gillard's australia, page-28

peterd, it was your words "independent". But still there is nothing wrong in making the media accountable for what they say and do.
Last I heard the media were talking about self regulation.



I previously posted the departments the claimed 1600 media staff actually belonged.
For example 175 of those 1600 staff worked for the Defense Force, 271 Taxation Office, 16 Veteran Affairs, 40 Australian Federal Police, etc., and not from some special group of 1600 media staff.

Some of the tripe that has being dished out on HC was the claim that Gillard had 1600 media staff and Howard only had 5 staff. And the gullible on HC took it hook line and sinker and kept repeating the "1600 media staff" fallacy here on HC.



If as you claim you are aware of what is already retained and for how long, then you should know that the issue about data retention is not about the retention of the data.
It is about the cost of the retention of the data and what restrictions and safe guards need to be implemented as to who has access and under what circumstances they should have access.



The other aspect you mentioned that I did not previously touch on was the censorship of the Internet. Which is a very tricky aspect that needs to be approached with an enormous amount of caution because of the way any censorship would be open to abuse.
The government (of any political flavour) should not be given blanket control of any censorship of the Internet, (Conroy especially).

If you believe the claims by most here on HC, Labor will not win the next election. So Labor will not be in a position to instigate any censorship, so the censorship argument becomes a mute point.



P.S. peterd, just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean they belong to any particular political party. It just means they are able to assess issues without the football team mentality that is so popular here on HC.

So it is best to save "your mob" and "you fools" etc. for the next football game you go to.