One would think even a 34 year-old Liberal Party candidate in this year's federal election would realise that the Internet means you cannot blatantly copy without attribution

BuzzFeed politically impaled a very foolish federal election candidate on 5 May 2016:

Meet the Liberal National party’s candidate for the federal seat of Brisbane, 34-year-old Trevor Evans.

Evans, who is the current CEO of the National Retail Association, was pre-selected last month to run for the Liberal National party in the hope he’ll replace retiring LNP MP, Teresa Gambaro.....

If people want to find out more about Trevor Evans they could go to his website and learn all about his history working with the Salvation Army and time as chief of staff to now immigration minister Peter Dutton.

Except one passage really jumps out. It’s about his early years “growing up without much” and family who “instilled the values that helped him become the person his is today [sic].”

The passage stands out mostly because Trevor suddenly becomes “Tim”.

BuzzFeed News googled the passage and found the website of fake US congressman, Tim Hawthorne, which has been set up by a digital design agency to advertise its products.

BuzzFeed News contacted Evans about the copy-and-paste situation with his biographical information.

“We are using a template - It’s not front facing and full website will be live in a few days,” Evans said over Twitter direct message.

Minutes later the website’s “About Trevor Evans” section was taken down.

Well spotted, Buzzfeed!

UPDATE

A vastly different "About Trevor Evans" has reappeared and it now opens thus:

[Accessed 7.25am 13 May 2016 at https://lnp.org.au/trevor-evans/]

Australian Federal Election 2016: State of the Internet

By February 2016 NBN Co was 65,268 "construction completions" short of its planned budgeted target of 94,273 fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) installations and behind by 740,000 
premises connections, with connection costs to each house or business also blowing out according to an internal company report obtained by Fairfax Media:

"The report, which was never intended for public disclosure, reveals the extent to which the more than $46 billion project has drifted off course, mainly during the time when Mr Turnbull was in direct control as communications minister - the portfolio he held before replacing Tony Abbott as Prime Minister in September……

Under the heading "Commercial in Confidence: Scale the Deployment Program", the report outlines a plethora of faults, including that delays in power approvals and construction are being caused by electricity companies which account for 38,537 premises or 59 per cent of overall slippages against the target.

Another 30 per cent of delays are down to material shortages and a further 11 per cent are attributed to completion reviews.

"Construction completions currently sits at 29K against the corporate budget of 94K," the report states.

"Gap-to-target has increased from 49,183 to 65,268 at week ending February 12.

"Construction completions gap can be attributed to 3 main issues: power, supply, and completions under review."

Also noted in the report is  a rise in the cost per connection of design and construction, which has now reached $1366, compared with the target price of $1114 - a 23 per cent increase."  

Image of Telstra communications pit (Sydney) from Delimiter, 1 March 2016

By now I imagine we are all used to images of aging sections of Telstra's copper network (such as the one above) when people discuss Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull's new and 'innovative' National Broadband Network (NBN).

What we are not accustomed to are images of NBN's actual blunders with Fibre To The Node (FTTN). Planning and operational blunders which appear to be at least a partial cause of the treacle-slow roll out of Malcolm's ill-thought out hybrid scheme.

Examples in South Australia sent to North Coast Voices by a resident of that state. All comments under images are his:

 "The houses near these nodes all have underground power and phone lines. It would have been quicker and cheaper to run fibre."

"NBN running kilometres of new conduit and 200 pair 4 gauge copper cable (left) and nodes side by side with another 190 metres away."

"There is a node to the left of this pillar. This is all 200 pair copper cable. Cheaper, faster sooner. BULLSHIT."

"Generator​ at Murray Bridge, close to power"

"Strathalbyn​​ - Power on both sides of the road and they were running a generator hired from Able Hire many months.The tower was laying in the grass for six months so why wasn't the power ready to connect from day one?" 

As for those NBN costings:

A cable with 4 fibre optic fibres costs 70 cents per metre if bought in large quantities. A cable with 4 fibre cores costs $2.00 per metre in small quantities. These prices are easily verified.
Householders have to pay for the whole footpath, the whole gutter, half the road, sewer, water-main and fire points, gas pipe, storm-water pipes, telephone wires and conduits and power poles and lines or underground power. This is an enormous cost. Contrast this with a relatively small piece of fibre optic cable that is only going a short distance to the Optical Splitter that connects blocks of 32 houses, the cost per connection would be minor, only the cost of a few metres of fibre cable to connect between streets. You would soon have a town or suburb connected for minimal cost.
Currently, when connections are made using copper wire, these copper wires that go from a house to an exchange may be up to eight kilometres in length, which is sixteen kilometres of copper for the two wires. This is a massive cost compared to fibre optic cable.
Landowners with large properties have run their own copper phone lines on top of fences in the past, but distance can be a significant problem with copper. Fibre optic cables can be reliably run 200 kilometres without amplifiers. Also electric fences can cause interference on nearby copper lines. Fibre optic cables are not affected in this way. I have been assured by Peter Ferris of NBNCo that large property holders will be able to cheaply obtain and run their own fibre cables and then easily obtain a connection to the network. [South Australian resident, 2010]

