Whether the bill meets its objectives (whatever they may be), and whether the bill passes in its present form is still very much a moot point.
I would however underline that once the bill passes, it won't be possible to assess if the bill meets its objectives or not given the lack of checks and balances and accountability for the exercise of powers. I would hope anyone who's volubly opposed to the bill's terms and/or purposes, puts equal effort into raising a submission calling for greater accountability. To my reading, (and I've almost finished reading the bill), it predominantly reflects the interests of law enforcement, and reflects little consideration of the needs for service providers, particularly around where emergency powers trump the need for risk management, security, and change control. Also accountability seems superficial, where reporting is mostly upstream, rather than in the public domain. A private citizen will only ever see the number of Capability/Assistance Notices issued (see 317ZS Annual reports). Which is meaningless. There needs to be correlation to investigations and prosecutions, and their type and seriousness. Kind regards Paul Wilkins On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 at 20:57, Peter Fern <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/9/18 6:20 pm, Paul Wilkins wrote: > > Not for profits still rely on a revenue stream. Time will tell. > > This sort of hand-waving is how we end up in trouble - now would be the > time for some critical thinking about whether this bill even has a > chance of achieving the stated goals, and these examples suggest not. > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
