Turnbull upends bucket on data retention proposal Australia’s opposition communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has made his strongest statement yet against the proposed data retention regime, asking an audience in Melbourne whether people are casting themselves into a “digital dungeon”. Delivering the Alfred Deakin lecture, Turnbull has created a poser for Australia’s …
"...he could do no worse than Conroy the C_nt..."
Happy Birthday, BB!
I came to the conclusion it must be your birthday through the following reasoning process:
1) You made the above incredible comment.
2) The only way you could have made such an incredible comment is if you have never read/seen/heard anything about Turnbull, especially his latest "triumphant" stint as opposition communications spokesman.
3) There are three, and only three, reasonable causes for such a comment: you have brain damage and no longer possess a long-term memory, you have recently been returned by The Grays after being abducted in 1996 and had some quite pleasant social experiments performed on you (they had recently purchased a book of pick up lines and needed to try them out), or you were gestated in vitro in a highly advanced (and secret) government experiment to find a solution to fertility problems in the panda breeding programme (due to wildlife regulations, it is easier to experiment on humans than endangered animals).
Following this impeccable and faultless logic, the ONLY conclusion any reasonable person can come to is that you were just decanted from a glass tube, therefore...
Happy Birthday, BB!
Dear RB,
Following your logic, obviously you know nothing about "Conroy the C_nt...", otherwise you would not be (effectively) defending him.
If you can't post anything without using personal insults, don't bother posting because by doing so you automatically lose the argument. AND, your post is not relevant to the article, and is purely a political statement on behalf of the Australian Labor Party (yes, they spell it "Labor"!).
Pot, kettle, black.
Dear Rastus,
Indeed not!
I am merely pointing out the faulty logic of the OP of assuming that Turnbull cannot possibly be worse than Conroy.
To make such an assumption is to fly in the face of the documented history of the less-than-esteemed opposition communications spokesman. One would have to ignore the blatant lies, the half-truths, the selective quotes, the slander, the character assassination, the vested interests, and the subordination of physics, technology and reality to the policies and ideology of the Liberal Right.
You are welcome to assume my political preferences based on a >>single<< comment regarding the superior sub-human specimen: Turnbull or Conroy. But if you were to do so, you would probably be wrong. At no point did I say that Conroy was a good politician or a good Minister or even that he is preferable to Turnbull, I just think Turnbull has the potential to be a lot worse.
Sadly we are at an unfortunate cross-roads in Australian politics. We are faced with an unpalatable choice between two unlikable, incompetent and sub-optimal choices at the next election. I cannot in good conscience vote for either of them, yet vote I must. You may be fine with the thought of Turnbull as Communications Minister, but I am not.
I agree that my post is not particularly relevant to the article, but must it? OP commented on Turnbull/Conroy and I pointed out that the only way you could think Turnbull couldn't be worse is if OP had missed the last 3 years of Turnbull blundering from lie to mis-characterisation to faulty grasp of technology.
Have a good weekend, Rastus, and have a beer on me*.
* You're going to have to supply your own beer and/or funds. Sorry.
Input (lang. Politician): “I must record my very grave misgivings about the proposal. It seems to be heading in precisely the wrong direction.”
Output (lang. Human): "I know that many of my supporters oppose this, so I must put up a pretence of resistance that will "reluctantly" crumble when it comes time to actually vote on this legislation. Not that it matters, as the deals have been done and backs have been slapped."
Turnbull - could he get worried about himself and or his friends coming undone for something - if fine tooth combed down the track?
There are also heaps of "respectable members of the community" doing all sorts of crooked shit behind closed doors....
And there also exists the desire of a crime free society - and all the idiots screaming "Oh not me! Not me! Privacy, Freedom of Speech!" to which the answer is yes, it's true, but most people most of the time really are not worth giving a fuck about.
But some are.
But a lot of proper investigating, is restricted to some extent by law, and it's like - say some bunch of people are committed to setting a big bomb off under a stadium filled with say 100,000 people, if the data was retained it could either prevent the event before hand OR lead to prosecution and tracing afterwards.
But you can't have it both ways, with hordes of idiots who are not that important saying "It's a violation of my human rights", who will just as quickly say after the bombing, "Well why didn't you do what it took to protect us?"
An emotionally healthy society really runs on a set of sane compromises and ideals.
Accountability and honesty is the main thrust.
My main concern is where in the fuck or how in the fuck are these staggering levels of ever accumulating data going to be stored - forever?
Is it ALL going to be stored? Every bit of data? or just the relevant bits? Like 1 million people stream 500,000,000 hours of video per year..... (not including ALL of the rest)
That is a lot of hard drives.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
