On 21/11/2013 3:35 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote: > And the 'Australian Council of Security Professionals' is obviously gonna be > unbiased, economically disinterested and completely fair and honest about the > need to exercise their services, and the results that they attain, on a > client/citizen/state basis cost-benefit analysis, when the annual budget > comes up?
Right on - what he said. These guys have a vested interest in keeping going, gathering all the data and making it more accessible, just in case someone wants to do some sort of analysis or tracking later on. So, having made access to all this data so much easier, what happens? - someone who shouldn't access it does. And not only accesses it, but gives it to the world. So the solution to the supposed problem: "how can we gather and store lots of data on everyone in case we need it?" creates a new problem: "how do we stop people who shouldn't get at the data, get at the data?" Considering that Snowden was a person allowed to get at the data and only became a person who shouldn't get at the data until after he had leaked it, that's a pretty difficult one to solve. The only really trustworthy answer is, don't collect all that data. If you miss out because you weren't proactive - Tough. Get over it, that's life and that's democracy. And the people charged with collecting and storing all that data? They've just become part of the problem. So, referring back to Frank's original posting, I think the answers to most of his questions are quite clear if you start from the premise that it ain't worth the risk. -- Regards brd Bernard Robertson-Dunn Sydney Australia email: [email protected] web: www.drbrd.com web: www.problemsfirst.com Blog: www.problemsfirst.com/blog _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
