tip off

Essential Research: 52-48 to Labor

No real change in Essential Research, but some interesting findings from both parties’ internal pollsters have emerged in the media this week.

This week’s fortnightly rolling average result from Essential Research has both major parties up a point on the primary vote (the Coalition to 40%, Labor to 38%), both minor parties down a point (the Greens to 9%, Palmer United to 5%), and two-party preferred unchanged at 52-48 to Labor. The poll also has 57% saying the threat to Australia from terrorism has increased over the past few years with only 6% saying it has decreased, and 33% opting for stayed about the same; 56% approving of government spending to reduce the threat of terrorism versus 24% disapproving; 57% rating the contribution of multiculturalism to Australian society as positive versus 30% negative; 63% believing prospective migrants should not be rejected on the basis of religion versus 21% who say they should; and strong support for a greater emphasis on solar, wind and hydro power in providing for domestic energy, a neutral result for gas, and highly negative results for nuclear and especially coal.

Federal electoral news nuggets:

John Ferguson of The Australian reports Senators Stephen Conroy and Kim Carr are facing opposition within their respective Right and Left factions over their determination to seek another term at the next federal election. Partly at issue is Labor’s affirmative action requirement that at least 40 per cent of winnable seats go to women. Under a party rule to take effect on January 1, a spill of all preselections will occur if the requirement isn’t met. Rosie Lewis of The Australian reports that some in the ALP believe the Carr and Conroy preselections are being fast-tracked to lock them in before the rule takes effect. Carr is quoted saying the requirement will be satisfied by giving the third position on the ticket to a woman, but the result of the last election suggests the winnability of a third seat for Labor is doubtful for as long as the existing electoral system remains in place.

• The Courier-Mail reports that“federal Liberal and National MPs unhappy with the performance of Nationals deputy leader Barnaby Joyce” are planning to thwart his succession to the Nationals leadership by drafting Lawrence Springborg, the Queensland Health Minister and former Opposition Leader. This would be achieved by having Springborg succeed Bruce Scott as member for Maranoa, a seat Joyce had his eye on last term as he sought to make his move from the upper house to the lower.

Andrew Probyn of The West Australian reports a Labor internal poll of 600 respondents by UMR Research shows it leading 54-46 in the eastern Perth electorate of Hasluck, held for the Liberals by Ken Wyatt on a margin of 4.9%. Primary votes are cited of 40% for Labor and 37% for the Liberals. Aggregated polling for the three months after the budget, from May to July, is reported to show swings to Labor in WA of 12 points on the primary vote and 7.7% on two-party preferred.

• The Financial Review reports results from Coalition pollsters Crosby Textor showing a surge in support for the Renewable Energy Target, an increase in the salience of the environment as a political issue, and a decline for immigration.

833
  • 1
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    From previous thread:

    Diog,

    Apparently MicroSoft’s next OS will see the death of PC’s as we know them. They’ll just become dumb terminals with all programs and data stored in the cloud.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • 2
    Player One
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    From previous thread:

    WeWantPaul

    True one can have property rights not linked to physical things but use of the word ‘theft’ in this context isn’t particularly useful and indeed is deliberately misleading in many of its uses.

    The rules of Copyright are as old as the Printing Press. Nothing has changed because the means of distribution are now electronic rather than mechanical.

    Theft is still theft.

  • 3
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Diog (from previous thread)

    This guy got sent down at least.

    In late 2010, the FBI launched the colourfully-named "Operation Hackerazzi" to hunt down a hacker who stole naked pictures from the iPhones and computers of Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis and other celebrities.

    The investigation, led by the FBI's field bureau in Los Angeles, took 11 months but eventually led to the arrest and prosecution of Christopher Chaney, a Florida hacker.

    Johansson taped a tearful statement that was played in court, where she described being "truly humiliated and embarrassed" as her photographs circulated on the internet.

    Chaney was sentenced to ten years in prison.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11068823/FBI-leads-hunt-for-hacker-behind-Jennifer-Lawrence-naked-pictures.html

  • 4
    Centre
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Essential is an underrated poll.

    52/48 would be right on the mark I reckon with the Greens at 9%…bullseye!

  • 5
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Cyril

    Ten years seems like a lot of porridge for stealing nude photos.

    I would have thought two would be more like it.

  • 6
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    The rules of Copyright are as old as the Printing Press. Nothing has changed because the means of distribution are now electronic rather than mechanical.
    Theft is still theft.

    Completely and totally agree and breach of copyright is not theft and never had been it is breach of copyright.

  • 7
    mikehilliard
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Abbott referred to Shorten as Electricity Bill at least twice in QT. Not one word from the speaker about referring to members by their correct title.

  • 8
    confessions
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Abbott referred to Shorten as Electricity Bill at least twice in QT. Not one word from the speaker about referring to members by their correct title.

    Burke should do a Pyne and interrupt and request that Abbott refer to members by their titles.

