• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rubixcuba

Banned
Fredescu said:
Could be, but I wonder how he gets into cabinet meetings? Maybe a blue tie is enough for them not to notice.


"My name is Mr Turnbull. I believe you have a letter for me."

"Ok, what's your first name Mr Turnbull?"

"I don't know"
Click to expand...
I can't believe how hard I laughed at that, haha.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Last I checked a double dissolution is a bit of an empty threat given it'd deliver a labor government. Possibly even one with a friendly Senate. I can't see either the cabinet or backbench being that stupid.

And that's not even taking into account the light that using this as a DD trigger would cast the whole thing in. They'd be better digging up a DD trigger that at least had strong conservative support.
 
D

Dryk

Member
DrSlek said:
Apparently Abbott has been discussing the idea of a double dissolution with his Cabinet.
Click to expand...
The only discussion that needs to be had is as follows:

"What effect will a double dissolution over University reform have?"
"We will lose"
"Okay then we won't do that"

I hardly see why you need the cabinet for that
 
S

Shaneus

Member
Fredescu said:
Could be, but I wonder how he gets into cabinet meetings? Maybe a blue tie is enough for them not to notice.


"My name is Mr Turnbull. I believe you have a letter for me."

"Ok, what's your first name Mr Turnbull?"

"I don't know"
Click to expand...
Bahaha. I was actually picturing something a little conniving, a la Leno during the late show wars. Hide in a closet and listen in.
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Last I checked a double dissolution is a bit of an empty threat given it'd deliver a labor government. Possibly even one with a friendly Senate. I can't see either the cabinet or backbench being that stupid.

And that's not even taking into account the light that using this as a DD trigger would cast the whole thing in. They'd be better digging up a DD trigger that at least had strong conservative support.
Click to expand...

I didn't think they had a DD trigger with the university deregulation stuff, Pyne keeps changing it enough between readings. They do have one for trying to remove the Climate Change Authority from last year, though I can't imagine them fighting an election on that.

If they do I imagine they will try to fight it on the Senate being "feral" and it needs to go. How that would go and with lower thresholds for election in a full senate election and the general dislike for Abbott in the electorate, well it could be a bit of a own goal. I imagine it's all talk, like Abbott himself.
 
F

Fredescu

Member
The reason I said it was possibly a destablising leak is that it's so obvious that a DD would be a very bad move. I doubt the "discussions" ever amounted to anything serious. It's more "Look! Abbott is so clueless! He wants a DD even though the polls are shithouse! And remember that time he wanted to go to war with Iraq alone! Better make me PM instead" from his own party.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
In fairness I don't either. The stuff that I'd count as email metadata is different from what's being collected. Unless they are just using a technical sounding term to push through a power grab. But intelligence and law enforcement agencies have never done that.
 
S

senahorse

Member
Elaugaufein said:
In fairness I don't either. The stuff that I'd count as email metadata is different from what's being collected. Unless they are just using a technical sounding term to push through a power grab. But intelligence and law enforcement agencies have never done that.
Click to expand...

But you seem to understand that it has something to do with the Internet so you have a leg up on Tony, you know, the same Internet that was introduced to educational facilities towards the end of the 80's. Somehow when Tony was a Journalist I don't think he was logging into bulletin boards and sending emails.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
0DgXTYL.png


Fuck.

Only just realised, could the brief talk of a double-dissolution have been an attempt at deflecting attention away from this vote? All the while, hoping to do it before question time?

I hate this fucking country sometimes. Now we wait for ISP fees to skyrocket.
 
Q

Quasar

Member
Shaneus said:
Only just realised, could the brief talk of a double-dissolution have been an attempt at deflecting attention away from this vote? All the while, hoping to do it before question time?

I hate this fucking country sometimes. Now we wait for ISP fees to skyrocket.
Click to expand...

Not really. Its not like there was a groundswell of opposition given the various polls.

The cost will be interesting. Government should pay for the whole thing. Though thats obviously not going to happen. And some isps collect much of this data anyway, so I guess for the main issues are the cost of keeping the data longer and encrypting it. i wonder how isps store it now.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
So, how many paedophiles will become journalists now so as to exploit the rule?

Honestly, I don't know how they can think this will stop anything. People will just move their communications elsewhere. If the metadata is only storing sites, what's to stop paedophiles just collaborating on a more technically legal format than some dodgy phpBB forum somewhere? The IP address of Facebook or Google Docs isn't going to inform police that there's a crime syndicate a-happening.

x3n05 said:
Maybe it's time for Labor and the Coalition to join ranks.
Click to expand...
Bit late for that.
 
