THanks for reminding me of the link. I had it a few years back but had lost it. Looks like Ivacy is OK for me. Nord better, but given than I have a lifetime licence for Ivacy… meh. Could have sworn it ws Singapore tho.
1 Like
CA:FE:CA:FE:CA:FE is one of my favorites
3 Likes
Nothing to see here. Move along. 
4 Likes
Australia has moved (courtesy in particular of “Pravda” - the Murdoch Misinformation Empire) from a free country to “The least transparent democracy in the English-speaking world”. I feel like I woke up from a doze that started in 1996 when Little Johnny was elected (and the attacks on the independence of the ABC began in earnest). We’ve moved into a dangerous place.
The other attacks by this government on grass-roots organisations like GetUp and 350.org also indicate the paranoia of people with something to hide.
Apparently they do not fear the registered lobbyists (about 2 for every federal politician) (not counting the unregistered lobbyists).
Something has changed and for the worse. 25 years ago, as a middle-manager public servant, I had dealings with the representatives of “Australia’s biggest employer” (the Small Business Council). At that point they were two extremely capable and efficient gentlemen, who from time to time made sensible contributions to policy. And I don’t recall them ever ‘doing lunch’.
The current government is the prisoner of coal.
Third-world visitors that I have met lately have said things like: “Oh - I thought it would be different here…”
4 Likes
The problem with blaming only one side of politics is that the above laws (metadata retention) and all the other horrendous laws are always passed with bi-partisan support.
Maybe you went to sleep in 1996 and woke up in 1984. 
2 Likes
1984 is 2019 North Korea - I’m afraid we’re heading that way.
2 Likes
I suggest that it isn’t because of Murdoch, but because Australia seems to feel it has to keep up with the Jone’s (US, UK and EU). We seem to adopt readily what these countries legislate without possibly thinking of its relevance or consequence to Australia.
An example most travelling Australians would be aware is airport security for entry in Australia. We mirror what happens in the US, but not that of the likes of the UK or EU. The government seems to think that our risks are the same as the US…which is either incorrect or being highly risk adverse.
2 Likes
There’s a New York Times article on Murdoch (Rupert) (Note: Lachlan is more conservative again)
It was this article that had me “wake up”.
The comment from a conservative that “We thought we had a media outlet on-side - then found that we were serving them, not the other way around”… Wait, what?
See you at the Climate Strike tomorrow?
2 Likes
3 Likes
No real surprises there.
Until such time as government employees who fail to follow the law regarding data retention face serious consequences they will continue to do the wrong thing.
Australia still uses a law from 1979 to govern metadata, with more than 100 amendments.
Be careful what you (implicitly) wish for though. If the law is rewritten from scratch, it will be even more intrusive.
So even the small morsels that were put in to appease commonsense are being breached.
I couldn’t tell whether this is an indefinite exemption or an exemption to a specific identified future date.
This means the metadata they hold is even less secure.
FTFY.
The article also raises an interesting point … how does the metadata law apply to a dead company? Optus implies significant cost was incurred by it in order to keep data available pertaining to a dead subsidiary. Did they have a legal obligation to do that?
2 Likes
Not sure about Australian companies, but in the US the digital data a company collected is often worth more than its physical assets when it is being sold for scrap. I find that terrifying - you give consent to one company to collect certain data, it promises that it will protect your data, then it goes belly-up and your hitherto ‘protected’ data is available to the highest bidder regardless of any promises made by a now dead entity.
4 Likes
That’s an interesting point - and you are right it strains the definition of what consent about private data means in that situation - but my question was more about the company’s formal legal obligations to the government in respect of metadata after the company is dead.
1 Like
Obligations under Law can extend the requirement for data to be held even if a company has ceased trading eg Taxation Law. The onus can be placed on either the Company Directors or a Company/Business that takes over the old one, or an Accounting or Law firm. Metadata retention has I am fairly sure the same legal requirements as Taxation Law does.
1 Like
As predicted:
4 Likes
Not surprised. The people running that particular show are paranoid. Whoever thought they would not abuse the privilege is completely nutz. Get a VPN. I have one but it turns out its part of the 9 eyes. I think I shall drop it in favour of ProtonVPN. (And done. Its free, but the free version only gets 3 server options, otherwise its $90usd a year)
6 Likes
