Talk:Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
|WikiProject Espionage||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Australia||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Lack of sources
Some of the recent additions have been made with out sources (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources). As per policy, I will move them to the talk page until they can be corroborated. --K. 04:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
ASIO major edit
I've had a go at rewriting and restructuring this article, as the existing one was surprisingly scant. Please have a look and update as you see fit - I think the tone could be a bit more neutral, so if anyone wants to improve this article from that respect, that'd be great.
The references I used are cited at the bottom of the page, so have a look and see if I've misinterpreted anything.
-- Canley 06:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Lack of References
I'm trying to make this article the best it can be. I'd appreciate some help sorting out references, as there aren't any to speak of. I'm adding them as quickly as I can sort through the text, but any help wouldn't go astray.
Fair use rationale for Image:ASIO crest.svg
Image:ASIO crest.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No, anonymous editor, the FBI isn't the same as ASIO - it's the same as if ASIO and the AFP were one entity. However, the FBI is the closest comparable agency to ASIO in the US. We need this included in the article for completeness. But I agree that they are not directly equivalent. So seeing as how we are splitting hairs here, I've added the FBI National Security Branch to the 'oveseas counterparts' section. Hopefully you will find this to be more accurate.
DirectEdge 08:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
no mention of haneef in the article whatsoever, when ASIO is responsible for the laws that detained him unfairly
political bias?? or just the editors on a holiday...i hope its latter.Jasewase 10:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Haneef was indeed detained under Federal anti-terrorism laws (as is evidenced by his arrest by the AFP) and it would be relatively safe to assume that during his detention he was questioned by ASIO intelligence officers. Indeed, the information leading to his arrest may have been uncovered during an ASIO investigation, but we as ordinary citizens do not know and could well never know. Furthermore, if Dr. Haneef was indeed detained under warrant issued pursuant to Division 3 of the ASIO Act 1979, the mere existence of the warrant is an official secret, with harsh penalties for revealing that a warrant does or did exist. Hence why the media, who must surely have suspected the possibility of there being a Division 3 warrant, was very careful to not mention ASIO in reporting the case. The line used was 'police and other intelligence agencies' as I remember. So thus, we cannot confirm for a number of reasons whether ASIO was or was not involved in the Haneef case, and thus anything we might say would purely be speculation or assumption. Remember, we are not into making assumptions here. Unless there is a verifiable source for information, we cannot possibly include it in the article if we are to adhere to the requirement that content be encyclopedic.DirectEdge 04:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The points above are very relevant, and obviously belong in the main article IMHO. I tried to do this in a balanced way 23 March 08, but the changes were instantly revoked by Alex Bakharev. I think that it is obvious that the Haneef case was one of the most visible and controvertial cases involving the Australian security services, and so it should be mentioned one way or the other. The reason why it cannot be discussed is also very, very relevant.
- If someone would like to have another go that would be great. I have included the proposed paragraph below. And I also think that just reverting anyone's work without discussion on talk is rather rude.Tuntable (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- ===Arrest and deportation of Mohamed Haneef===
- Haneef was a doctor that was arrested and deported in July 2007. There was much controversy as to whether this was justified, and it would be relatively safe to assume that ASIO would have had an significant role in this. However, if this was the case it would be illegal under Australian law to report it, so it has not been reported. Thus any association is with ASIO just conjecture. (Haneef eventually won his right to return to Australia, but has not chosen to do so.)
- I stand by my earlier comments that connections between ASIO and the Haneef case, if any, are not in the public domain and therefore unverifiable. Conjecture and assumptions are not verifiable and therefore have no place in Wikipedia. DirectEdge (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I might add that my view is supported by Wikipedia:Verifiability. DirectEdge (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Jack Roche worth a mention? See, for eg, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22863386-28737,00.html Regards, Ben Aveling 09:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is important to restrict the scope of this article to ASIO itself. Mentioning every person who has or claims to have been of interest to ASIO would not do much to improve the article. Only very significant cases should be mentioned, with details kept to the individual's article in other cases. DirectEdge (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
ben yürkiyede yaşayan bir vatandaşım türkiyede uydu üzerinden beyin okuma insanı yönetme insan enerjisiyle oynama kalp atışlarıyla oynama bir hızlı bir yavaş attırma rüya takip etme insan beynine konuşma ve bunların hepsini evde arabada her yerde yapabiliyorlar ve görebiliyorlar ve insanı uydu üzerinden öldürme derecesine kadar geldiler ve beynimde sürekli konuşarak beni intihar derecesine getirdiler kalbimin atmasıyla oynayarak kalbimde artık ağrılar başladı ve bunların hepsini uydu üzerinden yapıyorlar bunlardan bir türlü kurtulamıyorum lütfen bana yardım edin birgün sizlerinde beynini okuyabilirler anlattıklarım yalan değil isterseniz kalbimi inceleye bilirsiniz adresim -türkiye -istanbul -kartal -topselvi mahallesi -karanfil sokak -no 13 -daire 1 tel 0538 709 36 65 anlatmadığım bir çok olay yapabiliyorlar uydudan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope Royal Commission
The National Archives of Australia has released the records of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security under the 30 year rule. There is more than enough material to spin this off into a new article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) `why did you give us your address???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality of ASIO Act analysis
I do not believe the section headed ASIO operations cloaked in secrecy is suitably neutral in its content. Whilst some of the analysis and criticisms levelled are indeed of mainstream concern, the wording of the section is not encyclopaedic and sounds like something straight out of a student union campaign leaflet. I would suggest that the criticisms adopt a more neutral tone and be incorporated into other sections of the article rather than inhabiting their own section. Lineface (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
ASIO isn't armed, but MI5 is.
The article (in it's current form) states that MI5 (ASIO's british equivalent) is not armed. This is sourced, but the sources relate to ASIO only. Anyhow, it doesn't take much digging around to find out that MI5 officers have access to firearms. I'm still looking for a source, but it's fairly common knowledge. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Having access to firearms is not the same as being armed though, British police have access to firearms but do not carry them except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. terrorism, manhunts etc) and are not regarded as being armed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)