C

Candescence

Member
DrSlek said:
No need. They can just use Gmail and Facebook.
Click to expand...

Yep. ISPs can't even collect metadata from foreign websites/companies. Which basically comprises the vast majority of web traffic anyway.

That, and the likes of Google, Yahoo and Apple are now actively using encryption.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Shorten is a master at convincing the public to follow him on economic matters? HAHAHAHA

Also Dreyfus comes from a Jewish family that fled to Australia from the Nazis...
Dreyfus was born in Perth, the son of George Dreyfus, a noted composer who came to Australia as a refugee from Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Bolt already has a blog up saying that Dreyfus is the real villain because he said Goebbelian in reference to the carbon tax propaganda and never apologised. Abbott apologised so nothing to see here.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Also I object to Bolt and Pyne's insistence that referring to someone as Goebbels and referring to their policies as Goebbelian are the same thing. Goebbelsian propaganda is a tactic used to great effect by the Nazis, it carries some baggage from that but it is not calling someone a Nazi.
 
M

markot

Banned
Dryk said:
Also I object to Bolt and Pyne's insistence that referring to someone as Goebbels and referring to their policies as Goebbelian are the same thing. Goebbelsian propaganda is a tactic used to great effect by the Nazis, it carries some baggage from that but it is not calling someone a Nazi.
Click to expand...

Thats so Himmler.
 
H

hidys

Member
I just had a thought on the double dissolution thing.

What if Abbott threatens one to pass the uni-fees deregulation thing?

I mean he doesn't have to actually do it and it may scare some cross benchers who would likely lose their jobs in such an election.
 
M

markot

Banned
hidys said:
I just had a thought on the double dissolution thing.

What if Abbott threatens one to pass the uni-fees deregulation thing?

I mean he doesn't have to actually do it and it may scare some cross benchers who would likely lose their jobs in such an election.
Click to expand...

And they would lose power completely.

Thats whats called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
But why would the crossbench believe them? They know that a DD wouldn't help they government. It's not an effective threat because its not plausible.

Edit - Ninjaed.
 
S

Shaneus

Member
Found this linked in a comment on a video on Labor's FB page:

Tim Watts MP

Late last night I spoke in Parliament on the government's Data Retention Bill.

I told the House that

As someone who has previously in the Australian ICT sector, I have some experience with the issues in contention in this bill. I have also received a significant amount of correspondence on this bill from constituents and members of the Australian technology sector.

Given this, I should say from the outset that there are legitimate and serious issues that have been raised by both proponents and opponents of this bill. That being said, the overstatements and generalisations from some advocates on both sides of this issue have not helped the consideration of the issues in contention in this bill. If you believed everything that you read in the papers about data retention over the past few months you would be
very confused indeed, as these overstatements on both sides have raised a series of contradictory propositions in the public sphere.

On one hand, the Prime Minister has said that the bill will change very little and that: "… we want telecommunications companies to keep their data. We don't want to collect new data, but to ensure the limited data already collected can be accessed by authorities."

On the other hand we have had Senator Ludlam from the Greens in the other place describe the bill as a 'fascist, Orwellian mass surveillance scheme'.

So what is really going on here?

At present, Australian telecommunications companies collect a range of data about their customers' communications; some of it collected deliberately for business purposes, like billing or network monitoring and maintenance, and some of it collected incidentally because of the way their systems are set up. Different telcos collect different types of data and amounts of data and retain it for different periods of time. A wide range of law enforcement agencies have made extensive use of this data for many years. In fact, there were 312,929 authorisations allowing law enforcement agencies to access this metadata in 2012-13 alone.

The majority of the requests for access to telecommunications data are made by state and federal police for general law enforcement purposes. But there are a weird and non-so-wonderful range of other entities who currently undertake enforcement actions who have also been accessing and using this data, including local councils, the RSPCA, Centrelink and the Victorian Taxi Directorate to name but a few examples.

In this context, the bill before the House today is largely the result of concerns from law enforcement and security agencies that the current ad hoc arrangements for the collection and retention of this data by Australian telcos about the communications of their customers may mean that less data is collected by these telcos in the future. The fear is that technology changes or just changing business practices would reduce the effectiveness of an investigatory tool that is now fundamental to law enforcement and national security. Law enforcement and national security agencies have essentially sought a mandatory standard for what data is collected by telcos and how long it is to be retained for.

