I agree with Mark on this view.
If 'they' are interested in someone, there are already laws in-place
that can be implemented(Usually requiring a warrant ) to keep an
eye(various methods/technologies) on suspects.
Greg..
On 15/06/2017 3:47 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
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 that
it is the way things are already going in certain places -- ones that
Alastair McGibbon has said have a good model that Australia should look
into.
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" the
encryption problem, and keep using it as a lever to force all sorts of other
problematic practices into law, under the guise of "stopping terruhrists".
Remember: if a politician actually fixes a problem, they lose it as a
campaign 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
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
