Comments on: Govt censors pre-prepared data retention bills

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:52:57 +0000

Australia is leading the front in proving time travel by moving the country back to 1984 where it hope to stay

By: Shane

Shane — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:40:58 +0000

Thankyou for the links, Thomas. After reading the letter, I agree with the Pirate Party’s decision to appeal to the Commissioner.

By: Hip

Hip — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:54:51 +0000

Orwelstralia?

By: Harquebus

Harquebus — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:58:58 +0000

torproject.org
ixquick.com
nntime.com

nicola.roxon.mp@aph.gov.au

By: Martin Eddy

Martin Eddy — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:00:27 +0000

They have run a couple of articles. The Australian Law Council says Labor's data retention plans go too far Data retention too costly, says Telstra

By: PeterA

PeterA — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:35:22 +0000

It is odd… usually they jump at any chance to attack the government.

By: Vitman

Vitman — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:32:53 +0000

More reasons NOT to trust the governments….

By: CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:53:39 +0000

Yeah, I know. Just hoping to waste a bit of yours :)

They’re endlessly repetitive in their attacks on the government’s proposals to regulate the media but apparently oblivious to or accepting of the government’s proposals to spy on the private lives of all Australians. Just hoping someone on the inside of ‘the media’ might be able to goad them into either doing something or letting slip why they won’t.

At least Fairfax is on the case.

By: Renai LeMay

Renai LeMay — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:33:39 +0000

You’re wasting your time with Limited News ;)

By: CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:21:24 +0000

Renai,

Are you able to ask the editors at The Australian why they’re ignoring this issue?

They’ve had many editorials attacking the NBN and the media regulation proposals, but nothing on the greatest assault on the privacy of all Australians. Letters from the likes of me don’t work. Any chance you can shame the buggers into doing something?

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:15:49 +0000

The exception to FoI releases of “contrary to public interest” should be removed. It should only be contrary to public interest if there are direct consequences to the public (i.e. public safety etc) otherwise it has been requested and is therefore “of interest” to a member of the public.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:40:32 +0000

Hey Shane,

Here’s the FOI rejection letter (check out how weak the three dot point reasons are): http://pirateparty.org.au/media/documents/FOI-Request-Mr-Rodney-Serkowski-Re-Draft-Legislation-Decision-Letter.pdf

And here’s the Pirate Party’s PR on the issue: http://pirateparty.org.au/2012/10/10/pirate-party-stonewalled-on-data-retention/

By: Shane

Shane — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:48:51 +0000

“… the release of this material would, in my view, be contrary to the public interest,” Tudor wrote.

Can we file a FOI request on the reasoned processes that lead to this conclusion, or is it turtles all the way down?

By: TrueBlue

TrueBlue — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 06:29:30 +0000

Excellent article on what is clearly the most important piece of legislation in more than a decade. The excuse of catching criminals to systematically encroach on citizens privacy has been used for centuries. The legislation has little coverage in the mainstream news and that is frightening because if the public are informed of the proposals they would be totally apposed. This could well be the one piece of legislation that leads Australia down the track of totalitarianism and coupled with the ALP’s desire to control the media and the internet through internet censorship and media ownership restrictions is very troubling indeed.

By: BuildFTTP

BuildFTTP — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:48:47 +0000

Typo in the 4th paragraph “weke”.

Good article. Troubling to say the least.