When it comes to telecomms technology, who are you going to trust? Senior executives in some of Australia’s largest telcos? Or a high-ranking bureaucrat from the Federal Attorney-General’s Department? It’s a close call, but lines were drawn and disagreements laid out in the open yesterday as the Senate's Legal ad Constitutional …
"All they gotta do is give us a letter, and outline some of their plans — it's not burdensome."
And what if they don't like what they see in the letter?
We have a new P2P VOIP service that is outsourced to India. We can't intercept calls or tell you who is calling who except when the call is to an Aussie land line or cell phone.
So letter done, no problem right?
I'll be in charge of letter writing.
To Whom it may concern.
We've made some changes, so you may want to check you end.
There; according Mr Faceless Suit, that is all that is needed.
Guess it depends on what is meant by notification...
If, as they say, it means the Telcos just have to write a letter outlining the changes, then it's not onerous.
But I suspect there is rather more to it than that; I suspect the AG dept would then seek further clarification from the telco (there is hardly likely to be enough detail in a "not onerous notification letter" for the AG dept to understand what the change means), and then they would be likely to seek to block or amend the proposed changes causing untold headaches for the Telcos.
There wouldn't seem to be much point to the law, if all the Telco had to do was notify that they were making a change that made it impossible to do wiretapping and that expempted them from their wiretapping obligations. So it's rather more likely that the AG dept would be seeking to have some oversight of the Telcos network design.
Of course Politicians and Buearocrats are well know for saying people are wrong without providing any further clarification of where exactly is wrong. This allows the pollies / buearocrats to later claim "no we didn't lie. you're twisting what we said (cause we didn't really say anything substantative at all) everyone just misunderstood what we said, but too bad the law is passed now so you just have to suck it nah nah na nah nah!!!"
I know you're only doing this to stop us from migrating in droves the minute we get a sniff of a more liberal regime in a warmer climate, but really, sometimes you go to far.
Would it really be so bad to have 30 Million Brits wash up on your welcoming shore seeking political asylum ? Oh hang on, I just read that back, yes, yes it would, carry on.
SO whats the point?
If you are only being told something has changed, not what, how, why etc. then its a pointless waste of a secretaries time.
So either real information is required OR this is the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. Either way the answer is simple..."pass this law and as the telcos supporting Australia we will immediately shut down all services, destroy all our equipment and retire..."
It really is about time that we stopped beign shoved around by people we 'elect' to 'serve' us but who seem to think they have 'power' to do what the hell they like.
But we did tell you...
...didn't you get our letter? Darned postal system.
Ideally, ISPs would do absolutely nothing but act as a conduit for their customers' net feed. The old AOL model was hardly a rampant success.
Still, a timely reminder. Do you really want to store your private or commercially sensitive data in the cloud, where other peoples' governments (or your own) can read it. If you do have anything of value stored, it would be in a foreign nation's interest to demand it be decrypted and shown to them, and passed on to commercial interests in their country to exploit, or for that matter, to anyone they want to sell it to. The 'national interest' isn't just about opposing terrorism.
And you really think the cloud is the future?
Australia is as paranoid as the U.S.A.
Australia is so damn paranoid and as bad as the USA.
If they want to learn something they should rely on the much vaunted ECHELON system.
Besides, what person (terrorist) would want to travel that far, to the bottom of the world. Next they will setting up spy bases on Antarctica!.
"When it comes to telecomms technology, who are you going to trust? Senior executives in some of Australia’s largest telcos? Or a high-ranking bureaucrat from the Federal Attorney-General’s Department?"
Whichever has the fewest vested interests. Since neither of them is under oath and hence not under the slightest obligation to say anything but what benefits them the most.
In the current case, I'd say 'neither'.
Is alive and well !
F*#% the Australian Left Wing
In Australia everybody is a criminal.
Plus, as per most typical left-wing governments these days, "human rights" means you have none (unless you're a "minority").
What an amazingly ignorant comment
Do you even know what left or right wing mean? Apparently not, to judge from your knee-jerk reaction.
Neither term is really applicable in politics these days but you might be interested to note that the only party in Australia that could be considered at all "left-wing," the Greens, are also the only party who consistently oppose authoritarian moves such as this.
Please, take the time to educate yourself about political concepts before commenting on them or you appear no brighter than a Tea-partier.
The Aussies seem to be becoming as extreme as muslim states.
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- Vid+Pics Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
- Analysis Windows 10: One for the suits, right Microsoft? Or so one THOUGHT
- Xbox hackers snared US ARMY APACHE GUNSHIP ware - Feds
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests