- I've only read a bit... does anyone want to school me on why mandatory 2yr data retention is bad? (open question, not being provocative)
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223245132894453761
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:39:22 - @foomeister It's stored so that govt can access it. http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/every-click-you-make-theyll-be-watching-20120711-21wfg.html …m.au/technology/technology-news/every-click-you-make-theyll-be-watching-20120711-21wfg.html
http://twitter.com/mikeb476/status/223246158972190720
— Michael Brull (@mikeb476)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:43:26 - @mikeb476 Yep, I have that sketch. But are the arguments a matter of securty vs privacy? (I deliberately have n00b hat on)
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223247162501373952
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:47:25 - @foomeister uh. It's a matter of human rights. Should the govt have the right to read everything you say/do on the net?
http://twitter.com/mikeb476/status/223247711414124544
— Michael Brull (@mikeb476)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:49:36 - @mikeb476 1/ Which human right, specifically? No overt freedom/ entitlement curtailed? 2/ So case for security/ data mining is not there?
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223248397694541824
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:52:20 - @foomeister retaining everyone's data, treating all like potential criminal
http://twitter.com/PointZeroOne/status/223247489933914112
— Pen Island (@PointZeroOne)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:48:43 - @PointZeroOne Thanks. On that point, why is it a bad thing? (just deconstructing)
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223248806186188800
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:53:57 - @foomeister *think* it relates to global secret security and copyright treaties too
http://twitter.com/Prohairetic/status/223249637841174528
— jon ابراهيم (@Prohairetic)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:57:16 - @foomeister my surface impression is if Orwell had written a Yes Minister episode.
http://twitter.com/Prohairetic/status/223250067971252224
— jon ابراهيم (@Prohairetic)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:58:58 - @foomeister recalling some details - a lot of proposals are weakening existing oversight/restrictions/accountability also.
http://twitter.com/Prohairetic/status/223251219509030913
— jon ابراهيم (@Prohairetic)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:03:33 - @foomeister For what kind of data? (And, if we're talking U.S. federal law, what specific provision of the Constitution authorizes it?)
http://twitter.com/declanm/status/223250219968630787
— Declan McCullagh (@declanm)Thu, Jul 12 2012 02:59:34 - @declanm This is causing (not enough) consternation in Australia: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/every-click-you-make-theyll-be-watching-20120711-21wfg.html …m.au/technology/technology-news/every-click-you-make-theyll-be-watching-20120711-21wfg.html
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223250517596438529
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:00:45 - @foomeister @Asher_Wolf They'll use it against us as "evidence" if we're ever held under suspicion & unethical surveillance
http://twitter.com/CAPT_Irrelevant/status/223250922187407360
— Pete (@CAPT_Irrelevant)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:02:22 - @CAPT_Irrelevant OK. Secondary question: In what circumstances is surveillance ethical, then? @Asher_Wolf
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223251344121794560
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:04:02 - @foomeister @Asher_Wolf Private/corporate networks monitoring staff browsing habits between work & leisure
http://twitter.com/CAPT_Irrelevant/status/223253106803228672
— Pete (@CAPT_Irrelevant)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:11:03 - Devil's advocate: If I'm a private citizen with no crim history, perfectly dull, why should data retention/mining matter? #natsecinquiry
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223252426172534787
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:08:20 - @foomeister Depends on who had the data, gov is bad. Otherwise, not a big deal IMO.
http://twitter.com/liamhedge/status/223252910472044544
— Liam Hedge (@liamhedge)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:10:16 - @foomeister Reason gov is particularly bad is because laws can still legally retrospectively change.
http://twitter.com/liamhedge/status/223253233437638656
— Liam Hedge (@liamhedge)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:11:33 - @foomeister If somebody asked me for all books, magazines, leaflets, correspondence
http://twitter.com/Asher_Wolf/status/223253171106086912
— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:11:18 - @foomeister and love letters I'd written, shared or read in the last 2 yrs, I'd be appalled.
http://twitter.com/Asher_Wolf/status/223253214634586114
— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:11:28 - @foomeister and worse: they want access to private conversations, between friends, lovers, journos, & activists?
http://twitter.com/Asher_Wolf/status/223253485435633665
— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:12:33 - .@Asher_Wolf OK that's a good analogy: physically handing over every form of correspondence written, shared or read, plus phone records.
http://twitter.com/foomeister/status/223254425244942337
— Fatima Measham (@foomeister)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:16:17 - @foomeister bec nothing to hide nothing to fear is a BS arguement.
http://twitter.com/Prohairetic/status/223253468964593664
— jon ابراهيم (@Prohairetic)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:12:29 - @foomeister also, this piece from 2 yrs ago does it beautifully. http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html …eekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html
http://twitter.com/Prohairetic/status/223254084390621184
— jon ابراهيم (@Prohairetic)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:14:56 - . @foomeister How was your sex last night? Top or bottom? #NatSecInquiry
http://twitter.com/Asher_Wolf/status/223253785181564928
— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf)Thu, Jul 12 2012 03:13:44
