution, National Committee and Policy Committee, the Policy set is considered a DRAFT only and all Policies are to be considered in-development.

Declaration of Platform and Principles

Democratic Pirates Australia was founded on the basic tenets of the platform and principles of Pirate Party of Sweden (Piratpartiet) and the base policies of Pirate Party Australia:

As part of an international movement, we seek not only to change national laws, but to reform perceptions and effect worldwide change. We seek this democratically, through parliamentary elections and lobbying of government.




Founding Party President: [email protected]

General Party Questions: [email protected]

Membership Questions: [email protected]

Press Enquiries: [email protected]


Why use the term "Pirate" in the party title?

Democratic Pirates Australia was founded on the principles and policies of The Pirate Party of Sweden and Pirate Party Australia, respectively. Due to our founding heritage, we feel it appropriate to stick with the "Pirate" title, associated with the principles and policies that our party follows and advocates.

Why not Pirate Party Australia (PPAU)?

Democratic Pirates Australia has expressed concerns over specific operational matters with Pirate Party Australia. We were founded to not replace PPAU, but provide the Australian political landscape with an alternative Pirate Party movement, based around the core Pirate principles and to improve on the failings of complete transparency demonstrated with other political parties.

Who are Democratic Pirates Australia?

Democratic Pirates Australia was founded on the principles and policies advocated by the global Pirate movement. We intend to use this as a base and improve on the policies that are important to not only our party, but all Australians and the International community. We will attempt to address specific key policies areas that directly affect Australian citizens in the immediate and long term, and for future generations.

Are you a 'political movement' or a 'political party'?

Democratic Pirates Australia was founded in March 2015, by current Party President, Chris McGimpsey-Jones. It is still very early days and the party is still in development stage. At current, we are a political movement with greater ambitions and with plans in motion to grow the movement into a political party, which can then become eligible to register as a political party in Australia.

Why is Democratic Pirates Australia not a registered political party?

Upon its founding and at current, Democratic Pirates Australia does not have the required Membership, Policy Set, Party Constitution or Committee Structure(s), to be satisfied we are ready to register as a political party in Australia. Registering as an Australian political party is our ultimate goal, however this kind of complex political party founding, planning and development takes much time. Therefore, we will refrain at this stage of putting a time-frame on our expectancy of becoming eligible for registration in Australia.

How do I become a member of Democratic Pirates Australia?

It is still very early days and the party is still in development stage and we do not have the infrastructure in-place to accept registration for membership. It is high on our priority list and we are working to implement such system as soon as possible.

To express your interest of becoming a member of Democratic Pirates Australia, please email [email protected]


Current Accounts held by Democratic Pirates Australia:

Financial Summary Declarations

As of start, July 2016

PayPal = AU $0.00

ING Direct = AU $125.37


As of end, June 2017

PayPal = AU $0.00 (even)

ING Direct = AU $0.00 (-)

Summary of combined accounts, in negative -$125.37


As of start, July 2017

PayPal = AU $0.00

ING Direct = AU $60.16


President: Chris McGimpsey-Jones - [email protected]

Chairman: Brett Brennan - [email protected]

Co-Chair: None assigned, currently seeking candidate.

Treasurer: Chris McGimpsey-Jones - No contact email disclosed for Treasurer.

Press: Amit Gautum - [email protected]



Current Status of Party Constitution

Democratic Pirates Australia

[Documentation] ARTICLE 1


AMENDMENT #1 - January 22, 2017



January 22, 2017

An amendment was made to the Party Constitution of Democratic Pirates Australia.

Amendment #1

Amendments include:

The Pirate Principles and Policies (Part 1A)

Democratic Pirates Australia seeks to restore, implement and expand on the primary Pirate Principles of civil and digital liberties, social equality and freedom in speech and expression for all Australians.

Democratic Pirates Australia will endeavor to have these core principles and policies reflected in the laws and legislation of which govern the country of Australia, to the best ability our political representation allows.

Founded on the same principles as The Pirate Party of Sweden, Pirate Party Australia and other International Pirate Parties; we intend to follow the very principles and policies of the global "pirate" movement, whilst ensuring Democratic Pirates Australia continues to monitor, expand and broaden our policy vision, as necessary to ensure our members and supporters have confidence in Democratic Pirates Australia, to offer the ability to represent true principles and policies that acknowledges Australian citizen's rights to digital liberty and privacy and uphold their civil and human rights in a free by nature, open democratic country.

Democratic Pirates Australia intends to develop, build and grow the party, to an eventual position to contest Australian Federal Elections in the Senate.

Extended objectives of Democratic Pirates Australia:

Democratic Pirates Australia firmly believes and advocates complete democracy, openness, transparency, freedom of speech and freedom of expression throughout the entire Australian and International political landscape.

We reject any use of force, physical or verbal abuse, intimidation or physical violence of any kind as a means to achieving political goals or objectives.

Articles of the Constitution of Democratic Pirates Australia (Part 1B)

1B. 1. Party Title, Principles and Agenda

1. The title of the party will be "Democratic Pirates Australia". The party can also be known or referred to as "Pirate Party", "Democratic Pirates" or "DPA", publicly and internally.

2. The primary principles and objectives of Democratic Pirates Australia are stated in Part 1A and are fundamental to the purpose of the operations of the party in its entirety. All party documents, members, its principles and policies are subject to this Constitution and its included content.

3. Democratic Pirates Australia is at present a political movement, with the goal of registering as a political party in Australia, under the title of Democratic Pirates Australia.

1B. 2. Structure of the National Committee

1. Democratic Pirates Australia is governed at a Federal level by a body within the party itself, entitled the "National Committee".

2. The National Committee shall be comprised of a minimum and maximum total of three (3) individual persons, elected to the National Committee position.

3. The elected members of the National Committee must appoint a Party Agent, which can be any current member of any Democratic Pirates Australia Committee. The Party Agent will fulfill the obligations and duties of the role, as required by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

4. The National Committee is the primary governing body of Democratic Pirates Australia and has the authority to overrule or amend any policy, within terms for what is deemed reasonable.

5. A two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the National Committee is required for actions taken in accordance to Clause 1B. 2. Provisions 3 and 4.

1B. 3. National Committee

1. Members of the National Committee may also be referred to as members of the National Council, or simply the National Council.

2. Any question or decision put before the National Committee which is officially related to operations of Democratic Pirates Australia, is to be decided on at a meeting of the National Committee.

3. All members of the National Committee must be present at meetings. If this does not happen or it is not possible, then the meeting must be rescheduled.

4. If it is deemed impossible for a member of the National Committee to not attend any meeting held by the National Committee which is officially related to operations of Democratic Pirates Australia, the Party President has the responsibility of making the final decision of whether the meeting can proceed with a minimum of two (2) National Committee members, or alternatively the Party President fill the place of the absent member.

5. All decision making and motions must be carried by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the National Committee.

1B. 4. Roles and Responsibilities


Key Role and Responsibilities

1. Direct, co-ordinate and lead the party.

2. Act on behalf of the Operations Committee or National Committee (whichever Committee effectively holds control at the time), in the full absence of the Operations Committee or National Committee, or if the party ceases to function according to the guidelines set out in the Constitution.

3. Chair the National Progress Meeting, which is to be held one time, annually.

4. Co-ordinate all activities of the Operations Committee, in collaboration with the Operations Committee members.

5. Co-ordinate all activities of the National Committee, in collaboration with the National Committee members.

6. Co-ordinate all activities of the Policy Committee, in collaboration with the Policy Committee members.

Operations Committee

Key Role and Responsibilities

1. The Operations Committee will persist to exist as a temporary Committee, until the party can establish a sustainable National Committee.

2. Once the National Committee is established, can be sustained, retain effective control and carry out the National Committee's Roles and Responsibilities, the Operations Committee will dissolve and cease.

3. Direct and co-ordinate the daily operations of the party, in collaboration with the Party President.

4. Prior to the establishment of the National Committee holding control, the Operations Committee will act on behalf of the Party President in the full or part absence of the Party President.

5. Co-ordinate all activities of the party, in collaboration with the Party President.

National Committee

Key Role and Responsibilities

1. Direct and co-ordinate the daily operations of the party, in collaboration with the Party President.

2. Act on behalf of the Party President in the full or part absence of the Party President.

3. Manage in-full, Membership acceptance and status of the party's members.

4. Attend the National Progress Meeting, in accordance to Clause 1B. 3. Provisions 3 and 4.

5. Co-ordinate all activities of the National Committee and Policy Committee, in collaboration with the Policy Committee.

Policy Committee

Key Role and Responsibilities

1. Direct and co-ordinate the daily operations of the party policies, in collaboration with the Party President.

2. Manage, review, amend current Policies and develop new Policies, which act in the best interests of the party, its members, supporters and all citizens of Australia.

3. Attend the National Progress Meeting, in accordance to Clause 1B. 3. Provisions 3 and 4.

4. Co-ordinate all activities of the Policy Committee, in collaboration with the Party President.

Party Member

Key Role and Responsibilities

1. Support, advocate and follow the operations, principles and policies of Democratic Pirates Australia.

2. Speak on behalf of the party, providing all representation is followed in accordance to the Party Constitution and policy set.

3. Print and/or use the official party (Democratic Pirates Australia) logo and name, providing all representation is followed in accordance to the Party Constitution and is expressed to imply to be deemed in the best interests of Democratic Pirates Australia and is used in accordance to terms and conditions as set by any associated Creative Commons license attached.

1B. 5. Membership


1. Membership for Democratic Pirates Australia, is open to all persons who:

a. Have read and agreed to the Constitution, Principles and Policies provided by Democratic Pirates Australia;

b. Is an Australian citizen or resides within the province and geopolitical recognized boundaries of Australia;

c. Pay the annual membership fee, as set by the National Committee;

d. Are not currently members of any other registered or unregistered political party in Australia and do not join another party in Australia while a member of Democratic Pirates Australia.

2. A member's party membership will not cease unless the member resigns from the party in writing to the National Committee.

3. A member's party membership will cease if the member has failed to pay their membership fee, more than ninety (90) days after their membership period has expired.

4. A member must be sent an email from the National Committee to inform a member that their membership will cease in thirty (30) days before the membership will cease.

5. The National Committee may at its discretion present to the Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia, a case to waive membership fees on a case-by-case basis.

Refusal, Suspension and Expulsion

1. The National Committee may refuse to accept an application for membership to Democratic Pirates Australia, of any persons applying, on the grounds that application for membership does not follow the outset guidelines for membership acceptance, in accordance to all or part-thereof Clauses and Provisions of 1B. 5.

2. The National Committee holds power and effective responsibility to suspend a member should that individual's membership or actions be deemed to not be the best interests of the party.

3. The Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia holds power and effective responsibility to expel a member should that individual's membership or actions be deemed to not be the best interests of the party by the National Committee.

4. Only the Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia, holds power and effective responsibility to cease a member's membership status, at his/her discretion, before the membership status is set to cease naturally.

5. Any refusal to accept a persons membership application, or any suspension or expulsion of a member, shall be accompanied by a written statement from the National Committee or the Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia, detailing the reasons for the action.

Policy Management and Development (Part 2A)

2A. 1. Policy Management

1. Policy management is ongoing and is the primary responsibility of the Policy Committee.

2. All decisions reached on policy management, must be made within the membership reach of the National Committee, in accordance to Clause 1B. 3. Provisions 3 and 4.

2A. 2. Policy Development

1. Policy Development is ongoing and is the primary responsibility of the Policy Committee.

2. All decisions reached on Policy Development, whether it be amendment(s) to existing Policy or an entire new Policy, the decision must be made within the membership reach of the National Committee, in accordance to Clause 1B. 3. Provisions 3 and 4.

3. On the rare occasion the Policy Committee devise a specific policy that is deemed by any current member of Democratic Pirates Australia not to follow the primary principles of Democratic Pirates Australia and its Constitution; the Party President will take sole responsibility and make the final decision as to whether the development process of the said policy will proceed or be made null and void.

4. All policies, whether draft(s) or final, under management and/or development by the Policy Committee will be stored in a central database, available to all members of Democratic Pirates Australia and also in the public domain.

Meeting Procedures and Requirements (Part 3A)

1. Meetings should allow ease of accessibility for all members necessary for participation, and have their opinions acknowledged and recorded in digital text form, for back-reference.

2. All members should be notified at least one (1) week in advance of any official meeting of the National Committee, and of the intended agenda and any issues of concern to be addressed.

3. Consensus should be the focus of any decision at a meeting. However, where consensus cannot be achieved, a two-thirds (2/3) majority will be sufficient to carry forward a decision or proposal, which arises from a meeting.

4. Where there is disagreement between members attending the meeting, or members indicate that a delay in voting is required to resolve a matter, sufficient time should be given for discussion before any voting and/or meeting is rescheduled.

5. The infrastructure and technical mechanism(s) for which is used to allow for the meeting and voting process to occur, is to be Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and a private channel, specifically for the purpose of the meeting and voting process.

6. A summary of reference points/notes (minutes) of the meeting should be made available in the public domain and to Democratic Pirates Australia members, within seven (7) days of the meeting conclusion.

3A. 1. National Progress Meeting

1. The Party President and National Committee of Democratic Pirates Australia are to collaborate and organize the annual National Progress Meeting.

2. The Party President will Chair the National Progress Meeting, which is to be held one time, annually.

3. The National Progress Meeting must be held between the months of July 1 and October 31, annually.

4. All members required to attend the National Progress Meeting should be notified at least one (1) week in advance of any official meeting, and of the intended agenda and any issues of concern to be addressed.

5. If at least 25% of any members of Democratic Pirates Australia present a petition to the National Committee, expressing a lack of confidence in the National Committee, the Party President will organize an emergency National Progress Meeting in an attempt to address the concern(s) and issue(s) outlined in the aforementioned petition.

3A. 2. National Committee - Policy Meeting

1. The National Committee will organize the Policy Meeting, as often as the National Committee sees fit to hold a meeting to address outlining Policy issues.

2. The Party President has the power to induce and organize a Policy Meeting, if he/she sees fit to hold a meeting to address outlining Policy issues that have failed to be addresses by the National Committee, through means of a Policy Meeting as organized by the National Committee.

Pre-Selection of Candidates for Election to Federal Parliament (Australia) (Part 4A)

1. All members seeking to stand as candidates for election to Federal Parliament in the Senate must be nominated at a Pre-Selection Meeting and seconded by another member.

2. The Party President, National Committee and Policy Committee members of Democratic Pirates Australia will vote to select eventual-candidates for election to Federal Parliament.

3. Regular Party Members of Democratic Pirates Australia who are not members of any Committee, are not eligible to vote to select eventual-candidates for election to Federal Parliament.

4. Any member, regardless of their involvement within Democratic Pirates Australia, who seek to stand as candidates for election to Federal Parliament in the Senate, are entitled and eligible to do so, but must be nominated at a Pre-Selection Meeting and seconded by another member.

5. All members seeking to stand as candidates must submit to the National Committee a detailed, sincere and true statement as to their suitability and intentions for election.

6. As deemed acceptable by the National Committee, potential candidates should be selected at least twelve (12) months before the normal time of the next Federal election.

Structure and Control (Part 4B)

4B. 1. Financial

1. All items, property and resources of Democratic Pirates Australia are to be used solely for the purposes of promoting and achieving the principles and goals stated within this Constitution and party policies.

2. All members, upon request to the National Committee, may have access to a financial summary of Democratic Pirates Australia financial status.

3. All party bank deposits, withdrawals and donations will be the sole responsibility of the Party President, until Democratic Pirates Australia evolves and grows and a Party Secretary is necessary to be appointed.

4. A financial records summary is to be published in the public domain one (1) time every three (3) months, or at the request, anytime, of the National Committee.

5. A more detailed financial records is to be presented at the National Progress Meeting, annually.

4B. 2. Constitution Amendments

1. The Constitution may only be amended during the National Progress Meeting, or under the Clauses and Provisions of 2A., induced by the Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia.

2. Amendments require a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of a combined total members comprised from the Party President, National Committee and Policy Committee.

3. Any proposals for amendments to the Constitution must be notified to the National Committee, at least thirty (30) days prior to the set date for the National Progress Meeting.

4B. 3. Interpretation of Constitution

1. In the rare possibility of where a dispute may arise with the interpretation of the Party Constitution, the Party President will intervene and hold authority of the final decision and explanation for which the disputing members will abide.

4B. 4. Effective By-Laws

1. The National Committee has authority to devise, modify and retract by-laws that, within the scope of the Party Constitution and principles, may affect or clarify this Constitution.

2. The National Committee must keep a register of all by-laws which have been enacted, and must be made available in the public domain and to all party members.

Official Party Membership Appointment Procedure (Part 5A)

5A. 1. Self-Appointment of Party President

1. At the time of the Founding of Democratic Pirates Australia, the Party President is to be self-appointed by himself/herself, in an effort to develop and grow Democratic Pirates Australia and its associated 'Pirate Party' movement efforts into a political party, which can then become eligible to register as a political party in Australia.

2. Only when Democratic Pirates Australia is an officially registered and recognized political party in Australia, the following terms for Party President appointment come into effect:

a) The position of Party President is to be organized and managed in-full by the National Committee, according to terms the Committee feels and deems necessary to appoint Democratic Pirates Australia a Party President and according to a required by-law to be devised by the National Committee at such time required;

b) The self-appointment of Party President can not be revoked or removed from this position unless by the decision to do so by the person appointed as Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia.

5A. 2. Appointment of Party President

1. The appointment of the Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia is to be organized and managed in-full by the National Committee, according to terms the Committee feels and deems necessary to appoint Democratic Pirates Australia a Party President.

2. Prior to the appointment, the National Committee must devise a by-law, which includes essential terms and conditions for appointment of Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia.

3. The process of appointment of Party President of Democratic Pirates Australia must remain open for all party members, transparent to all members and in the public domain and fair.

5A. 3a. Pre-Appointment of National Committee Members

1. Prior to the complete registration of Democratic Pirates Australia as an Australian political party, and prior to the appointment of members of the National Committee for the party, the party will operate to the best possible measures under the direction and control of the Self-Appointed Party President, following the outset principles and policies of the party, and the National Committee will not proceed to operate.

