[AusNOG] CA Data Retention costs letter to Ministers

[Paul Brooks]

I'll top-post only to point out that I've interspersed comments below...
On 16/03/2015 12:18 PM, Eric Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
>  
>
> One of the criticisms levelled at the Comms Alliance is that they (or perhaps the
> Gov’t spin) seems to claim it is representative of the industry as a whole. 
>

Yes. However thats not an unreasonable view, given the Government considers they are
representative of the industry as a whole, largely on account of there being no other
peak industry body left.
Apart from Comms Alliance, which other industry representative body do you look to to
represent your interests?

>  
>
> Colour my cynical but, I can’t help but feel that using this list and giving CEO’s
> roughly ½ a day to engage,  affords the Coms Alliance the ability to state that for
> the record they have remedied this and have now consulted the industry at large.
>

I understand some may see it that way. However, I reached out to John when I heard
about this letter, and asked him if it could be circulated wider. John didn't approach
me to distribute it, I asked - and he agreed - over the weekend. He didn't need to.
I understand the timing is short. If its any consolation, this letter started within
CA only midway through last week when somebody heard they might try to introduce the
bill for debate tomorrow or Wednesday - so it has to be sent today in case they are
debating it tomorrow. Thats the reason for the unreasonably short deadline.
I could have sat on my hands, and/or John could have formed a view that it was too
late to bring in more people, and we wouldn't be having this discussion - but we
didn't.  I think this is the better outcome, understand if others don't.

>  
>
> I will leave it up to the CEO’s et al on this list to determine whether this
> opportunity really feels like a fair dinkum effort to engage them.
>
>  
>
> Personally, I find this entire process to be a red herring because it is not the
> technicalities of collection that I find problematic, but rather the opaque and
> broken process that governs access to this data which, has never even on the table
> for discussion.
>
I'm sure the PJCIS would have liked to hear how processes for access to the data can
be improved, as would your local MP. In my view it was on the table for discussion,
courtesy of the reduction in the number of agencies and the purpose they can use that
is permitted to request data in the first place, which is part of the amendments.

>  
>
> So we busy ourselves making bullets, and they might let us know who they are going
> to sell them to sometime next year…..perhaps.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> E
>

Paul.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150316/a175f3f0/attachment.html>