Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Federal

Jan 11, 2016

Your metadata fair game, but Brandis' own off limits

Just what is the Attorney-General up to in his taxpayer-funded position? Look, his office would be happy to tell us, but it's just too much damn work.

Share

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

12 comments

Leave a comment

12 thoughts on “Your metadata fair game, but Brandis’ own off limits

  1. Itsarort

    Haha of course AR, fair enough. But I do think Juvenal’s original satire has given birth to many parallel’s since. And the arrogance of those that believe they are unimpeachable and above reproach to the point of self deification (as with Brandis’ office), has so very often led to their own total annihilation from within – I live in hope…

  2. AR

    Itsa – please don’t give him ideas – that precept was Juvenal musing on how to protect the virtue of his household’s womenfolk when he was being Senatorial far away in Rome.
    I could see it being worked into anti-muzzy legislation if Cologne can be fully stoked by Blot & his ilk.

  3. Itsarort

    Since Brandis quite arrogantly believes himself to be his own divine ruler (aka Attorney General), “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, is simply moot.

  4. Graham R

    Hang on:

    “The final definition of metadata provided by the government in the letter is: dates, times, and duration of calls; IP addresses; email addresses; location details; and URLs “to the extent that they do not identify content of a communication”.”

    So every URL you (but not George) visit WILL be collected by the Govt.

    By storing every URL you visit the Government automatically then has “the content of a communication.” That’s what an active URL is – an active linkage to a page’s content.

    And remember, the Act does not refer anywhere to “metadata,” only to “telecommunications data.”

    I think the time has come for a VPN.

    And, Dogs Breakfast, never feed the trolls.

  5. Norman Hanscombe

    I understand your desire to help the analytically challenged, David, but surely they need to be encouraged to try to work out the meanings of such basic English, for their own sake?

  6. David Hand

    Come on doggie, the difference is so obvious it hardly needs spelling out but for the sake of your difficulties in comprehension, I’ll spell it out.

    Allowing metadata to be available to security agencies is quite different to publishing personal information about an individual on the front page of a newspaper, or in Crikey.

  7. Norman Hanscombe

    Dogs breakfast, it appears (assuming you understood the significance of the point I raised?) that you felt Joshua didn’t, and therefore needed more help spelling it out.
    If you didn’t understand the point, please let me know and I shall make it as easy as possible; but since it seemed easy to understand at the time, you must forgive me for assuming interested adults would also understand it.

  8. AR

    Dom, I’d second that.

  9. Dom

    Excellent. When I hear about how we need more surveillance and greater access to data to “make us safe”, I just think we need it first on politicians to test it out. Let’s get webcams installed in their offices and browsing data made available to the public.

  10. AR

    When Barnyard left the Senate, the role of Idiot became vacant.
    Then very much more so when Brandis naturally assumed the role to which he was .. born?

  11. Lee Tinson

    I’m thinking that removing Brandis’s ‘phone would constitute very positively to the reduction in both terrorism and the common assault of Aussie citizens by both civilian and quasi-military law enforcement. Not suggesting that Brandis is a terrorist, of course, just that whenever he opens his mouth he manages to insult pretty much everybody.

  12. Norman Hanscombe

    It’s difficult to believe, Joshua, that you actually can’t see the difference; but then again this is Crikey Land.

Leave a comment