On 29 August 2012 12:14, Ben Finney <ben+freesoftware@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
Adrian Colomitchi <acolomitchi@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 20:30 +1000, Astrid Nova wrote:
Please have a look at and send on the article linked to below on an issue that could affect us all catastrophically. The article supplies a really good argument against what the government is mooting.
"Could affect"? Why the past tense?
That's not the past tense; the word “could” doesn't tell you whether it's past, present or future.
Rather, “could” in this usage is the subjunctive of “can”. Astrid is saying that it's possible, at some point in time, for the issue to affect us all catastrophically.
From the Age... Victoria's Privacy Commissioner Anthony Bendall has spoken out against the proposal stating that it's against the
Agreed. The word may could also have been used. Regardless I didn't read Astrid's sentence as being past tense. Back on Topic... presumption of innocence that we value and believe in. In a heated submission to the inquiry, Victoria's acting Privacy Commissioner Anthony Bendall dubbed the legislation ''characteristic of a police state'', arguing ''it is premised on the assumption that all citizens should be monitored''. http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/security-scheme-worthy-o... Regards George