A South Australian resident just seven kilometres by line of sight from the Adelaide central business district has been quoted $150,000 to upgrade to a National Broadband Network fibre connection. Read more: 
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/first-nbn-fibre-extension-comes-in-150000-312027#ixzz42fHnUN24

The NBN access lucky dip:

After attending a Community meeting yesterday, we were advised that it appears likely we would not be included in the Fibre rollout, as it appears to finish at the council border, not extending to the end of the road (a distance of about 1km).

They (NBN Community meeting people) happily advised that we would receive Fixed Wireless coverage when it was installed.

The problem with the Wireless solution is that none of the properties have direct LoS to any tower where the Wireless would be installed…..

What's left?

NBN Satellite. To be within sight of the CBD (~7km as the crow flies) and have to resort to using a Satellite service for broadband is just crazy.

FTTN would even be better, as the Node would be at most 1km from the last property (if installed at the end of the planned Fibre rollout on the affected road), however, I dont believe FTTN is an option being considered by NBNCo. Read more: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1959073

Hills dwellers are not strangers to the vagaries of technology – thanks to the terrain we find so beautiful.
Many residents have tales of having to stand out on the verandah in the cold in order to make mobile phone calls.
Then there are those Cudlee Creek residents who live 15 minutes from Tea Tree Plaza but can't watch the local news because they were relegated to a satellite service at the digital television switch over.
But this region might discover just how off the grid some of its population might be when the NBN Co finishes rolling out the national superfast broadband infrastructure program.
The difference between the "haves" (fibre to the node) and the "have a fraction of what's available" (wireless or satellite) might be the difference of only 100m, depending on where your home is located in this region.
That might not seem so important now but in the future, when reliable access to superfast broadband is considered the norm and the copper wire system is obsolete, residents might find themselves severely disadvantaged.
If you lived in Andamooka in remote SA, you might be more willing to accept that you can only have access to satellite.
But if you live at Piccadilly like Stephen Birrell, and you did your homework before you moved your international business into the Hills, you wouldn't be happy to learn that fibre to the node is too difficult, contrary to initial advice.
Mr Birrell has the means to buy the technology he needs to make his business work, or he can move his company to the US.
His argument is that access to the NBN is being paid for by taxpayers as a basic infrastructure service but a disproportionately high number of taxpayers will receive a significantly slower and more expensive mode of broadband delivery based on geography.
It's why he and his neighbors have started the action group Gully Road Digital Divide to effect change in the NBN roll-out.
Whether the group brings about change in Mayo in an election year remains to be seen.

The cost and complexity of fixed services are prohibitive in some areas but if Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wants Australia to be the country of innovation, perhaps the criteria need to be revisited or at least debated by the community. [The Courier, 9 March 2016]

Founder & Chief Medical Officer, Wellend Health, Adelaide, Australia

All this paints a poor picture of Malcolm Bligh Turnbull's grand plan for an 'innovative and agile' nation with citizens and corporations connected to each other and the world.

The situation is all the more frustrating when one realizes that NBN Co. has been sitting on an alternative to the optic fibre currently in use - skinny fibre.

Of the skinny fibre trials conducted so far CEO of NBN Bill Morrow has stated: 

The findings are encouraging. Relative to cost, we were able to reduce the cost per premises by roughly $450 per premise. And while this is early, it's still significant. And relative to time, we also believe that we could shave four weeks off the time of the build.

Although to date the roll out remit given to NBN Co. by Malcolm Turnbull apparently would not allow it the flexibility to do so.

Is it any wonder that the internal company nickname for the roll  out of the NBN Mark II is Operation Clusterf*ck.

Which leads to another potential problem - the Coalition's Fibre To The Node (FTTN) apparently continues the current ADSL status quo for many Internet users, which is an electricity dependent Internet connection.