  • 9
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Sir MC

    So, Johansson was taking naked “selfies”. You can’t help but wonder what the motivation for taking them, especially considering how “embarassed” she was that they got seen.

    Were they for her own personal delectation?

    Were they for someone else to see?

    The word narcissism springs to mind here.

  • 10
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Diog

    There is more on that case here. The Judge gave him more than the prosecutors asked for.

    Prosecutors sought six years imprisonment, but Otero said he was concerned that Chaney would not be able to control his behavior and had shown a "callous disregard" for his actions.

    Chaney, who could have faced a maximum sentence of 60 years under the law, apologized in court but denied that he had sent naked photos of women he knew to their relatives.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-chaney-so-called-hollywood-hacker-gets-10-years-for-posting-celebrities-personal-photos-online/

  • 11
    shellbell
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Big gaol sentences are good things to campaign on come judge election time

  • 12
    poroti
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Didn’t PMBO declare he would make no deals with the cross bench ?

  • 13
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    10 years in jail is the maximum sentence under s 440A of the WA Criminal code for unlawful use of a computer where that unlawful use has caused a detriment to someone – or a benefit to someone else. Two years is maximum sentence for doing it for fun.

  • 14
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Hypothetical:

    What would happen if one of these celebs had taken nude selfies and then sent them by accident to someone who wasn’t meant to see them. That person then shared them widely.

    Would they be guilty of anything, and if so, what?

  • 15
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Were they for someone else to see?

    Her then husband according to the article I just found.

  • 16
    confessions
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Some women take naked before and after photos pre and post dieting.

  • 17
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Cyril

    The sending of naked photos if women he knew to their relatives is pretty ordinary.

    I’m interested in what is going to happen about “revenge porn” in Australia where the partner, usu male, has compromising photos taken with consent of a female and then distributes them if she leaves him.

  • 18
    Darn
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Centre
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    Essential is an underrated poll.

    52/48 would be right on the mark I reckon with the Greens at 9%…bullseye!

    And given the current circumstances it is a very good poll for labor.

  • 19
    Player One
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Completely and totally agree and breach of copyright is not theft and never had been it is breach of copyright.

    The FBI & National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) in the USA, and the AIC (Australian Institute of Criminology) and AFACT (Australian Federation against Copyright Theft) here in Australia all appear to think differently.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/ipr

    http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Federation_Against_Copyright_Theft

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/B/D/0/%7BBD0BC4E6-0599-467A-8F64-38D13B5C0EEB%7Drpp94.pdf

  • 20
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Diog

    Indeed. This clearly didn’t help his case either.

    He continued to pursue his victims after the FBI seized his computer, a factor Otero said warranted a harsher penalty.

  • 21
    zoidlord
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    BCA getting under Abbott’s nose:

    http://www.afr.com/p/national/bca_criticises_coalition_welfare_hdsfsj5yVj5NaraezuBDHL

  • 22
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Dan

    What is the motivation for the computer companies to have everything stored on the cloud rather than the hard drive or server?

  • 23
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Dio

    There are already a lot of sites out there just for that purpose – post pictures of your ex as revenge.

    As far as my understanding of it goes, the photo taker actually owns the photo(s). The subject of the photos gave consent to them being taken, so therefore the “owner” can do what he likes with them.

    Caveat – I’m not a lawyer.

  • 24
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    I’m interested in what is going to happen about “revenge porn” in Australia where the partner, usu male, has compromising photos taken with consent of a female and then distributes them if she leaves him.

    Me too it is an excellent illustration of the privacy aspect. It is not about copyright, defamation, stealing or other red herrings it is all about privacy.

    But it goes further – what about a model / photographer relationship that goes badly leaving photographer with images that were mutually not used while the relationship was good. Should the photographer be free to exploit these images he has copyright in. Is it purely business and privacy shouldn’t intervene or is the some room for privacy to operate.

  • 25
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Dio

    A reducton/elimination of software piracy.

  • 26
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    The FBI & National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) in the USA, and the AIC (Australian Institute of Criminology) and AFACT (Australian Federation against Copyright Theft) here in Australia all appear to think differently.

    I am well aware of this – it is a crock.

  • 27
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Further to my post @23 – all of that is dependent on the subject of the photos being over 18 of course.

  • 28
    zoomster
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    PlayerOne

    I usually find those who argue that breach of copyright isn’t theft don’t want to admit, even to themselves, that their downloading of movies and TV shows is dodgy – because THEY would never break the law…

  • 29
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Further to having software on the cloud, companies will be able to charge a monthly/annual access fee rather than the usual once in a blue moon purchase.

  • 30
    Player One
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    I am well aware of this – it is a crock.

    I think you mean “crook”.

  • 31
    Player One
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    zoomster

    I usually find those who argue that breach of copyright isn’t theft don’t want to admit, even to themselves, that their downloading of movies and TV shows is dodgy – because THEY would never break the law…

    Very true.

