Yesterday, readers were quick to point out that even when the ABC board do poke their heads about the rampart, we’re reminded they’re not up for the task, and suggested some alternatives. Other readers pointed out that Tim Singleton-Norton’s article on Turnbull’s erosion of digital privacy leaves out the complicity of a certain opposition party, while at least one reader considers the issue a non-starter. 

On the ABC board’s missing defence

Paul Munro writes: I think Bernard Keane’s call for ABC Board members to be forthright in defence of the ABC does not pay due regard to how lightweight those members are, individually or collectively. They have been handpicked to be docile; look at their respective backgrounds, essentially the set of cronies from the corporate media sector. Perhaps even more important is to recognise the extent to which the unrelenting assault on the ABC for bias, on its finances, on its competitive fairness, are all part and parcel of a deployment by the neo-liberal libertarian-economics of a well tried arsenal to weaken any counter to mediocratic forces at their command.

Richard Creswick writes: The ABC deserves a robust and strong response to the IPA mouthpieces and their stooges who are attacking it but neither Guthrie nor Milne are the people to do it. Both are so beholden to the LNP Government that any criticism from them is like being flogged with a wet lettuce leaf. The only woman I can think of to voice such a defence effectively would be Julia Gillard. Perhaps it’s time to bring back David Hill.

Nudiefish writes: Given that we threw a lazy $30 million at Newscorp for “reasons”, why can’t we expect editorial independence from that direction seeing that it is on the taxpayers dime?


On Turnbull’s attacks on digital encryption

Applet writes: I fully blame the complicit Labor opposition for all these laws. I think that is the actual problem. When last in government Conroy tried to start the ball rolling downhill, with Scott Ludlam seemingly the only one who stood up to him.

AR writes: As noted above, virtually all the encroachments on our civil liberties would not have happened without the supine, pre-emptive cringe from “Labor”, so terrified of being wedged. It should not be forgotten that they are equally eager to have these laws when they eventually fall into office.

Kyle Hargraves writes: The law, if it happens, will be treated with contempt. Major players are not going to monkey with standard encryption. Two (or more) parties can set up their own encryption and there isn’t a damned thing that anyone can do about it, Turnbull least of all. Encrypted data typically has a finite life and only has to be confidential for that length of time.


Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to [email protected]. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.

Help us keep up the fight

Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.

If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today and get your first 12 weeks for $12.

Cancel anytime.

Peter Fray
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey