Mark, I must say that some of the stuff you say sometimes really seems to
criticise the thoughts and actions of other people in my opinion, this isn’t a
personal attack on you, just an observation, however this information and
response is by far the best worded explanation and positive information I have
seen from anybody on this subject and I feel it necessary to say thanks for
some decent constructive comments on it.
I think it is 100% on point and really highlights the lack of leadership and
direction that the industry has on the whole, something that can only be
addressed by people actually taking an interest and putting their money where
their mouth is as such.
Clearly you are more educated than many on this list in many areas, this is
evident by many of your comments, I don’t know you and you don’t know me but
healthy debate and information on the type of subjects that we come across is
always good in my opinion.
Thanks
Regards
Paul
On 06/15/2017 03:19 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
Why do you think a solution has to work in order for it to become law?
Believe me, I've been around the block enough times to know that it doesn't.
At any rate, I'm not proposing it as a *good* solution, I'm observing thatit is
the way things are already going in certain places -- ones thatAlastair
McGibbon has said have a good model that Australia should lookinto.
I've also been around the block enough times to know that if people like you
offer up well-meaning alternatives, the Government goes ahead with precisely
what it wanted to do already, but appends a note to the press releases that
says they've enjoyed a constructive engagement with industry, and have
addressed a number of their concerns.
So if you know you're not proposing a "good" solution, it's probably best to
keep it to yourself. The focus should be on tearing down their bullshit, not on
offering up a slightly different color of bullshit that smells faintly like
consultative dialog.
This isn't just directed at you. Whether we're talking about internet
censorship, copyright takedowns, data retention, or now this, these Australian
(always Australian) technical mailing lists are always full of people who say,
"That's stupid, what they *really* should do is..." followed by, "We're working
positively with the Government to make the best of a bad situation," after the
inevitable loss.
That helps them to do stupid things. Stop doing that. You don't need to offer
an alternative to a bad idea to communicate that it's a bad idea.
The other option is that the government continue to fail to "fix"
theencryption problem, and keep using it as a lever to force all sorts of
otherproblematic practices into law, under the guise of "stopping terruhrists".
Remember: if a politician actually fixes a problem, they lose it as acampaign
platform. If they make it worse with their ham-fisted attempts,they're set for
life.
Bush's War on Terr'h started on Sep 11 2001. It's now June 2017, and we've had
sixteen years worth of politicians saying, "Just let us control you a little
bit harder to keep you safe," followed immediately afterwards by, "You're not
safe, we need more."
The police and intelligence services have never, in the history of the
Commonwealth, had as much power, resources, and latitude as they have now; yet
they still claim they can't stop terrorism, even after justifying all the
powers they've gained by saying they'd be able to use them to stop terrorism.
Make them put their money where their mouth is: If they say we're not safe now
when they've passed national security legislation every 14 months since 2011,
the question to be asked is, "Uh, fellas? Do you actually have the faintest
idea what you're doing? Last time you did this you said we'd be safe, and now
you say we're not, so shouldn't you be rolling-back the powers you demanded
which clearly haven't worked? And given that you've been dead-wrong literally
every other time you've said you'd be able to keep us safe, shouldn't we stop
believing you this time?"
Hypothesis: They actually suck at their jobs, and are self-evidently too
incompetent to be trusted to set national policy.
Where's the limit? How badly does the frog get boiled before it gathers the
wherewithal to jump out of the pot?
- mark
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
