[AusNOG] Data retention

[Paul Wilkins]

George Brandis singing the praises of ... George Brandis in the most
glowing terms. He seems to think he's got well drafted legislation after
consulting widely, and getting all of the industry on board.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/13/almost-nine-out-of-10-telcos-not-ready-for-start-of-mandatory-data-retention

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins

On 13 October 2015 at 16:25, Ben McGinnes <ben at adversary.org> wrote:

> On 13/10/2015 2:09 pm, Mister Pink wrote:
> > Wow,
> >
> > I think you are missing my point here Geordie, privacy is a bloody
> > good thing, I'm a privacy nut, and all the reasons you have listed
> > here are really good cases for it, but tell me how advising people
> > to use a VPN really helps the people you have listed, rather than
> > just giving them a false sense of security/privacy?
>
> :)
>
> I'm so glad we don't have to have that old debate ...
>
> > My use of the term 'belies' may be an error on my part, my bad - I
> > am not seeking to discredit them, and started the sentence with 'I'm
> > not judging them' to avoid that perception - what I was trying to
> > convey is that if you are relying on a vpn for your 'privacy', then
> > there is a good chance that the problem you are trying to solve is
> > avoiding copyright infringement notices, because I think that's what
> > they are best at doing, along with defeating Geoblocking.  Bundling
> > this problem in with people with more legitimate privacy concerns
> > weakens their argument.
>
> Also the use of making sure all traffic is dealt with when connecting
> over a pubic wireless point.
>
> Even if we restricted the debate to the geo-blocking thing and
> accessing content, there are reasonable arguments in favour of that
> too.  Mainly centring around the fact that up until this year (when
> Netflix finally arrived), the American business model for providing
> content to us or not appeared to be something which, if they tried it
> at home, would have resulted in criminal prosecution for racketeering.
> Let's face it, the business model was, "don't give the Aussies
> anything and then, when they steal it, sue them into oblivion."  They
> did it because they had the power and believed they could get away
> with it.  I guess that's why they also stole the music on the "you
> wouldn't steal a car" ad we all saw at the cinemas years ago (and
> wasn't *that* a juicy irony).
>
> > I'm seeking to disarm the people who would make the argument I think
> > you mistakenly thought I was making - ie the "If you have done
> > nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd - This could
> > not be further from the truth.
>
> The obvious counter to that argument should be the question: from who?
> Those making the "if you have nothing to hide" argument need to prove
> that everyone who might encounter your information won't screw you
> over when they get it.  We all know that human nature will win the
> rest of that argument for us, perpetually.
>
> > "Australian bureaucrats are creepy and want to know everything about
> > Australian Internet users"
> >
> > Hyperbole and grandiosity, but If this is really was your belief,
> > then you should know they already have access to all of your info
> > and your VPN is of limited use (Can you really trust your vpn
> > provider if you are that paranoid?)  (Hint: No - See Edward
> > Snowden).
>
> If anyone is genuinely worried about spooks then they'll need a lot
> more than one thing to protect themselves.  Between posting GPG signed
> messages to the SELinux mailing list and calling DSD (as it was called
> then) out for dodgy crypto recommendations (as well as co-founding a
> thing called CryptoParty) and I still haven't had a knock at the door
> at 4am, I'd say it's pretty hard to actually end up on their bad side
> for just campaigning for privacy.  ;)
>
> No, when it comes to overzealous (ab)use of power I reckon most people
> would have more to worry about from their local police and, in some
> cases, some other statutory authority which would vary according to
> individual circumstance.  Not counting ASIO, even though they're a
> statutory authority too.
>
> Anyone about to leap to the defence of the police, I'd like to remind
> my fellow Victorians of Paul Dale and what happened with Terence and
> Christine Hodson.  Sure, it's not all police, not by a long shot, but
> there's enough of concern still floating sround that simply handing
> over the keys to the kingdom should never be an option.
>
> > Also, to address the other comment, if you Google my fake email
> > address you will find me pretty quickly, I use a personal email on
> > list because I have worked for 5 different companies in the 10 years
> > or so I have been on this list, and I got sick of changing it and
> > polluting the list with automated corp email disclaimers - apologies
> > for the confusion this caused.
>
> I subscribed way back in the mists of time from this address for much
> the same reasons.  Back during the "good old days" of Aussie-ISP.  As
> with a lot of the usual suspects on this list.
>
> > Eric 'real person' Pinkerton
> > misterpink at gmail.com
>
> Ah damn ... now I can't make all those Reservoir Dogs references I was
> looking forward to.  Oh well.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151013/22f75d66/attachment.html>