[AusNOG] Ans So It Begins

[Terry Manderson]

On 06/10/2010, at 8:35 AM, Phil Pierotti wrote:

> "The federal government has confirmed that circumventing the proposed internet filter could constitute a
> criminal offence, and said it has not received any evidence suggesting the policy will lead to an increase in
> encrypted internet traffic."
> 

So here is the fun part - lets just assume that in this bizarre country of ours, where 'lack of evidence' means they actually looked for evidence in the first place, this does come to fruition. Who exactly is going to enforce that? Where is the man power going to come from? I was speaking to a colleague who works in one of the Australian state's policing bodies which deals with on-line crime and he was pretty blunt about the lack of resources they have in all facets of training (they are cops trying to be subject matter experts, because they can't afford to hire subject matter experts), equipment (covert ops hardware is old reclaimed equipment from raids), bodies (good investigators both in policing and forensics are being snapped up by top tier firms for auditing/investigative teams), and financial resources (see all of the above, ie when a $500 training course gets knocked back). Basically, adding to the criminal code without thinking of the cost ramifications is just plain thoughtless.

So when I see statements like this, all I think is - fine, waste $44 million on a useless filter, put even more stress on a policing body that is barely managing to keep its head above water as it is, and I'll see you at the next election. If Conroy actually came out and said something to the effect of earmarking that $44 million to directly support the state on-line crime policing bodies then I might actually feel like justice would be done (excuse the pun). ... sigh and then reality hits.

Cheers
Terry