On 16/08/2018 11:09 AM, Paul Julian wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > Where do you even start ? > > I would love to be able to comment on these things properly but how do you > structure > a response that isn’t just a whinge and saying that it’s not fair and blah > blah, it > would need to offer alternatives or suggestions on how else this could be > accomplished or why it shouldn’t be in the first place. > > > > I would be interested in working with others as I think this is totally NOT > ok, but > I just don’t know where to even start, anybody ? >
5 paragraphs, 2 pages: * Thanks for the chance to comment * Who you are (I'm (XXX) and I run an ISP/phone store/fruitshop/XXX which will be directly affected by this proposal..) * I'm concerned that.... * This will affect me/my business/my customers because..... * Thanks again, I'd be happy to meet and go into more detail (unless you're not) It doesn't have to be written by a lawyer - don't be concerned with it appearing 'amateur', they are the ones that often carry more weight as they are clearly written by someone who personally cares, not someone paid to do so. Anything a level above an email saying nothing more than 'this sucks, you're stupid' is good. If it helps in preparing someone to crack open a bottle of something and put some words down over the weekend, I offer this that I sent through to our members mailing list today, for what its worth: > Something to keep in mind.... > > In our many discussions with Law Enforcement over the years, with things like > this, > metadata retention, website blocking, etc, one of the consistent messages is > that > they really don't expect or aim for 100% coverage. For the agencies, its > enough for > them to just capture the stupid or careless criminals, and recognise that > smarter > ones will always find a way around the issue. > > A common response to a new law or regulation from organisations like ours is > to > think of a number of ways the new law could be worked around, and then put a > position that the law is flawed because it won't achieve 100% coverage of > fixing the > perceived problem. Thats a very black/white 'engineering' response. They > don't care > - if the measure might catch 50% of the target, possibly the most ignorant or > stupid > 50%, thats still a win in law enforcement eyes, thats 50%, or maybe only 30% > they > wouldn't have caught another way, so the new laws are justified in their eyes > just > to get those extras. > > We've learned over the years that just pointing out how easy the new law > might be > for a smart criminal to get around is not sufficient. The arguments that > carry more > weight, is how much of a burden/risk/cost the new law will create on the good > law-abiding folk, including businesses, who *aren't* criminals and are using > the > services legitimately. > > Thats one of the reasons why website blocking for copyright infringement > succeeded. > Yes, its very easy to whip up 15 ways to work around it and why it wouldn't > be 100% > effective. But its much harder to find reasons to retain the ability for > ordinary > law-abiding people to use DownloadFreeHollywoodMovies.com and argue it > shouldn't be > blocked. So it gets blocked at very little cost or inconvenience for good > people, > and others work around it if they want to. > > By all means, dream up ways these new draft laws can be worked around by > criminals > intent to do so, like the discussion below. > But please please also put some energy into thinking of scenarios where > non-criminals will incur cost, reduced utility, friction, unreasonable > privacy-crippling surveillance, or be prevented from doing something > legitimate > because of these new laws. > > Its the 'collateral damage to good people' arguments that carry much more > weight. Paul (with my hat as Chair of Internet Australia <www.internet.org.au> this year) > > > Regards > > Paul > > > > *From:*AusNOG <ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net> *On Behalf Of *Paul Wilkins > *Sent:* Thursday, 16 August 2018 11:00 AM > *To:* AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net > *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill > > > > *They're taking feedback/submissions/comments for 4 weeks only - is anyone > planning > to submit some comment?* > > > > It'd be sad if the government only saw response from a few corporates > representing > their vested interests. Representative democracy only works on a put up or > shut up > basis. Anyone with an interest in the evolution of our industry should > consider > making a submission, or at least expressing by proxy through a joint > submission. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Paul Wilkins > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
