Lib's plan for Data Retention

[GreatBradScott]

Outstanding work from the party of small government and liberty.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-06/security-laws-abbott-browsing-history-not-collected/5652364

Here is some further background on the issue that I think people on both sides should be worried about:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y-about-mandatory-data-retention?view=desktop

 

[RUNVS]

I am very uneasy about such a law. I mean sure they if they use it for what they say they will use it then it is fine but I think it would be so easy for anyone within the government or another government agency to look into your personal internet history for reasons other than catching terrorists. I mean whose to say a government could not use this to discredit an opposition politician. Everyone has searched things in google that they would not want others knowing about and it would be so easy for the government to abuse that power.

 

[Richard Pryor]

As I said in another thread, I'm not at ease as to who is going to be allowed access to this information. Who watches the watchers so to speak. I also have no idea from the article what the difference, if any, between metadata and content is.

"It is not what you're doing on the internet, it's the sites you're visiting," he told Channel Nine.

"It's not the content, it's just where you have been, so to speak."

But later Mr Abbott said the metadata to be collected would not include people's browsing history.

^I don't even know what he's trying to say, but it seems like he's either contradicting himself or using semantics to obfuscate what is going on.

 

[RUNVS]

I mean what if Bill Shorten regularly goes on a site dedicated to Dwarfism pr0n. Is this illegal, not at all. Would it hurt him in the opinion polls, yes it would. If the Liberal Party for instance had access to this information do you really think they would not find a way to "accidentally" release it to the press.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I mean what if Bill Shorten regularly goes on a site dedicated to Dwarfism pr0n. Is this illegal, not at all. Would it hurt him in the opinion polls, yes it would. If the Liberal Party for instance had access to this information do you really think they would not find a way to "accidentally" release it to the press.

And I'm sure advertisers would kill for that kind of consumer behaviour information.

 

[GWSP]

Stop voting for the major parties please kids.

 

[GWSP]

And I'm sure advertisers would kill for that kind of consumer behaviour information.

Exactly.

How many times over the years when people go shopping are they asked for their post code? I know Rebel Sport do this.

I always refuse on the basis that its marketing research and if they want that information off me they can give me a discount on my product for it. They never do.

 

[Grin]

Rest easy guys.
Brandis explains it all here.
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-li...al-data-retention-regime-20140806-101849.html

What a great guy.

 

[Dry Rot]

So we become a nation of VPN users?

 

[pjcrows]

Brandis is our Attorney-General right?

Bloody hell.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Rest easy guys.
Brandis explains it all here.
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-li...al-data-retention-regime-20140806-101849.html

What a great guy.

Well then....... they really do think we're really, really stupid. First "It's not a tax, it's a levy", now a very similar attempt to hide facts via technicalities "Well, we're monitoring your internet usage, but because we're not looking at specifics we're actually not monitoring your internet usage", and how is that even going to work? I've looked at my search history, it saves every webpage, are they installing a system to delete every entry except the homepage? (granted I'm not very tech-savvy so feel free to correct me. Please.).

This appears to be a very embarrassing attempt at straight up lying that they managed to screw up. Maybe employ some wooden language when you try again. Where to next?

"I don't support the idea of data retention at all but I do realise that there are ways that it can be more or less infringing on peoples' right to privacy," Mr Wilson told Fairfax.

How are we even at a stage where this is being said? What is the acceptable level of infringement of privacy?

Remember surfing the high school net with the Education department monitoring what you were doing? Well I sure hope you liked it, because it looks like that's where we're headed, the precedent of every google search I make and every website I click on being potentially scrutinised is a daunting prospect.

Brandis looks a lot like Dick Cheney in that picture.

 

[GreatBradScott]

IPA heads now turning on poor Tone. 11 months and already in territory where it's allies refuse to lie down with them, what a shambles.

 

[Dry Rot]

And I'm sure advertisers would kill for that kind of consumer behaviour information.

Check out 7.30 tonight re Coles and Woolies data gathering and use. Last item IIRC. More scary than all this.

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/7-30/NC1405H129S00

 

[Showbags]

Rest easy guys.
Brandis explains it all here.
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-li...al-data-retention-regime-20140806-101849.html

What a great guy.

He is just a cretin. The sort of guy who looks like he would be hanging around in some bushes outside a children's playground if not in politics. Easily my most disliked pollie in government atm.............then again I forgot about Pyne.....................and Morrison.......................and Joyce................ok I take that back. He is no worse than the rest of his colleagues tbh.

 

[Richard Pryor]

He is just a cretin. The sort of guy who looks like he would be hanging around in some bushes outside a children's playground if not in politics. Easily my most disliked pollie in government atm.............then again I forgot about Pyne.....................and Morrison.......................and Joyce................ok I take that back. He is no worse than the rest of his colleagues tbh.

It's that condescending pompous politician attitude. That interview he clearly had no idea what he was talking about, and yet he's still talking like he's talking to a confused child and doing them a favour by explaining how to tie a pair of shoelaces or something.

 

[pokerspiv]

IPA heads now turning on poor Tone. 11 months and already in territory where it's allies refuse to lie down with them, what a shambles.

Sinclair has been pretty unhappy with Abbott since day 1. He's the least liberal "Liberal" leader since Fraser, hardly a conservative's dream.

The good news is that the only way this data retention bill gets up is if Labor supports it, since none of the crossbench will.

 

[Dry Rot]

Rest easy guys.
Brandis explains it all here.
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-li...al-data-retention-regime-20140806-101849.html

What a great guy.

