🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Grimwood <reaper@crystal.uwa.edu.au> wrote
in message news:7iksgi$o3h$3@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> In aus.org.efa Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> yvonne <ycooke@enter.net.au> wrote:

>>> But he says some e-mails, for example those sent to a group,
>>> would not be regarded as normal e-mails under the new legislation
>>> and therefore could be illegal." (copied from ABC site)

>> Nothing like what Dan was saying about snooping on all email.

> To quote myself, "... email to a group of your mates ...".

You actually said

>>>> Send an explicit email to a group of your mates about your dirty weekend
>>>> with your girlfriend.  The government computer will see offensive words in
>>>> your email sent to an email list, so someone in Canberra will have to read
>>>> your email to see if it is offensive.  Do you want others reading your email?

That recently passed legislation doesnt provide for them to 'read
your email to see if its offensive'. The most it does in the email
situation is have some provision for ONE OF THE RECIPIENTS
to run snivelling to the ABA. A different matter entirely.

> The ting is that the government has failed to define what a "group" is,

Nothing to do with that bit I was commenting on, your bit about
'The government computer will see offensive words in your email
sent to an email list, so someone in Canberra will have to read your
email to see if it is offensive.  Do you want others reading your email?'

> and even then they say it is just an example, implying there are
> other types of email which would not be regarded as normal
> e-mails. They are being deliberately ambiguous about it all.

Or it just isnt feasible to be precise about groups. Clearly
just using the CC field instead of a proper list is a group.
But equally clearly the Notes on the legislation also say

'the framework will not apply to private or restricted distribution
communications such as e-mail; however, current provisions of
the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in relation to offensive or harassing
use of a telecommunications service will apply in this context'

I doubt its a deliberate omission, just the usual problem that
it just isnt feasible to rigidly define something like a 'group',
particularly when some hard core porn is distributed by email.

> Also, how do they tell whether you have sent an email to a group,
> or sent lots of emails to different people in quick succession?

I doubt they actually give a damn about the distinction.
And clearly if none of your mates runs snivelling to the
ABA about whats in it, they wont even care at all.

And even if say you manage a complete footshot and that 'girlfriend'
happens to be a complete slut and is also dangling one of your mates on
a string as well, and he recognises her from your description, I bet the ABA
will just tell him to drop dead once they stop laughing at his predicament.

Just like the ABA basically told the mindless wowsers to drop dead on their
demands to have Lolita banned too, in the usual bureaucratic language of course.

> They will have to compare the documents; even if it is
> just the size of the documents, it is an invasion of privacy.

That's life. There is very little real protection of your privacy in this
country. The only real exception is access to some information
held by government like your tax file and medicare records etc.