[AusNOG] Dutton decryption bill

[Nick Stallman]

Talking about a 'public medium' in this context is probably a bit 
misleading.

The term 'national medium' is probably better - radio and TV are a 
national medium as the spectrum is regulated nationally.

The internet is certainly not a national medium - it's an international 
network run by private companies and the vast majority of the internet 
doesn't have to do anything the Australian government might want them to 
do, no matter what laws are passed.

Unless the government wants to actively block the whole internet apart 
from whitelisted compliant destinations, they do have to realise that 
there is absolutely nothing they can do about what's on the internet 
from other parts of the world.

You could also say that parts of the internet are licensed - E.g. 
posting on Facebook requires accepting terms and conditions which if 
broken can result in your access being terminated. But the internet in 
general is unlicensed.


On 01/09/18 18:00, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 20 Aug 2018, at 10:55 AM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Because the internet is a public medium, unlike radio and television, 
>> you don't require a license to publish content. 
>
> That makes zero sense.
>
> Radio and television are public media, using public spectrum, and 
> that’s the basis of their licensing scheme.
>
> The Internet is not, and that’s the basis of the lack of its licensing 
> scheme.
>
> In what sense do you mistakenly believe the internet is “public”? In 
> what mistaken sense do you think that public things don’t get licensed?
>
>> The audience doesn't require a license (unless you're the UK where 
>> you need a TV license). 
>
> You don’t need a TV license in the UK to use the Internet. Not sure 
> what you’re trying to say here.
>
>> So the regulatory domain is different. I expect coming down the 
>> track, crypto will become a licensed technology, and you won't be 
>> able to get a certificate without government approval. 
>
> That also makes zero sense.
>
> You can make your own certificates. You can run your own CA. You can 
> run crypto without certificates.
>
> Your prediction also makes very little sense because it would 
> represent a sharp inflection point in the arc of history, which is to 
> have barriers to crypto steadily removed. As recently as the 1990s 
> crypto was regulated as a munition, with licensing and export 
> controls; that’s mostly now been dismantled, and this bill can perhaps 
> be seen as a post-braindeath limb twitch spasm from the agencies who 
> used to have dominion over this subject matter area, and who now do not.
>
> So I’m not sure where that “expectation” you’re describing has come from.
>
>> We should also remember that unlike radio and television, the 
>> internet doesn't need only a regulatory regime, but also needs to be 
>> policed.
>
> Are you serious, Paul? Radio and television are policed within an inch 
> of their lives, both licensed and unlicensed.
>
> The internet, by contrast, is so poorly policed that the actual police 
> STILL haven’t worked out how to work with it, despite its ubiquitous 
> availability for more than 30 years.
>
>
>> This bill is pretty weak beer compared to what data retention was as 
>> far as making inroads on the right to privacy, which ended up being 
>> very much watered down to what it might have been but for strong 
>> public opposition. Maintain the rage for when Barnaby Joyce proposes 
>> judicial wiretaps for radio and television.
>
> This bill proposes wide-scale removal of privacy protections so the 
> Government can access /content./
> /
> /
> I’m at a complete loss to understand how you can say that that’s small 
> in scale compared to data retention.
>
> Are you actually serious?
>
> I think you have a conceptual model of the internet that’s very 
> divergent from the reality most of us live in. I’d love to know why 
> you believe these things. Maybe write a book or something?
>
>
>   - mark
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-- 
Nick Stallman
Technical Director
Email 	nick at agentpoint.com <mailto:nick at agentpoint.com>
Phone 	02 8039 6820 <tel:0280396820>
Website 	www.agentpoint.com.au <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>

	
Agentpoint <https://www.agentpoint.com.au/>
Netpoint <https://netpoint.group/>

Level 3, 100 Harris Street, Pyrmont NSW 2009 	Facebook 
<https://www.facebook.com/agentpoint/> Twitter 
<https://twitter.com/agentpoint> Instagram 
<https://www.instagram.com/Agentpoint/> Linkedin 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/agentpoint-pty-ltd>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20180902/b368e41a/attachment.html>