2. Only when Democratic Pirates Australia is an officially registered and recognized political party in Australia, the following terms for Party President appointment come into effect:

a) The positions within the National Committee is to be organized and managed in-full by the Party President, according to terms the Party President feels and deems necessary to appoint Democratic Pirates Australia a functioning National Committee and according to a required by-law to be devised by the Party President at such time required.

5A. 3b. Appointment of National Committee Members

1. The appointment of members of the National Committee of Democratic Pirates Australia is to be organized and managed in-full by the Party President in collaboration with members of the Policy Committee, according to terms according to a required by-law to be devised by the Party President in collaboration with members of the Policy Committee at such time required.

2. Prior to any appointment of any member(s) to the National Committee, a by-law, which includes essential terms and conditions for appointment of any member(s) to the National Committee of Democratic Pirates Australia must be devised.

3. The appointment of members of the National Committee of Democratic Pirates Australia must remain open for all party members, transparent to all members and in the public domain and fair.

5A. 4a. Pre-Appointment of Policy Committee Members

1. Prior to the complete registration of Democratic Pirates Australia as an Australian political party, and prior to the appointment of members of the Policy Committee for the party, the party will operate to the best possible measures under the direction and control of the Self-Appointed Party President, following the outset principles and policies of the party, and the Policy Committee will not proceed to operate.

2. Only when Democratic Pirates Australia is an officially registered and recognized political party in Australia, the following terms for Party President appointment come into effect:

a) The positions within the Policy Committee is to be organized and managed in-full by the Party President, according to terms the Party President feels and deems necessary to appoint Democratic Pirates Australia a functioning Policy Committee and according to a required by-law to be devised by the Party President at such time required.

5A. 4b. Appointment of Policy Committee Members

1. The appointment of members of the Policy Committee of Democratic Pirates Australia is to be organized and managed in-full by the Party President in collaboration with members of the National Committee, according to terms according to a required by-law to be devised by the Party President in collaboration with members of the National Committee at such time required.

2. Prior to any appointment of any member(s) to the Policy Committee, a by-law, which includes essential terms and conditions for appointment of any member(s) to the Policy Committee of Democratic Pirates Australia must be devised.

3. The appointment of members of the Policy Committee of Democratic Pirates Australia must remain open for all party members, transparent to all members and in the public domain and fair.

Legal Disclaimer of the Constitution, Not Enforceable by Law (Part 6A)

In this document, the title "Constitution" means and includes all Articles, Sections, Clauses and Provisions of this document, of the Australian political party, Democratic Pirates Australia.

It is absolutely intended that the Constitution and all operations of Democratic Pirates Australia and the party's associated and advocated principles and policies, not bring about any legal relationship, rights, duties or outcome of any kind, or be enforceable by law, to ensure Democratic Pirates Australia remain absolutely free of any legal proceedings.

It is absolutely intended that all disputes within the scope of direct involvements of Democratic Pirates Australia and/or between members, be resolved in accordance with the Constitution and not through legal proceedings and through truthful and mutual co-operation, collaboration and communication.

By joining Democratic Pirates Australia and remaining a member, all members of the party consent to be mutually and not-legally bound by this document, deemed and accepted as the Constitution of Democratic Pirates Australia.



Current Status of Party Policies

Democratic Pirates Australia

[Documentation] ARTICLE 2


Civil liberties

Civil liberties are essential to all of us, being a balance to the power of the state, a source of freedom and progress and the core of civil society. History records a long fight for liberty, with even basic rights such as freedom from slavery, freedom of speech and freedom from torture won with great difficulty and frequent reverses. The digital age has provided stunning progress in this age-old struggle: many hierarchies including old-style media and government centralism have been recast or overthrown, creating space for citizen engagement and new voices.

As individuals have become more empowered, co-operation and trust between citizens and the state has become increasingly important. Trust and co-operation between citizens and the state ultimately underpin our collective security. Laws which nullify civil liberties in the name of security are counter-productive because they undermine this trust. The historical truism that security is not won through the sacrifice of liberties has never been more true than in the digital age.

Freedom of speech and related rights

Freedom of speech is not only a key civil liberty in itself, but a safeguard for other liberties. It protects not just the right to speak out, but also the right to hear and be exposed to ideas. Racism and other offensive ideas have generally lost power most swiftly in the freest societies, where they have been most effectively refuted. However, refutation can happen only when offensive ideas are permitted expression. Restrictions on speech undermine this process and rob the public of its collective capacity to judge parties and persons on the basis of full and free information.

Freedom of speech underpins other freedoms including freedom of thought, conscience and assembly. It is past time that laws seeking to restrict these fundamentals were subject to proper consultation and debate, measurement of costs and benefits, and meaningful attempts to ascertain the likelihood of purported security threats. Fundamental principles warrant evidence-based policy.


The legal system should err on the side of civil rights and free speech. Journalist shield laws are a key in this regard: press freedom cannot exist without the right to protect sources and the absence of protection can result in concealment of information essential to the public interest and accessible in the public domain. Although nominal shield laws exist, journalists continue to face prosecution from powerful individuals for nothing more than protecting confidentiality.

To curb this, the right to protect a source needs to be strengthened by including a right for journalists to protect the content of information passed on in addition to the identity of the source. The power of inquiries to publicly expose sources must also be curbed, since such compulsion threatens the very forms of journalistic investigation which have so often been essential to inquiries launching in the first place. Democratic Pirates Australia would add such protections, with the introduction of a "Whistleblower and Journalist Protection Act".

Balance and equality within the legal system can be improved by unwinding recent laws aimed at loosening thresholds for detention, search and seizure, and restoring proper judicial oversight. Finally, we believe the system should embody the principle of one law for all, applied to all persons equally. Democratic Pirates Australia does not support parallel legal systems and other forms of law which impose differential standards.


Privacy is an essential underpinning of human dignity, free speech and freedom of expression. It encompasses not just physical privacy, but the freedom to control your cultural presence and manage the information and identity that surrounds you. A trusting and free democratic society cannot function without the protection of a person's private life and sphere. Surreptitious and intrusive surveillance is toxic to trust, social harmony and the integrity of the state.

Democratic Pirates Australia will always support privacy and oppose attempts to nullify it. We want a higher threshold of privacy to be codified across the totality of laws in Australia. This can be done both by introducing tougher legislative requirements for organizations retaining data, and improving options available to individuals seeking to protect their personal privacy.

In addition to supporting further protections of human dignity through the curtailing of state-sponsored surveillance, Democratic Pirates Australia recognizes that the pervasiveness and continual expansion of private and public recording equipment pose serious implications for privacy. Free expression will be significantly curtailed if all aspects of people's lives are subject to orchestrated or ad hoc surveillance. As such, we support the enactment of a statutory tort that covers both intrusions into seclusion as well as misuse of private information.

Freedom from pain, dignity and voluntary euthanasia

No liberty is more fundamental than the right to live free of pain and physical torment. We support the right of adults of sound mind, facing terminal illness and with appropriate safeguards, to end their lives with dignity and peace if they so choose. Contrary to frequent claims, support for voluntary euthanasia is not a statement of any kind on the value of life. It encompasses no more than respect for the right of persons to decide on such questions for themselves, in the context of their own private circumstances. We believe political parties and all members of politics should represent the views of citizens and not use political office to impose religious views into the private sphere. Bans on voluntary euthanasia, with appropriate safeguards and under the correct circumstances, create a painful legacy of unmanageable suffering, lost dignity and the sacrifice of free choice.

Digital liberties

The grassroots nature of the internet is causing considerable disruption to traditional power structures. Unsurprisingly, this is leading to push-back: corporate and government entities have been trying for many years to increase control over the internet through a range of measures including censorship, reduction of access, treaties to reduce the rights of internet users and ever-broader mass-surveillance and monitoring powers.

Attempts to control the internet take different forms over time, but all are justified through references to crime and other undesirable activities. They also all share one critical flaw: they are easily evaded by those with technical knowledge. They ultimately reduce the freedoms of the public while doing nothing to curb criminal behavior.

Democratic Pirates Australia will always defend the founding principles and freedom of the internet, and resist any and all attempts to control it. A fast and free internet, open to all, is a safeguard not just for our economy and culture, but for our basic rights.

Net neutrality

Net neutrality is a fundamental principle behind the development of the internet. It ensures that the internet is free and open to all by preventing gatekeepers from blocking, speeding up, or slowing down content based on the source, destination or owner. Net neutrality guarantees that even the smallest entrepreneurs have the same access standards as established firms. The absence of such a guarantee would represent a perpetual threat to generations of new entrants.

Content and internet Service Providers have undermined net neutrality by seeking to differentiate among different forms of information and data flow and impose priorities. Abandoning net neutrality and subjecting internet traffic to a commercial veto will hurt competition and innovation and allow service providers to preference or block protocols and force consumers to use less desirable options.

Free, open and non-discriminatory access to the internet is essential for our democracy and for our economic well-being and Democratic Pirates Australia will seek the adoption of clear net neutrality principles to protect the internet from the introduction of any discriminatory practices

Data retention

Mass-surveillance of citizens and internet use is constantly expanding and being broadened. It has reached a point which threatens essential trust between the state and the citizens.

Plans have been tabled to expand surveillance further which would force ISP's to retain telephone and internet data for 2 years and force people to reveal their passwords on demand. This is a gross invasion of privacy and will create a vast database of material. Ultimately this database could become accessible through many channels not mentioned in the legislation, including subpoenas. The database will pose little threat to criminal activity, since many technical avenues currently exist through which data retention can be avoided.

While data retention is only a proposal at present, recent revelations show that Australians are already subject to an array of secret, warrantless spying on emails, chats, photographs, documents and website addresses. However, mass-surveillance, mass-trawling and mass-collection of any personal data poses a significant threat to the liberties of the global public and undermines cooperation and trust between citizens and the state. Unrestricted surveillance of the public combined with total obscurity for the state is untenable. Far more legitimacy, trust, and effectiveness will be earned by applying proper oversight and inbuilt protections for civil liberties, including proper and legal use of warrants.

--This policy requires updating, high-priority--

Warrant gagging

Warrant gagging is applied, under Section 182A of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015.

We do not support under Australian law any form of warrant gagging.

Democratic Pirates Australia believes in freedom of expression and freedom of speech for all Australians. Warrant 'gagging' removes an essential part of a citizen's freedom and their right to free speech, including through any form of communication(s) with media entities and journalists or the disclosure of information.

If a person is served with a warrant for any legal reason under Australian law, that person has every and 4full right to make their own determination whether to publicly disclose whether a warrant has been served or has not been served.

Democratic Pirates Australia will seek to introduce amendments which will essentially remove warrant 'gagging' provisions from the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill, essentially restoring to some degree the right for any citizen to communicate and disclose information freely and openly with media entities and journalists, on any matter, without the undemocratic risk of prosecution by over-zealous Government oversight

Whistleblower and Journalist protections

A pillar of public integrity is the capacity to swiftly identify and manage wrongdoing and corruption. Whistleblowers are an essential part of this capacity and an important check on potential abuses of power. Repeated instances of harsh and inappropriate punishment and covert forms of deterrence over the past 10 to 15 years provide a strong case for improving the robustness of whistleblower protections. It is time that whistleblowers gained the essential freedom to speak out without fear of legal prosecution and revenge and with reasonable confidence that wrongs will be made known, when brought to public attention through information disclosed to media, journalists or publishers.

Democratic Pirates Australia will establish and support the creation and enactment of a new legislative Act titled "Whistleblower and Journalist Protection", to protect potential Whistleblowers, Journalists and Publishers.

The Act's intention will not be to replace any current legislation, but work to protect Whistleblowers, Journalists and Publishers from legal pursuit and possible prosecution.

The "Whistleblower and Journalist Protection" Act will consist of clauses and provisions to ensure the aforementioned professions are protected, by law, and be prevented from unfair and undemocratic legal pursuit. Democratic Pirates Australia will ensure the legislation will protect all professions covered under the Act, paving the way for free and open press in Australia, including leaking, revealing, releasing and/or publishing information and documents, regardless of its security status, providing it is deemed to be in the public interest.

Once devised and enacted, the "Whistleblower and Journalist Protection" Act would have the potential to provide Australia with some of the most free, open and transparent media and publishing laws in the democratic world.

Censorship and net filtering

Internet censorship lays the foundations for and creates a permanent infrastructure for web blocking and connects it to a permanently growing list of banned content, or what Government bureaucrats deem should be "banned". We believe that the Government should look to adequately funding law enforcement, removing illegal content and prosecuting those responsible for the manufacture of the material, rather than funding a filter that slows down internet connection speeds, is liable to wrongly block websites and is easily circumvented by means of advanced technical methods, such as the use of a virtual private network (VPN) or connections using The Onion Router (Tor).

Households may implement censorship programs for their own use at the software level, but that is the decision which should remain solely with the parents. This permits parents to make decisions for their own families and the Government should trust them to do so in a fair and responsible way.

Democratic Pirates Australia do not condone the use or any Government sponsored and/or controlled internet censorship, filter or blocking mechanisms. We believe in internet freedom to its maximum capacity and will endorse efforts that attempt to keep Australian internet access open, accessible and free from censorship.

The Liberal Government has introduced website blocking legislation, disguised as an effort to curb copyright infringement in Australia using the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015. We believe that the Government has no place or right to interfere with internet access. We will seek to support legal and fair measures which legitimately aim to curb illegal copyright infringement through neutral measures, which do not implement a censored internet for a majority of Australians who do not break the law through illegal file downloading and distributing illegal digital content.

Improved and sustainable internet infrastructure and fiber-optic network

The current copper network which still carries a majority of Australian internet traffic, is not sufficient to meet the requirements of a growing digital society. Internet infrastructure, based around a majority of fiber-optic networking which connects the majority of Australians to the network, where economically feasible and sustainable, is fundamental to the creation and sustainability of a vibrant digital society in Australia.

--More detail to be added--


Copyright laws are a statutory monopoly artificially applied to information and culture that are traditionally justified as a balance between the rights of content creators and the rights of society. Properly applied, such laws encourage creative output by providing a limited monopoly for artists and writers over the use and distribution of their work. On expiry of copyright (which typically lasted for 28 years) work entered the public domain to be used and built on by others.

Copyright overreach

In recent times the essential balance underlying copyright law has been lost and a mechanism intended to serve the interests of the general public is now threatening fundamental rights and cultural growth. Copyright duration has been repeatedly extended and now persists for 70 years after the death of the original creator. This massive duration is actively harmful for the creative community, because it kills the flow of material to the public domain, denying the opportunity to draw on it. Perpetual copyright benefits only large businesses and encourages them to reuse old content rather than undertake relatively risky and expensive investments in new material.

Higher duration has been paired up with increasingly draconian enforcement. Enforcement of copyright has encroached into the realm of non-commercial user - a recipe for abuse of the general public. Individuals are now being prevented from listening to public radio, or fined millions of dollars for downloading a handful of songs. Community groups and charities have been threatened with legal action for allowing children to perform Christmas carols. Corporations are preventing access to public footage of historical events.

The rights of the general public are being trampled in the name of protecting obsolete, rent-seeking business models.

Seeking to defend and justify their behavior, lobbyists and corporate interests have adopted terms like 'piracy' and 'theft'. However, when normal behavior such as culture sharing is criminalized, everyone is a pirate. Democratic Pirates Australia has adopted and builds upon the Pirate Party philosophy and principles, in an attempt to draw attention to this fact and to focus attention on threats to a range of fundamental rights.

Privacy has been directly undermined by attempts to force internet Service Providers to monitor private communications in the name of copyright enforcement.

Participation in the free market is threatened by copyright bills such as SOPA and PIPA, which would have granted US copyright holders unilateral power to shut down the websites of other businesses anywhere in the world on the basis of an allegation that the site "enabled" copyright infringement. The presumption of innocence is taken away by 'three strikes' or 'graduated response' legislation, which allow internet users to be disconnected by copyright holders upon an allegation and without fair trial or due process.

Free speech is similarly threatened by compulsory disconnection. The Constitution contains an implied guarantee of freedom of communication in relation to political matters, which the High Court has determined is essential to the proper functioning of Australian democracy. Disconnection interferes with the right to assembly and political communication and violates the Constitution as well as High Court determinations and international covenants. In the twenty-first century, the internet has become essential for everything from financial affairs to child education. Laws enabling disconnection are a frontal assault on freedom of expression, and free speech on the internet and the entitlement to live a modern life.

Consumer rights are being eroded as technology becomes increasingly crippled though measures such as Digital Rights Management (DRM). DRM can be a prelude to surreptitious surveillance and unauthorized data collection. It cripples culture and knowledge distribution and is an electronic equivalent of a barbed wire fence around data that consumers rightfully own and should have a right to use how they choose, without restriction.

Access to our cultural heritage is jeopardized by the (thus far) successful campaign to impose a 'forever less one day' period of copyright duration. All copyrighted works are, to some extent, based on or inspired by prior work. Modern attempts to combine perpetual duration with the prevention of reuse and remixing threaten the mechanisms of progress and impose restrictions that creators have never faced before. They amount to a strangling of the creative process and threaten future creativity

Reforming Copyright

Placing copyright law in direct opposition to fundamental rights guarantees failure. File and culture sharing are, predictably, continuing to grow in defiance of all attempts to control it and recent attempts to impose additional enforcement were crushed by determined opposition in the European parliament and US Congress. People have always shared poetry, music and culture, and modern copyright laws fail because they attempt to criminalize innate human behavior.

Copyright is changing and we are seeing a completely new and different social understanding of copyright - a generational shift in the way we relate to and participate in culture. It is thus concerning that the Australian government has announced an intention to consider imposing the thoroughly discredited 'three strikes' disconnection model on Australian internet users. Copyright was written to serve the needs of the general public and this purpose is not accomplished by criminalizing an entire generation. Fundamental rights do not need to be "balanced" with copyright enforcement.

A copyright law for our time must combine the balanced approach of the past with recognition of the situation we confront in the present. Normal interactions in the digital sphere should no longer be monitored or threatened. The digital realm offers artists and creators vast new opportunities for exposure, free of old-fashioned limits on distribution and the overwhelming weight of research shows that file sharing has not reduced revenue to artists. The law should account for this. Copyright duration should also be contained to a time-frame of around 15 years - which is calculated to be the optimal term to drive maximum creative endeavor. Creative remixing and reuse of existing content must be allowed, as preventing them is equivalent to attacking freedom and progress itself.

Public broadcasting (ABC and SBS)

Public Broadcasting describes a media landscape which is owned in-full, or part-thereof and funded in majority by the Australian Government and the Australian Taxpayers. Public Broadcasting covers television, radio, internet and other digital media distribution provided as a service by the broadcasting network.

Australian government ownership and funding

The Australian Government currently owns and funds in-full, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

The Australian Government currently owns and funds in-part, SBS Broadcasting (SBS). Additional funding for SBS Broadcasting is sourced from advertising revenue.

ABC is owned in-full and is currently prevented from advertising, across its entire broadcasting network.

SBS is owned and funded in-part and is currently open to a set minimal advertising schedule, across its broadcasting network. The current advertising strategy assists in the formation of the important funding model which currently makes SBS financially sustainable in the immediate term, with a long-term sustainability vision.

Ensuring future funding and no-privatization of public broadcasting

Democratic Pirates Australia maintains the current funding model and structure must remain as outlined.

The current ownership and funding models that Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS Broadcasting are structured around, needs to be protected to ensure a free, open, unbiased and democratic media landscape for the Australian public.

ABC and SBS are important media entities, as they are not influenced by Government bureaucrats and they remain uninfluenced by business, political and higher agenda, as are commercial broadcasting network entities. Instead, influenced by media laws and bound to follow relevant media laws in Australia.

Late 2014, Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS Broadcasting faced substantial funding reductions, with no vision or policy from the government, to again increase funding after the 5-year reduction phase concludes.

We believe privatization or public sell-off of Public Broadcasting assets should be and can be avoided.

Democratic Pirates Australia understand and respects the importance of Public Broadcasting in Australia and will ensure enough funding is available to see that ABC and SBS can continue its quality operations in Australia, without the need for reductions in service, schedule and reduced employment of Public Broadcasting staff.

Available and sustainable funding of Public Broadcasting is essential to the quality of the services provided and ensures democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression through the Public Broadcasting medium.

Free-to-air sports broadcasting

Sports viewing entertainment through television is a cultural pastime for Australians, broadcast to residents homes through free-to-air (Freeview) television networks.

In the last ~4 years, too many sports events broadcasts have been lost to subscription-based cable television networks, effectively depriving a majority of Australians who can not afford cable subscriptions, of major sports broadcasts of popular events, local and international.

Democratic Pirates Australia will review all current broadcasting rights in Australia and seek to draft and implement a selective list of local and international sports events, which would be deemed suitable for broadcasting rights subsidies.

Broadcasting rights subsidies would be provided to free-to-air television networks where the network can provide intent and reasonable evidence that funding was attempted yet could not be sourced in-part, or in-full to allow for the event to be broadcast. Subsidies will be provided by the Australian Taxpayer and where a free-to-air television network fails to fund the broadcast, therefore allowing the sports event to be broadcast to the homes of all Australians.

Cultural participation

Culture is a pillar of our lives, having evolved with us through thousands of generations, building on what has gone before and connecting people to each other and to our collective history.

However, intellectual property laws have recently imposed a misshapen model of culture, molding it into a hierarchical structure in which grassroots creators are squeezed out and the creations of the past century are placed under perpetual private control. Live music venues and other participatory avenues are becoming increasingly scarce, even as corporate owners of music are forbidding remixing and other essential aspects of musical creativity and evolution. While digital avenues provide substantial new ways to experience culture, traditional cultural hubs are likely to need greater support to fully harness their potential.

Part of the cultural challenge is addressed through reform of intellectual property laws (see copyright policy). However, such reforms should be supplemented with active efforts to help artists and promote grassroots cultural models which better reflect both our own creative nature and the increasingly participatory nature of the digital age. Successful cultural policies should emphasize grassroots participation and access, not hierarchical structures and artificial scarcity.


Thoughts and ideas cannot be "owned" as natural property. Patent laws do, however, grant a temporary monopoly over an expression of an idea. This trades a reduction in free access for a greater incentive to disclose and develop ideas.

However, as the information age has reshaped society, patents have become increasingly anachronistic and inadequate in fulfilling their intended purpose. The original 20-year patent duration was codified at a time when ideas and products took years to spread. It is out of step in a world where products can be developed and marketed to millions of people in a space of weeks, and most credible research now favors a significantly shorter term. The disconnect between patent laws and modern life is worsened by rampant abuse of the patent system. Hoarders and patent trolls are using patents to force creators and inventors to pay additional costs or face litigation - a use that undermines the creation process patents were meant to protect.

Reforming the patent system

Monopolies on ideas are not natural - they are created by the state. While interventions in the free market are sometimes necessary, it is important that they serve the public interest and reflect the best research. A reduction in patent duration is now clearly overdue and this should be paired up with explicit protection for public research. Since patents were introduced on the basis of enabling products to be developed, we believe that legal defense of any patent should require the litigant to prove they are using it. Patent law should also permit independent development of the same invention.

Taken together, these measures will curb the incentive to register trivial and defensive patents. This should reduce the quantity of patents, and improve the quality.

Software patents

Patents on software and programs must reflect the uniquely dynamic nature of the software industry and duration should be shorter than those applying to other patent types. Functional claiming (which patents the end result of software) should be abolished, as it removes the capacity for the free market to create newer and better approaches. A larger fee should also apply for software patents to fund additional scrutiny and a raising of the threshold for obviousness and prior art.

Genes and organisms

"Products of nature" are explicitly not patent-able under first principles of patent law. However, patents on human genes have been granted on the basis that extraction of material from its natural environment is akin to having invented it. This is an absurd legal artifice that, if applied in other fields, would lead to patents on coal, cotton and wood.

The granting of monopolies over human genes is a particularly destructive form of corporate welfare because it allows private interests to lock away fundamental information about our bodies. Essential research is being hindered by the obligation to negotiate among dozens of gene patent holders, who bear no obligation to contribute to research themselves. Gene patent holders are imposing huge costs on sick and dying patients for simple tests and treatments. Curbing these practices requires no more than a return of patent law to first principles, which provide no basis for patents on genes and organisms.

Pharmaceutical patents

Pharmaceutical patents fall into two categories: patents on a process for creating a drug and patents on a drug itself. Process patents may encourage companies to seek alternative and better ways to produce a desired outcome. However, drug patents have the reverse effect, shutting down free market competition which might otherwise drive improved techniques.

Drug patents are typically justified by the assertion that a strong incentive is needed to support the long 10and complex research and development cycle for drugs. While drug research is important, patents are a flawed method for accomplishing it, for two primary reasons:

Drug patents are ultimately far too indirect and unreliable to work as a platform for something as vital as medical research. An alternative approach is needed. We propose the abolition of drug patents: this will allow the PBS to make use of generic drugs, freeing up significant funds which can be redirected towards publicly funded medical research. This research can target critical areas and ensure the development of meaningful cures. Drugs developed with public funds will enter the public domain where generic manufacturers compete on price and quality in a free market. The resulting drugs can be provided at low cost to consumers and exported as aid to impoverished countries unable to afford monopoly drugs.

Funding will also be directed towards a trial 'bounty' system in which rewards are offered for the creation of drugs that serve an identified public good. Private research in this model will target areas not covered by public research, adding breadth to the system and reducing pressure on public research infrastructure.

We will also seek to negotiate a new bio-medical treaty, which would include a global bounty system to replace drug patents worldwide. Taken together, these measures will grant a far greater role for the free market than exists in the current monopoly system. They will provide a broader research platform and cheaper drugs built in accord with the right incentives.


Education is a powerful determinant of well-being. It is a source of wealth, a provider of life skills, an enabler of participation and a core component of any civil society. The 2000 Dakar World Education Conference noted that all young people have the right to an education that includes "learning to know, to do, to live together and to be". At all stages of our education system, Democratic Pirates Australia will support vibrant secular instruction and forms of accountability that link closely to the community and public.

Early childhood education

Early childhood education is crucial to any child's development in later life. We will seek to provide a means for parents to play a greater role in childcare, by trialing a system of childcare cooperatives based on successful overseas models. Willing parents will be able to combine resources, providing a sustainable low-cost or free childcare through a roster system in which parents take turns as carers and volunteers. This will provide social opportunities to new families and also reduce pressure on the existing childcare system.

School education

The principle of free, secular and compulsory schooling held sway for decades in Australia, but has been recently undermined by changes to school funding. These changes have shifted the funding balance away from public schools and towards private and religious schools. Justified in the name of choice, this change has actually reduced choices for many by leaving entire postcodes lacking any comprehensive public schooling. Private school fees exclude students from low social-economic backgrounds, concentrating them in the under-funded public system. Australia's recent approach to education has resulted in a low and falling ranking in global measures of performance among disadvantaged students.

Private schooling also divides students along religious lines and has led to cases where taxpayer-funded schools are actively refusing to meet educational standards in areas such as science education. Religious indoctrination (whether through organized schooling or chaplaincy programs) is a fundamentally inappropriate use of taxpayer funds in a secular country.

Democratic Pirates Australia believes that accountability, not false choice, should be the guiding light in allocating taxpayers' money. While private schools are entitled to exist, we believe they should operate on a majority private funding model, with federal subsidies gradually withdrawn and redirected to sponsor a truly effective, needs-based funding system in public schools. Public schools can be revitalized through the abolition of paperwork-based accountability and vesting of control over administration, hiring and funds to principals and school boards, which will be open to parents.

Democratic Pirates Australia believes a greater emphasis should be placed on teaching life skills and entrepreneurship to students. We will also seek to trial a funding mechanism to allow schools to 'bulk-bill' costs of after-school instruction so that qualified experts can be engaged to teach in areas of interest chosen by students and parents. Niche and special-interest education will encourage social mixing and provide more tools to overcome disadvantage.

To improve teaching standards, Democratic Pirates Australia advocates extensions in supported classroom time for trainee teachers in conjunction with a rise in top-end salaries for teachers with significant experience. We will also seek to reduce some of the institutional pressure placed on students to remain at school after Grade 10, since forcing unwilling students to stay ultimately leads to the disruption of more engaged students. Students wishing to study at TAFE after Year 10 should be free to do so, with per-student funding following them.

Tertiary education

Tertiary education is increasingly important as we shift towards a more knowledge-based economy. While student numbers continue to rise, growing evidence exists of a troubling deterioration in standards and academic morale in universities. This manifests in various ways: approximately half of academics have been assessed to be at risk of psychological illness due to insecurity and overwork, while two thirds believe academic freedom is being curtailed. Higher education has suffered from efforts by successive governments to force it into a top-down, corporatism structure. This is an inappropriate form for an education system and one which has led to increasing stultification and surveillance, with demands for corporate style messaging eating away academic freedom of speech. The drive towards pseudomeasurement of educational outcomes has imposed unprecedented administrative costs, with administrators and managers now outnumbering academics (who nonetheless face increasing demands to conduct administration).

The impacts of corporate-style education are uniformly contrary to what is intended. The narrow emphasis on vocational education is creating graduates unfit for many jobs - employers have raised issues 12with serious deficits in team work, creative thought and communication. Administrative burdens imposed in the name of quality assurance are driving down quality by drawing resources out of teaching and research. Attempts to quantify educational outputs obscure more than they reveal. And the lowering of standards to accommodate overseas students is reducing Australia's attractiveness as an international student destination.

Genuine transparency means accountability to the general public, not to a corporate structure. We believe that publicly funded academic research should be made freely available to the public and no longer locked up behind publisher paywalls. We also believe in enhancing the quality of academic work by following the advice of academics themselves, who urgently seek fairer funding arrangements and greater autonomy. Education should be viewed as a pillar of civil society rather than a commodity market. We believe campuses should be encouraged to play a greater role in the community. Passion, curiosity and freedom to speak and question are key curbs to unhindered power and a successful university system should embody those traits.

Computer programming education

--More detail to be added--


Scientific research is vital to our future and far more should be conducted to support our economy as well as our fundamental understanding about the world we inhabit. Democratic Pirates Australia would accordingly establish a $5 billion permanent endowment fund to foster fundamental research across all disciplines. We will also reverse short-sighted funding cuts to scientific and academic bodies. To support more applied research, Democratic Pirates Australia would trial an innovation voucher scheme. Vouchers will provide credit of up to $50,000 to small business for the purchase of R&D services from educational and research institutions, who then obtain voucher funds from the government. Vouchers will lead to an increase in research funding while ensuring priorities for such research are driven by business needs. They offer a way for small businesses to overcome relative disadvantage against large firms who have more capacity to engage in R&D. They will also build bridges between businesses and research sectors.

--To be reviewed in-full--

Health and research

--More detail to be added--

Public health

--More detail to be added--


--More detail to be added--

Reform of democratic institutions

Australia's governance continues to face reduced confidence. The parliament and the public service are becoming increasingly disconnected from society, even as political dialog and debate take on an increasingly scripted and toxic tone. The loss of public trust and respect threatens greater disengagement - a vicious cycle which needs to be met with determined efforts to restore accountability and trust to our democratic institutions.

Public integrity and trust rely on the public right to be informed about decisions taken on their behalf. This principle finds practical application in Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation. Democratic Pirates Australia supports this legislation, but believes more can be done to enhance its effectiveness. A significant barrier to truly effective FOI laws is created through the application of blanket exemptions based on arbitrary judgments of relevance or on which authority claims ownership of the documents. While exemptions must exist, we believe they should be narrower, time limited and justified by a higher threshold of due cause. This will provide not only greater faith in the FOI system, but a higher level of accountability and trust across all levels of government.

Transparency requires periodic reviews of public sector spending and processes, and we accordingly support moves to conduct a comprehensive audit process. Also, since the state is funded by all citizens, we believe that services provided by the state and its authorized service providers should be offered subject to a firm principle of non-discrimination.

Institutional improvement should be accompanied by a lifting in political standards. Political conduct and dialog in Australia is generally reckoned to be at a low ebb. Democratic Pirates Australia believes much improvement can be made by applying greater standards of openness and transparency with regard to the movement of money within the political system. However, we also highlight the need for proper scrutiny of public spending: it should no longer be acceptable to shut down such scrutiny through the use of commercial-in-confidence clauses.

Finally, we propose urgent measures to improve political conduct during elections. The election process is presently riddled with political manipulation of a type inconsistent with a healthy democracy. Instituting fixed terms removes one form of direct manipulation, but a better standard of political dialog is also essential. Elections as conducted encourage a reliance on talking points and scripts which hide agendas, spread misinformation and deny meaningful dialog. A proper debate process modeled on the US approach will create a setting in which politicians are obliged to communicate meaningfully and respectfully with other and with the public. The addition of new voices to policy debates should also be encouraged and welcomed. Democratic Pirates Australia pledges to do all it can to support participation by restoring candidate fees to a reasonable level and opposing recent legislation intended to prevent candidates from competing in elections.

Bill of Rights

Australia is one of the few remaining Western democracies whose citizens and residents lack any significant, constitutionally declared rights. This lack of protection creates an imbalance of power between individuals and the state, and poses risks to privacy, free speech and individual choice. A Bill of Rights is overdue as a way to restore balance and provide unambiguous checks on the creeping intrusion of the state into citizens' private lives.

We propose a referendum to update and amend the Australian Constitution and include a Bill of Rights, codifying a basic set of human rights and freedoms for all Australian citizens. Democratic Pirates Australia proposes to incorporate the most fundamental and essential elements of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

--To be reviewed in-full--

Constitutional reform

The Constitution of Australia has been amended only eight times since it came into force in 1901. It was drafted in the final decade of the Nineteenth Century and contains many flaws that reflect the cultural attitudes of the time. The Australian Constitution can only be amended through a referendum. Democratic Pirates Australia is committed to putting the following constitutional reforms on the agenda.

Australian Bill of Rights

Democratic Pirates Australia supports the introduction of a constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia.

--To be reviewed in-full--

National referendum for Australian Republic

We believe that as a country, Australia has moved into a position to support a call for a National discussion, followed by a referendum for Australia to become a Republic. Australia is internationally recognized as an independent nation and economically sound. Therefore, we support any shift away from direct ties and association with the Commonwealth title and its outdated governing model of the British Monarch.

Democratic Pirates Australia will move to support a National referendum for Australia to become independent of the Commonwealth and become internationally recognized as a Republic nation.

Citizens' initiatives

Australians lack any direct way to enact, amend, repeal or vote for or against legislation which affects their lives. A solution to this is to allow citizens to directly petition the Commonwealth Parliament for referendums.

Citizens' initiatives allow citizens to directly participate in legislative decisions. Mechanisms of this kind have been implemented in various forms and to varying degrees in Austria, at the supranational level in the European Union, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, several states in the United States of America and Uruguay.

Democratic Pirates Australia supports the right of Australians to exercise legislative power in certain circumstances using citizens' initiatives. However, the we also recognize that setting a threshold is necessary to prevent abuse of the system by special interest and advocacy groups.

Democratic Pirates Australia therefore supports two levels of initiatives modeled closely on the systems in Latvia, Hungary, Brandenburg and Hamburg, but with adjustments made to accommodate Australia's significant geographic size and low population density.

The first level, an agenda initiative, would have a lower threshold and be a binding petition to place an issue on the parliamentary agenda. If parliament fails to take action, a full-scale initiative with a higher threshold would compel parliament to hold a binding referendum. This allows legislative development to be guided by parliamentary institutions and procedures and to arrive at considered and enlightened decisions, as well as helping to avoid populism and the disregarding of minority interests. Combining agenda and full-scale initiatives allows Australian citizens to encourage their representatives to take action, while providing a mechanism to challenge parliamentary decisions. Democratic Pirates Australia supports legislation allowing citizens' initiatives as a temporary measure, but ultimately this right should be enshrined in the Australian Constitution.

Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and prohibition of racial discrimination

European colonization of Australia commenced in 1788. The Australian continent has been the home of indigenous societies and cultures for at least 40,000 years. Traditional indigenous societies and their peoples have faced much damage as a consequence of discrimination, paternalism, genocide, as well as the introduction of diseases, substance abuse, slavery and dependency on the state and its welfare system as a direct result of European settling and rapid expansion on Australian soil.

The "Native Title Act 1993" has restored some land rights to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. The 2008 apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples was of symbolic significance and representative of a nation willing to make amends for the horrors of the past. Democratic Pirates Australia believe there is still more to be done before we can truly have reconciliation in Australia.