So it is not correct to say that these proposals would not result in more information being collected; plainly, standardisation means that telcos who are collecting less than this standard or retaining it for a shorter period of time will need to start collecting more or retaining it for longer. The bill provides for this. But neither is this an utterly new and unprecedented mass surveillance scheme.

The proposition before us is not whether metadata should be collected by telcos or not. Rather, the proposition is whether we want to see metadata used in an ad hoc and largely unregulated environment, as it currently is, or within a standardised environment with safeguards and oversights.

As I indicated earlier, this proposition does raise important and serious issues. The Labor party is committed to ensuring our law enforcement and national security agencies are given the tools they need to keep us safe. At the same time, Labor will never sacrifice the rights and freedoms that define us and our democratic society. What is needed is a sober and balanced consideration of these two legitimate public policy aims. Despite the claims of some proponents of these measures, it should also be recognised that the majority of metadata is currently
accessed for criminal investigations and law enforcement, not national security.

I have heard some argue in this context that this somehow undermines the utility of these provisions and that the fact that metadata has not been used to investigate or could not have been used to prevent all recent terrorist incidents means that there is no point to the bill. Similarly, I have heard some argue that the existence of a range of technologies that allow communications to occur without metadata being collected—technologies ranging from Skype to VPNs to Tor and the onion-router—would result in the bill only catching the dumb and, as a result, is futile. To this we must say that the fact that a proposal does not do everything does not mean that it does not do some things of value.

Clearly, the number of requests for metadata from law enforcement and security agencies is a testament to the metadata's current utility for these purposes. Similarly, the fact that this bill would only provide for the collection of data about the communications of the dumb is no reason to think the proposals are not valuable. The vast majority of criminals are dumb. This is no coincidence. Metadata has been used by our law enforcement bodies to catch dumb murderers and serial rapists in a range of recent high-profile cases. The fact that they are dumb does not mean they are not dangerous and there is not value in facilitating their identification. I'm personally convinced of the value of these measures for law enforcement and national security.

However, this is not the end of the argument.

As I said earlier, we are not interested in simply giving law enforcement and security agencies more power without ensuring that Australians' liberties are also protected. I am disappointed to say that this balance was not right in the original bill introduced into this place by the Minister for Communications. This is especially disappointing given the primacy that the consideration of these liberties was given in the minister's 2012 Alfred Deakin lecture—a speech that does not seem to have been retained on the minister's website. In this speech the Minister railed against the proposals for data retention canvased by my predecessor in this place as the member for Gellibrand with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The Minister for Communications at that time expressed his quite 'grave misgivings' about data retention and indicated that these measures were 'heading in precisely the wrong direction' and was 'a profound weakening of online liberty in Australia'.

If these are the Minister's views, you might have thought that he would think it important to ensure metadata retention provisions were clearly and narrowly described and that appropriate safeguards were in place. Sadly, these provisions were absent from the bill that the minister introduced to this parliament last year and sought to have rammed through the parliament in mere days. It has been for Labor, through the PJCIS, to strengthen the regulatory framework around data retention, building in transparency safeguards and oversight.

While Labor has offered bipartisan support for the government's efforts to keep Australians safe, no-one should be under any illusions about the diligence and robustness that Labor members have employed through the PJCIS to ensure that a proper balance was struck in this bill. The bill has been carefully scrutinised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in the advisory report released two weeks ago. The 38 recommendations made by the PJCIS are a welcome and necessary addition to this bill.

In the more than a decade that I have closely followed these committee processes in one role or another, I cannot think of a bill that has been improved more by a committee process than the one before us today.

The final product is a bill that, while certainly not perfect and certainly not developed in a way that Labor would have chosen had it been in government, addresses both the security priorities of Australia's law enforcement and intelligence agencies while also substantively increasing the safeguards and oversight of the use of metadata currently in place. We should be very clear: this bill provides better protections of liberties of Australians in the collection and accessing of metadata than the status quo.

Let's look at how the committee's recommendations have improved this bill. In its original form, the bill left the definition of metadata to regulation and at risk of scope creep in future. Labor argued that this definition needed to be fixed in primary legislation to provide the public with certainty about what would be collected and to prevent its expansion without returning to parliament. The data to be retained will identify who a communication was made by and to and when and where it took place. The scheme will not require the content of that communication to be retained. This means that information about a phone call will be recorded but not what was said. Similarly, email interaction between people will be recorded but not the content of that email. People's browsing history will also not be recorded; only the IP addresses allocated by service providers.

