Lib's plan for Data Retention

[DivideandMultiply]

So, the scope creep has already started and the bill hasn't even been introduced

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...al-crime-tony-abbott-says-20140806-3d78h.html

Data storage could be used to fight 'general crime', Tony Abbott says

On Wednesday, Mr Abbott said the government's plan to make telecommunications companies store users' metadata for two years could be used to fight ''general'' crimes and not just in terror cases.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...al-crime-tony-abbott-says-20140806-3d78h.html

 

[Dry Rot]

So, the scope creep has already started and the bill hasn't even been introduced

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...al-crime-tony-abbott-says-20140806-3d78h.html



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...al-crime-tony-abbott-says-20140806-3d78h.html

Good way to get around the pesky need for due process and warrants.

Next week they'll announce that the onus of proof in general crime matters has been reversed.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Bring back Conroy. Least he had brains.

 

[swingdog]

Next week they'll announce that the onus of proof in general crime matters has been reversed.

Exactly what they're suggesting with people returning from Syria.

 

[Maggie5]

This policy will also go around Turnbull's comments regarding copyright and get the downloaders as well. He really is on the outer.

The government is seeking bi-partisan support on this policy yet the media (Tuesday) got the scoop before the cabinet were told, said that they would brief the opposition. But then we had the Abbott and Brandis gaffes, then they got the big guns out and it wasn't until Friday they decided to brief the opposition.

Good way to get bi-partisan support.

 

[Richard Pryor]

So, the scope creep has already started and the bill hasn't even been introduced

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...al-crime-tony-abbott-says-20140806-3d78h.html



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...al-crime-tony-abbott-says-20140806-3d78h.html

Is anyone really surprised? What's next? Metadata being used to 'pre-empt' general crime? Those with a suspicious search history being called in for questioning? I'm guessing a lot of dumbasses are going to get busted for pot possession for starters.

Makes you wonder why Hockey got so upset about those meetings he was having being reported and speculated on, it was just the envelope Joe. Not what you discussed.

Maybe they thought calling anyone who criticises this policy a terrorist sympathiser would be too over the top so their settling for calling them criminals? (conspiracy hat on). In any case I'm excited to see Bolt get excited about the hypocrisy of supporting 18C and being upset about surveillance, while supporting surveillance and being upset about 18C.

 

[RUNVS]

I wonder if Abbott would be happy if his internet search history for the past 2 years got published for all of us to see and scrutinise.

 

[Richard Pryor]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...706966590?nk=cc08124274f1929004f8431efef6a62d

The Queensland Police Union has labelled the privacy breach "disturbing" and "potentially unlawful", and accused police investigators of conducting fake criminal probes to gain access to officers' phone records.

The matter came to a head in July after Queensland Police Service attempted to discipline an officer.

It is understood police investigators had sought the records belonging to an officer suspected of throwing a sickie, an officer missing on the job for several hours and to determine whether police cadets were having sexual relationships at academies, which is prohibited.

Civil libertarians and lawyers say the revelations are alarming and raise serious questions as to whether police are also using the records to unlawfully target members of the public.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I wonder at which point Australians start thinking they'd rather we chase terrorists the old fashioned way than have all of their private interests, even legal ones, available for somebody to use against you in the future.

We are going to die eventually anyway. Wrong place at the wrong time terrorism victim or become squeaky clean model citizens with no vices, and no opinions. Hell public servants could be targeted for just reading anti-government sites.

 

[RUNVS]

Also when was the last time we actually had a terrorist attack in Australia? The fact it has been so long surely means the old laws were already working. Sounds like terrorism is just a front so the government can invade our privacy or more specifically probably journalists or other groups opposed to the Liberal party.

 

[Dry Rot]

Meanwhile, this Q&A with Turnbull doesn't give me confidence. Note the copyright example used when discussing anti-terrorism measures

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/39085...dium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter

 

[Richard Pryor]

Meanwhile, this Q&A with Turnbull doesn't give me confidence. Note the copyright example used when discussing anti-terrorism measures

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/39085...dium=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter

The fact it came up makes me suspicious that this measure is mainly to do with piracy, not terrorism. Although seeing as it also can only be used in specific investigations and I'd imagine rights holders will not have access maybe he's just using it as an analogy?

I suppose the question is whether people's data is only going to be scrutinised in investigations or if peoples data will be scrutinised in order to instigate investigations.

It seems Turnbull is just better at what Brandis was trying to do.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/07/australian-governments-leaked-anti-piracy-proposal-is-unrealistic/

What these steps might be is very vague. They could include blocking peer-to-peer traffic, slowing down internet connections, passing on warnings from industry groups, and handing over subscriber details to copyright owners.

