|
>> I think this is just like law and order, this security issue. As the pundits
>> are saying, less powers, more resources. It couldn't be truer for the Feds and
>> State police. More resources mean more tax, and hence less freedom to choose what to do with
the wealth you have created. Most people agree that there is a tradeoff here
between security and freedom. Many people don't think we have got the tradeoff
right. >> You would think a country that uses the Jindalee radar that can see the B-2
>> bomber could devise a system of surveillance that wouldn't require dropping
>> basic civil liberties. I think that interior and exterior surveillance are a little
different. Locking people out of your home is easier than watching your
housemates 24 hours a day. >> Generally, evidence in crimes doesn't come from confessions, but from telephone
>> conversations and stupidly forgotten forensics (or, a parts of your thighbone
>> on a dancefloor). You mean bugged conversations? >> What the PM and AG want can be compared to carpet bombing. What the security
>> agencies should be what our ally the US does, try to hit the most valuable
>> targets quickly, once and with devestating effect. >> Since JI have HQ O/S, IMHO ASIS should be more involved ASAP >> Basically, the Senate has found it's use once more and the amendments wouldn't
>> be watering it down, but making it in line with the standards our other laws
>> have, e.g judicial authorisation of a warrant. If only the Senate would siphon
>> cash from "struggling artistes" to ASIO/ASIS. AFAIK, Crean wanted:
- A sunset clause - 5 years I think. This sounded pretty reasonable to me.
- A warrant - ASIO are not a law unto themselves. Sounds pretty reasonable
to me.
- Detainees to have the right to legal representation. This is a mechanism
which can be used to warn other elements in the cells, or other cells that they
are in danger. I'm with the government on that one - provided the detainee
still has the right to remain silent, and is informed of that right.
| 