In a similar way, Labor demanded that only agencies specifically listed in the bill should be able to access this data. Our view was that getting the balance right required that access to this metadata be limited to agencies dealing with national security and serious law enforcement. As such, the bill now limits access to ASIO, the Australian Federal Police, state police forces, the Australian Crime Commission, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and state-based anti-corruption commissions—a marked improvement on the more than 80 agencies who currently have access to this kind of metadata.

Labor also insisted on safeguards to limit the use of metadata retained under this bill to serious security or law enforcement investigations. As a result, the bill now prevents retained data being used in ordinary civil litigation. So the conspiracy theory that this was all about copyright enforcement hits the fence.

Labor also recognised that requiring the centralised retention of metadata significantly increases the security threat to this data relative to the status quo where this data is often retained across a range of locations. I must say that, in this respect, I found the blase attitudes of some members of the PJCIS to this increased security risk, as expressed in their questioning during committee's hearings, somewhat baffling. Given this, the committee has recommended that service providers be required to encrypt retained metadata. This would mean that, even if a telco experienced a data breach, it would be harder for those accessing it to read the recorded data.

These safeguards on the storage of this metadata are further supplemented by the committee's recommendation to implement mandatory data breach notifications, forcing providers to inform customers if their data has been accessed without authorisation. This is a welcome improvement in Australia's overall data security arrangements and, as pointed out by the member for Melbourne Ports, will have general benefits for all Australians.

The government's original bill provided for the oversight of this regime by the Commonwealth Ombudsman— in itself a gain over the status quo—but the government failed to recognise how under resourced and over stretched the Ombudsman currently is. In this context, Labor insisted on increased funding for the Ombudsman to ensure this oversight occurs in substance and not just form.

Further, Labor pushed for additional oversight mechanisms and, as a result, as recommended in the past by Senator Faulkner, the PJCIS will not have oversight of operational matters relating to access to metadata—a new and important oversight gain.

Finally, the PJCIS insisted on scheduled reviews of metadata retention policy, including its implementation and ongoing use. To enable these reviews, agencies will be required to keep records on their use of people's metadata to allow the PJCIS to assess the effectiveness and scope of the use of metadata.

The cost to internet service providers has also been carefully considered by the committee. Originally the government planned to force providers to finance their own data retention schemes entirely. The recommendation that the government make a substantial contribution to ensure service providers are able to implement their data retention requirements is welcome news. This will include extra support for small providers and account for
differentiated impact across the industry.

The recommendations in the advisory report by the PJCIS have vastly improved this bill, and I wish to publicly acknowledge the members that I have worked with in this process—the member for Isaacs, the member for Blaxland, the member for Holt and Senator Conroy in the other place—for their efforts.

However, there are still other areas of contestation in this bill. Despite the PJCIS consideration of issues of journalistic freedom, there is a fear that there are not enough safeguards for journalists in the bill. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has chosen to listen to the Leader of the Opposition, the community and media stakeholders and include stronger safeguards around journalist and press freedom. Freedom of the press underpins our democratic system, and a strong fourth estate is essential both to keep citizens informed as well as to hold politicians and government to account. To ensure the press are able to conduct their work free of this threat of censorship and oversight, we need to implement strong barriers against the arbitrary investigation of journalists and their sources. It is not enough to trust any government of the day to respect press freedom; we need to articulate limits in law. The amendment requiring agencies to obtain a warrant to access journalists' metadata is the minimum level of protection journalists should have.

Debate on this bill has been robust in this parliament, in the PJCIS and in the broader community, but I am pleased with where the bill has finished up. The concerns of security and law enforcement agencies about the durability of one of their central investigatory tools have been addressed, while at the same time we have dramatically increased both the safeguards and oversight of the collection and accessing of metadata beyond what is currently the case. We have also seen a very good working example of the benefits that an active committee process can have in the development of legislation before the House. I support the government in accepting the recommendations of the PJCIS in full and I commend the bill to the House.
Click to expand...
An interesting read.


Omi said:
Geez. Abbott called Shorten the Goebbels of economic policy. Mark Dreyfus was then punted under 94A for protesting.
Click to expand...
Jesus. How it works is that Dreyfus would've been punted by Bishop, yes? Fucking hell. This government is horrific. But I guess we're lucky he didn't refer to any kind of holocaust again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
840
mansoor1980 replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
21K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
206K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Battlefield 2042 Briefing – What We Learned From The Open Beta
Opinion Game Dev
35
4K
REDRZA MWS replied
Top Bottom