The Australian Constitution does not recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the original inhabitants of our country. It was drafted in an era of racial discrimination and the shadow on our constitution is undeniable. In particular, Section 25 permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race by disqualifying persons of that race from voting. Additionally, Section 51(xxvi) permits the Commonwealth Parliament to create laws for "the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws".

Democratic Pirates Australia will support a motion for amendments to be made to the Constitution to include recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as the original inhabitants and their languages as the original languages of Australia. Our Party supports further measures which would repeal the 'race provisions' in the Australian Constitution (Sections 25 and 51(xxvi)) and to include an explicit prohibition of racial discrimination.

Tax and welfare

Australia's tax and welfare systems have grown so complicated that they are almost impossible to understand. Our tax system includes more than 120 taxes, with the complexity forcing more than two thirds of taxpayers to file returns through tax agents. Buried in the complexity are distortions which promote speculation and borrowing at the expense of work and saving, burdensome business and payroll taxes which hamper entrepreneurship and job creation and ill-conceived charges on home sales which penalize home buyers and the young. Our tax system is estimated to impose efficiency losses of over $20 billion on the economy every year.

The welfare system faces similar problems. It has grown in ad hoc fashion to encompass more than 20 separate payments, each with different means tests, sub-payments, administrative arrangements and compliance regimes. Administrative costs for tax and welfare run to over $5 billion annually, with $80 billion churned between systems (collected as tax and then returned to the same taxpayers as welfare) each year. The complexity of systems makes government transparency impossible, with the financial relationship between taxpayers and the state left unfathomable to taxpayers and policymakers alike.

Poor interaction between tax and welfare systems traps people in poverty. Recipients leaving welfare for work face a combination of large benefit cuts and income tax, which can lead to effective losses of more than 70% of earned income. This punishes the drive to be self-sufficient and poor incentives are leading to inter-generational welfare dependency. Attempts to force behavior change through harassment and micromanagement add to bureaucracy, but cannot reduce overall unemployment or correct the underlying incentive problem.

Basic income through reverse taxation

The advance of digital technology places many jobs at risk, making it increasingly urgent to reduce tax on labor to keep it competitive. At the same time, a host of issues around transparency, bureaucracy and misaligned incentives need to be addressed. Ultimately, what is required is a comprehensively different model of tax and social support. Democratic Pirates Australia proposes a replacement of current systems with a unified tax and welfare system underpinned by a negative income tax.

Negative income tax is tax in reverse - money paid by the government to those with low or no taxable income. It is social support provided directly through the tax system rather than through a separate welfare system. Democratic Pirates Australia's plan is for a tax threshold of $40,000 in conjunction with a tax rate of 35%. Under this plan the first $40,000 of earnings will be tax-free, with a flat rate of 35% applied on earnings above that. However, people earning less than $40,000 will receive 35% of the shortfall transferred to them from the government in the form of negative income tax. Thus, persons earning nothing at all are guaranteed a basic income of $14,000 (representing 35% of the $40,000 by which they fall below the threshold).

Negative income tax is a progressive tax system which provides a safety net for those unable to earn. It also supplements poverty-level wages, providing those on low incomes with more latitude to improve their training and skills. Other taxpayers gain a significantly higher tax-free threshold which efficiently replaces the cluttered array of existing thresholds and offsets. Many forms of middle class and business activity are already supported with automatic tax credits: providing social support under the same principle will restore a form of balance between state and citizens, since the government will no longer be able to take income from citizens while refusing counter-obligations to citizens whose income collapses. The current tax system discourages work by taxing it more than other sources of income such as capital gains and unearned income including inherited wealth. Under a negative income tax system all forms of income are treated equally, allowing the basic tax rate to be lowered across the board.

Social support delivered through an automatic mechanism will foster 'positive liberty' by granting universal flexibility to receive education and training, volunteer, create art and culture or raise children without bureaucratic obstacles and complex payment rules. The income of farmers and workers with erratic working arrangements will be stabilized. Churn between systems will cease, since no recipient of benefits will pay tax and no taxpayer will receive benefits. By stepping aside, the state can cut swaths of bureaucracy while freeing individuals to explore their own potential, take entrepreneurial risks and let diversity and creativity flourish.

Most importantly, under a negative income tax no taxpayer will lose more than 35% of any dollar they earn. This will sweep poverty traps out of the system and provide a strong and permanent incentive for the unemployed to seek work.

Income guarantees have been trialed in Canada, with benefits including improved graduation rates, reduced domestic violence and better public health. In the United States of America, the earned income tax credit (which tops up the wages of low-paid workers) has reduced poverty by enhancing opportunities for training and education among the low paid. Economists across the political spectrum have called for further implementations.

Corporate tax reform

--More detail to be added--

Taxing multinationals

--More detail to be added--

Tax deductions on charitable and religious organizations

--More detail to be added--

Increased access options for superannuation

Our Party believes Australia has one of the safest and most financially secure superannuation systems in the world and will support measures that seek to protect the investments of Australians provided through the superannuation system.

Democratic Pirates Australia recognizes that the superannuation system, based around compulsory employer contributions for all employees, established in 1992 by the Labor Government, was devised in a time that financial hardship on many Australians was not representative to that of the current decade. We will seek and support measures that allow for the superannuation system to be structured and improved under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 Act, to allow for increased yet limited accessibility of superannuation funds under strict circumstances for Australian citizens.

We believe the superannuation of Australians should remain under strict control to protect their investments, which accessed upon retirement eases the financial burden of the Australian taxpayer and the country's tax and welfare system. We recognize the funds in these accounts remains the property of those who have earned it and have deposited into these accounts whether through compulsory employer contributions or self-deposits.

Democratic Pirates Australia will propose a strict set of allowable circumstances which would allow superannuation to be accessed by the individual account holder and to be used under control of the financial institute for the provided purpose requested and in accordance to any approved circumstance.

Access for home deposit

Owning your own home is the Australian dream. Unfortunately, too many young Australian couples and families are faced with the difficult challenge of sourcing enough funds to pay for home deposits, largely due to the highly inflated property market which Australia is experiencing. This is creating a generation of young families who may never have the chance to own their own home and forced to rely on public and private rental housing. This is putting significant strain on the entire rental sector of the property market. It inflates rental prices due to high demand and we are beginning to witness more families than previous generations experience financial hardship as a result.

Opening up access to superannuation funds to allow individuals to access a limited amount of funds, up to a maximum of $25,000 per individual to assist in payment for a home deposit, is one solution to ease the burden of a future rental crisis and give more young Australians an opportunity to own their own home.

Access for financial hardship

Too many Australians are experiencing financial hardship and struggle to pay the household bills. This is often a result of loss of employment through cease of business, redundancy or unable to source reliable and stable employment which earns enough income to make a comfortable living. This commonly results in those experiencing hardship making applications to Centerlink, borrowing cash from unreliable sources and in some cases, homelessness. Simply relying on the welfare system to pick up the pieces is putting significant strain on Australia's ailing financial budget and welfare system. Extended financial hardship opens up the possibility to stress, anxiety and further mental health problems as many Australian's struggle to cope with the associated side-effects of financial difficulties.

Under a completely revised Centerlink program and in severe cases of determined financial hardship, Australians should be enabled access to a limited one-off payment of $5,000 from their superannuation fund to assist in getting those experiencing financial difficulties 'back on track'. This would avoid pressure on already stretched Centerlink resources and would also assist to avoid further pressure on the medical sector, with the possibility of mental health problems born from financial hardship.

Supporting enterprise

The best way to balance economic and environmental priorities is to reduce company tax while also removing fossil fuel subsidies from the system along with unproductive tax offsets such as dividend imputation. To further reduce costs and complexity for business, Democratic Pirates Australia will remove payroll tax and GST, which burden businesses and hamper job creation. These and dozens of other inefficient taxes can be removed and replaced with a single low and broad consumption tax as recommended in the Henry Tax Review.

Supporting society

Democratic Pirates Australia supports the indexation of fuel excise, but believe the revenue should be used to abolish regressive vehicle registration fees. This will ensure motorists are taxed according to 'user pays' principles, with more frequent road users paying more tax. It will also improve the incentive to purchase fuel-efficient and more environmentally-friendly vehicles.

Tax reform can address the crisis around housing affordability. Democratic Pirates Australia will remove stamp duty (which hugely penalizes new home buyers) and raise equivalent revenue through a nationwide land tax. Land taxes are preferable to most taxes since they levy on products of nature rather than products of labor. They are paid primarily by the wealthy and therefore add progressiveness to the tax code. They also encourage productive use and sale of idle land, which will increase housing supply. Democratic Pirates Australia would also remove negative gearing and unwind the present tax break on housing capital gains. Both of these are loopholes which carry significant budget costs and have been major drivers of runaway house prices over the past 15 years.

Finally, Democratic Pirates Australia will classify all charities as 'deductible gift recipients', making every charitable donation and activity tax-deductible. At the same time, we will seek to remove tax exemptions linked to 'advancement of religion' since a secular society has no grounds to discriminate between taxpayers on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Democratic Pirates Australia supports reduced bureaucracy and an overall tax and spending ratio below 25 per cent of GDP for all layers of government. We seek to deliver a tax system worthy of the digital age and a smaller, smarter government which frees its citizens to truly reach for life and liberty.

Reducing supermarket dominance and supplier protection

--More detail to be added--

Global Economy and Trade Agreements

We believe there is no universal guideline that can accommodate to creating a path of support towards any specific [free-]trade agreement. Each trade agreement must be judged on its merits and positive provisions. But we must also examine the possibility of any negative impacts on Australian jobs, economic growth, manufacturing and international relations with the countries involved in the trade agreement. Only once a trade agreement is examined in greater detail, can an analysis and determination of support be made for the specific document.

Democratic Pirates Australia advocates that all development and negotiations for trade agreements must be carried out in the most transparent process possible. Where a trade agreement has been devised and its terms negotiated in near secrecy, such as the TPP, TISA and TTIP agreements, it becomes difficult to examine the prospects of what impact the agreement will have on the Australian economy and associated elements.

Our Party will advocate that all trade agreement texts be made available in the public domain, prior to and during the negotiating stage(s), so that the members of the Australian Parliament, Senate and the public can closer examine and scrutinize the trade agreement's terms and get a better understanding of the effects it will have on Australia.

China/Australia Free-Trade Agreement (ChAFTA)

--More detail to be added--

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

--More detail to be added--

Trade In Services Agreement (TISA)

--More detail to be added--

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

--More detail to be added--

Climate change and energy

Democratic Pirates Australia supports science-based action and therefore accepts the scientific view on the need to address climate change. The welfare of future generations is important enough to warrant application of the precautionary principle in our environmental management. Accordingly, Democratic Pirates Australia seeks to step up our immediate response to climate change and capitalize on the vast potential that science and technology now offer.

Reforming the energy grid

Australia has significant natural advantages as an energy producer. However, persistent under-investment has left an energy model riddled with problems, unsustainable and ineffective. Obsolete coal power plants across the nation have deteriorated to the point that accumulated maintenance costs have topped $100 billion. A 'business as usual' approach will pass the entire burden of costs to consumers and businesses in the form of perpetually rising energy prices. This comes on top of the hidden costs coal power already imposes on our health, waterways and ecosystems.

Investment in renewable energy generation offers more than just a chance to liberate the economy from these costs. Renewable generation can democratize energy markets. On-site solar generation and community ownership is the 21st century alternative to centralized state/corporate-owned grid monopolies. We believe the trend toward solar energy generation should be supported through the introduction of a strong and unified national solar feed-in tariff. Feed-in tariffs have been highly successful in developing base-load renewable grids overseas and the unification of piecemeal state schemes will provide essential certainty and simplicity for businesses. Democratic Pirates Australia would seek to extend solar tariffs to larger scale solar installations and support businesses and community centers as well as households. To offset energy poverty, vouchers would be distributed to low income earners to enable installation of solar PV, solar hot water systems or energy efficiency improvements.

Expansion of wind and solar technology

--More detail to be added--

Energy efficiency improvements

Democratic Pirates Australia also supports improvements to energy efficiency standards for vehicles and buildings and a roll-out of facilities for electric vehicles (EV's). EV batteries are valuable components of a renewable energy grid since their capacity to act as 'dispatchable demand' is useful to help to balance energy supply.

Management of coal resources

The weight of scientific evidence clearly shows that the uncontrolled burning of remaining global coal reserves will have severe effects on global climate, with potentially detrimental impacts on Australia's ecology, oceans (specifically the Great Barrier Reef), cities and farms. This manifests the principle of privatized profits and socialized losses, which Democratic Pirates Australia opposes.

While the changes required to our energy model are significant, the benefits will be immense. A transformation of Australia's energy grid will meet climate change objectives and reduce the debilitating costs of dirty power sources on economic growth, public health, and waterways. Investment in our farms and regions will provide economic stimulus, create tens of thousands of skilled jobs and improve the resilience of farms and small businesses by allowing them to 'dual use' their land and premises to supply energy. Our economy will benefit from lower and less volatile energy prices and the avoidance of deadweight costs attached to maintaining an aging coal grid. Investment in renewable energy must be viewed as more than just a response to climate change. It is important economic reform in the energy sector.

Variable coal exports tax

We will accordingly seek to implement a variable tax rate on coal exports. A variable coal exports tax will be indexed against a measured amount of nationally exported coal, in an effort to help drive down coal export rates in the overall sector. Revenue raised through a variable coal exports tax will be used to assist in funding, in-part, climate change measures with no added costs to domestic taxpayers.

Environment and ecology protection

Democratic Pirates Australia believes management of our environment should be holistic and reflect the best available scientific knowledge. Cases such as the Murray-Darling Basin system demonstrate the risks of splitting ecosystem management across state borders. A more unified approach which recognizes the interconnections and complexity of ecosystems is needed. Accordingly, we will press for the development of a comprehensive biodiversity matrix to better classify land and ocean ecosystems. This will underpin a more scientific approach to land management, which can be further enhanced through expanded Federal environmental oversight conducted under an independent authority. A biodiversity matrix will also provide the public with essential information about the ecological health of our continent and inform potential expansion of our critical national parks.

Questions of ecology and energy are ultimately about adjudicating between the rights of current and future generations. Democratic Pirates Australia believes in the adoption of an open and scientific framework to help inform these difficult questions.

Coal Seam Gas (CSG) extraction

Democratic Pirates Australia believes the direct damage and effects on the environment from Coal Seam Gas (CSG) extraction are too clear to ignore. Not enough conclusive scientific information, analysis and evidence is available to make any real determination of long-term effects on the environment.

We can not support the current rapid rate of expansion of CSG and will seek to put an immediate, temporary, halt to all CSG extraction operations and collaborate with State Governments to halt all pending applications for CSG until an in-depth report can be prepared and analyzed. We will advocate an Independent Task Force must be established, to work with reputable scientific organizations to better understand the long-term environmental effects, specifically for agriculture and water supplies.

Only once a Government funded, science based in-depth report is prepared, can we make a sensible and responsible determination which acts in the best interests of the environment, agricultural land, water supplies, regional residents and resource companies and investors.

Murray-Darling Basin management plan

The Murray-Darling Basin is of crucial importance to Australia's long-term water plan. We will ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will continue to hold control over management of the Basin.

Democratic Pirates Australia will prompt for a complete review of all details of the Water Act 2007 to ensure that the Plan's details remain accurate to provide the best results to enable and allow for a coordinated, efficient and sustainable water and resources delivery from the Murray-Darling Basin, based on a priority delivery mechanism. Whilst guaranteeing a fair and balanced system for agriculture, irrigation, domestic and recreation.

Great Barrier Reef protection plan

Australia's Great Barrier Reef is a world heritage listed environment. May 2015, United Nations conservation agency UNESCO, failed to add the reef to the "in danger" list. However the organization did raise serious concerns for the current and future health of the reef and surrounding marine life and has ordered a review by the 21 nations World Heritage Committee for lack of progress by 2017. Concerns for the reef continue to be outlined on many occasions by many environmental organizations.

Democratic Pirates Australia will enhance and improve protection of the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Governments at both Federal and State level, continue to promise, yet disappoint the Australian public and the environment for failing to act on protecting the reef. We believe that current protection measures fall short in providing the results required to avoid any further increase of irreparable damage to the reef, marine life and its surrounding coastal ecosystem.

We will seek to draft and implement a new Federal based plan initiative based on scientific research and evidence of damage to the reef, which will aim to achieve genuine and effective results in an effort to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

In addition to devising a protection plan to protect the reef, Democratic Pirates Australia will review all current and potential future commercial shipping lanes and paths, to ensure the most appropriate path is followed, to ensure absolute minimal impact on the environment. Following a review of commercial shipping lanes through and around the Great Barrier Reef, we will seek to draft legislation to guarantee no further ports can be constructed along the Queensland eastern seaboard, which will have further impact on the already fragile Great Barrier reef and marine life.

Animal welfare and mistreatment

Democratic Pirates Australia is opposed to animal abuse and believes our laws should be informed by scientific research which demonstrates the capacity of animals to feel emotion and pain. The improvement of public understanding through transparency and scientific discovery has been crucial to improvements in animal welfare to date, yet we believe in further application of these principles. Accordingly, we support existing efforts to create an independent statutory authority to conduct research and improve animal welfare outcomes. We also support improvements in the level of transparency applying to animal products.

We believe live exports need to be examined, with ongoing efforts made to promote chilled meat exports as an alternative to the live cattle trade. Live exports are characterized by months-long voyages, unsanitary conditions and total absence of any freedom of movement, with a significant follow-up risk of abuse in destination countries. Efforts to improve live export conditions, in conjunction with sensible domestic reforms, offer the best chance for a 'net' gain in global animal welfare.

--More detail to be added--


The "Marriage Act" in current form denies same sex couples a human right which is taken for granted in mainstream, heterosexual society. The "Marriage Amendment Act 2004" pushed this discrimination further by imposing a declaration, compulsorily recited at all weddings, that marriage in Australia is an exclusionary institution only to occur between a man and a woman. This imposes religious principles into state ceremonies, undermining the separation of Church and State - a principle which lacks explicit protection in the Australian Constitution. It also feeds existing stigmas related to homosexuality, which cause significant harm. Discrimination against same-sex couples is known to cause alienation, anxiety and depression, and the rate for suicide attempts among non-heterosexual persons is 2.5 times higher than that of the general heterosexual population. The repercussions can place a large burden on our health system.