He's a complete arse clown. Everyone should watch that interview.

Only goes to show that a house brick can become a QC.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

As I said in another thread, I'm not at ease as to who is going to be allowed access to this information. Who watches the watchers so to speak. I also have no idea from the article what the difference, if any, between metadata and content is.



^I don't even know what he's trying to say, but it seems like he's either contradicting himself or using semantics to obfuscate what is going on.

Well the problem here is what they are recording is actual data, not metadata.

The catchphrase they have latched onto to sell the plan, or make it seem more harmless is not even applicable. Basically, this is a policy decision based on a lie.

I have constantly said since before the election, they are big government neo liberals with fascist aspirations. I got shouted down, but as the months go by, the power creep continues. People should abandon this lib/lab partisan mindset and start being genuinally concerned.

 

[pokerspiv]

I have constantly said since before the election, they are big government neo liberals with fascist aspirations. I got shouted down, but as the months go by, the power creep continues. People should abandon this lib/lab partisan mindset and start being genuinally concerned.

I think you are getting a bit carried away. Abbott isn't going to declare martial law any time soon. He's been a pretty crappy PM so far but he isn't Hitler.

 

[RUNVS]

I think you are getting a bit carried away. Abbott isn't going to declare martial law any time soon. He's been a pretty crappy PM so far but he isn't Hitler.

He may be a sociopath though.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I think you are getting a bit carried away. Abbott isn't going to declare martial law any time soon. He's been a pretty crappy PM so far but he isn't Hitler.

Not carried away at all. I mean is that your defence, don't be worried, hes not Hitler and this isn't martial law.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I think you are getting a bit carried away. Abbott isn't going to declare martial law any time soon. He's been a pretty crappy PM so far but he isn't Hitler.

Nevertheless, attempting to outright lie about a borderline totalitarian policy is a concerning precedent, now I'm not in paranoia mode yet, but their blatant disregard and borderline disdain for transparency in the government is concerning. It's not just this, it's the State funding workaround of the supreme courts decision on the chaplaincy program, it's Joe Hockey saying he wants to try and bypass the senate, it's quotes like "I'd rather be criticised for being a bit of a closed book on this issue and actually stop the boats". Heck, what kind of a loonie actually comes up with names like "Operation Sovereign Borders" and "Team Australia". (kidding, mostly)

Yeah, he's no Hitler or Putin, but he is an enormous tool with a concerning track record.

 

[pokerspiv]

Nevertheless, attempting to outright lie about a borderline totalitarian policy is a concerning precedent, now I'm not in paranoia mode yet, but their blatant disregard and borderline disdain for transparency in the government is concerning.

It's really not at all different to the last government. All governments are like this. People don't aspire to be PM so they can leave you alone. Singling out Abbott as if he's somehow much worse than Rudd or Gillard is pretty much the definition of partisan politics.

The people who talk like this are the same people who were organising protests against Abbott before he even took office. The point is their team didn't win, and they are very angry about that.

 

[Richard Pryor]

It's really not at all different to the last government. All governments are like this. People don't aspire to be PM so they can leave you alone. Singling out Abbott as if he's somehow much worse than Rudd or Gillard is pretty much the definition of partisan politics.

Implying the flaws of Rudd and Gillard are equivalent to the flaws of Abbott simply because they exist is asinine. Rudd's net nanny idea was ridiculous, but he never explicitly stated he wanted to actively try to bypass the senate. Gillard didn't call it a carbon "levy" and claim she didn't break her promise. The fact that partisan politics exist is not in and of itself proof that all parties are equal and analogous in their flaws.

People aspire to PM ideally to shape the country in a way they see fit, this becomes a problem when they lie to the public about the shaping that they will be doing (not unique to Abbott or the Liberal Party of course), or seek to break the "rules", that's when you have a problematic politician. Abbott didn't get voted in on the basis of his budget, he didn't get voted in because of his "levy", and to be fair Gillard didn't get voted in on her carbon tax.

You can't criticise people for getting upset when someone they didn't like won, when that person won and then proceeded to break promises and do things that would likely have seen him lose if he had of let everyone know that's what he was doing. I wasn't critical of people who were upset about the carbon tax lie. Fair's fair.

People who aspire to become PM so that they can bypass the senate and repeatedly lie to the populace in order to get their way are not people who should become PM in an ideal world.

I also find people who argue this line of thought, that the PM has a responsibility to represent his/her voters and get his way by any means necessary. Is this not also true of those elected to the senate? Isn't this the point of our democratic system?

Every politician lies, this doesn't mean we should excuse these lies.

You didn't even address any of the criticisms, but opted to criticise Labour instead, which turns it into a lib/lab debate.

If I have to eat s**t, I'm still going to choose the s**t with sugar on top.

The people who talk like this are the same people who were organising protests against Abbott before he even took office. The point is their team didn't win, and they are very angry about that.

This I see as more of an example of partisan politics, generalising critics. I viewed Labour as objectively as I am viewing the Liberals when they were in power, I just happen to think that Abbott is worse than Rudd or Gillard were. It isn't because I like Labour, it's because I dislike Abbott based on what he has done.

Partisan politics is not the sole reason for criticising Abbott, and just because someone is criticising Abbott does not mean they are cheerleading for the other team.

 

[Dry Rot]

Watching Brandis again trying to explain this, you wouldn't ask George round to fix your PC. Or your wheelbarrow for that matter.