What happens to these FTTN connections (and phone connections consumers are/will be paying for in their home or business plans via their Internet Provider) during scheduled and unplanned power outages¹?

NBN Co. obligingly informed us in 2014 that we would need to order its Power Supply Unit Battery Backup Service (which includes a standard battery type used in many different systems) because we will not be able to even dial 000 in a power outage.

Which is definitely a retrograde step, because currently if an ADSL connection is knocked out by a power cut at least the landline phone still functions normally.

This question about power outages was asked in March 2016 by that South Australian resident who commented:

“I made several calls to NBN Co to finally realise that I know more about their technology than the help consultants.

Will my phone and internet work if the power goes out? No, you will need to have a charged mobile phone if there's a power blackout.

I then asked the question about why they have batteries in the nodes, if the 'phones are not going to work in a power failure and was told that they hope that they will work.

What rot.

I also asked why the FTTN system will be running slower for the first 18 months and they couldn't tell me.

I know that you can't have the ADSL and VSDL systems working at full power because one system is interfering with the other. The VSDL interferes with ADSL.
Please see: http://blog.jxeeno.com/nbn-fttn-limited-to-121-mbps-during-transition/”

Footnote

1. Examples of electricity blackouts in 2015:

January  Geelong region storm cause power outages across city ...

February Power outages leave northwest Victoria in the dark ...

March  Wildlife causes power outage…1,455 customers

April  55,000 homes in the Hunter still without power

May  Power restored after outages affect 23,000 homes in ... - ABC

June  Newport crash triggers power outage, house fire, traffic ...

July Carnarvon planned outages in July 2015 - outages will occur from 9 July- 16 July across multiple locations

August Power outage leaves 2500 north Canberra homes in the dark

September Power outage affects 30000 homes and businesses ... - ABC

Lightning, hail and damaging wind hit Brisbane as severe ...affecting more than 1,000 homes and businesses

October Brisbane power cut: Fire causes outages | The Courier-Mail

November Power outage hits thousands in northeast Brisbane suburbs ...

December Power outage in Kurnell: NSW State Emergency Service ...

This was Malcolm Bligh Turnbull's NBN promise to the Australian people during the 2013 federal election campaign

This was then Australian Communications Minister Malcom Bligh Turnbull’s promise to voters during the 2013 federal election campaign:

https://youtu.be/MzSDAGDIn44

On 12 December 2013, less than three months after the Liberal-Nationals Coalition won government, ITnews reported:

The Coalition is already predicting an $11.5 billion blowout to the cost of building its version of the national broadband network, but says it will still cost less than Labor's scheme….

the Coalition's own pre-election pledges proved overly optimistic, with costs expected to come in at "around" $41 billion rather than the promised $29.5 billion.

The 2016 forecast to bring 25 Mbps to all Australians has also been canned. Instead, the Coalition predicts it will be able to bring download speeds of up to 25 Mbps to 43 percent of premises in Australia's fixed-line footprint by that time.

The Coalition's approach "should also be able to deliver access to wholesale speeds of up to 50 Mbps to 90 percent of Australia's fixed-line footprint and wholesale speeds of up to 100 Mbps to 65-75 percent by 2019".

The Coalition will only guarantee these speeds to NBN Co's wholesale customers — internet service providers. There will no longer be a guarantee of what each end user will see in terms of speeds delivered to the home.

On 25 August 2015, almost two years after Abbott & Co formed government, itWire reported the deteriorating NBN situation thus:

It’s official. The Coalition version of the NBN, with its inferior copper technology, will cost as much as Labor’s all-fibre version – on the Government’s own figures.

In February last year – 18 months ago – I sat in a room full of IT journalists and heard Malcolm Turnbull’s deputy, Paul Fletcher, admit that the Coalition’s costings of Labor’s planned NBN had been exaggerated.

Before the September 2013 election Turnbull and Fletcher and Abbott and the rest of the Coalition, when they weren’t chanting ‘Stop the Boats!’ and ‘Axe the Tax’, were endlessly repeating the unsubstantiated talking point that Labor’s NBN would cost $90 billion, more than twice ALP Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s estimate of $39 billion.

Then Fletcher, in February 2014 said in a public forum, in a direct response to my question, and in front of dozens of witnesses, that NBN Co’s internal review of Labor’s NBN had costed it at $56 billion, much closer to Labor’s figure than the inflated estimate the Coalition took to the election.

When I quizzed him on the disparity between the Coalition’s $90 billion estimate of a FTTP network and the much lower NBN Co estimate (made by the management team the Coalition had put into place) of $56 billion, the best Fletcher could say was that the Coalition estimate “may have been a little high”.

