back to article Australian government plans to do a Facebook on citizens' data

The Australian government has published its formal response to proposals to turn its citizens into Facebook-like data points, promising AU$65 million to spread the Big Data love. The Data Availability and Use inquiry was established in 2016 and delivered its report in 2017. Yesterday, the government finally released its …

  1. Peter Prof Fox

    Stop

    <quote>The government wants the banking, energy, and telecommunications industries to be the first sectors to implement the data right</quote>

    The 'energy sector' doesn't need to know *anything* about you. Home owner? (not for much longer if the divorce (50% probability) goes through) You are buying electricity from this year's best deal electricity company not marrying them!

  2. Tac Eht Xilef

    Sounds good to me!

    "... promising AU$65 million to spread the Big Data love."

    That's to each of us, right?

  3. Scoular

    Ingorance is bliss

    Given the ethics of government and business I want them knowing as little as possible about me.

    Any data they have is more likely to be used against me than for my benefit.

    They are much the same as Facebook or Google in their attitude

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dont trust the bastards

    These schmucks always fail.

    It's either incompetence, ignorance or stupidity.

  5. FozzyBear
    IT Angle

    “our nation's capacity to remain competitive in the modern, global economy relies on our ability to harness the power of our nation’s data”.

    Bullshit.

    The prosperity of a nation is not determined to how well you can mine data. It is reliant on a group of competent elected officials who are able to put into place efficient & effective trade, tax, education, health and support mechanisms. Mechanisms that designed to improve the nation not win elections.

    So seriously Mr Turnball. When your government talks about funding this initiative. Which we know you will royally screw up (see any prior initiative from the digital transformation Office). Before sinking $65Mil and the hundreds of millions due to budget blowouts. Might I suggest you roll up the reams of paper you wasted on this and ram it up your arse with a sandpaper dildo.

  6. Denarius
    Unhappy

    more likely

    follow the money. Who provides the funds that go to the little known bodies that shift money to the organisations that shift money to each of the major TweedleDee/TweddleDum parties and the second ring circus groups that swirl around them ? Businesses would love to get more access to citizens data for advertising and to create "nudge messages" that they can then sell to the sock puppets nominally in power. Since all the current Oz parties of significance operate with a materialist world view they have no distinctive doctrinal differences, ie policy. This proposal is possibly the next step in the destruction of a mostly working democracy by the legal fictions known as companies.

    Whether knowingly or not, these act to make real citizens irrelevant in the political process by ensuring parties are dependent on advertising and the required large funding. This is disguised by keeping the appearance of a democratic voting system while making it a mere facade for the real rulers. (Adams Lizards anyone ?) Bit like Augustus. Stripped the old Republic away but maintained the shell of the Senate to keep the plebs quiet enough. No conspiracy required, just a moral vacuum and spin doctors/salesdroids flogging the latest technical utopia at those least likely to comprehend a pig in a poke sales pitch. Sales weasels are rewarded for selling, not solving problems.

    If there is any fix, IMHO, it is <soapbox> making it illegal for any non-citizen to fund any lobbying or political activity, let alone parties. Secondly, ensure the limit for such funding from citizens is below say $5000. </soapbox>

    I suggest that limiting the number of times some-one can stand for election should be limited to 5 or less to reduce political dynasties. Fanciful limitations like ensuring all candidates have had a life outside academia, politics, SIF, pressure groups and union organisations before being eligible might be worthwhile.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Australian Gubberment:

    1. We will slurp up your data, because "Won't someone think of the children!"

    2. We will have greater transparency so you know what is being slurped.

    3. We will make it so hard to get that information you will give up.

    4. Slap an extra tax because... oh who cares. We will do it anyway.

    ...

    ...

    10. PROFIT!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like