1. May I suggest the topic of “we told you so” in the heading. You have made a lot of predictions, it’ll be handy to just scan the heading to see which one has came to fruition.

      • Or maybe have the byline get displayed in the most recent articles. Because the most recent articles only have a picture and a heading, whereas the older articles have the first paragraph displayed as well.

        Because reading an article is a huge commitment. I have to spend my most precious commodity these days – battery charge. :)

  2. > All it appeared to have at that stage was a bunch of high-level ideas about how such a scheme could work in theory, and a driving imperative to make it work stemming from the demands of law enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

    What they have is IT solution syndrome

    Someone see a opportunity, new service or product and improvement. So you goto the boss or IT department themselves says “Can we do this?”

    So someone in AG has gone to the basement and asked their IT department for advice. The department heads “maybe” and AG person says good enough I’ll draw up a business purposal.

  3. The diagram in this article appears to be a perfectly reasonable high level representation of a data retention scheme that may or may not be operating with the cooperation of Australian ISPs and a couple of Federal Government Agencies who may or may not be running data storage warehouses of enormous scope.

    Of course, it has nothing whatever to do with the Data Retention Act, 2015, but why let facts intrude on some good FUD?

Comments are closed.