On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 15:43, Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let's not forget that without the State there could be no internet.
No, lets forget that, because it makes no sense, unless the Internet was developed in a communist country. It wasn't. > So there needs to be an accomodation between the rights of the individual and > the rights of the State. The "rights of the State" are the rights of the collective of individuals, because the "State" is the collective of individuals. >Part of the terms are dictated by political reality, but there are also moral >questions as to the right of the State to interfere with individual liberty. >In some ways, as I've said before, this isn't ontologically new territory, but >goes back to Rousseau's notion of the social contract, that the individual >surrenders the absolute liberty of anarchy, for the security benefits >conferred by the state under the rule of law. > > I'm less concerned that the State may ask a judge for a computer warrant, > than I am the Attorney General issuing TCNs to access carrier metadata > datastreams and using that for mass surveillance, or law enforcement then > forcing patches on service providers for my phone/television to enable the > mike and camera's for surveillance because I've triggered some kind of > Minority Report scenario, because, you know, they're doing their job and in > the AG's opinion it's reasonable. > > In the case of the computer warrant, Law Enforcement have to allege a > specific breach of the criminal code, and establish evidentiary grounds this > crime is being committed to a judge's satisfaction. Much in the Assistance > and Access Bill leaves Law Enforcement as the decision makers as to what and > how is to be investigated. It is actually possible to simultaneously want to > see the rule of law be enforced, but without establishing the machinery of a > police state. > > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:43, Mark Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:29, Scott Weeks <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > --- [email protected] wrote: >> > From: Paul Wilkins <[email protected]> >> > >> > I do think (and it's not a generally popular position) that >> > the internet does need to, and is going to be, regulated. >> > ---------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > No. Absolutely does not need to be and cannot be anyway, >> > unless you do a China. Maybe this is what they're jealous >> > of? Total control over the media and all information. >> > Like, you know, the Dark Ages... >> > >> >> I agree. >> >> I wonder what Paul specifically thinks needs to be regulated. If it is >> a general view, rather than a specific one, then Paul has >> authoritarian beliefs (in other words, just the idea that somebody can >> do something without first seeking and being given permission is an >> anathema). >> >> The fundamental and most significant benefit of the Internet has been >> that its architecture has permitted permissionless innovation, through >> application protocol transparency in the network. To deploy a new >> application or service over the Internet, you do not have to seek >> permission of a telco for them to carry your traffic. >> >> IPv4 NATs have significantly limited the Internet's transparency, >> which is why people have been creating an ad hoc and more transparent >> virtual overlay network over the Internet using UDP - "UDP over IPv4 – >> a stepping stone to IPv6?" - >> https://blog.apnic.net/2017/03/24/udp-ipv4-stepping-stone-ipv6/ . >> >> Regards, >> Mark. >> >> >> >> >> > scott >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > AusNOG mailing list >> > > [email protected] >> > > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> > > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > AusNOG mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > AusNOG mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog _______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
