[clug] The biggest mass surveillance scheme in Australian history
Bryan Kilgallin
bryan at netspeed.com.au
Fri Feb 27 08:22:44 MST 2015
Hello again Scott:
> Brandis has two motivations - (neither of which is law enforcement)
I read that the UK's astonishing plethora of surveillance cameras was
justified by terrorism. But what it was actually used for, was
prosecuting dog-owners for fouling footpaths!
> you connected to a forbidden site - which your ISP already knows for billing purposes unless you use a VPN or Tor,
Surely this will have a chilling effect!
> BGPs compromised, likewise submarine cables*2
...
> *2. See the innocuously titled "Dugong Protection" legislation passed late last year.
You need to spell out the connection between protecting dugongs, and
compromising submarine cables!
> *1 part of some of those "routine traffic stop" incidents?? (some 'are' the result of commercial spyware).
Please explain.
> If you have a business account and dispute your bill they will provide you will a detailed list of connections and traffic - it's a little more difficult to get it for consumer accounts.
I am a member of a political party. When does this get
Hitlerian/Stalinist? I read that the Yanks bomb people based on metadata!
> Which is my main complaint about Prism (and the other dozen of so bulk data collection programs that feed Total Awareness and other programs) - that it's already private companies collecting and processing that data (e.g. Dell, Cisco).
Can someone point me to a privacy handbook?
> Disclaimer - if I knew (I don't) the exact meaning of "serious crimes*1" that constitutes grounds for requesting the metadata, or the exact legislation - I'd be committing an offense revealing it.
Political show trial?
> Curiously despite the details being known only to Brandis and a select few - *both* major parties have agreed to it.
The Laborals are authoritarian! See where they stood on the Political
Compass matrix at the last federal election.
http://politicalcompass.org/aus2013
> *1 I've read Brandis's statements - "including" is not a clear definition of "serious crimes", it doesn't preclude whistle blowing, investigative journalism, or legal privilege.
Exactly: when official criminality becomes known:
* the criminal official gets let off; and
* the whistle-blower is punished!
> Like the TPP agreement I can think of *no good reason* why the details should be secret, and not made public *before* the legislation is passed.
Public interest embarrasses authorities!
--
www.netspeed.com.au/bryan/
More information about the linux
mailing list