The restrictions, announced last week in the 2011 Australian Communications and Media Authority privacy guidelines for broadcasters, come after the department successfully called on ACMA in a written submission to help it prevent the media from using images of asylum-seekers and those held within immigration detention to "protect the privacy of these vulnerable clients".
So its nice to be reminded that we don't live in an entirely free society every now and then. But hiding uncomfortable or embarrassing issues seems like going a little too far even by Australian standards.
lol i guess this is how they plan to solve the 'boat people problem'.. remember children if you pretend the issue is gone, eventually it will solve its self!
This issue is minute anyway. More illegals come in on Air Planes than they do on Boats. Orders of Magnitude more actually.
Students over staying visas, Backpackers etc and heaps of others.
I think this is a poor way to handle it, but then again... I think most of what this Labor government has done is pretty poor.
If you think that Abbott wouldn't of done this given the chance then you're deluded.
lol i guess this is how they plan to solve the 'boat people problem'
This is how it should have been handled from the start since it's a media beat up and not a real issue to begin with. Imagine all the things that we could have achieved if they hadn't spent so much money and time treating a couple off thousand boat people a year like a foreign invading force of tens of thousands.
Do you reckon the government knows it is evil are they just so fucking incompetent they don't realise how this looks?
I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they are doing, and rely on the support of people who can't see the legislation beyond the immediate application. how do you think laws like the patriot act get implemented?
for example
This is how it should have been handled from the start since it's a media beat up and not a real issue to begin with.
justifying censorship because the media is focusing on things "it shouldn't be, according to the government.".
what if the government decide that Gillards unelected Position is a topic not up for discussion anymore? what about protecting the privacy of politicians? even if they are in a public place? this law sets a dangerous precedent.
last edited by Captain Lateral at 11:14:20 28/Dec/11
Imagine all the things that we could have achieved if they hadn't spent so much money and time treating a couple off thousand boat people a year like a foreign invading force of tens of thousands.
agreed. let em try land in the NT anyway, and walk down to sydney or something.
So they can't show video of a person getting off a boat in public, but they could raid their "private" "friends only" facebook page and repost those photos at will.
This is how it should have been handled from the start since it's a media beat up and not a real issue to begin with. Imagine all the things that we could have achieved if they hadn't spent so much money and time treating a couple off thousand boat people a year like a foreign invading force of tens of thousands.
its not the media making them out to be as such, its that crazy Abbott.. media is shedding light on the conditions of these people, Abbott keep demonising them and using them to beat on the government..
Some Refugees may have family back home that will be targeted if they are recognised.
You fool faceman. These are brown savage people who all look the same, there is no way they could be recognised.
This is a good thing because as facey said it will stop retribution attacks against recognised family members and it might turn down the amount of media spin bullshit given to this fucking complete non-issue (boat people that is, not asylum seekers as a whole).
what if the government decide that Gillards unelected Position is a topic not up for discussion anymore? what about protecting the privacy of politicians? even if they are in a public place? this law sets a dangerous precedent.
Slippery slope fallacy spotted. Just because this piece of necessary legislation is introduced doesn't mean that all of a sudden tomorrow the media will turn a blind eye to a Gillard dictatorship. That is just ridiculous. Also I am not sure what you mean by privacy of politicians. To me that is something that should be guarded. I remember a politician got in trouble because he was gay, and he was recorded visiting legal gay brothels and it affected his job. That is bullshit - if a politician is gay and wants to visit legal gay brothels they should be allowed to.
One of the reasons people ask for Asylum is because if they are sent home they may be killed by their Government or Community/Religion if identified. Seems kind of obvious to me.
Peter Meakin, the Seven Network’s head of news and current affairs has criticised the ruling.
“I think it’s a ridiculous provision and I suspect it is being done more for the benefit of authorities than for the asylum-seekers,” he told The Australian.
“I can understand asylum-seekers wanting privacy for the protection of their families, but a blanket ban is just the big hand of censorship.”
TV Tonight also claims the Laws are not just about Refugees.
New privacy rules for broadcasters announced last week by the media watchdog have been branded as censorship by news bosses.
The privacy guidelines for broadcasters announced on Christmas Eve by the Australian Communications and Media Authority will limit the ability of TV networks to invade the privacy of individuals, including politicians and public figures.
then you shouldn't have any problem finding evidence. i would think that showing up in a random country leads to no more risk of your family being hurt than just disappearing?
Just because this piece of necessary legislation is introduced doesn't mean that all of a sudden tomorrow the media will turn a blind eye to a Gillard dictatorship.
and when "piece and stability" are more important than free information, then the media might have no choice but to turn a blind eye.
also consider with the public stripping of a protestor, and the public apathy towards this gross violation of rights. (when it happens in egypt, there is a huge outcry over it, our response was just to say"a tent isn't clothing" (ie, she deserves it because of what she wore), then i really have no confidence of the public making a good decision towards the rights of other citizens when they are so easily manipulated.
I thought you'd be a little more alarmist about this face man, i'm a little disappointed in your moderate replies.