As the modifications enacted in 2004 demonstrate, the Marriage Act is too easily used as a vehicle for political grandstanding, to the detriment of equality and civil liberties. Protecting marriage is not a matter of excluding particular individuals. We should instead exclude the state, which has shown itself to be incapable of overseeing fair and proper marriage laws. We accordingly support returning marriage to the community and replacing the Marriage Act with a Civil Unions Act. This will offer equal treatment to samesex couples and help to ensure that all Australian citizens receive the same recognition and legal rights, regardless of sexual orientation and respecting their said human right of sexual preference.

Child adoption reform

--More detail to be added--


Humans have always taken drugs. Modern attempts at prohibition are at odds with history as well as the natural human nature that is curiosity. The 'war on drugs' is best understood as a war on a market. Such wars are futile and not working. Demand always creates supply and ad hoc attacks on supply channels do nothing other than reduce the quality of drugs and increase the risks of those abusing illegal drugs and substances. History shows that even the harshest attempts to outlaw a market do not make the market go away, but merely create an unregulated black market in place of the legal one, making criminals of regular citizens and funding organized crime.

The cost of the "War on drugs"

At present, the illegal drug market is worth around $300 billion per year, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The choice we face is not between drugs and no drugs, but between legal and illegal markets.

The illegal market funnels vast profits to criminals and imposes equally vast costs on society. The United States of America alone spends $50 billion per year fighting the 'war on drugs'. Global spending is far greater. Secondary costs are incalculable, jailing people for drug offenses does far more to destroy individuals lives, sometimes with direct effects on family and friends of those involved, than the drugs themselves. The policy is poorly targeted, excluding alcohol and tobacco but imposing massive punishments on non-violent users of much less harmful products. In drug-producing countries, the illegal market has enriched drug cartels, causing thousands of deaths every year, corrupting civil societies and creating a risk of failed states.

Prohibition offers no success to justify the cost. The figures from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime show no observable decline in global drug use, nor is any decline evident in Australia. Results among individual nations show no correlation between drug use levels and the harshness of drug laws.

The "Alternative"

The experience of Portugal - where decriminalization led to an observable fall in drug deaths, suggests that a much better approach exists. Imprisonment is an immoral and ineffective way of handling mental health issues and other drivers of individuals resorting to drug abuse. It is more cost-effective to handle these issues in the sphere of public health. Legalizing and taxing safe drugs will raise revenue to fund better support services for addicts and their families. Decriminalizing other drugs will broaden options for treatment and allow help to be extended without the threat of criminal sanctions. Effective policy must offer help and treatment, but must also recognize that most drug users are neither addicts nor criminals.

In handling drugs, policymakers should also take note of their one success: The campaign against tobacco. The anti-tobacco campaign has reduced the proportion of smokers by 40% over 20 years, according to figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Through a combination of advertising, warnings and social sanctions in a legal framework, it is a far more successful model than prohibition and a broader application of it should be considered.

Ultimately however, civil liberties must be respected. A belief in civil liberties does not require approval of every private choice, merely acceptance that choice should exist. The alternative has cost us too much, for too long.

Asylum seekers and refugees

Handling of asylum seekers and refugees is one of the great policy failures of recent years for Australia. Domestically, political and legal processes are shrouded in near-secrecy and blame. Government Policy of turning around boats and returning them is a failed policy with no safe-guards to distinguish between legitimate asylum seeker vessels and known people smugglers, which do put significant strain on the entire system.

The backlog has overwhelmed the current capacity for processing and the evidence is growing, with continued evidence presented of inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. A crisis on such a scale requires a regional (mainland) solution. Asylum seeking is lawful and detention should not last longer than the minimum time-frame necessary to assess claims and conduct health, identity and strict security checks. Approved asylum seekers can be brought into the community, provided with support, training and be settled in areas where jobs remain persistently vacant.

The most touted reason for the requirement for off-shore detention of asylum seekers and refugees, outside of Australia's mainland, is because we do not have the facilities and necessary processes in-place to process these people seeking refuge in Australia. Our Party disputes this excuse and reasoning as a cover to continue to allow these offshore centers to continue to operate in secrecy and for the inhumane treatment of those detained to continue and to be ignored by the Government, without media and public attention.

Democratic Pirates Australia would support an immediate development of, without further delay, a plan to establish a secure and humane facility for where these people can be transferred to, on mainland Australia. This must be followed by an immediate creation of a new database and queue system, with enhanced security checks to assist in the immediate processing of detainees and placing a high-priority on woman and children.

Additional emphasis would be placed on all operations transparency which is undertaken at any potential new facility, accompanied by controlled access of media entities and journalists.

Closure of Manus Island and Nauru facilities

Democratic Pirates Australia believes the evidence presented within four documents - "The Forgotten Children" Australian Human Rights Commission Report, Senate Select Committee Report, Moss Review and Doogan Report - albeit redacted, all provide absolute evidence to demonstrate the terrible, unforgiving and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, detained on Manus Island and Nauru.

Details in the aforementioned documents demonstrate the urgency to act on the consistently worsening situation. Currently, operations on Manus Island and Nauru is undertaken by contractors, Broadspectrum (formerly known as Transfield Services), under the guidance and knowledge of Australian Authorities and in near-complete secrecy. This must stop. Regulated and transparent disclosure of all operations information must be made available to the public, in an effort to regain the trust of the Australian people, asylum seekers, refugees and international human rights organizations, which have described our current system as inhumane, possibly in breach of international law and has led to the facilities being compared to Guantanamo Bay.

October 24, 2014, the online publishing firm, Freedom Publishers Union, released an article and documents which details that Australia is possibly in breach of up to 11 articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Once a new processing facility and system is developed and established on mainland Australia, Democratic Pirates Australia will strongly urge the Australian Government to cease all operations on Manus Island and Nauru and close the facilities permanently, with no chance of future consideration of using the facilities for detention and/or processing of asylum seekers and refugees seeking to make Australia their safe new country to call home.

Foreign policy

Civil and digital liberties, transparency and human rights are universal principles and should be embodied in foreign as well as domestic policy. Indeed, foreign and domestic spheres are often difficult to separate, with international treaties having potential to drive domestic lawmaking.

Like all legal mechanisms, treaties derive legitimacy through consent and consultation. For this reason, treaties such as ACTA (which affect surveillance, generic medicine and digital rights), have drawn concern due to the intense secrecy surrounding their formulation and negotiation. While the secrecy itself was nullified by regular leaks, the process was still seen to exclude many potentially affected parties. Far more legitimacy and balance will attach to treaty outputs when openness and participation are enshrined in the negotiation process and potential threats to sovereignty are removed.

Mass surveillance

The revelations of massive and warrantless monitoring by the Unites States of America's National Security Agency (NSA) also demand an alternative and stronger response from the Australian government. Australian citizens are being subjected to offshore monitoring on a massive scale with no checks and balances and no access to appeals or accountability. The notion that allies can be treated as suspects with no rights is harmful both to domestic sovereignty and broader international relations. One method of safeguarding the liberties of internet users will be to ensure that foreign whistleblowers offering information relevant to the public good and deemed to a reasonable extent to be of public interest, are granted protection under reformed Australian whistleblower laws. We believe negotiations should commence on a new treaty to enshrine the principles of the internet and protect the rights of all its users.

--More detail to be added--

Human rights

Australia needs a complete reset of its human rights obligations. As a leading democracy on the international stage, our human rights reputation has been internationally recognized as shameful. Our treatment of those detained to offshore detention centers, specifically Manus Island and Nauru, is deplorable and outright unacceptable. Torrid living conditions and human rights violations have been recognized and condemned by multiple internationally recognized bodies of Human Rights Watch, Save the Children, Amnesty International and even member nations of the United Nations (UN) itself have publicly condemned the treatment. Democratic Pirates Australia echoes the international condemnation.

Australian citizens and those living on the mainland enjoy many protections and face very little threat to our quality of living on the basis of any potential threat to our human rights and dignity. The very same privileges and protections need to be extended to those detained to offshore detention. Australia's treatment of asylum seekers and efforts to ensure their safety is an embarrassment. In too many cases, concerns of physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape and torture have been kept secret or outright ignored by Australian representatives, Government Ministers and even the Prime Minister, disputing concerns of human rights violations and torture despite the mounting evidence.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is widely accepted as the defacto standard for Western democracy to use as a basis for respecting the rights of all humans under the watch and control of any member nation. Whilst offshore detention centers may be located in another country's jurisdiction, the centers are under the direct control and watch of the Australian Government, therefore Democratic Pirates believes the Australian Government have an ethical and political responsibility to abide by the UN Charter and protect the human rights of all individuals.

Although the UN Charter is not legally binding, our Party believes that as a member nation of the United Nations, Australia should uphold its human rights obligations in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and strive to repair our international reputation by providing a safe and protected environment for all human beings within Australia, including all aspects of a heavily revised immigration policy which would see the end of offshore processing of asylum seekers and refugees, see them processed and resettled on Australian mainland and integrated into society.

Democratic Pirates Australia believes that Australia has a long way to go to restore our international reputation and become a nation recognized for upholding the human rights of all individuals. We will push for the closure of all offshore detention facilities and advocate all other aspects of our Asylum Seeker and Refugee Policy, as these are the people at the front-line of Australia's human rights abuse, torture and much suffering with the full understanding and cooperation of the Australian Government and its current weak legislation which enables it to occur under the banner of "Sovereign Borders".

Foreign aid

Foreign humanitarian aid should be provided for genuine humanitarian reasons and in a manner that supports the improvement of local conditions. It is sometimes the case that aid is provided to foreign nations in situations where the real benefit is to the business and producers in the donor countries and the aid actually has negative effects upon the recipient countries.

--To be reviewed in-full--


December 1, 2016 | Pirate Party Online Security and Privacy Advisory

So what's this new IP Bill I keep hearing about?

Recently passed as legislation by the UK Parliament, the IP Bill (amongst other things) requires UK internet service providers (ISP) to retain a log of all the websites and apps that your computer or mobile phone connects to. This data can then be viewed and accessed by the Police, Department of Health and any other Government agencies, such as the UK intelligence agency GCHQ. Equally, once stored it will be a magnet for hackers and some of the data will, at some point, be hacked into by a third-party and released publicly.

Why is that a problem for me?

The list of every website that you visit is hugely personal information. Just think about those that you visited over the last week. It would almost certainly reveal who you bank with, where you get your main source of news, your political affiliation, which social media networks you use and how often, any health issues you might currently be concerned about, what schools your children attend, where you are thinking of going on holiday or what presents you are looking at for your loved one(s). For even the most innocent person, it is information that could be embarrassing if your work colleagues knew about it, but could be really valuable for anyone wanting to steal your identity.

It is even more of a potential problem for lawyers protecting client confidentiality to ensure fair justice, for journalists protecting sources and the knowledge of stories that they are currently investigating and researching, to minorities who are being, or who could be targeted and harassed by others.

So what can I do about it?

As far as the IP Bill is concerned, to reduce the ability of your ISP to log the websites which you visit you can use Tor Browser. When using Tor, the ISP will see that you are connecting to Tor but won't see which websites you are visiting on the encrypted network. It provides the best consumer-level anonymity by routing the data through a number of different Tor connected servers, known as relays, rather than by connecting directly to the website you're visiting through your ISP as you normally would.

Can I download and use Tor Browser today?

You can download Tor Browser for Windows, Mac and Linux at

For Android devices, use Orbot. This can be installed from the Google Play Store.

But hang on, I thought that website connections were secure? And what's that padlock thing and why doesn't that help?

The difference is between hiding the identity of the website to which you are connected, and hiding (encrypting) the information that you are exchanging with that website. In simple terms, it is the difference between the ISP logging that you are connected to your bank's website, and which bank that is, compared to someone knowing what information you exchange with that site (eg. Your account number and password).

HTTPS (where your browser shows a padlock symbol in the corner) is where the data that you exchange with that site is encrypted between the two sites (so your ISP or anyone else can't read/see the specific data). Whilst this level of security is obviously important for online banking, making credit card payments etc., we believe that most (if not all) websites should be encrypted so that people don't know if you are reading the sports news, finding out the latest stock market movements, or looking at obscure news from a repressive regime somewhere in the world that you are about to travel to. This is your privacy, therefore should remain private.

Can I install HTTPS Everywhere?

In order to force HTTPS where possible, you can download the HTTPS Everywhere Extension for your chosen web browser. Most popular web browsers are supported. (eg. Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Android). The Extension can be installed at

Stop for a minute! Google and Microsoft are tracking my searches. What do I do?

Traditional internet search engines such as Google and Bing utilize all the data they gather about you in order to present you with the most relevant results and advertising. This data will be a combination of your searches on Google, Calendar items, YouTube viewing habits and even the contents of your e-mail (Gmail, This means that Google and Microsoft have vast amounts of data on you and can utilize that data to optimize their business model.

What are the secure search engines that respect my privacy?

In order to avoid search engine tracking, we recommend switching your search engine to DuckDuckGo or as they do not track your search habits and do not collect personal data to present your search results.

Visit to search using DuckDuckGo

Visit to search using

Are there any more ways to improve my online security?

Secure Messaging is a tough one. There are secure messaging providers out there such as WhatsApp, Signal, Wickr and Telegram, but unless the people you chat with also switch to the same provider, you're not going to be gaining any advantage. If you can't convince the people you communicate with to make the switch to secure and encrypted messaging services, simply refuse to share sensitive information over insecure messaging services. You would be surprised at the amount of people who still carelessly drop their bank account information over unencrypted and insecure messaging networks.

What about Facebook Messenger?

Facebook has been at the receiving end of criticism of the lack of security for the company's Messenger program. Thankfully, Facebook listened to the criticism and implemented device end-to-end encryption as an option for its Facebook Messenger app. If you want maximum protection for your messaging on the social network, ensure you use the Secret Conversation option, as it enables end-to-end encryption which will ensure that your message can not be read by Governments and intelligence services.

What about Twitter and Google?

If you're serious about secure messaging, then please avoid using Twitter direct messaging as there is no option of encryption and access by Governments and intelligence agencies would be relatively easy to gain, if required. Google has a myriad of services which allow for communication. If you insist on using Google for your messaging service, then consider installing the recently released app, Google Allo. It has an option for encryption and will give you the best security for messaging on any of Google's networks and communication services.

What aout secure web-based Email?

Google and Microsoft both offer great webmail services. However, due to the popularity and company status within Silicon Valley, they are also targets for mass-surveillance and dragnet data gathering. As we have learned from previous intelligence disclosures, Google and Microsoft are not very secure and encryption is sub-standard. Yahoo is worse and we recommend avoiding use of Yahoo for email if you want any serious security.

There are more secure options for web-based email which are also completely free to use and secure your email by implementing encryption as their standard service. We recommend taking a look at or

What about device encryption? How do I secure data on my computer?

On desktop computing, you can choose to encrypt anything you can compress. Keeping sensitive information in a compressed file is a quick solution but often when setting up your hard disk you have the option to encrypt the drive, depending on your operating system. Mobile devices are similar - you can choose to encrypt the contents of your SD card and/or internal memory of the device. Take some time to get to know your system and learn the benefits of encrypting your smartphone or other portable device.

What are my options for software encryption?

Device encryption is important. Equally as important is software encryption. For small, yet very important and private data that you want to secure and protect, consider using a software method for container encryption. Using software encryption services such as Veracrypt and CipherShed (both are forks of the now defunct TrueCrypt (the software used by Edward Snowden for The NSA Leaks)) enable users to have absolute control over the level of security for their encrypted containers for their data. You can protect data by a simple password method, an encryption key file or a combination of both for maximum security.

Let's not complicate matters by explaining the ins and outs of encryption. It will suffice to say as long as you encrypt, it's exceptionally unlikely someone will crack it, including the FBI, CIA, NSA et al. Instead, the most likely way someone will get through your encryption is with a key logger installed on your system - so take a look at a few points we advise below which aim to illustrate good basic security practices:


IP Bill: Investigatory Powers Bill. Also known as the "Snoopers Charter". The bill has now been passed by both Houses of the UK Parliament and puts it onto a firm and legal path to guaranteeing all the surveillance and hacking powers that the Government wants, it can legitimately and legally perform.

ISP: Internet Service Provider. The company who provides an internet connection. (eg. Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Internode, TPG, Dodo etc. for fixed-line connections and Telstra, Optus, Vodafone etc. for mobile data connections.

Tor [Browser]: The Onion Router. Accessed by using Tor Browser. A way of connecting to the internet which 'hides' or enables a certain amount of 'anonymity', by encrypting the details of the websites that you are accessing.

HTTPS: HTTP Secure (HTTP is Hyper-text Transfer Protocol) - A standard method and protocol of which websites send information and data in an encrypted (secure) manner.

Adapted by Democratic Pirates Australia, from the original text published by Pirate Party UK | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)


July 3, 2016 | BEREC Draft Guidelines for Net Neutrality in the European Union (EU)

To Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC);

Democratic Pirates Australia advocates and supports net neutrality in its simplest form and implementation.

Following advice from Free Software Foundation, we support the Draft Guidelines for Net Neutrality in the European Union (EU).

As outlined by FSF, we are also concerned of the provisions that surround "zero-rating" service. In summary, this is where a particular service is offered to the end-user by an ISP or other service provider on the basis that the specific set-out service does not count towards data usage for the end-user. It is common commercial practise that once the limit has been reached, the service delivery is deliberately manipulated.

We support zero-rating delivery, however once the limits that have been put in place have been reached by the enduser, we do not support service providers slowing down or modifying the connection of the service delivery, in any form. Doing so is directly in conflict with net neutrality provisions and require immediate attention, shall the Draft Guidelines be adopted.

We prefer this problem be addressed by increased limits to prevent these limits being reached so quickly. This has the potential to also be accompanied by a fee increase or optional fee due, once the data has been reached. This would be in favor of any form of connection manipulation which affects net neutrality standards. However, potential adoption of these measures must not be deliberately abused by service providers in an effort to seek quick profits at the expense of the end-user.

Democratic Pirates Australia urges BEREC to consider all concerns raised through all public Submissions and ensure that those concerns are addressed and the final Guidelines effectively modified to reflect net neutrality in its truest form and intention in the European Union.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - President


August 16, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Australia President Contacts Civil Liberties Australia

To Civil Liberties Australia;

My name is Chris McGimpsey-Jones and I write to you as President of Democratic Pirates Australia. I have corresponded with your organization before on previous matters, as a representative of the publishing organization Freedom Publishers Union.

Democratic Pirates Australia is a small political party movement based on Pirate Party principles. Last week, we released a Press Statement expressing our concerns over the revised Social Media Guidelines for Civil Servants, in which we describe as "draconian" and "overzealous".

We believe many elements of the guidelines go beyond their scope of purpose and call for Civil Liberties Australia to speak out on these unnecessary and unjustified guidelines which as described in our Statement, "censor communication and impede on our civil liberties and right to freedom of expression".

We would be more than happy to discuss the matter further if you have any questions for us. You can contact our press contact on the following email address [email protected]

Thank you for your time and we look forward to your reply. Have a great day.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - President

August 14, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Australia President Contacts Andrew Wilkie MP, on Introduction of Bill of Rights Legislation

To Andrew Wilkie MP;

Good afternoon. I am the Party President of a small developing political party movement called Democratic Pirates Australia. We are based on the principles of the global Pirate Party movement.

As President of our Party, I wanted to personally write to you and thank you for taking the time to introduce a new Federal Australian Bill of Rights legislation into the Parliament.

Our great country is in dire need of such legislation and its introduction is very much overdue. Our Party Policy for a Bill of Rights is currently under review and being re-developed. We originally advocated to have it amended into the Australian Constitution. But upon closer analysis, we came to the conclusion that this path of implementation for any such Bill of Rights would be expensive, complex and just not viable. Your proposal is extremely consistent with that of our own Party view and is equally consistent of the direction we intend to take our revised Policy once our internal review is complete and the Policy re-developed.

It makes me extremely happy that you have paid so much attention to this frankly, missing, piece oflegislation for Australia. And it's great to see such a respected member of the Australian Parliament standing up for civil liberties and human rights protections of all Australians.

We are currently reviewing your proposed legislative bill in full and will comment further in coming weeks.

On behalf of Democratic Pirates Australia, I commend you for the proposal and the equally impressive speech in the chamber to back the legislation's introduction.

You have 100% my personal support and that of our Party's support and we intend to support it through our own public avenues of communication we have at our disposal. We seriously hope this bill fosters the support and traction needed to progress through the Parliament and see eventual enactment.

Keep up the great work Mr. Wilkie.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - President

May 11, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Australia Membership Application Withdrawal from Pirate Parties International

To Pirate Parties International (PPI);

Democratic Pirates Australia would formally like to advise PPI that we no longer seek membership.

As a result of our Pirate Party no longer seeking membership, we formally withdraw all and any outstanding documentation which is currently before PPI.

Our Pirate Party goals for a more open and transparent world have diverged from that of PPI. Therefore we have decided to take this opportunity to cease immediate collaboration opportunities with PPI, in order to better pursue our own growing Pirate Party agenda.

We expect and look forward to working with PPI in the future, as both our organizations grow.

Primarily, we represent Australians of a new generation in this new and very open technological world, holding the Pirate Party Principles true to our core values and beliefs. We are increasingly focusing on international pirate politics and as we grow it will become a stronger focus for our Party in the near future.

We are open to collaborative and constructive discussion in the future with PPI, when we see an opportunity that our core interests are following the same path.

Thank you for your time and please feel free to contact us anytime through our Press Contact.

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - President


May 25, 2017 | Power of Government, Policies and Overreach, a Reflection of Us

We, the people of the first world, have finally reached the end of our modern flirtation with democracy. In countries ranging from the UK and the USA, to Australia and Asia, citizens are requesting that their governments do more to protect them from the harms of free speech.

The UK Conservative Party published their Manifesto last week, which contained a proposal to rescind the right to freedom of speech in virtually every public and private context. In practice, this new legislation would remove from public access any and all material that the State deems to be inappropriate, hateful or morally questionable. The thoroughness of this proposal would result in a English society fettered by the same type of rules that China, Turkey and Iran impose upon their citizens.

Yet no one - other than a few libertarians and journalists - are protesting this proposal. Indeed, reading the text of this blueprint for public discourse, the restrictions are couched in words about safety, children, anti-terrorism, and preventing crime. Cut off the ability for terrorists and criminals to communicate and recruit from their communities, eliminate once and for all the threat of child molestation and cripple criminal gangs before they can even imagine a crime; all this sounds worthy and worthwhile.

Maybe, for the majority of citizens, this is what they want from their government. To feel safer at home, in their neighborhood and on the internet. And maybe a majority of the citizens have thought through this legislation and have decided that, in the long run, the loss of some freedoms now will make life better further on.

The Conservatives are certainly absolutely sincere about their belief in the benefit of their Manifesto. These aren't profiteering businesses colluding on price fixing, or sociopaths that awaken and say "I'm going to go out and hurt 50 people today". These are people who have given up part of most of their lives to try and provide for the thousands of souls that they represent. This is not an easy or comfortable (or lucrative) job to hold. Yet it is crucial to have the best of the best serving, that the best courses of action are mapped for the rest of the country.

The Manifesto is not some power-grab by greedy politicians driven by commercial bribes. This document truly reflects the will of - if not a majority, then the largest plurality - the citizens of the UK. Brexit was a warning: Britons are fed-up with all the bad news about job losses, terrorists, crime and poverty. The belief is that making it harder for rabble-rousers to incite anti-social behavior is a benefit that outweighs those of the freedom of speech that the UK takes for granted.And, maybe, this time it will actually work. But history has taught us that inviting the government to assume power to regulate our speech and ultimately communicating our thoughts to others is simply inviting a 'real' sociopath to lead the government into a dictatorship, or worse.

Yet, when you look at what happens when this does occur, many - if not most - citizens don't really notice any change. Sure they get lectured on saying something that offends, or act overly lewd toward other persons and may even pay fines. But as long as the stories of terrorism and bullying and fights disappear from the news, the citizens will be content with their lot in life.

The question we must ask ourselves: Are these people actually wrong about trading freedoms - especially the freedom of speech - for a more secure society? Has unbridled dissemination of ideas gotten to a point where ideas are doing more harm than good? Have we simply outgrown democracy and freedom as our forefathers understood it?

It's easy to point fingers at government overreach and condemn the legislators for bringing these measure to become law. But these people are elected by us, and therefore are doing what we ask them. Sometimes it doesn't seem that way on a personal level, but by and large this is the case.

So the finger of blame - or approbation - needs to be pointed not at Theresa May or Donald Trump. It needs to be pointed in the mirror, at us. And we need to honestly answer to ourselves: Is this what I really want for my future? That is the way we're supposed to govern in a democracy. Let's get to it.

Brett Brennan - Chairman


December 8, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Australia President Resigns. Operations Cease and Placed in Caretaker Mode

I regret to inform our supporters and followers that effective immediately, I resign my position as President of Democratic Pirates Australia.

As the original Party Founder and President, I remain immensely proud of what we have achieved as a developing political party and hope some day operations can continue under new leadership, a complete restructure and under the operations of a new Party Constitution.

To take immediate effect, all operations will cease and be placed in caretaker mode until further notice.

Thank you everyone for your support. Keep up the hard work and keep fighting for digital rights, privacy and copyright reform!

Chris McGimpsey-Jones - Founder and Former President

December 7, 2017 | Marriage Equality Now Reality in Australia

What a historic day for Australia, as the Federal Parliament passes the Same Sex Marriage legislation in both Houses.

It been an ugly path with some very negative public campaigning by many different lobby groups, political parties and individuals. However, this has been offset by overwhelming community support which saw a huge public majority declare their support for Marriage Equality.

Democratic Pirates Australia led a #VoteYES campaign. Today, as we witnessed the legislation pass through the House of Representatives, we stand proud of our own campaign and firmly believe that we backed the right side - the side of Marriage Equality for all couples.

Well done Australia!

November 8, 2017 | Continued Condemnation of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)/TPP-11

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a monolithic trade agreement, which includes a total of 12 nation signatories - in its original form.

Since the announcement of the withdrawal of the USA from the agreement, made by President Trump early 2017, the 11 remaining signatories have reconfirmed their commitment to the TPP, which is being unofficially referred to as TPP-11.

There is renewed calls, led by Japan, Australia and New Zealand, to re-negotiate elements of the TPP to include appropriate provisions to leave open the possibility of the USA re-entering the agreement in the future.

Democratic Pirates Australia opposes large, overpowering trade agreements such as the TPP and urge Australia to reconsider its increasingly aggressive pursuit of TPP-11.

After the final details of the trade agreement were ironed out by former Australian Trade Minister, Andrew Robb, our Party was quickly drawn to the conclusion that the TPP does not favor Australian trade, workers or our economic interests as it is being touted. Instead, it is an agreement intended to favor big multi-national corporations and generate large profits.

Democratic Pirates Australia was drawn to our conclusion of opposition based on five specific elements surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement:

Specifically, we condemn the 7 years of secret negotiations and will always promote the process of transparency throughout negotiations of trade agreements. Even more so for trade agreements which wield so much economic power and potential for ruin.

The inclusion of ISDS clauses and provisions are not uncommon in trade agreements. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, various varieties of ISDS clauses are present in over 3,000 trade agreements worldwide. They do vary throughout these agreements. Basically, the inclusion of this clause inside the TPP reveals the potential for large multi-national corporations to sue domestic governments if they introduce law(s) that could potentially have impact on their profits of their services provided in the region.

The Environment Chapter is weak and does nothing of significance to aim to combat climate change. Additionally, we see nothing of significance that encourages protection of the environment that is not already being pursued by local laws. This much is clarified by Wikileaks' own analysis of the Environment Chapter, "When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures.". We echo this analysis.

Intellectual property and copyright are a natural and organic interest for The Pirate Party. Many aspects of the Intellectual Property Chapter are wide ranging in its scope and have the potential for directly affecting freedom of information, civil liberties and the digital rights of consumers. As a political party with direct focus on intellectual property and copyright reform, it is only natural that we approach this area of the TPP with extreme caution. Aspects of the TPP's copyright provisions set extremely lengthy time-frames for copyright, before expiration and eligibility to be released to the public domain. Additionally, the TPP puts heavy restrictions on public broadcast rights of copyrighted content. The provisions covered under the Intellectual Property Chapter, with the inclusions of Copyright provisions are unacceptable and are many steps backwards. They are designed to work in favor of copyright holders, producers and the studios that back them. These provisions should be designed to find a fair and balanced middle-ground which will benefit consumers and content producers. Instead, the consumers are punished and we see the TPP designed to work in favor of big profits and more controlling power by studios and their various heavily cashed up lobby groups.

Our concerns surrounding Pharmaceuticals are perfectly justified and echoed by many. The TPP forces healthcare authorities to give big pharmaceutical companies crucial information about national decisions on public access to medicine and gives big corporations greater powers to challenge decisions they believe to be harming their pharmaceutical business interests. Big pharma already have unchallenged power throughout the developed world. The TPP is guaranteed to deliver them even more power and combined with ISDS, there will be even less legal avenues of challenge for domestic governments to negotiate the best medical practices and medicine for citizens of their respective nation. Taking into consideration the nature of the Intellectual Property Chapter and ISDS, we believe this is extremely dangerous and has detrimental possibilities for the development of medicine and their availability through monopolistic ownership and unrealistic intellectual property retaining time-frames.

We will continue to oppose the TPP and fight for better outcomes for Australians, through implementation of local laws which are devised, presented, negotiated and debated in full public view with complete transparency. Political legislation should never be developed and negotiated in complete secrecy, as the TPP has been and continues to be with fresh negotiations of TPP-11 set to ramp up soon.

October 9, 2017 | Civil Liberties and Privacy More Important than Mass-Surveillance Expansion

Democratic Pirates Australia condemns the latest proposal by the Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to establish a national photo identification database.

Our Party remains concerned of the wider security issues that come as a result of any centralized national database.

We believe the database directly violates the rights to privacy of the citizens of Australia. There is no justification for the establishment of such an invasive program which questions its own legitimacy based on privacy rights.

We feel that there is every possibility that the database and its collected information will be integrated into more sophisticated programs operated by our intelligence agencies, with a possible extension of access to our international partners for further integration into the global mass-surveillance networks.

We know these mass-surveillance programs exist. We understand their role. However, we believe their existence and intended purpose is not a free ticket to continue to be expanded through further creation of new programs which aim to fill in the gaps of information on citizens that may currently be missing.

Democratic Pirates Australia will continue to push for the upholding of civil liberties and privacy rights and will always advocate that surveillance programs remain limited in operation, targeted and propose that further enhancements be made to their operations through increased oversight and transparency.

Only once an appropriate balance of oversight and transparency is implemented should we look at further enhancements and refinement to existing mass-surveillance programs. At the very core of our Party's principles, upholding civil liberties and privacy are our main concern over further enhancement of mass-surveillance programs under the deceiving blanket excuse of "national security" which is used much too often.

October 7, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Supports an Australian Space Agency and Increased Science and Research Investment

We support the establishment of an Australian-based national space agency. Exploration of space, our galaxy and the wider universe is key to human development and is a natural extension of our want for knowledge in science.

Space exploration - especially private space exploration - is a major growth industry and adds significantly to a nation's economy both directly through high-skill jobs creation and indirectly through the support industries that grow around it. Australia already hosts a number of space research facilities; what is missing is an agency to coordinate, manage and encourage participation in growing this field as a resource for the nation. We would support a significant amount of budget dollars to be placed into the initial and future investment of such center, to ensure it has the necessary funds readily available to make the significant scientific contributions that an Australian space agency could produce and to guarantee it operates at its full potential.

Australian scientists have made many contributions to astronomy through a range of projects and programs, both domestically and internationally. However, this has been limited in scope due to the current absence of a national-based agency.

We see a national space agency as a perfect solution to grow our academic science community. There is also the added benefit of spawning new interest in the STEM area of study. We see a space agency as a perfect incentive for young people to take a keen interest in this field of scientific study and the opportunities have the potential to reach far beyond simply astronomy and space.

We see a national space agency as key in keeping the STEM graduates in Australia and significantly contributing to economic growth. It would allow Australia to be an equal player in the multi-national space community, a peer to America, the EU and Russia.

Once a national space agency is established, we would like to see the CSIRO receive an increase in funding, a new focus placed on climate science and research and a working scientific relationship established between the CSIRO and a national space agency.

Democratic Pirates Australia supports the Government's efforts in bringing the concept of a space agency to the forefront of scientific focus.

October 1, 2017 | Unreleased Report of the European Commission and the Effects of Copyright Infringement (Piracy) on Legal Digital Media Sales

A previously unreleased European Commission report from 2015 revealing that piracy of digital media has statistically no impact to the majority of digital media sales, was placed into the public domain by Julia Reda, a member of the Pirate Party Germany.

The Report was accessed and released by a freedom of information request. If no request was ever filed, the the Report may never have been made available in the public domain. Democratic Pirates Australia commends Julia Reda for successfully requesting access of the Report and making it available in the public domain.

The Report, established by the European Commission and conducted by Dutch firm, Ecorys, was made final in 2015 and is based on 2014 data, across 6 European nations, including Germany, UK, Spain, France, Poland and Sweden. It consists of over 300-pages and is focused on the "relation between online copyright infringement (digital piracy) and sales of copyrighted content" of music, audio/visual, books and games.

The details provided in the Report paint a very familiar picture of what has been known and advocated by Pirate Parties around the world and many in the industry. Yet it seems almost too convenient that when details are illustrated to highlight lack of sufficient evidence to support the notion that piracy continues to be a major contributor to legal digital media sales, the true representative facts are suppressed, not highlighted in their true context or presented in mainstream commercial media to paint a different picture which is usually set to work in the favor of the commercial networks interests and advertisers.

The Report's Executive Summary concludes, "In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements. That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect. An exception is the displacement of recent top [cinematic] films.".

Essentially, it's safe to conclude there is no significant long-term negative effect to legal and legitimate sales of digital media, despite continuation of illegal access to pirated content, which is effectively copyright infringement.

Through the release of the Report, we hope to see questions being asked to the European Commission of why the findings were never released to the public once it was made final. Additionally, we also hope it regenerates the political conversation around the world, pushed by international Pirate Parties, that there is valuable, reliable and reputable evidence readily available that almost unanimously concludes to a large degree that declined sales in digital media is not the direct and sole result of continued access to pirated content.

The secret to preventing piracy is to make legal access cheaper than pirating. But it must also have the same level of convenience and flexibility of accessibility. Netflix and Amazon Prime have gone some way to achieve this. However, current services offered still fall shy in allowing downloadable content, audio and video, for ease-of-portability once legally purchased. There is still too many restrictions being imposed on legally purchased digital media. It's also significantly restricted by the mechanism of the streaming platform.

We reiterate the position of Democratic Pirates to express the lack of significant copyright reform. With the lack of suitable and effective copyright reform, accompanied by the fact that media producers and distributors still fail to deliver consumer media in technical formats free of digital rights management (DRM) and other proprietary technology which imposes restrictions on media flexibility, it has become obvious that piracy is the next most convenient step to fill the void of accessibility and flexibility that the media industry continues to ignore in its constant flame war on copyright infringement.

Copyright reform must also be always accompanied by fair-use provisions. We have for a long time advocated that fair-use be treated as equally important as copyright reform. Together, they can absolutely help foster a sustainable and financially viable creative media industry that works for providers, distributors and consumers.

Democratic Pirates will continue to push our copyright reform agenda as one of our major policy platforms of the Pirate Party, in addition to fighting to maintain open and accessible internet free of censorship.

August 20, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Australia Solidarity to Spain

Once again, Democratic Pirates Australia finds ourselves expressing our thoughts and prayers to our international friends in Europe and Pirate Party of Spain.

This weeks terror events that unfolded with striking similarity to previous European events of terror, have reminded us all that the threat of domestic or home-grown terrorism is not yet over.

The methodology behind these events and how they are carried out are cowardly and are always viewed as an attack on the very democratic values that we share and need to stand together to protect.

August 15, 2017 | Democratic Pirates Australia Marriage Equality #VoteYES Campaign

Today, we officially launch our #VoteYES campaign to help see marriage equality become reality in Australia.

Democratic Pirates Australia has a long standing Marriage Policy which in its entirety, promotes and advocates marriage equality for everyone, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation.

With last week's announcement from the Coalition Government that it will proceed with a voluntary postal plebiscite (also referred to as a survey), we encourage all Australian's who are not yet registered with the Australian Electoral Commission to commence to make immediate arrangements and register to become eligible to vote.

The choice of a postal plebiscite would not be our Party's choice of process to see the eventual establishment of marriage equality in Australia, however we do support any effective measure that go towards seeing any very real possibility of establishment of marriage equality, providing that it remains within the scope of our Party Policy and position that we take on such an important matter.

The postal plebiscite will be voluntary, but we urge all registered Australian voters to participate in this important and potentially historical decision for Australia and equal rights reform on marriage.

So please stand up, make your voices heard and make your vote count towards a more fair and equal system for marriage.

Democratic Pirates Australia supports Marriage Equality and urge all Australian's to #VoteYES

August 10, 2017 | Changes to Civil Servant's Social Media Guidelines are Draconian, Overzealous and Unjustified

The Australian Public Service Commission's social media guidelines have been amended. The new guidelines which appy to Australian Government civil servants include changes that must be taken seriously and are simply unfair, unjustified and downright overzealous.

The latest changes include civil servants facing possible disciplinary action if they simply 'Like' content on Facebook or other social media platforms if the content is critical of the Government in any way. That is just the beginning. The guidelines extend further to content and comments posted online by anyone else who also shares the same negative or opposing views of the Government. And if that very content is posted or shared to the civil servant's social media profile or page, then the guidelines instruct the servant to delete the content or otherwise be faced with the possibility of further disciplinary action taken against the civil servant who fails to comply.

There are many problems with these guidelines and our Party condemns the latest changes and deems them absolutely unjustified, ridiculous and completely unnecessary. We understand the necessity and intent behind implementation of social media policies. However, in this instance we believe the changes are much too strict and urge the Australian Public Service Commission to put an immediate halt on the new changes and implement a more simplified social media policy that is more understanding and fair to legitimate social media usage and reflective of civil servants' internet habits within Government departments.

The guidelines claim, "As members of the Australian community, Australian Public Service (APS) employees have the right to participate in public and political debate.". We believe this opening statement of the guidelines to be absolutely contradictory to the text of the guidelines. The Pirate Party always encourages political debate and questioning of the democratic values of Australia's political environment. By claiming employees have the right to participate in public and political debate and then following up the statement later in the text with guidelines that absolutely prevent that debate without the looming threat of retaliation as a response, is effectively shutting down the debate before it commences. It is essentially preventing employees from contributing in public and political debate and forcing them to share the view and political position of the Government of the day.

We are concerned that the guidelines outline the recommendation of adding a disclaimer to personal social media accounts to publicly declare any views expressed are solely the views of the social media account holder and not of that of the employer. We believe this is fair and reasonable and is currently common practice. But again, we see contradictory text in the guidelines that outlines the following, "It's a good idea to include a statement on your social media platforms, or in individual posts if necessary, to the effect that your views don't represent those of your employer. However, this won't always protect you from a finding that you have breached the Code." In other words, it is effectively saying that you are free to have a social media account and you are free to use it, as long as you promote the Government's political view points. However, you are not free to express your personal or political views through your personal account as it will be deemed as "anti-government", according to the guidelines.

Furthermore, it is expected that social media account holders take full responsibility to what is posted on their social media accounts and their associated social pages, not just from themselves but for that of other peoples comments and responses too. This is a ridiculous assumption that social media account holders can personally monitor each of their social media accounts and essentially filter and censor where required, any views that are deemed by the Government as opposite to that of the Government of the day.

Pirate Party President, Chris McGimpsey-Jones, makes his own position very clear on the matter, "It's absolutely absurd that social media guidelines of this nature can be implemented without any effective opposition. It's a ridiculous situation and I can't believe that this has been implemented as official Government supported guidelines for social media usage. It's effectively taking out the 'social' part out of the equation of the social media formula and instead implies that everyone must share the same view of the Government or you're not entitled to any view at all. Yes, it's absolutely crazy and I can't believe this is happening under a democratic political system. Our freedoms are vanishing. And vanishing fast, yet no one seems to care. To be frank, it really bothers me.".

Disappointed and somewhat angered by negative, yet accurate media coverage of the changes from ABC and specifically The Australian, the Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd, responded with a Media Statement and claimed, "The APSC consulted extensively with APS agencies and employees in late 2016. This consultation indicated that the policy settings did not need to change.". Mr. Lloyd added, "It is not more restrictive than previous guidance. Rather, it clarifies the parameters around what public servants can and cannot say, and should give greater confidence to APS employees when they are participating online activity.". Again, we must acknowledge to contradictory claims made by Mr. Lloyd. The guidelines are greatly limiting, restricting and are censoring the freedom of expression of civil servants and by making claims that indicate otherwise is simply false and unacceptable.

Democratic Pirates Australia firmly believes in civil liberties and the right to freedom of speech. This very right extends to the internet and digital realm. We view expressing your opinion and communicating online to identify as no different to a conversation with your mates at the local pub. Whether it be in the physical world or the cyber-world, communication is identified as exactly that - communication. Therefore, we absolutely oppose to the truest extent any form of Government supported documentation that attempts to censor communication and impede on our civil liberties and right to freedom of expression.

July 26, 2017 | Pirate Party Supporting a Murray-Darling Basin Inquiry

It has been reported on the Four Corners television program that water is being "stolen" by irrigators in the Barwon-Darling region of the Murray-Darling Basin. The television program detailed accusations of cotton growers stealing billions of liters of water from the Murray-Darling Basin, through methods of water meter tampering and other water delivery manipulative actions. Water that was purchased by taxpayers and was intended to be returned to the environment under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Our Policy has always stated that Democratic Pirates Australia would call for a review of the current Water Act 2007. However, this should not be taken out of context and we are absolutely in support of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and believe that control should remain with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Democratic Pirates Australia President, Chris McGimpsey-Jones says, "Environmental matters are extremely important to us. Especially the Murray-Darling Basin, hence why we have a dedicated Policy towards the Basin. We believe the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the best option for water supply management and is necessary to ensure fair usage of the water from the Basin for commercial agriculture, irrigators and community purposes.".

Management of the Murray-Darling Basin is a difficult task and ensuring that all parties who have access to the Basin's water supply correctly understand and comply with the correct regulations, is a difficult and demanding task to enforce. Chris continues, "As with any system or initiative, it can often be open to abuse, overuse or illegal activity. Therefore, accusations and reports of water theft or any abuse of the provisions of the Murray-Darling Basic Plan and the Water Act 2007 must be taken seriously.".

Whilst debate is raging among politicians about what specific authority or government associated body should carry out any investigation into the accusations, The Pirate Party reiterates our commitment to our Policy on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and we echo the calls for an investigation into the matter.

We have no official Party position as to which authority or body should carry out any potential investigation, but we support the calls made by Senators Nick Xenophon and Sarah Hanson-Young, who both state that a Senate Inquiry with full Parliamentary privilege is the best course for investigative action.

July 19, 2017 | Warning Flags Fly High, as Australia Creates New Super Ministry for Peter Dutton

Democratic Pirates Australia condemns the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, for his decision to announce the combining of Australia's top intelligence and law enforcement bodies.

The announcement will see the intelligence agency ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and Border Force departments all combined into one mega-department and take on the official title of "Home Affairs".

The new Home Affairs department is being described as a super-ministry and will be placed under the control of current Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton.

If media reports are to be deemed as accurate, then The Pirate Party understands that the Cabinet, including key Liberal Ministers of the Liberal Party advised against the establishment of such a large super-ministry. Additionally, it has since been reported that some Government Ministers within the UK Parliament have also urged caution.

The cautionary advice has been ignored by Prime Minister Turnbull and it will proceed, against the advice by Cabinet Ministers and members of the UK Parliament. The new Home Affairs department is said to to be based on the same UK platform of "Home Office".

Democratic Pirates Australia can see no sense in the combining of various departments and agencies which will ultimately give Peter Dutton a massive amount of power and oversight responsibility. Our Party is not confident of the capacity of Peter Dutton to carry out his new responsibilities to acceptable and lawful standards.

Such establishment of such a large department within Australia, we believe, is unjustified, not required and will give absolutely no operational improvements or benefit to the current system of intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. Instead, The Pirate Party only sees increased opportunities for the Government to abuse the platform as a new breeding ground for increased mass-surveillance and a reason for the Australian Government to use the Home Affairs department as a means of justification for its increasing attacks on encryption and privacy encroachment. The Government is focusing its attacks on the big technology companies in Silicon Valley which continue to make efforts to safeguard our data by the use of encryption and other security measures - the same encryption and security measures of which the Australian Government is currently seeking to break.

Despite the attacks on Silicon Valley and encryption, Facebook has since stated its firm position on ensuring the safety of Facebook user's data and stated that it will refuse to comply with any legislation or requirements that attempt to break or weaken encryption of its software. We commend Facebook for taking a firm position on encryption and placing the security of its users as a priority.

The Pirate Party will not stand for attempts to weaken or undermine encryption and privacy and we will stand up for Australia and its citizen's right to privacy and digital rights.

June 25, 2017 | Pirate Party Supports Gonski 2.0, But Only a Starting Point for Greater Reform

Democratic Pirates Australia has major education reform in its scope. This will include fairly extensive improvements to the secondary school curriculum, greater improvements on the precise details of existing subject teachings and better funding which will go towards a more fair and improved network for the education system.

We commended the changes proposed to schools funding in our Budget 2017 Wrap-Up. Therefore, we support the Liberal Party's education reform package as it follows the David Gonski model of "needs-based" funding - dubbed "Gonski 2.0".

We still stand by our Party Policy of pushing for private schools to be majority funded by an appropriate private funding model, with the gradual withdrawal of Government funding which will see those funds directed back into the public school sector and with the growing continuation of the needs-based funding model for public schools.

We also urge that attention to wages for teachers must be a priority, as without teachers needs and skills being appreciated through reflective compensation, it will be school children's education that will experience the biggest effects of any fallout which will occur from teachers leaving the education sector in search of greater employment opportunities that reward their high-demand experience and skills. Investment in teachers must be seen as an investment in the education of the nation's children rather than a financial burden of the education sector.

After exhaustive debate, Gonski 2.0 has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate after support was given by Liberal Party members and the vital votes by crossbench Senators. Both Labor and The Greens unsurprisingly opposed the legislation and continue to complain about miniscule negative politics rather than offer beneficial alternatives to Gonski 2.0 which can realistically be fully costed and funded.

This is an excellent result and should not just be solely viewed as a win, rather a starting point for greater improvements and further reform of the education sector. The Pirate Party intends to push for greater improvements in a bid to see better results for Australian children in public schools.

Implementation of Gonski 2.0 is a great launching pad.

June 19, 2017 | Russian Interference in 2016 US Presidential Election

There are investigations currently underway by a variety of US Government associated departments and individuals, into Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential Election which resulted in Donald Trump becoming the new President.

There is lots of information available, some is speculation and some is fact. The most reliable source of information that we have viewed is the document released to The Intercept, by a NSA Contractor and Intelligence Specialist, Reality Leigh Winner.

Democratic Pirates Australia is disappointed by the very fast arrest and detainment of Ms. Winner and we are equally disappointed better security procedures were not employed that would have ensured this information was passed onto The Intercept in a more secure method which did not see Ms. Winner detected and identified with such apparent ease.

The Intercept have been much too quiet on the arrest and detainment surrounding Reality Leigh Winner. However, we understand there is potential legal issues that surround the matter and The Intercept could very well be limited in what comments or information they can reveal.

Democratic Pirates acknowledges that the leaking of the secret report to The Intercept was illegal. But we also believe it be an important document which is in the public interest. Therefore, we urge that this fact should be taken into consideration in any further legal proceedings against the whistleblower.

There is major problems which need immediate and greater attention to which we believe are currently being missed by all the ongoing political turmoil that surrounds the Trump Administration and potential interference in the 2016 by Russia.

While we do not refer to any specific nation in this instance, Democratic Pirates condemns any interference by any nation that carries out any activities that could have any influence, directly or indirectly, on the outcome and results of a democratic election.

We can not simply dismiss the documents that have been leaked and published by media organizations as simply speculation. At their face value, clearly the documents that Democratic Pirates has accessed and analyzed do demonstrate that actual tampering has occurred by Russian associates. Whether it had any actual influence on the outcome is a little more complex to make a certified determination. But some of the articles and stories that have been published to accompany these documents are speculation only. And in some cases, use references to sources that one could argue the very existence of. Everyone must go back to the source documents themselves and put them under closer scrutiny.

It is the job of any investigation team(s) to make determination of whether the activities of Russia have influenced the result of the 2016 US Presidential Election. This is a fast moving investigation and we believe more documents and information will undoubtedly surface before this chapter finds closure.

We must also take into account of potential Russian links to US President, Donald Trump. As we understand it, an investigation is underway into this matter. This will also be taken account with any final assessment that Democratic Pirates Australia make. We could possibly see a 'Constitutional Crisis' in the United States of America which involves the President and possible treason.

No conclusions can be drawn while both matters are still under investigation. Nor will our Party draw any conclusions until actual charges have been put forward.

June 12, 2017 | Democratic Attacks on Encryption Must Be Stopped

As the world's leading democratic powers of the United Kingdom, United States of America and Australia continue to accelerate their attacks on encryption under the predictable guise of increasing 'national security efforts in the face of terrorism', Democratic Pirates Australia publicly reaffirm our commitment to upholding the protection of encryption and the right to privacy through computer security.

In the weeks leading up to the UK election campaign, Conservative Leader Theresa May, released her Party's Manifesto which contained some very disturbing elements in relation to future plan for digital rights and security.

Democratic Pirates Australia has been combing over the UK Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2017.

We had initially been alerted by alarming media reports on plans for the Party to implement a highly restrictive and government controlled internet across the country. As a Pirate Party which does take notice in international political matters of great importance, we felt the need to act.

We find sections of the Manifesto in the "Prosperity and security in a digital age" chapter quite disturbing and if implemented to the extent that we are led to believe, then Democratic Pirates must publicly condemn Theresa May and the UK Conservative Party for developing such intrusive and undemocratic digital age policy held under the banner of internet safety and security. We strongly urge the Pirate Party UK to apply immediate pressure on the Conservative Party and seek to reign in its overzealous and intrusive digital policy.

The UK already has some of the world's most intrusive surveillance operations, which has all been made legal through legislation which has been enacted in recent years, most recently with the "Snooper's Charter". The GCHQ is a primary operations hub for the world's mass-surveillance network and operates in collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA) and its other intelligence partners within the 'Five Eyes' nations which is built up of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

We are extremely concerned by some of the proposals that come to our Party's attention and aim to seek further information and better detail in an effort to understanding just how exactly the proposed measures would be introduced, what specific technology would be used and what specific techniques these so-called restrictions would implement.

As we continue to learn more about the plans to implement the aforementioned measures and gain a better understanding of its related proposals through our Party's international politics focus, we intend to call out and oppose any such measures which would impede on the freedoms that the internet enables. We will aim to ensure that any such changes do not have any immediate or future effects on net neutrality and also seek to ensure that the global mass-surveillance ring, assisted greatly by the operations of the GCHQ, does not get an increase in spying and surveillance powers other than what can be naturally justified as proper national security necessity.

Democratic Pirates is absolutely committed to protecting the right to privacy and will always advocate for the freedom of use of encryption in software and technical form, in a bid to protect the privacy of individuals and business.

We have contacted the Pirate Party UK and offered our support. We will continue to advocate that rights to privacy through encryption must be uphold on a global level. We oppose any measures will seek to impede, alter, challenge or block the use, development or implementation of encryption or any other measure of computer security.

As the world's most powerful governments continue to introduce legislation to legalize their extensive networks of mass-surveillance, encryption must not be used as a political tool to attempt to justify such overreach of parliamentary privilege.

May 22, 2017 | Alarm Bells Ring, Over UK Conservative Party's Outline for Digital Safety and Security

Democratic Pirates Australia is currently combing over the fresh release of the UK Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto 2017.

We had been alerted by alarming media reports on plans for the Party to implement a highly restrictive and government controlled internet across the country, if it is re-elected in upcoming elections.

We find sections of the Manifesto in the "Prosperity and security in a digital age" chapter quite disturbing and if implemented to the extent that we are led to believe, then Democratic Pirates must publicly condemn Theresa May and the UK Conservative Party for developing such intrusive and undemocratic digital age policy held under the banner of internet safety and security. We strongly urge the Pirate Party UK to do the same and apply immediate pressure on the Conservative Party and seek to reign in its overzealous and intrusive digital policy.

The UK already has some of the world's most intrusive surveillance operations, which has all been made legal through legislation which has been enacted in recent years. The GCHQ is a primary operations center for the world's mass-surveillance network and operates in collaboration with the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence partners in the 'Five Eyes' nations - USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

We are concerned by some of the proposals that come to our Party's attention and aim to seek further information and better detail in an effort to understanding just how exactly the proposed measures would be introduced, what specific technology would be used and what specific techniques these so-called restrictions would implement.

We are combing through the document in detail. When we establish and gain a better understanding of the aforementioned proposals, through our Party's international politics focus, we intend to call out and oppose any such measures which would impede on the freedoms that the internet enables. We will aim to ensure that any such changes do not have any immediate or future effects in net neutrality and also seek to ensure that the global mass-surveillance ring, through the operations of the GCHQ, does not get an increase in spying and surveillance powers other than what can be naturally justified as proper national security necessity.

May 20, 2017 | Sweden Drops Investigation into Julian Assange

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia are continued supporters of the cause of Julian Assange and his continued, unlawful and unjustified detainment to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England, in the United Kingdom (UK).

Last night, it was revealed that after 7 years of political stalemate, Sweden has declared that all avenues to pursue any pending investigation into Mr. Assange have been exhausted and have formally stopped any further potential for pursuit of investigation. This also results in any outstanding arrest warrant(s) from Swedish authorities be formally revoked.

The supposed sexual assault investigation against Mr. Assange has always remained flawed. We understand that the pursuit of Mr. Assange from Sweden was never about sexual assault allegations - it was political and an attack on Mr. Assange's activities with publishing organization Wikileaks, which he remains Editor-in-Chief.

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia absolutely stand by Mr. Assange and will continue to support his cause, civil right to freedom and his extended publishing responsibilities.

Despite the dropping of investigations and arrest warrant(s) by Sweden, Mr. Assange remains detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy, by continued threats of immediate arrest by UK authorities if he is to leave the premises.

