ASHER MOSES
May 20, 2010 - 2:06PM
Comments 49
Australian customs officers have been given new powers to search incoming travellers' laptops and mobile phones for pornography, a spokeswoman for the Australian sex industry says.

Fiona Patten, president of the Australian Sex Party, is demanding an inquiry into why a new question appears on Incoming Passenger Cards asking people if they are carrying "pornography".

Patten said officials now had an unfettered right to examine travellers' electronic devices, marking the beginning of a new era of official investigation into people's private lives. She questioned whether it was appropriate to search people for legal R18+ and X18+ material.

“Is it fair that customs officers rummage through someone's luggage and pull out a legal men's magazine or a lesbian journal in front of their children or their mother-in-law?” she said.

"If you and your partner have filmed or photographed yourselves making love in an exotic destination or even taking a bath, you will have to answer 'Yes' to the question or you will be breaking the law."

Customs has not yet commented on Patten's claims, with a spokesman saying a response was still being formulated.

However, it is understood that the "pornography" question has appeared on Incoming Passenger Cards since September last year. The change was only spotted by Patten earlier this month and it had received little to no coverage in the media.

Colin Jacobs, chairman of the lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the change appeared to have sneaked under the radar "without any public consultation about the massive privacy issues".

"It's hard to fathom what the pressing concern could be that requires Australia to quiz every entrant to the country on their pornography habits, as if visitors would be aware of the nuances of the Australian classification scheme," he said.

"If this results in Customs trawling through more private information on laptops searching for contraband, I would say the solution is way worse than the problem."

Patten said if the question was designed to stop child pornography being smuggled into the country then the question should have been asked about "child pornography", without encompassing regular porn.

Hetty Johnson, chief executive of child protection group Bravehearts, agreed with Patten that the question was too broad. She said it should only apply to illegal pornography.

"If it said child porn I'd be 100 per cent behind it - if you're carrying child pornography then you deserve everything you get," she said in a phone interview.

The issue has echoes of the 1956 detention of famed British conductor and composer Sir Eugene Goossens who had his bag searched upon his return from Europe.

He was carrying material that was considered, at the time, pornographic and his reputation was subsequently ruined, forcing him to flee the country.

"The term pornography is not referred to at all in the federal Classification Act, which customs relies on to classify their material," Patten said.

- with AAP

Well, its not as simple as that. The problem is that what constitutes a first name and a last name in different cultural context. Talk to some Japanese and their definition of "first name" may be the same identifier (surname) that his/her family members use.

After rereading member hihihehe post for a while I came to the conclusion that's what he's asking. To put it in context, he is asking:
If it is the graduation parchment, the standard format (for QUT at least) is First name, Surname. That's fine if your name if John Peter Smith. The question is, how does that work in the Malaysian context?

If you are Tan Ah Beng, where Tan is your family name (ie the same identifier (surname) that his/her family members use), then the parchment would be awarded to Ah Beng Tan, NOT Ah Tan (the "Beng" in this context is NOT a middle name, as most Australians think it is).

But if it was the sister Lucy Tan Ah Lian, which is the first name/last name? By Australian reckoning, the "first name" would be Lucy, and Lian would be the last name. As Malaysians we see the error in that. So does that mean the parchment is awarded to Lucy Ah Lian Tan, or just simply Lucy Tan?

Its the same issue with Malay names. Say Mohammad Shukri bin Mohammad Zain. Is your first name Mohammad or Shukri? Or both? And its the same question with "last name": is it Mohammad, Zain or both?

And Hindu names? Take the name Samundee Devan a/l A.Ramasamy. We think that "Samundee" would be the first name, but some of them prefer to be called "Devan", ie the second word in their name, which they see as their "first name".

Its a similar story to some Ibans from Sarawak: someone who has "Adam Brian anak Assim" on his birth certificate and Malaysian Identification Card is never known as "Adam", but "Brian Assim".

So do you understand my frustration(s) with ambiguous questions relating to name placements? How do you define "first name" is very much on your background.

For the first case, the award was given to "Ah Beng TAN".
It was "Lucy TAN" who got the second award (don't ask me why she left out her given Chinese name).
Shukri, as he is commonly known, had Mhd Shukri MOHAMMAD ZAIN printed on his parchment.
Devan RAMASAMY was a proud recipient of a PhD.
To find his masters thesis, one would need to look under Assim, B. His cousin on the other hand, can be found under Assim, James Jerad in the library.

I'm not saying these are hard rules. Some would be aghast at Lucy's "betrayal of her Chinese roots". Shukri's relatives wonder why the "Dato Seri" is not in his fathers name. Some would be horrified that Devan dropped part of his fathers name.

My point is, how do you define "first name" and "last name" is very much dependent on the individual. Which is why, in the absence of any more information, it is impossible to give any kind of proper advice and help.

Endnote: While the name placements are real experiences, all names used to illustrate my point are fictional names. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.