How data retention undermines our sovereignty
John Reidy writes: Re. “Brandis’ disastrous data definition reflects a confused government” (yesterday). Imagine if you are an ISP and now have to store a large amount of data for two years, what would be the most cost-effective way to do it? It would be with a cloud storage provider — Amazon, Google or IBM are leading organisations. The result being that the information would be stored offshore and accessible to the US security agencies.
Mary Noonan writes: Thank god that the ‘car crash interview’ will be retained on data retention. It can now be played over and over at election time. It could possibly be played along with our Leaders ‘wordless’ interview with Peter Williams. It’ll save GetUp hitting us for two lots of funds for the advertising campaign.
John Kotsopoulos writes: Brandis is living proof of what can happen when an arrogant Minister assumes he or she has mastered a complex issue by reading the Departmental brief or (more likely) the executive summary.
Doing one’s business
Maria Hawthorne writes: Having been a media adviser in Parliament House, I am really not sure about Colin Jacobs’ claim: “This includes trips to the bathroom, the doors of which are thin enough for the shouted voice of a media adviser to penetrate.”
I don’t know what goes on with the Greens, but no-one I’ve worked for has had to sit so long on the toilet that a media query couldn’t wait for them to flush, wash and return to the main office. Plus the doors honestly aren’t that thin.
Max Bromson and David Penberthy
Kerry Bromson writes: Re. “Euthanasia and emails” (Monday). As a family we totally refute David Penberthy’s reply. We spoke to our brother on the Sunday about the article Penberthy had written in the Sunday Mail about Dr Philip Nitschke, and he said, “That’s nothing, look at what he wrote to me in a personal email”. At which point we saw the email for the first time. My brother’s comment was he deserves everything he gets for being so opinionated. At that point had he had any further discussion with my brother he would have told us. Penberthy had never contacted my brother after he wrote that disgusting reply to Max’s letter. There is absolutely no reason for a person in his position to speak to another person like that, particularly when Max’s letter was just giving another point of view to an article he wrote.