Arguments against Australian Laws proposed to reduce internet privacy
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. By the way, as an editor, I would welcome articles about how the hardware in ipods etc is becoming more and more dependent on proprietary software and that this will also undermine internet expression as the proprietary soft and hardware shapes internet use and content. Comments welcome. Sheila N All Australians to be treated as terrorist suspects? <http://candobetter.net/node/3023> Posted August 20th, 2012 by admin <http://candobetter.net/user/1> This article contains James Sinnamon's submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security <http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/index.htm> (PJCIS) which wants to pass new laws to make all your emails and other internet transactions up to two years back accessible to the Australian Government. *"If Australian governments were serious about protecting Australians from terrorism, they would not have given transnational corporations with interests in every kind of industry including military total access to information about resources and infrastructure relating to location and operation of power, water supply and telecommunications, land-use planning, national statistics, scientific research institutions and banks. What is left, I ask, for terrorists?" (James Sinnamon)* Also published <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32416> on /Global Research/.
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? Have a look on the below and check if the reality isn't actually mooting the argument. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/312771,senate-passes-lite-data-retention-laws.... http://www.itnews.com.au/News/312971,tax-office-seeks-access-to-real-time-te... In other fresh news: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/27/1446233/the-pirate-bay-launches-free-vpn?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed Adrian
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. -- \ “All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular | `\ positions.” —Adlai Stevenson | _o__) | Ben Finney
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM, 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. Ok. I'm not a native english speaker, my apologies.
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.
Maybe some will consider the following an overreaction, but from *my* *personal *point of view,* it is already catastrophic* that the police (and, potentially, ATO and who knows which other executive branches of governance for the future) is able to request any ISP to "press the recording button" *without a judiciary oversight*. Also, in my view, the "to view the recordings, one needs a warrant" provision make little difference to the way I see the issue. Adrian
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
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM, George Patterson < george.patterson@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Agreed. The word may could also have been used. Regardless I didn't read Astrid's sentence as being past tense.
Back on Topic...
From the Age... Victoria's Privacy Commissioner Anthony Bendall has spoken out against the proposal stating that it's against the presumption of innocence that we value and believe in.
Cannot do anything else but agree. This is akin being able to ask the Post Office to open all the correspondence one exchanges and create a photocopy of it before delivery. Only *the potential *of this to happen (without anyone but the executive power in control) is of the nature to alter the way people communicate. Keep it for long enough and it will alter the way people think/react (instead of not trusting the govt and attempt to keep the executive powers in check - which is a *legitimate* distrust under any democracy - they'll reach a point of *not trusting each other. *I grew for the first 22 years of my life under a communist regime in one of the East European countries. I know how it rolls down from here and I know how it impacts the very fabric of society). Adrian
participants (4)
-
Adrian Colomitchi -
Astrid Nova -
Ben Finney -
George Patterson