Refugees have a right to privacy and their families back home dont want them identified. For instance: the taleban may label the family of a refugee seen on video here as being spies.
most Refugees do everything they can to get on our TV's (e.g. hunger strikes/cutting self's/burning detention buildings...etc..) somehow "privacy" seems to be counter productive if they want people to know what they are going through..
again, if this is happening, where is the evidence? there should be mountains of it to justify the governments enforced action. (you'd more than likely find that any "at risk" families are going to be coming over too...)
Did you know Google will tell you where Australian government infastructure is. I can concevibly think of ways to use this information that would lead to terrorism related events, that doesn't mean we can justify censoring media that refers to any government infrastructure.
the end doesn't justify the means, if it was a major issue and something needed to be done to prevent wholesale slaughter i could justify a temporary blacklisting.
but wielding the censorship stick because information COULD be used negatively on something that is suppose to be getting addressed by the government.
Refugees have a right to privacy and their families back home dont want them identified.
and they maintain that right if they use the proper legal channels to gain entry to our country? perhaps the risk of being publicly identified back at home would serve as a dis-incentive to try and rort our system?
or perhaps images of children suffering at our hands causes the public to demand answers from the government, and with no right answers to give, its easier to sweep under the rug?
most Refugees do everything they can to get on our TV's (e.g. hunger strikes/cutting self's/burning detention buildings...etc..) somehow "privacy" seems to be counter productive if they want people to know what they are going through..
Wouldn't that be the right way to go then? Just ignore them? Like when your kid chucks a tanty in the shop so you just ignore them & walk off, but keep them in sight. Eventually they'll just give up.
most of the article drones on about asylum seekers but this bit:
Under the new privacy guidelines, broadcast media will be subject to the protection of "seclusion", effectively guarding a person's privacy from being invaded -- even if they are in a public place.
sort of sounds like it applies to everyone. Does this mean if we see a news crew out & about we can all say nope fuck off don't put me on the news or I'm suing you?
It also says broadcast media, does that mean private citizens who take photos & put them on facebook are gonna get a knock on the door from the men in black demanding they turn over everything in their house?
Umm.. maybe it's called territorial sovereignty. ie the right to exclude people from your land. the same right every other country has. Being a refugee doesn't give you the right to go anywhere on the earth you like, just cos your house blew up. They're coming here because it's a great country, not because it's the only place they can go. They're coming to take advantage.
They make a stop in indonesia.. why can't they just stay there? I'm sure they police illegal immigration a lot less effective.
entering into a country without the correct visa, without the correct isolation and customs processing, and without authorization is pretty illegal if i recall correctly.
According to Australian immigration law, a person who tries to enter Australia without a visa or travel documents is in the country illegally (unlawfully) and is termed "illegal entrant", "unauthorised arrival" or "unlawful arrival".
There are three categories of unlawful immigration. The first is arrival by air without proper documentation or visa, the second, arrival by sea without proper documentation or visa and the third, the overstaying or breaching of visa requirements.
The exemption to this is seeking asylum. That's why people pay insane amounts of money to travel here.
Indonesia has a great little industry ferrying vulnerable people to the land of milk and honey - although many of them drown on the way. Strange how none of the asylum seekers want to live in Indo hey?
Umm.. maybe it's called territorial sovereignty. ie the right to exclude people from your land
No.
There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.
...
The majority of people arriving by boat claim asylum although a few may not (these are usually crew members). The preferred terms for boat arrivals as used by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) are ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’ or ‘irregular maritime arrivals’ and, as noted above, people arriving by such means who then claim asylum are entitled to do so.
The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers.
As at 30 June 2010, it was estimated that there were about 53 900 visa overstayers residing in Australia.
We have it too good in Australia.
We've never had to go through something like The Holocaust, The Khmer Rouge, Purges, Ethnic cleansing etc.
It quite easy to stop Refugees, you fix the problems in their Countries.
There arent endles Indonesians, Japanese, Chinese, Malayans, Koreans.
We are responsible for the destabilisation of Afghanistan so we have a responsibility to accept Refugees.
If Afghanistan is a safe place to return to why are our Soldiers still there ?
This issue is minute anyway. More illegals come in on Air Planes than they do on Boats. Orders of Magnitude more actually.
That's not really the point here.
Everyone knows that the 'boat people' issue is a vote-loser no matter how it's played, so what the government have managed to do is censor reporting of the 'boat people' issue, so it can't be reported on, and is therefore one less headache and PR disaster they have to handle.
What about official statistics on how many people overstayed their visa and came by plane?
How many arrived via boat and were deported? Annual costs for keeping asylum seekers here, in detention and how much the refurbishment of Nauru is going to cost.
Is there an ABS or government / custom's website with graphs or reports or statistics with this information on the net?
Like more facts and figures. What about the immigration Department in Australia? What about a report from SERCO?
thats right. pay $1000 for a one way ticket back to where they came from - much cheaper.
if only it were that simple.. they stay in detention for years sometimes, appeal after appeal.. its not such a bad idea, train them make them work in the mines.. that way they get used to the idea of working and not relying on centerlink,you fill in a gap in labour (could even run it like people smugglers..) make them repay their debt before they can leave the mines.. harsh? maybe...
PM
WWW