[AusNOG] Government intends to pass TSSR this parliament

[Mark Newton]

On 06/15/2017 03:19 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
>
> Why do you think a solution has to work in order for it to become law?

Believe me, I've been around the block enough times to know that it doesn't.


> At any rate, I'm not proposing it as a *good* solution, I'm observing that
> it is the way things are already going in certain places -- ones that
> Alastair McGibbon has said have a good model that Australia should look
> into.

I've also been around the block enough times to know that if people like 
you offer up well-meaning alternatives, the Government goes ahead with 
precisely what it wanted to do already, but appends a note to the press 
releases that says they've enjoyed a constructive engagement with 
industry, and have addressed a number of their concerns.

So if you know you're not proposing a "good" solution, it's probably 
best to keep it to yourself. The focus should be on tearing down their 
bullshit, not on offering up a slightly different color of bullshit that 
smells faintly like consultative dialog.

This isn't just directed at you. Whether we're talking about internet 
censorship, copyright takedowns, data retention, or now this, these 
Australian (always Australian) technical mailing lists are always full 
of people who say, "That's stupid, what they *really* should do is..." 
followed by, "We're working positively with the Government to make the 
best of a bad situation," after the inevitable loss.

That helps them to do stupid things. Stop doing that. You don't need to 
offer an alternative to a bad idea to communicate that it's a bad idea.

> The other option is that the government continue to fail to "fix" the
> encryption problem, and keep using it as a lever to force all sorts of other
> problematic practices into law, under the guise of "stopping terruhrists".
> Remember: if a politician actually fixes a problem, they lose it as a
> campaign platform.  If they make it worse with their ham-fisted attempts,
> they're set for life.
>

Bush's War on Terr'h started on Sep 11 2001. It's now June 2017, and 
we've had sixteen years worth of politicians saying, "Just let us 
control you a little bit harder to keep you safe," followed immediately 
afterwards by, "You're not safe, we need more."

The police and intelligence services have never, in the history of the 
Commonwealth, had as much power, resources, and latitude as they have 
now; yet they /still/ claim they can't stop terrorism, even after 
justifying all the powers they've gained by saying they'd be able to use 
them to stop terrorism.

Make them put their money where their mouth is: If they say we're not 
safe now when they've passed national security legislation every 14 
months since 2011, the question to be asked is, "Uh, fellas? Do you 
actually have the faintest idea what you're doing? Last time you did 
this you said we'd be safe, and now you say we're not, so shouldn't you 
be rolling-back the powers you demanded which clearly haven't worked? 
And given that you've been dead-wrong /literally every other time/ 
you've said you'd be able to keep us safe, shouldn't we stop believing 
you this time?"

Hypothesis: They actually suck at their jobs, and are self-evidently too 
incompetent to be trusted to set national policy.

Where's the limit? How badly does the frog get boiled before it gathers 
the wherewithal to jump out of the pot?

   - mark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170615/853e4868/attachment.html>