Crikey readers have gone into bat for both sides of the digital security debate as raised by Bernard Keane, some calling for the strengthening of laws while others suggested a link to Australia’s nanny-state tendencies. Meanwhile, debate around the wisdom of allowing Chinese telecom Huawei to run Australian mobile networks provoked familiar questions about the company’s intentions, and about the role it already plays in Australia.
On Australians’ digital security anxiety.
BeenAround writes: The law should be protecting us in respect of data privacy. I do not feel sufficiently qualified to do it myself. I rate myself as reasonably competent with technology, but when I do try to take steps to better protect my data privacy, I often encounter bewilderingly impenetrable ways in which to do that. Or, if one does succeed, that then reduces the functionality of the technology.
In my view, the solution is simple. The law ought to be that a user must knowingly opt in to data sharing, not be required to amateurishly attempt it yourself, often without ever knowing whether the steps one takes were the right steps or how effective personal action was.
On Huawei’s bid for running Telstra’s 5G network
Mongoose writes: All communications, security, financial and essential services should remain in, or come under, public hands instead of being gifted at fire sale prices to cronies of the government. That means building our own defense assets. Instead we are handing over control of our essential services to global behemoths who don’t care a fig for us or our well-being, especially in times of trouble.
Andrew Malzard writes: Because we live in the Adelaide Hills, if it wasn’t for Huawei’s little 4G Cube connected 2-3 years ago, we would still be waiting to experience a reliable broadband internet service with speeds up to 40Mbs. And, if want to connect to Mr Turnbull’s definition of a NBN, we will have to wait another 3 years!
Tony Sweetnam: Huawei’s network switches installed in the UK were found to be generating suspicious extra traffic. The reason ASIO does not want them to be bid is because there is evidence that they have already been using network equipment for spying for the Chinese government.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length. Please include your full name.
Damien writes: Odd, Bernard considers any request to “interfere” with “choices” of consumers when it comes to sugar and gambling as the nanny state gone mad! Surely demanding the government intervene on behalf of consumers who are simply making their own choices when failing to look after their online privacy would just be another knee-jerk Nanny State reaction … isn’t that right Bernard?
AR writes: We cannot uninvent the internet and without the total data intrusiveness most have come to deem normal — from mobile to Facebook — it would not function as we have come to expect/demand. The only solution is the diktat that our information is to be our copyright, with the usual attributes. Its use can be licensed, with suitable peppercorn charges but the main change must be the full disclosure, at short notice, of all current holdings.