Gov and telcos in Aussie wiretap death match

Guess it depends on what is meant by notification...

If, as they say, it means the Telcos just have to write a letter outlining the changes, then it's not onerous.

But I suspect there is rather more to it than that; I suspect the AG dept would then seek further clarification from the telco (there is hardly likely to be enough detail in a "not onerous notification letter" for the AG dept to understand what the change means), and then they would be likely to seek to block or amend the proposed changes causing untold headaches for the Telcos.

There wouldn't seem to be much point to the law, if all the Telco had to do was notify that they were making a change that made it impossible to do wiretapping and that expempted them from their wiretapping obligations. So it's rather more likely that the AG dept would be seeking to have some oversight of the Telcos network design.

Of course Politicians and Buearocrats are well know for saying people are wrong without providing any further clarification of where exactly is wrong. This allows the pollies / buearocrats to later claim "no we didn't lie. you're twisting what we said (cause we didn't really say anything substantative at all) everyone just misunderstood what we said, but too bad the law is passed now so you just have to suck it nah nah na nah nah!!!"

FFS Australia

I know you're only doing this to stop us from migrating in droves the minute we get a sniff of a more liberal regime in a warmer climate, but really, sometimes you go to far.

Would it really be so bad to have 30 Million Brits wash up on your welcoming shore seeking political asylum ? Oh hang on, I just read that back, yes, yes it would, carry on.

Australia is as paranoid as the U.S.A.

Australia is so damn paranoid and as bad as the USA.

If they want to learn something they should rely on the much vaunted ECHELON system.

Besides, what person (terrorist) would want to travel that far, to the bottom of the world. Next they will setting up spy bases on Antarctica!.

Which?

"When it comes to telecomms technology, who are you going to trust? Senior executives in some of Australia’s largest telcos? Or a high-ranking bureaucrat from the Federal Attorney-General’s Department?"

Whichever has the fewest vested interests. Since neither of them is under oath and hence not under the slightest obligation to say anything but what benefits them the most.

In the current case, I'd say 'neither'.

Australian Taliban

Is alive and well !

F*#% the Australian Left Wing

In Australia everybody is a criminal.

Plus, as per most typical left-wing governments these days, "human rights" means you have none (unless you're a "minority").