<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I agree with Mark on this view.<br>
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.<br>
Greg..<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/06/2017 3:47 PM, Mark Newton
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e2282745-d7f8-91e4-e030-6449d41453c1@atdot.dotat.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/15/2017 03:19 PM, Matt Palmer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170615051941.GP9026@hezmatt.org"><br>
<pre wrap="">Why do you think a solution has to work in order for it to become law?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Believe me, I've been around the block enough times to know that
it doesn't.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170615051941.GP9026@hezmatt.org">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20170615051941.GP9026@hezmatt.org">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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."<br>
<br>
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 <i>still</i> 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.<br>
<br>
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 <i>literally every other time</i> you've said you'd be
able to keep us safe, shouldn't we stop believing you this time?"<br>
<br>
Hypothesis: They actually suck at their jobs, and are
self-evidently too incompetent to be trusted to set national
policy.<br>
<br>
Where's the limit? How badly does the frog get boiled before it
gathers the wherewithal to jump out of the pot?<br>
<br>
- mark<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>