Is this related to the current data retention scheme?

Also
http://www.zdnet.com/au/turnbull-admits-limitations-of-data-retention-proposal-7000032480/

"Your web surfing history is a matter for you. You've all got VPNs [Virtual Private Networks] anyway, so all of you appear to be somewhere in Iowa when you go online, I know that. Anyway, I won't go on," he said.

Interesting quote from Turnbull, seems like this data retention scheme is going to be expensive and useless. Very interesting he seems to have not so subtly dropped a hint on how to get around it (not that it's particularly secret knowledge, but still).

 

[Richard Pryor]

https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/privacy/mandatory-data-retention-efa--2/sign-the-petition

Not sure how effective this will be, but there it is.

 

[ep2018]

I'm actually surprised this wasn't already being done. I always thought there were agencies caching peoples browsing history/metadata.

 

[Maggie5]

Given this article, seems agencies already have enough power to investigate.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...encies-without-a-warrant-20140820-106112.html
http://www.vodafone.com.au/aboutvodafone/legal/privacypolicy - must go and check Optus privacy policy.

 

[Maggie5]

In the discussion paper, they intend to also monitor download and up load, how is this tied in with security?
Or is it a two for one to catch copyright infringes?
Watching David Irvine speak at the National Press Club today and he stated that currently there were about 100 involved in terrorist groups and about the same fighting overseas. Seems to me if they know this, why do we have to give up our rights to privacy?
Hopefully the discussion paper will not pass in its current form.

 

[Richard Pryor]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...nternet-piracy-crackdown-20140830-10a8i9.html

And now we see that this whole farce was probably about protecting copyright.

"Just as there is no place on the internet for terrorism or paedophilia, there should be no place for theft that will impact the livelihoods of the 900,000 people whose security is protected by legitimate copyright," Village Roadshow argues.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-crackdown-20140830-10a8i9.html#ixzz3C2TUiWiR

When bad PR is possible, compare any opposition to pedophiles and terrorists!!!

And I highly doubt, despite Malcolm Turnbulls best intentions, that anything at all will be done about price gouging. I doubt we'll even get netflix.

In the unlikely event that these price rises on internet for everyone will actually do anything to reduce piracy, I think the discovery will be made that, if luxury goods are being sold at unreasonable prices people will simply.......................... not buy it.

 

[Maggie5]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...nternet-piracy-crackdown-20140830-10a8i9.html

And now we see that this whole farce was probably about protecting copyright.


When bad PR is possible, compare any opposition to pedophiles and terrorists!!!

And I highly doubt, despite Malcolm Turnbulls best intentions, that anything at all will be done about price gouging. I doubt we'll even get netflix.

In the unlikely event that these price rises on internet for everyone will actually do anything to reduce piracy, I think the discovery will be made that, if luxury goods are being sold at unreasonable prices people will simply.......................... not buy it.

Correct, exactly what I thought at the time of announcement, Why would they need to know download and upload? How does this catch terrorists?
And not a word of making software, films, TV series cheaper!
Looks like the money Village and others donated to LP before election is paying off. Oh to be a lobbyist.

 

[Maggie5]

Just listened to ABC radio interview with Malcolm. For the man that invented the internet, I am not sure that he knows that much about it.
Wants to think that we will be all streaming from the internet. Given that according to statistics we are an aging population, how many of the people in that age group will do it? (I am in that age group)

I know in my current situation, I won't be able to, my TV is not wireless, has a cable connection but I would need a lap-top to connect, which I don't have as still use a desk top and I am connected to the internet via cable which means that I will have to buy a wireless modem.
Solution - buy a new TV or laptop and cable, or wirless modem- you would also need a plan from a provider of at least 50gb or more. Cost? $2000?

Not all of us have an ipad or iphone with a plan (although we could still use through home wireless). Anyway wouldn't use either of those devices to connect to the net outside of the house, too expensive.
The only videos I watch on-line are you tube, news or footy clips. Short clips as I would never sit at my computer watching anything longer than 30 mins.

He then went on to say that they would only know your IP address and name and the sites you visit. When they have access, anything goes, not that worries me too much as I don't do pirating but not happy that they will have that type of access.

Also read an article (didn't bookmark it) that they will be outlawing VPNs.

Fortunately, ISP's like iiNet are still fighting about who is going to pay for it.

Through all this he didn't say that they will be fighting for us to have the ability to pay for software, movies, TV shows at the same price Americans do.
You sucked me in once Malcolm, you won't do it twice.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Also read an article (didn't bookmark it) that they will be outlawing VPNs.

LOL!. It's only a matter of time before they start drastically neutering and altering legitimate use of the internet in their crusade against the future.