It is not those AGAINST The Idea that Just Want Everything 'Free Of Charge, Free Of Responsibility', it those FOR it.
Secret services. police. publishers. media organizations. All of them want data retention. All of them promise the blue sky if they get it - no more terrorists, children will be safe, creative people will finally be able to pay for their own coffee. Hurrah.
Pay for it? Nah, the infrastructure has to be paid for by someone else. Every Australian has to pay 24 dollars every year for benefit of being spied upon. Accountability? Operate in the dark, lie, cheat and wiggle out of any enquiry, and envoke 'national security' if all else fails. Or change a law retroactively to avoid prosecution.
And the benefits? Data retention has been around for a long time in some countries. Crime rates? Unaffected. Terrorists? Don't seem to be impressed. And child abuse? Well, while GCHQ and Scotland Yard and all the other 'security agencies' were busy filming and monitoring everything that anybody does in Britain, the real criminals conducted what David Cameron described as 'sex abuse on 'industrial scale'. Thousands of children being abused in real life while the people paid to protect them sit in dark basements and stare at computer screens.
So, when the Australian police wants their citizens to shell out $24 per year for their ISPs to collect data, it is the perfect time to be greedy and tell them to get back on the streets and chase real criminals. If the French had told that to their police, the journalists murdered in Paris recently might still be alive.
... be related to 'Turkish military says MIT shipped weapons to al-Qaeda' (MIT being the Turkish national intelligence agency)? With Google turning up 165000 hits on this, the censor might just be a bit late.
Are there any incentives in the bill to encourage copyright holders to provide legal access? A report released by KPMG and praised by the MPAA finds that 'UK Users Need 27 Services to Get Most Popular Films'. Judging by media reports, the situation is not really better in Australia.
... honest public servants need such protection? They have nothing to hide. The law makes sure that the rotten apples can stay in the police force and continue to break the law with no accountability at all.
So why are there only few complaints? A report 'Bundesnetzagentur', the German FCC, on traffic management by European network providers sheds some light on this: The providers are allowed to keep all information on throttling and deep packet inspection as 'commercial secrets' - can't have customers know about it and complain ... (https://netzpolitik.org/2014/studie-der-bundesnetzagentur-netzneutralitaet-wird-in-ganz-europa-v erletzt-provider-verweigern-auskunft-zu-details/ in German, the pictures show how large parts of provider statements have been blackened out before publication). To be clear: It is the providers that do the censoring, but the watchdog that expressively allows them to withhold the information from the customers.
>>"when the nation has been thrust into an armed conflict by a foreign attack on the United States "
Would this refer to an actual war, with foreign tanks roaming the streets of US cities, or the hypothetical risk of a single terrorist on US soil attack being repeated at an undetermined time in the future?
The internet is a wild west at the moment, where anybody is free to shoot (sorry, sue) anybody else for no reason other than they feel like it, and they have a gun (lawyer at hand)
Didn't like a product your bought at Amazon? Want to help others spending money at a restaurant with rude waiters? Better check if you can afford the lawsuit before posting a comment.
Trolling may be a nuisance occasionally. Until we can protect commenters from malicious prosecution and other harassment, there are plenty of other options available to keep trolls in check without threatening the right to free speech.
Would this be the same UK Government that scrapped the ID card scheme in 2010 as part of their measures 'to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion'?
with a) the lobbyists on the two sides largely representing the same global interests and b) the NSA likely to have access to all information deemed to be relevant, it would seem the the public are the only ones completely in the dark, and the EU severely disadvantaged. While it is understandable that the US want to preserve their NSAdvantage, why would the EU support them in this?