Comments on: Howardist hold-outs still driving “national security” agenda

By: John

John — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Robert McClelland as an astute lawyer is turning out to be a major disappointment in this portfolio as he rolls over for every thing the security services throw at him to justify their existence. He first job should have been to demand answers for all the bungles to date including he Iraq War-now he looks like rewarding those who have done us no favours and continue to peddle false information.

By: John James

John James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Many lives around the world have been saved by secuity services monitoring the exchange of information between those plotting to kill and/or maime as many as possible. Even Sept 11, 2001 could have been prevented if someone had connected the dots and security services had worked togehter instead of allowing petty jealousy to cloud their vision.
I dont have a problem with the surveillance outlined so long as our elected representatives have proper oversight.

By: Sen Thooran

Sen Thooran — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Expectations of the people who voted for labour is fast turning into dissappointment with some of the behind the scenes activities of the new government. In particular relating to issues of “individual freedom” being further eroded from a worsening situation to apaplling situiation. Progressive thinking peopel within the Australian community should wake up to this soon and tell their elected representatives now before it is too late for them and for us Austrlaians.

By: fidel

fidel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Re checking other people’s e-mails. Who will be doing this job?
And who will be controlling the controllers?

By: John W

John W — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Bernard is actually right on here. It is time that the Rudd Government looked very closely at the actions and deeds of some of the senior bureaucrats who fell over themselves trying to second guess Howard’s agenda, and outdo themselves in coming up with more and more restrictive policies. The Attorney-General’s Department was one of the agencies at the forefront of this.

By: Mirek

Mirek — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The presence of `hold-outs` illustrate the basic continuity of the Government policy no matter what party is in power. And so, we will still have the universally-hated WorkChoices (under another label), the 40-or-so pieces of `anti-terrorist` legislation, the open-ended support for the US, in particular the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the alliance with the `Big-end-of-town`, and the assurance that the `working families` will bear the cost .Plus ça change?
Another point is that every Government without exception, strives to increase it`s power and control over the population, by a series of seemingly innocuous and benign steps, claiming that it`s for the good of the people, and for their own `protection`.In reality it`s for the Government`s own security.
We should then seriously take Chomsky`s advice, and “never trust a Government, but watch it`s hands”, and vigorously oppose these and other crass attempts to limit our liberties, so hard fought-for and won in the past.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

With a title like that you were just encouraging the left loon anti-Howard cheer squad. He’s been out of power for 5 months never to return and I swear some of the commentaries suggest that they miss the man they love to hate…..

By: Marilyn

Marilyn — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Yep, Cornall and Jordana are clowns but let’s ask another question. When I worked in offices for years, including for a pollie and some unions, all letters in and out were checked and seen by the boss.

What is the difference in checking emails in and out on work computers on the bosses time at the bosses expense?

By: Mmm

Mmm — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I would appreciate some knowledge way beyond BK political sources/jealousies here. Like from IT experts not prone to talk their own book if that is actually possible. For instance the intel CAN go into anyone’s email they want regardless of all commercially available firewalls, parasite checkers etc. Should this remain a public function and indeed subject of the current Inspector General regime of checks and balances? Yes, probably. More readily under parliamentary scrutiny. Which means more publicly employed spooks, depending on … Secondly my sense of IT security is that it’s an ever evolving move and counter move form of game theory, and it will always be so. Does this mean IT security will become a bigger and bigger task, stay the same, or settle down? I really don’t know. My intuition is that the greater computerisation of all society, and greater levels of sophistication of I Thacker literacy including foreign espionage (eg China etc) means the task will just get bigger.

By: RJG

RJG — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I asked the el-supremo of IT today at Loy Yang B Power Station, whether he would be spying on us under Julia and McClellands new regieme. (As you would know LYB represents a significant piece of infra structure.) He pointed out the organisation’s policy to me that goes back at least eight years that basically says they can do what they like. They already do spy on us. After all emplyees are only units of production. Simply the chattels of their employers. Given that the employers own the IT systems, administer them and have no legal impediments to do whatever they like, what will McClellands changes be. Perhaps McClelland will provide some employee safeguards. Or maybe not. Will employers have the right to spy on emails on the employees home systems payed for privately by emplyees and unconnected with their employment? Do politicians and theirs pooks live in the real world? Are labour governments any different to the Torys?