Now it seems its estimate of its cut-down version of the NBN ‘may have been a little low’. The big advantage of the Coalition’s ‘multi technology mix’ model, in which millions of households will receive fibre-to-the-node rather than fibre-to-the-home, was supposed to be that it would be a lot cheaper.

Now the CEO of NBN Co, at the briefing accompanying the release of the company’s annual financial figures, has said that the Coalition’s ‘multi technology mix’ NBN will cost at least $46 billion and may cost as much as $56 billion – EXACTLY the same figure that Malcolm Turnbull’s handpicked experts had estimated the Labor FTTH NBN would cost…

That same day The Sydney Morning Herald ran with this:

A $15 billion blowout in the cost of building the national broadband network, partly caused by the slow rollout of key broadband services, could make the internet more expensive for Australians, M2 Group chief executive Geoff Horth said.

NBN on Monday revealed that the cost of building the project would increase by as much as 36.6 per cent to $56 billion up from the $41 billion previously forecast.

By 14 September 2015 The Sydney Morning Herald was reporting:

It is taking Telstra longer overall to repair phone lines damaged during extreme weather than previous years, leaving some consumers and businesses without service and ineligible for compensation.

However, the cost of fixing copper network outages in the street will soon transfer to the government-owned NBN Co, under a rewritten multibillion-dollar deal with Telstra…..

What many people do not realise is that if NBN Co were to announce this week it was rolling out fibre-to-the-node [FTTN] internet in Punchbowl, it would become responsible for making sure Mr Patane's mud-soaked copper wires were good enough for a 50 megabit per second service.

"If it's an area designated to receive FTTN, and the copper in the street needs to be remediated and can be remediated, then we will remediate it," an NBN Co spokesman said.

"If the copper cannot be remediated, then we will use one of the other technologies we have at our disposal to provide them with a service."

NBN Co becomes responsible for maintaining the copper lines between nodes and premises. Its latest corporate plan was full of warnings that degraded copper connections could delay the roll out and increase overall costs.

"The quality of this [copper] network is not fully known as there has been limited opportunity to evaluate the physical infrastructure at significant scale," it states.

NBN chief executive Bill Morrow also revealed Telstra did not release any information about the copper network until after the $11 billion deal was renegotiated.

"If there is a case to where the copper is just in such poor condition that we can't offer the speeds that the government has made us commit to, then we won't use copper in that area. If it means pulling in fibre or fixed wireless towers, that's what we'll do," he said on August 24.

Unlike the NBN started under Labor, which planned to replace the copper connections with end-to-end fibre at 93 per cent of premises, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has asked NBN Co to redesign the network to include the copper connection at millions of premises. About 4 million households and businesses would now get a boosted copper connection, while the remainder getting fibre, cable, satellite or fixed wireless.

As at 3 March 2016, almost two and a half years after the Liberals and Nationals introduced their supposedly ‘new, improved and cheaper’ National Broadband Network (NBN) the three-year construction plan for Angourie, Freeburn Island, Iluka, Wooloweyah and Yamba is seemingly no longer relevant and there appears to be no plan to connect most of the Northern Rivers to NBN via Fibre To The Node in the foreseeable future.

Given the aging population on the NSW Far North Coast, many of us may die still waiting for Malcolm Turnbull’s 'innovative' version of the NBN.

Apple and FBI in far-reaching legal fight over the security of all our digital devices

Last week the world became aware of this sticky situation.......

Business Insider Australia, 18 February 2016:

On Tuesday, a US judge ordered Apple to assist the FBI in unlocking an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernadino shooters. The FBI says it needs to investigate the shooters’ potential links to Islamist terror groups.

This is what the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California court order of 16 February 2016 stated in part:

For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Apple shall assist in enabling the search of a cellular telephone, Apple make: iPhone 5C, Model: A1532, on the Verizon Network, (the “Subject Device”) pursuant to a warrant of this Court by providing reasonable technical assistance to assist law enforcement agents in obtaining access to the data on the SUBJECT DEVICE.

2. Apple's reasonable technical assistance shall accomplish the following three important functions: (1) it will bypass or disable the auto-erase function whether or not it has been enabled; (2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE for testing electronically via the physical device port, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or other protocol available on the SUBJECT and (3) it will ensure that when the FBI submits passcodes to the SUBJECT DEVICE, software running on the device will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcode attempts beyond what is incurred by Apple hardware.

