[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.

> *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!


More information about the linux mailing list