[AusNOG] Government intends to pass TSSR this parliament

[paul+ausnog at oxygennetworks.com.au]

Mark, I must say that some of the stuff you say sometimes really seems to criticise the thoughts and actions of other people in my opinion, this isn’t a personal attack on you, just an observation, however this information and response is by far the best worded explanation and positive information I have seen from anybody on this subject and I feel it necessary to say thanks for some decent constructive comments on it.
 
I think it is 100% on point and really highlights the lack of leadership and direction that the industry has on the whole, something that can only be addressed by people actually taking an interest and putting their money where their mouth is as such.
 
Clearly you are more educated than many on this list in many areas, this is evident by many of your comments, I don’t know you and you don’t know me but healthy debate and information on the type of subjects that we come across is always good in my opinion.
 
Thanks
 
Regards
Paul
 
 
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 thatit is the way things are already going in certain places -- ones thatAlastair McGibbon has said have a good model that Australia should lookinto.
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" theencryption problem, and keep using it as a lever to force all sorts of otherproblematic practices into law, under the guise of "stopping terruhrists". Remember: if a politician actually fixes a problem, they lose it as acampaign 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/20170615/0421d52a/attachment.html>