  • 32
    Diogenes
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    The UK and some states in the US have laws against revenge porn, which suggests that existing laws don’t cover it. So I’m assuming it is legal in Australia. Which is not a good thing.

  • 33
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    PlayerOne
    I usually find those who argue that breach of copyright isn’t theft don’t want to admit, even to themselves, that their downloading of movies and TV shows is dodgy – because THEY would never break the law…

    Well I break the law almost every day, some days I brazenly walk diagonally across roads in breach of the relevant law, some days I proceed in a motor vehicle at speeds exceeding the proscribed limit. But that is quite irrelevant to any discussion of the creeping criminalization of copyright infringement and the public policy debate that should have occurred and should occur now. Mindless repetitions of copyright holder spin should be a lot more embarrassing than jay walking.

  • 34
    zoidlord
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    @Poroti/12

    Yes, in early August last year.

  • 35
    shellbell
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Privacy remains largely unprotected in Oz.

    Here is the Tele stalking Stuart MacGill

    http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/stuart-macgill-and-rachel-friend-pull-up-stumps-after-14-years-of-marriage-but-stay-mates/story-fni0cvc9-1227042397045

  • 36
    Rewi
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/24861792/libs-tipped-to-score-in-new-seat/

    ‘ABC election analyst Antony Green said a new WA seat was “certain” and predicted it would further entrench the Liberals, who hold 12 of the 15 current seats, rather than provide a lifeline to Labor.’

  • 37
    poroti
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    revenge porn ?

    The Coalition budget attack on Super ,Education and the environment ?

  • 38
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    I suspect the revenge pr0n sites would in theory be liable for damages in defamation. It is possible where malice is evident to get punitive damages greater than any damage ostensibly suffered by the victim.

  • 39
    shellbell
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    There is a judge made law based around breach of confidence

  • 40
    guytaur
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    “@political_alert: The Treasurer and Finance Minister have now cancelled their media conference #auspol #mrrt”

    Cowards!!

  • 41
    Player One
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    WeWantPaul

    Well I break the law almost every day, some days I brazenly walk diagonally across roads in breach of the relevant law, some days I proceed in a motor vehicle at speeds exceeding the proscribed limit. But that is quite irrelevant to any discussion of the creeping criminalization of copyright infringement and the public policy debate that should have occurred and should occur now. Mindless repetitions of copyright holder spin should be a lot more embarrassing than jay walking.

    I’m guessing you don’t make a living off intellectual property.

  • 42
    guytaur
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    P1

    Different business model needed for intellectual property.

    Starting with Hollywood cutting actors and directors wages from the millions to the thousands.

  • 43
    Martin B
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Count me amongst those who don’t like describing copyright breaches (and similar offences) as theft.

    Theft involves the illegitimate possession of property *that denies the rightful owner the ability to use that property.*

    Illicit copying may lead to an invasion of privacy, or a loss in income, but it doesn’t stop the rightful owner from using the property; it isn’t theft.

    It’s not hard to be this precise about the use of concepts. It’s interesting that some people actively resist such precision.

  • 44
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    52/48 would be right on the mark I reckon with the Greens at 9%…bullseye!

    Very nice to hear the definitive word on the subject for our leading predicter of Greens election outcomes.

  • 45
    JacetheAce
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    ‘The rules of Copyright are as old as the Printing Press”

    The rules of Copyright only became widespread in the 19th Century, with the first laws passed in the UK in 1710. Most of the big US publishing houses made their fortunes by publishing the works of famous, and living, authors without paying them a cent in royalties because there were no copyright laws in place. It’s the reason Dickens did all those reading tours in America; he was wildly popular, but didn’t earn any money from the sale of his books.

  • 46
    Tom the first and best
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Does anyone know if/where I can find the results from the 2013 Commonwealth election in Victoria divided up by state seats?

  • 47
    ruawake
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Seems Farmers and Small Business got well and truly screwed by Hockey and Palmer.

    loss carryback – gone
    Instant asset write off – gone
    Vehicle tax rebate cut by $4000
    Farm Household Support – Repealed

    All to increase the Budget deficit by $6.4 billion.

  • 48
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Martin B

    Count me amongst those who don’t like describing copyright breaches (and similar offences) as theft.

    This is clearly more than a copyright breach. The person knowingly cracked a system designed to deny access to data to effect the breach.

    It’s also possible to steal someone’s stuff without denying them access to it. If while you’re at work, someone takes your car without your permission and then returns it before you realised it had gone missing, that’s still theft. Ferris Bueller was a thief.

    There is a tort called ‘conversion by wrongful user’ which is rather like the civil version of embezzlement.

  • 49
    guytaur
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    “@political_alert: The Treasurer and Finance Minister will now hold a media conference at 4.30pm here at Parliament #auspol”

  • 50
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    In Centre’s case the poll is right if it agrees with him, and if it doesn’t he can still resort to ‘not long now’.

    They say a broken analog clock is right twice per day, but Centre can only dream of being right that often.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...