On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> 1 - I take a dim view of the implied bad faith. You need to have a
> think about the implications of what you're saying before posting in a
> public space.
Perhaps you are not familiar with Mark's comments on similar issues in the
past?
> 2 - Per the ordinary conventions of debate, contradiction is not an
> argument. If you believe a statement to be in error, there is an onus
> to offer evidence. I on the other hand, have posted extensively on this
> thread, and quoted the relevant legislation.
You have not, however, replied to me when I made the same point about
Signal and Telegram that Mark did. I'll cop to not having read the
exposure draft of the bill (it's not legislation yet thankfully) but I've
had other things to do with my time. Also the debate is not just on the
text of the bill, but also the stated reasons for governments wanting such
power vs the practicalities and actual uses it would see.
--
# TRS-80 trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \
# UCC Wheel Member http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #| what squirrels do best |
[ "There's nobody getting rich writing ]| -- Collect and hide your |
[ software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\ nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
