1. "the government doesn't make Westfield monitor the conversations of people in the shopping mall food court in case they're planning a bank robbery, yet that's precisely what it now expects online platforms to do.

It even expects them to figure out what is and isn't harmful, both now and into the future.

"Service providers are best placed to identify these emerging forms of harmful end-user conduct or material," says the discussion paper."

And

2. "While the discussion paper wants us to "enjoy" rules online -- an interesting concept -- it isn't so hot on letting us enjoy our right to privacy and our right to freedom of speech and other communication."

"The only mention of rights in the consultation paper is when the government "reserves the right not to publish a submission". "

[zdnet.com]

The proposed legislation clearly identifies the government's ongoing abrogation of responsibility. This has been proven time & time again by its failure to stop political corruption, criminality and rorts.

1. I am very sceptical about this statement. My local shopping centre uses facial recognition & at one point stated that hoodies & hats must not be worn but has never had signs up saying that facial recognition is being used. I would not be surprised to learn that they record conversations.

2. For many living in Australia & outside the country this will be a revelation that Australia for all its grandiloquent claims of right behaviour is the only country in the world that does not have any legislation that gives its citizens legal protection by enunciating the rights accruing to those citizens. Citizens are not mentioned in the Constitution until 50 sections covering the rights of Queen, parliament, taxation & interstate business trade have all been covered. And then the citizen sections do not state citizen rights but obligations.

See also "Life and happiness are now. Looking for the like minded. " & "Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?"