Our content licensing agreement with AAP stipulates that the material must be taken down 30 days from the date of publication. Therefore this particular story, having exceeded that time frame, has expired. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Our content licensing agreement with AAP stipulates that the material must be taken down 30 days from the date of publication. Therefore this particular story, having exceeded that time frame, has expired. We apologise for any inconvenience.
So the fact that the tax office, the police forces, the banks, the local councils, the doctors surgery and all sorts of other institutions have lots more information about us than we would care to admit seems to have been overlooked by the limp wristed "ooooh you might find out about my arse pimple" privacy idiots.
Anybody can get to any information - no matter what measures are put in place - as a societey we need to accept that and MOVE ON.
The privacy loby trade on fear - the fear that your next door neighbour may find out what you earn or that your daughter is a hooker.
Gee - just look in the mailbox and you will find all the information you need about anyone.
I dont see the privacy lobby insiting that we all have secure mailboxes.
The privacy loby - gee we shouldnt do this because 1 person could be affected approach - allows the people law enforcement are trying to catch - the precise tools the need to avoid capture.
I agree - disclose or dissapear. - their choice.
I don't think the mail box analogy is entirely accurate. If I specifically want to find out about my neighbour, raiding his mail box might net interesting (and salacious) data. The down side is the distinct danger that my neighbour, or the bloke across the road will spot me doing it. There is also the possibility that, after a lot of risky work (on my part), I will discover that my neighbour doesn't have any significant weaknesses I can exploit.
By contrast, a data base is much more useful. If I had the knowledge and the tools to do so, there is a good chance that I could hack in, and help myself to information about not just one person (or one family), but many people, or people of specific interest to me. There are no geographical limitations. There's not much point, for example, in blackmailing a person who simply doesn't have the money to pay me. There's not much point in advertising products or services to people who are not interested in those products or services.
Data stored electronically has a number of advantages over data stored on paper, which make it a valuable commodity to those who might not have the best interests of those who supplied the data in mind, as well as valuable to those who are storing the data for legitimate purposes. Although there is no way of storing data on paper so that it is absolutely invulnerable, it is easier to do so than with data stored electronically.
Matt has argued that the privacy lobby isn't "insisting that we all have secure mail boxes", but people have the option of making their mail boxes more secure if they feel the need. It might also be interesting to see how many people are now choosing to have "silent" telephone numbers.
AFACT 'disappointed' with iiTrial outcome
Executive director of the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, Neil Gane, spoke in front of the Fede… Watch it now
IIA on iiTrial judgement
Internet Industry Association CEO Peter Coroneos spoke in a doorstop in front of the Federal Court about what … Watch it now
iiNet's victorious Michael Malone
Fresh from victory, iiNet CEO Michael Malone spoke in a doorstop in front of the Federal Court about the win a… Watch it now
Telecom NZ savings damage prospects
iiNet: The whys and what nows
Govt, hurry up with releasing data
Broadband Speedtest
How fast is your Internet connection?
Calculate the speed here!
Optus Deal
Broadband + home phone + PlayStation®3 in a single package price!
Click here for more!
Mobile Phone Plan Finder
Confused about which mobile phone plan to pick? Find the best deal with our Mobile Phone Plan Finder.
Click here for more.
What a load of rubbish. This type of 'screening' has been going on for years (I should know - when I was in Defence I was similarly 'screened' in the early 90s). It's because these staffers are worried about their dirty laundry, not because there isn't a need for it. The only response I've got is: You've always got a choice - get 'screened' or get out.