I think you hit the nail on the head Mark.
Regards
Paul
On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't wait to see the full extent of responses. What I've seen so far speaks
of not just the quality and detail of submissions, but the broad base of
responses, ensuring representation of a diversity of interests, and raising a
broad range of concerns and recommendations.
It's a strong vindication for the processes of representative democracy that so
many have taken the time to make a contribution.
It isn’t “representative democracy” when the only reason the Govt is pursuing
this is because the Americans said they wanted it in a 5-eyes meeting.
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/five-eyes-nations-to-force-encryption-backdoors-511865
I think we can all expect the “broad range of concerns and recommendations” to
be ignored by the Government because they’re a client State of the Americans
and will bloody-well do what they’re told, no matter what Australian voters say
they want.
They might make some amendments around the edges, but only in places where
doing so doesn’t erect any significant barrier in the way of them doing what
they’ve already decided they’re going to do.
Then, in three years, they’ll come back and say they need to “modernize
Australia’s national security laws” (again) and undo the amendments. Which is
actually precisely what they’re doing now in relation to the limits they placed
on themselves three years ago regarding data retention, if you’ll recall.
It is a corruption of the democratic process, not an example of it functioning
properly. There is no democratic brake on the advancement of the intelligence
community’s powers, they continue to do whatever the hell they want, with no
recourse.
Given the circumstances, it’s a bit naïve to suggest otherwise, don’t you think?
- mark
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
