[AusNOG] PJCIS report on data retention bill has been posted

[Chris Chaundy]

BTW, people happy about the civil law restriction shouldn't be so happy.  It seems that some of the FTAs make copyright breaches criminal offenses!

Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 Feb 2015, at 18:16, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 27 Feb 2015, at 5:44 pm, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Terms of Reference
>> The section 'Terms of Reference' makes no mention of scope. So perhaps the PJCIS is of the view they can make whatsoever recommendations they see fit. But it is a mistake to consider the PJCIS has carte blanche, where their May 2013 Terms of Reference limit enquiry to the following:
> 
> PJCIS has the opposite of carte blanche. The government of the day can (and likely will) ignore everything they say. It does not matter what the recommendations say, or even if any specific recommendation counts as a “major concession,” if it’s never enacted into law.
> 
> The Government is resuming debate on this Bill on Tuesday. Do you think they’re going to spend the weekend assembling a package of amendments to give effect to PJCIS’s recommendations, when they already have what they want?
> 
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog