Of course it is about data matching - what is the point otherwise?
I would be more comfortable if this were just explicitly stated and then
we could get on with constructing a proper audit and security framework.
I think citizens with nothing to hide would be safer than with the
current setup where we have no idea what is happening to our data.
R
Greg Twyford wrote:
ash wrote:
this government demonstrates ever increasingly that it will manage to
not hear any criticism by making sure there are no critics in a
position to officially tell them things they don't want to hear -
either by termination of contract, or abolition of position
totalitarian or what ?
This is usually the road to opposition. Pity it's been such a long one
to date. I wonder how they'll explain the public opposition to the
smartcard when it emerges in its new form?
Similar approach to the failure of GPs to take up individual PKI
certificates? Oops, sorry, they've learnt. They've already made these
non-compulsory, which the individual certificates weren't, unless you
avoided HIC Online because of them, of course.
Not a word about data matching to date. I'm wondering why taxation
hasn't put in a bid for the funding, alongside Human Services,
Medicare and Centrelink.
Greg
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
