I was indeed referring to the bolded former third verse. I have learnt new things today - thankyou Roger.
On 8/09/2014 8:48 AM, Roger Clarke wrote: > At 8:20 +1000 8/9/14, Paul Brooks wrote: >> Both Brandis and Morrison need to read the second verse of our national >> anthem. >> Actually, we need to swap the order of the first and second verses, so the >> second >> verse is sung in parliament and at major sports events. > Nice. > > But unfortunately ambiguous. > > I'm sure you're referring to the now-second-verse but originally-third-verse, > not the politically incorrect originally-second-verse: > http://www.hamilton.net.au/advance/lyrics.html > > ______________________________________________________________________ > >> On 5/09/2014 6:25 AM, Frank O'Connor wrote: >>> Mmmm, but they're simply doing what that great Protector of 'Freedom', >>> George Brandis, wants, >>> >>> It's remarkable how selective he is with his 'freedom'. Bigots must be >>> free, but the rest of us must be under control and do what the government >>> wants. 'Freedom of Speech' is Paramount - but no way in hell would he award >>> that to Joe Public in a Bill of Rights. Freedom of Association is OK for >>> despicable sexist foul mouthed Young Liberals, but not for bikies and >>> Muslims. You can have your Freedom of Religion - but only as as long as >>> you're a Christian, and preferably a Roman Catholic Christian. >>> >>> Privacy? Protection from the State? Court based curbs on the State's power. >>> >>> Why do you need that? We mean you no harm. It's all for your own good. I >>> mean, you want to be secure don't you? Well, security means you have to >>> give things up. >>> >>> Sometimes I despair of anything approaching rational policy coherence from >>> our Attorney General. >>> >>> Just my 2 cents worth ... >>> --- >>> On 5 Sep 2014, at 1:28 am, Stephen Loosley <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Australian Crime Commission rejects limits on website blocking >>>> >>>> ACC also wants inquiry to examine penalties for non-compliant ISPs >>>> >>>> >>>> By Rohan Pearce (Computerworld) on 04 September, 2014 >>>> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/554221/ >>>> http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Infrastructure_and_Communications/Inquiry_into_the_use_of_section_313_of_the_Telecommunications_Act_to_disrupt_the_operation_of_illegal_online_services/Submissions >>>> >>>> >>>> The Australian Crime Commission has rejected calls for limits on the >>>> government agencies that can issue notices under Section 313 of the >>>> Telecommunications Act 1997. >>>> >>>> The ACC has also raised the possibility of creating some mechanism for >>>> penalising ISPs for not complying with Section 313 notices. >>>> >>>> "The success of s.313 for the lawful blocking of websites relies upon >>>> private sector compliance with law enforcement requests," states an ACC >>>> submission to a parliamentary inquiry examining the use of Section 313. >>>> >>>> "It is noted that failure to comply with a request to lawfully block a >>>> website pursuant to s.313 does not carry any consequences. In addition to >>>> the terms of reference being considered by this inquiry, consideration >>>> could also be given to addressing this issue." >>>> >>>> The federal government launched the inquiry in July. The inquiry follows >>>> bungles by ASIC in 2013. In an attempt to block websites implicated in >>>> investment fraud, the financial watchdog issued Section 313 notices that >>>> also blocked access to unrelated websites. >>>> >>>> The ACC's submission also rejected the creation of a list of government >>>> agencies authorised to issue Section 313 notices because it "will not >>>> enable flexible responses to the inevitable evolution of the online >>>> landscape". >>>> >>>> In a similar vein, the organisation argued against requests being limited >>>> to a "list of defined offences". >>>> >>>> "However, recognising the extent of power to disrupt online services s313 >>>> provides, there is merit in considering the proportionality of the >>>> activity being conducted or facilitated," the ACC submission stated. >>>> >>>> Adding a "proportionality threshold" would "provide response agencies with >>>> sufficient flexibility to respond to a wide range of criminal or national >>>> security threats," the ACC argued. >>>> >>>> Submissions to the inquiry by iiNet, the Internet Society of Australia >>>> (ISOC-AU), and industry bodies the Australian Mobile Telecommunications >>>> Association (AMTA) and the Communications Alliance all called for >>>> restrictions on the government agencies that can issue Section 313 >>>> requests. >>>> >>>> The ACC said it believes that the agencies should be able to continue to >>>> self-authorise their Section 313 notices, with staff of an organisation >>>> submitting a written application to an "authorised officer". >>>> >>>> The submission also argued that although the ACC supports "consideration >>>> of a formal transparency and accountability regime" - although >>>> organisations that issue the notices should not be required to publish >>>> "certain information" that could jeopardise investigations or the safety >>>> of individuals. >>>> >>>> A transparency regime could include measures such as an appeals mechanism >>>> or a reporting regime similar to the annual report published by the >>>> government on the use of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) >>>> Act 1979. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Stephen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Link mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Link mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link >> _______________________________________________ >> Link mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