3. Apple's reasonable technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: providing the FBI with a signed iPhone Software file, recovery bundle, or other Software Image File that can be loaded onto the SUBJECT DEVICE. The SIF will load and run from Random Access Memory and will not modify the iOS on the actual phone, the user data partition or system partition on the device’s flash memory. The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute. The SIF will be on the SUBJECT DEVICE loaded via Device Firmware Upgrade mode, recovery mode, or other applicable mode available to the FBI. Once active on the SUBJECT DEVICE, the SIF will accomplish the three functions specified in paragraph 2. The SIF will be loaded on the SUBJECT DEVICE at either a government facility, or alternatively, at an Apple facility; if the latter, Apple shall provide the government with remote access to the SUBJECT DEVICE through a computer allowing the government to conduct passcode recovery analysis.

So why does the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation need Apples' help to unlock that particular iPhone?

Well, according to the Brisbane Times on 21 February, it seems the FBI made a data retrieval error when the phone came into its possession:

In the chaotic aftermath of the shootings in San Bernardino, California, in December, FBI investigators seeking to recover data from the iPhone of one of the shooters asked a technician in the California county to reset the phone's iCloud password.

That apparent fog-of-war error has foreclosed the possibility of an automatic backup by the phone to the Apple iCloud servers that might have turned up more clues to the origins of the terrorist attack that killed 14 people.

"The county and the FBI were working together cooperatively to obtain data, and at the point when it became clear the only way to accomplish the task at hand was to reset the iCloud password, the FBI asked the county to do so, and the county complied," said David Wert, a spokesman for San Bernardino County.

The Justice Department disclosed the misstep in a court filing on Friday

Now both Apple and the entire global digital community are supposed to suffer a diminution in the level of online privacy and safety they currently enjoy, in order for the FBI to save face.

This is Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook’s letter to all customers defying that U.S. court order:

February 16, 2016

A Message to Our Customers

The United States government has demanded that Apple take an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers. We oppose this order, which has implications far beyond the legal case at hand. 

This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.

The Need for Encryption

Smartphones, led by iPhone, have become an essential part of our lives. People use them to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going.

All that information needs to be protected from hackers and criminals who want to access it, steal it, and use it without our knowledge or permission. Customers expect Apple and other technology companies to do everything in our power to protect their personal information, and at Apple we are deeply committed to safeguarding their data.

Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk. That is why encryption has become so important to all of us.

For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.

The San Bernardino Case

We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.

We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.

Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

The Threat to Data Security

Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.

In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.

A Dangerous Precedent

Rather than asking for legislative action through Congress, the FBI is proposing an unprecedented use of the All Writs Act of 1789 to justify an expansion of its authority.

The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by “brute force,” trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.

While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.

Tim Cook

A 1.2m x 2.4m view of the National Broadband Network

via @MAL_TURNBULL

Australian Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull's NBN Broadband: Noely tells it like it is

Excerpt from My Broadband v Reality, Punters don’t know any better and that is just the way PM Turnbull likes it, 14 January 2016…….

For those of you who think the NBN has nothing to do with you, think about these scenarios:

How will you feel in years to come when your investment property is not valued as highly as similar properties in the neighbourhood just because punters finally wised up to the fact that they need to rent/buy a property that had fast, stable internet access and sadly due to circumstances beyond your control, you got the Thunderbox version of the NBN instead of the Indoor Throne like the other homes - there goes the extra for your pension?

How will you feel watching your child wait in emergency at the rural hospital for the specialist in the closest capital city to look at the scans and advise the local doctors what to do? Waiting, waiting, waiting... Not because the specialist is not around, but because the scans have failed to send over the line a few times because the weather is really bad? I have been in this scenario and don’t wish it upon any parent, ever!

How will you feel watching your oldest child stress over their final assignment drafts they are trying to email their teacher, that has to be received by said teacher by that particular date or they will lose points on the assignment, but, gee, the net is playing silly buggers and email with attachment (ie the assignment) keeps stalling? It’s only your child’s future at stake?

Your second child has just turned two and you really want to get back into the workforce (and your mortgage needs it), of course jobs are scarce, so you decide, well, Government is offering initiatives to set up home-based business, I’ll do that. Just a bit of a bugger that you didn’t realise you would need decent internet speeds & bandwidth to even access those fancy Government sites telling you of incentives; communicating with your clients online; doing your BAS & tax, the list goes on... Of course when you hit up your provider for better access, they tell you that it will either cost you a squillion – which makes your home business untenable – or sorry lady, just bad luck you live in an area that hasn’t been upgraded, yet, and well, ummm sorry, we don’t have you on our future plan at the moment either, maybe in a few years we can help you?