As a result of the looming threats of arrest by the UK, Mr. Assange remains detained.

Together, Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia unite and urge the UK Government to reconsider its threats of arrest, follow Sweden and allow for Mr. Assange to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and guarantee free passage to safety.

Additionally, we urge the Australian Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Immigration Minister to support Mr. Assange's right to freedom and establish immediate dialog with the UK Government and its authorities, in effort to seeking a quick and safe resolution to the prolonged political stand-off, which will lead to a secure release of Julian Assange.

May 10, 2017 | Budget 2017 Wrap-Up

Yesterday, Australia's Treasurer, Scott Morrison, delivered the Budget 2017 papers, accompanied by his Parliamentary speech. Democratic Pirates Australia is quite impressed by the level of fairness that has been delivered by the Liberal Party.

Fairness does not have to written in black and white text. But our Party has fairness for all Australians at the very heart of all of our Policy. Furthermore, fairness is important to creating and maintaining equality among society and no democratic institute can move forward into a positive future, especially economically, if fairness can not be appropriately delivered by the government of the day.

Below, we have a complete Party wrap-up of Budget 2017 and outline a few key areas of importance. Most areas we commend the Coalition for their budget efforts. Yet, there are a couple of areas which probably did not get the attention and changes they require and rightly deserve.

Thank you to ABC News, The Australian and Herald Sun for the great coverage of Budget 2017 and providing our Party with the data and details for our analysis, through their various budget publications.

Public Broadcasting

Of great importance to Pirate Party is public broadcasting. We are proud to see that the budgets for ABC and SBS have not been touched or reduced any further. Albeit, they have not increased to a level which our Party deems necessary for the public broadcasters to operate to their full potential. But we do take solace that they have not received any further funding reductions.

Media Reform

We have already published a short post to our Facebook Page supporting the recent media reform announcements. The budget outlines further changes which will see the current free-to-air annual license fee abolished and replaced with a much reduced annual payment. This will result in potential savings of $90 million a year for the TV networks.

The changes will see free-to-air TV networks being able to better compete with digital mediums. Cable subscription TV networks will also have a better chance to bid for broadcasting rights of major sports events. There will also be additional funding provided which will go towards helping with the broadcasting of womens sport.

Also included in the changes is the expected ban on gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts.

Pirate Party supports most of the media reform changes. However, we do have a Free-to-air sports broadcasting Policy which would implement further changes and see free-to-air TV networks getting priority over cable subscription TV networks for major sports events.

We feel that current regulations and the proposed media reform changes don't go far enough to protecting free-to-air sports broadcasts and believe lots more needs to be done to prevent major sports events being swallowed up by cable subscription TV networks.

Education and College

Education reform and funding has been a major pillar of Budget 2017. We believe that the Coalition is on the right track to deliver better, appropriate funding and a more relevant funding model, whilst remaining effective and affordable.

The budget will see schools receive an extra $18.6 billion over 10 years.

The new model is backed by the reputable David Gonski and has charmingly been dubbed "Gonski 2.0". It lays out a plan to have schools receive funding based on ‘needs' data, whilst aiming to remain fair across the public and private school sectors.

We commend the Government for their efforts to education reform and funding as it is very much needed and well overdue for an improved and affordable funding model to be implemented, that respects the challenging economic climate that Australia still faces.

College education has also had some changes, which our Party supports. College fees will increase $2,000 to $3,600 for a standard 4 year course. Additionally, the income rate which needs to be reached before college debt must be repaid has been reduced.

There will still be no upfront cost for students to attend courses and college debt is only to be repaid once students are employed and reach an annual salary of $42,000+.

Although there is some initial public disappointment with the college education changes among some Australians and students, our Party believes that the changes will result in young people taking a more serious approach to college education following High School.

We also believe that it will result in those attending college, to take a more serious approach to the education provided and only students that truly want to progress in society and better their education and knowledge will take up the opportunity of attending college. This will eventually eradicate the scheme of students attending college for reasons of delaying entry into the workforce and refusing to contribute to society in greater form.

Big Banks

A new levy will be created which will see Australia's big four banks (National Australia Bank, Commonwealth Bank, ANZ and Westpac) paying more share of their exorbitant profits, in what is essentially a new tax.

Macquarie Bank is also set to be included.

The levy will commence on July 1, 2017. It will be aimed at generating $6.2 billion over forward estimates.

We support the changes and believe the new levy should be charged at a higher rate than the 0.06% being implemented. However, we support the levy in its proposed state and would support changes into the future which could see an increase in the levy % or simply changes that could be see the % rate based on the massive profits of the big four banks.


We will be seeing some consolidation in welfare payments. This can only be a good thing and will result in recipients on Newstart and Sickness Allowance be rolled into the new JobSeeker Payment.

There are no changes to the payment rate, although there will be random drug and alcohol testing be placed on some new welfare recipients.

Welfare has probably been the biggest failure of the budget and Pirate Party believes that the Coalition has failed Australian welfare recipients, again. Furthermore, implementing random drug and alcohol testing on some recipients which the Government deem at risk of substance abuse is one step too far. It is impeding on the freedom and civil rights of Australians. By giving the Government permission to segregate specific persons and deem them at risk of substance abuse and place them into a basket of special category, will undoubtedly have a dramatic negative effect on the self-esteem of those who are already feeling socially vulnerable and at a low point.

Pirate Party supports the changes to payments which sees categorical consolidation. But we condemn the changes which will see welfare recipient segregation and making inaccurate assumptions based on the bad life choices of just a few. It is completely unjustified and has the potential to unleash a variety of legal issues and probable challenges.

Further changes include job seekers up to the age of 49 being required to attend approved activities of up to 49 hours per fortnight. Our Party also condemns these kinds of “approved activities" initiatives on the basis that we believe welfare recipient's time would be better spent on actual job seeking activities. Every hour spent on approved activities is an extra hour taken away from the recipient being able to use that time for proper job seeking activities.


The National Disability Insurance Scheme will now be fully funded, which will be the result of changes to Medicare Levy payments by Australian taxpayers.

Although the changes will not come into effect until July 1, 2019, we support them and believe that the tiny burden put onto taxpayers is worth it, to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded and not be put at risk of tarnishing future budgets by being shortchanged.

First Home Buyers

The Coalition has outlined a new initiative in the budget which will see consumers have to ability to contribute through Superannuation payments to a special account which can then be used for a home deposit.

Pirate Party has been ahead of all other mainstream political parties and we have an entire Policy that would implement changes to Superannuation and allow limited and controlled access to funds, to be used for very specific purposes. Superannuation access for a home deposit is one access option of our Policy.

Although our own Party's Policy option includes access of existing funds up to a maximum of $25,000, we commend the Coalition for the proposed changes despite the slight variation of implementation method.

Defense and Intelligence

There are no changes to defense force funding. However, intelligence agencies are set to get a boost.

We believe current levels of Australian Defense Force funding is appropriate, however we do not believe that intelligence agencies require an increase, based on accessible information.

It's a difficult sector to develop Policy for, due to the secrecy involved in exact numbers of funding provided for ASIO and its intelligence partners. ASIO is set to receive an increase, although budget information does not reveal how much, obviously due to national security reasons.

Pirate Party urges more transparency in the area of funding that is provided to Australia's intelligence agencies. Additionally, we urge the Government to ensure that the increased funding is used to legitimate domestic and international intelligence operations that do not impede on civil and privacy rights of Australians. It must also ensure that increased funds are not used to simply expand ASIO already extensive mass-surveillance program, when any expansion would be completely unjustified.

Foreign Aid

Finally, foreign aid is set to be frozen for two years, from 2018.

Our Party Policy in the area of Foreign Aid is currently scheduled for review. It remains unclear at this early stage what exact details our Party would settle on for this area, however we would support a freeze on current foreign aid levels as we advocate that all foreign aid should remain for humanitarian reasons and Australia should always ensure that foreign aid funds are being used to improve local conditions in the region being provided and not for illegitimate purpose.

May 10, 2017 | Australian Federal Police Illegal Access to Metadata

Recently, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were embroiled in turmoil, following the revelation that members within the Federal law enforcement agency had previously accessed the metadata of a journalist, without a warrant.

The Pirate Party points out that this is illegal. For AFP officers to legally acquire access to metadata, a warrant must be obtained. There are specific elements in relation to this report that stand out and are a serious cause for concern for the Australian public. Initially, it was being reported that the said illegal access was limited to one journalist. Since, reports and documents have been revealed by media organization The Guardian, which confirm that there are more claims of AFP illegally accessing metadata, than initially reported.

We condemn the AFP for this intolerable behavior and call for a proper investigation into the matter be carried out. We also call for any eventual Report into the matter be made accessible in the public domain, in redacted form if necessary. But we urge a specific element of transparency to be followed in relation to any potential investigation.

The Pirate Party is taking the opportunity for make the call for metadata laws to be reviewed, again, to determine what suitable amendments must be made to ensure this can not happen again in the future, and also strengthen transparency measures and increased oversight.

February 19, 2017 | Immediate and Future Safety of Julian Assange

Today, we are releasing a Joint Press Statement from Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia.

Through this Statement, both parties wish to publicly express our concerns for the safety of Julian Assange, who continues to be detained to the Ecuadorian Embassy, in London.

Our concerns lie with his future, after the result is declared for the upcoming Ecuadorian Presidential Election. Specific candidates have made public claims, on the record, that Mr. Assange will be asked to vacate the Embassy within 30 days shall they successfully gain entry to Presidential office as the new Ecuador President.

Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates have invested heavily in the veracity of Mr. Assange's advocacy, as Editor of Wikileaks, for the open release of information without prejudice. Our organizations do outline that his adamant partisanship during the US Presidential Election and the dubious provenance of the Democratic leaks, not disavowing the information as being unverified as far as source and content, have changed the tone to a certain degree, of public opinion towards Wikileaks from an impartial source to just another instrument of expression driven by Mr. Assange's personal beliefs.

Had Mr. Assange simply done as he has done in the past and released Wikileaks publications and documents related to the US Election without editorializing and with full disclosure of the provenance of the information, he would have remained a pillar of open information and source for journalistic research, with legitimate right to ask for sanctuary.

However, we wish to continue by stating our support for Julian Assange has not changed and the issue(s) we have are completely separate to that of his involvement with Wikileaks, rather are to do with his personal safety as a political refugee if he were to be 'requested', somewhat forcibly, to vacate himself from the Ecuadorian Embassy and into the arms of arrest by British law enforcement which keep 24/7 surveillance on the Embassy.

If Mr. Assange were to vacate the Embassy and following his arrest by British officials, he would undoubtedly be handed on to US law enforcement and immediately have his civil rights put to immediate scrutiny.

The question - Is he a legitimate political/journalistic refugee and how should his exit status be treated? This will be a test.

Whatever the result of the Ecuadorian Presidential Election, we urge all parties to continue the rightful path of dealing with the very unusual situation and stalemate that Mr. Assange is surrounded by.

We also outline that his detainment to the Embassy has been deemed illegal by the United Nations (UN) and request has previously been made by the UN to release Mr. Assange.

In conclusion, Freedom Publishers Union and Democratic Pirates Australia urges calm and responsible action to take course and all involved parties to respect all legal entitlements of Julian Assange and to also uphold his civil and human rights, which have so far been violated on too many occasions.

November 1, 2016 | Australia Continues Down the Road to Immigration Ruin and Torture

Again, Democratic Pirates Australia sees it fit to be expressing our firm condemnation of the Australian Government, on its policy on immigration and attacks on asylum seekers and refugees.

If media reports are to be correct, the Coalition led by Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, will introduce new immigration legislation when Parliament returns to sitting next week. The new legislation is said to include harsher measures which will ensure those seeking refugee status in Australia and asylum seekers arriving by boat, never become citizens or be able to call Australia home.

The new legislation will also see those detained on Manus Island and Nauru face a very uncertain future. The time for closure of these centers is slowly ticking. However, the Government has not yet revealed any plans of how they will deal with detainees should any offshore detention center face closure.

Pirate Party President, Chris McGimpsey-Jones says, "Again, these poor people detained offshore have no clear indication of where their future is heading, or where they will be on 2, 5 or 10 years time. It's an outrage that the citizens of Australia continue to allow this to happen. This is a democracy, but it's quickly fading along with our 'fair-go' ethos. The citizens of this country need to seriously take a good hard look at who they are voting into power, and who they keep voting into power, despite continued attacks on our once great country's democratic values".

Democratic Pirates Australia's Chairman, Brett Brennan, who currently resides in the USA draws similar comparisons to the US system, "Just as in America, the laws passed by Congress are a reflection of those who elect them". Brett continues, "If Pauline Hanson can command a sizable minority of voters, if Australians aren't petitioning their MP and demanding that anti-immigrant legislation be banned from consideration, then we can't condemn the Government. Democracy means democracy. The People can be explicit with their demands or, by remaining silent, condone actions taken in their name. The new immigration laws are a reflection of both".

"This, and other issues, are not a direct fault of the Government in either country. Their actions are reflecting the desires of the people, both explicit and implicit. This is Democracy in action. If we want to change the laws, we first have to change the people.", Brett concludes.

The new legislation set to be introduced next week has been questioned on legality, in accordance with international law and several aspects of United Nations Declarations in relation to potential acceptance and treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.

Democratic Pirates Australia remains committed to our Party Policy, which welcomes legitimate refugees and those seeking asylum in Australia, who have legitimately fled persecution in war effected countries. We advocate that processing must take place on mainland Australia under close supervision by an oversight body and appropriate transparency enabled, which allows for journalists and media entities to monitor operations in any such center.

The secrecy must stop. Offshore centers must be shutdown, without delay. We will continue to advocate our stance and push our Policy as a viable alternative to current harsh immigration policy. Democratic Pirates has previously contacted the Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton MP, and also the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. To date, all our requests for response and confirmation our correspondence has been received, has been ignored.

The silence from both Liberal and Labor on serious immigration reform is deafening. The noise being created for increased restrictions on asylum seekers and effectively allowing for the enablement of torture in offshore detention, and penalties applied to whistleblowers who expose misconduct, is equally deafening.

We call upon the citizens of Australia to wake up, speak up, take action and demand change and reform which works in favor or protecting those who are most vulnerable - Asylum Seekers and Refugees.

August 22, 2016 | Marriage Equality Plebiscite, Possibly Delayed

Although it has not been officially announced by the Coalition, it was reported on the weekend that the Government is to delay the plebiscite for Marriage Equality, until February 2017.

The Labor Party is pushing the whole "broken promise" point, which has become a disappointing routine for the opposition, whilst The Greens are condemning the delay and asking why the matter can't be dealt with inside the chambers of the Parliament.

Labor does have a valid argument, by stating that any plebiscite would be based on a marriage equality bill that no one in the public has yet seen. There is no draft of the bill (that we are aware of) and we are not yet convinced that any such draft of any marriage equality bill even exists.

Although the marriage equality issue could be dealt with accordingly through the usual Parliamentary process, inside the chamber, our Party would prefer the matter to go to a plebiscite as we feel it is a very important issue which should allow for all Australians to display their point-of-view.

Democratic Pirates Australia recognizes the issue at hand and its greater importance. Our Party calls for the Liberal Party to present the bill text, prior to any plebiscite given a set date and provide Australians a guarantee that the Party will proceed to support and implement the necessary processes to get the legislation into full effect and become law, allowing all couples to marry with equality and without judgement - assuming that the decision were to be a "YES" vote.

Democratic Pirates Australia would preference to abolish the existing Marriage Act and replace it with a Civil Unions Act. However, our Party is open to compromise providing the correct worded legislation is in-effect - will provide and ensure non-discriminatory, gender neutral and non-religion specific marriage equivalent equality is enabled.

June 13, 2016 | Democratic Pirates Australia Offers Condolences to US Pirates

Democratic Pirates Australia offers our sincere condolences in light of the latest mass-shooting in Orlando, United States of America. Of course, this extends to the friends and family of the victims.

Suggestions have been made that the man did have sympathetic views towards Islamic State terrorist group, but it does appear to be the work of a lone-wolf with extremist views and hatred towards LGBT individuals.

The mass-shooting has been dubbed the worst in the country's history, which has resulted in the deaths of 50+ people and another 50+ injured.

Democratic Pirates condemns the actions taken out by this disturbed individual and supports community integration of LGBT persons, without judgment.

Our Party offers the United States of America our sincerest condolences and solidarity for all Americans who have been affected by this horrific event.

March 29, 2016 | Democratic Pirates Australia Solidarity to Belgium

Democratic Pirates Australia expresses our Party's deepest sympathy to the people of Belgium, in light of a recent series of bombings in Brussels.

The bombings have been declared the work of terrorist organization, Islamic State (IS/ISIS/ISIL).

Our Party condemns all actions of terrorism and views the bombings in Brussels as an extension of the growing attack on democracy and freedom within the Eurozone.

We offer the country of Belgium our sincerest condolences and solidarity for the people of a peaceful and democratic country.

November 18, 2015 | Democratic Pirates Australia Offers Condolences to Pirate Party of France

Democratic Pirates Australia reaches out to our friends at Pirate Party of France to express our Party's condolences in light of recent terrorist attacks in Paris, France.

Terrorism has no place in a modern, democratic and open society. Our own Party condemns such actions of these fundamental extremists and recognize all terrorist events should be condemned on a global level.

We would like to wish Pirate Party of France and the country all the best and hope that democratic principles prevail and succeed long into the future for France.

August 18, 2015 | Marriage Equality for All Australians

On Monday August 17, Liberal Party member, Warren Entsch introduced a same-sex marriage bill to Parliament.

The issue of same-sex marriage and marriage equality for all is under debate within the Australian political arena and within the community. There is understandable argument and counter-argument on both sides of the topic. Democratic Pirates Australia retains its position on the issue that no couple should be discriminated against, based on the their sexual orientation and choice.

Democratic Pirates Australia Policy on Marriage remains the same; we believe the Marriage Act should be replaced by a Civil Unions Act.

We must point out that although this remains our stance, our Party is open to discussion and conversation and would support a bill or other such move which allows for same-sex couples to legally unite in the same respect that heterosexual couples enjoy, providing the legislation eliminates all surrounding discriminative barriers in which same-sex couples currently face and therefore prevents them from a legal recognition of their union.