Michael Nayna<\/a>, Andrew Lowenthal<\/a>, and Michael Shellenberger<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n 2 hours ago<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2219 Paid<\/p>\n\n\n\n In September 2025, top government censorship officials from Europe, the UK, Brazil, California, and Australia met at Stanford<\/a> to discuss ways to coordinate censorship at an international level. The meeting was titled \u201cCompliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.\u201d Australia\u2019s top censor, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, gave the keynote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though Grant did not provide her remarks to Public, previously she had told<\/a> the World Economic Forum (WEF) that she was organizing censorship officials around the world because \u201cwe know we\u2019re going to go much further when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inman Grant\u2019s efforts appear to be coming to fruition in Australia, where the lower house has passed sweeping censorship and surveillance legislation that the Senate is now considering. The legislation would allow the Commissioner to monitor \u201clawful but harmful\u201d speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inman Grant, an American who once volunteered to a journalist that she turned down a job with the CIA, can already order a platform to reveal who is behind an anonymous account from anywhere in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the DDoC bill now before the Australian Senate would also let her use fake accounts that deceive users into thinking they are citizens and not government spies, record their legal speech, and give what she learns directly to Australia\u2019s spy agencies. Those agencies could then share that intelligence with the FBI and other \u201cFive Eyes\u201d intelligence-sharing partners in the US, UK, Canada, and New Zealand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bill enables this by granting eSafety the ability to create an unlimited number of AI-generated \u201csock puppet\u201d identities (effectively bots) under policies set \u201cin consultation with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The private information that the Australian government could share with foreign intelligence agencies could include a user\u2019s name, address, phone number, email, along with what the Privacy Act calls \u201csensitive information,\u201d which includes political opinions, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and health records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) first reported<\/a> on the Privacy Act changes on Monday, and Network Affects noted<\/a> last month that the new censorship legislation designates eSafety an \u201cenforcement body\u201d under the Privacy Act, expanding its ability to access personal information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2013, documents released<\/a> by whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that British intelligence officials had allowed, as part of a secret deal with the U.S. government\u2019s National Security Agency (NSA), for it to gather information on UK citizens who were not under suspicion of any wrongdoing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The eSafety Commissioner could thus unmask anonymous accounts in the United States, France, or Germany, for example, that complain about controversial issues like mass migration, and report them and all of their private information to the FBI and European spy agencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe have power to share with the AFP [Australian Federal Police]; we don\u2019t have power to share with intelligence agencies at this time,\u201d testified<\/a> Heidi Snell, eSafety\u2019s General Manager of Regulatory Operations,in October this year. \u201cBut the amendments would see us being able to share directly with those other government agencies,\u201d she added<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those agencies include the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), Australia\u2019s equivalent of the CIA; the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), which performs a role similar to the FBI\u2019s domestic intelligence division; the Australian Signals Directorate (Australia\u2019s NSA); the Office of National Intelligence (ODNI); the Department of Home Affairs (DHS); the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (State Department); the Department of Defence; and any other \u201cCommonwealth entity.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The DDoC Bill contains a provision<\/a> that would put eSafety in the same legal category as the Australian Federal Police under the Privacy Act for \u201csurveillance activities, intelligence gathering activities or monitoring activities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n eSafety told Public in an email that information it sends to the police may include \u201cthe account names or the identity of the users who posted the material.\u201d A Federal Police witness testified on Oct 21 that police can pass eSafety\u2019s information to \u201cour ASIO partners.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The censorship bill would change Australia\u2019s Privacy Act so eSafety could collect sensitive personal information, including political opinions, without users\u2019 consent,a warrant or judicial oversight. To invoke this Privacy Act exception<\/a>, it would only need to \u201creasonably believe\u201d that the collection is necessary for its functions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" EXCLUSIVE: Censorship Bill Would Let Australia Spy On Americans And Europeans And Report Lawful Speech And Private Info To Five Eyes, Including FBI Law would let \u201ceSafety Commissioner\u201d share \u201csensitive information,\u201d including political opinions, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and health … Continue reading ![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!EUIy!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F071c3f87-ed19-4846-a42a-0bdbca2a1b7b_2998x1522.png\")
<\/a>