[AusNOG] Data retention definitions

[Mark Newton]

On Aug 28, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Pinkerton, Eric (AU Sydney) <eric.pinkerton at baesystems.com> wrote:

> We are therefore faced with a private debate about 'What' is retained, when perhaps the crux of the problem and the source of unease is the Who and Why behind these requests.

Yes. Which is why I think the discussion in this forum thus far has been essentially pointless.

This is how it works, folks: Govt releases a discussion paper, and that diverts and focusses debate on what the discussion paper says, rather than why the discussion paper was released in the first place.  It’s a manipulative tactic, but it works:  It means stakeholders discuss the precise nature of data they’ll keep in their repositories instead of addressing the question of why there would be mandatory data retention repositories in the first place.

If what the paper actually says is the data, then why it was released is the metadata. Which one do you think is more important to this industry's investigations right now?

  - mark