There are many scenarios like the above, they are real life results of the NBN being decimated. Next time you hear someone say something along the lines of “Who cares about internet access, just so a few youngsters can stream movies”, tell them NO and give them a REAL life scenario to ponder.

Prime Minister Abbott's plan still permits an outrageous attack on Australian press freedom

Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance 16 March 2015:

The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), the union and industry advocate for Australia’s journalists, cannot support the Prime Minister’s proposal for government “agencies to obtain a warrant in order to access a journalist’s metadata for the purpose of identifying a source”.

The Prime Minister’s plan still permits an outrageous attack on press freedom and would have a chilling effect on journalism in Australia leading to whistleblowers being fearful that they risk exposure if they seek to reveal instances of wrongdoing, corruption, waste, illegal activity and dishonesty.

MEAA believes the lack of understanding of what is at stake requires the proposed Parliamentary Inquiry into press freedom concerns to go ahead in order the concerns of journalists and media organisations are heard and acknowledged by MPs.

MEAA CEO Paul Murphy said: “What needs to be understood is that no journalist, anywhere, can ever allow the identity of a confidential source to become known – that is a guiding principle of journalism the world over. It is a principle acknowledged by every Australian journalist in clause 3 of MEAA’s Journalist Code of Ethics: ‘Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances’.”

Murphy added: “Accessing metadata to hunt down journalists’ sources, regardless of the procedures used, threatens press freedom and democracy. It means important stories in the public interest can be silenced before they ever become known, and whistleblowers can be persecuted and prosecuted. It means journalists can be jailed for simply doing their job.

“The so-called ‘safeguards’ recommended by the Parliamentary Committee were no safeguards at all because they still allowed government agencies to hunt down journalists’ sources. Similarly, the Prime Minister’s proposal also allows those agencies to trawl through a journalist’s metadata in order to expose a confidential source. Putting a hurdle like a warrant in the way will not change the outcome: using a journalists’ metadata to pursue a whistleblower. Why does the Government not understand that no journalist can breach their fundamental ethical obligation to never allow the identity of a confidential source to be revealed?”

MEAA has consistently explained this principle of press freedom in every submission to Parliament on the national security laws. MEAA also repeated those concerns on Thursday last week when it was visited by representatives from the Prime Minister’s, Attorney-General’s and Communications Minister’s offices and the AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin. During that meeting, the AFP confirmed it has been repeatedly asked to hunt down journalists’ sources by accessing journalists’ metadata and he confirmed that it is doing so. The Data Retention Bill will simply formalise these activities with no regard to the press freedom implications and presumably encourage at least 20 government agencies to go trawling through journalists’ metadata.

Murphy said: “Journalists cannot allow the relationship they have with a confidential source to be breached, under any circumstance – that is their ethical responsibility. If the surveillance continues and is formally adopted in the Data Retention Bill with or without a warrant, then journalists will be forced to use the tools of counter-surveillance such as anonymisation and encryption to protect their sources. It remains our fundamental position that this Bill should not be proceed at all and that the press freedom concerns of the previous two tranches of national security laws must be addressed.”

In an interesting twist, the Australian Federal Police issued a media release in which it admitted that police already request access to journalists’ metadata:

Fact check: Use of metadata in relation to journalists

Release Date: Tuesday, March 17 2015, 02:34 PM

In a statement released yesterday, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) claimed that AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin confirmed the AFP had “been repeatedly asked to hunt down journalists’ sources by accessing journalists’ metadata and he confirmed that it is doing so. The Data Retention Bill will simply formalise these activities with no regard to the press freedom implications and presumably encourage at least 20 government agencies to go trawling through journalists’ metadata.”

This is inaccurate and a distortion of the comments made.

Commissioner Colvin said that over the past 18 months, the AFP has received 13 referrals relating to the alleged unauthorised disclosure of Commonwealth information in breach of section 70 of the Crimes Act.

This offence specifically criminalises the activity of Commonwealth officials who have released Commonwealth information in contravention of their obligations, not journalists.

In the overwhelming majority of these investigations, no need was identified to conduct a metadata telecommunications inquiry on a journalist. AFP requests for accessing a journalist’s metadata are rare. [my red bolding]

On  19 March 2015 the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 was passed by the House of Representative. Only three MPs voted against it - The Greens'Adam Bandt and Independents Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan.

 Image from The Guardian 19 March 2015