I think Senator Stott-Despoja is right to raise this issue, and the performance of the ALP with regard to the anti-terror laws in particular is cause for serious concern. I think that Senator Stott-Despoja is also correct to point out that the Australian Democrats have been in the forefront of profiling privacy concerns, and indeed in issues of personal and human rights generally.

if you leave the power of the monarch in the hands of a few hundred individuals who are not selected for their likelihood of beatification, you will get something quite like '1984'. the process is well advanced, and the oz electorate has shown no sign of transformation from subject-mentality to citizenship. the process will continue.

your grand children will be bred for submissiveness, thx to dna engineering, and wear a chip in their skull directing their labors. that's if they're lucky. many will be surplus to requirements, and converted to soylent green.

this is probably a good thing. the world was a better place when the neanderthals went under, for being too dim to live, just like erectus and earlier models. homo superior may be smarter, and take better care of the planet.

Amongst a people who aren't interested it is very hard to protect their rights. I have watched in the past year as the main media outlets simply refused to treat the Access Card as a story - even by way of explanatory pieces. The only ongoing coverage was in the Australians IT section, and all praise to them for their work. The Democrats did sterling work, press releases and seminars were organised by the Democrats, the Civil Liberties lobby - but what coverage did it receive? What interest was shown? We have a much more fundamental problem at work.

The Democrats had internal difficulties but they are to the equivalent of the tradesmens utility, not snazzy but essential to getting the work done. The Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the press all need to take a deep breath and remember, beneath the spin actions of potentially great good and great harm are being discussed.

Many actions of Government are in practice irrevocable. Once started a programme and an agenda will be tinkered with but rarely if ever stopped. That is the essential wisdom of advocates of limited government. The really scary bit is when these programmes involve suspensions of legal rights and trading in the individuals identity.

Those interested in Privacy, Individual Rights and freedom from coercion need to engage with the press and with the public policy establishment - not just on a case by case basis, but at a moral and ethical level. Finally, join an organization you feel comfortable with - Liberty Victoria, Amenesty etc or if you feel pugilistic - the ALP, the Liberals. Get the discussion moving. Privacy and individual rights will be taken if not fought for.

My seven year old girl would like to talk to you. my name is Katie. Do you learn science. How was your day. "I thought that was very good".
Good bye for now.
So now how are you feeling? The world seems to judge people to quickly without the in-site of common sense. This site is sitting on the mound of discrimination. I hope your all happy with your pre judgements cause all you have achieved is nothing. The JOKE is on you.
Your only crime is that you have forgotten to be human, I hope you can live with that.

Being cryptic was the test! MOST OF YOU HAVE FAILED. I fear trusting the worlds existence in the hands of the youth can only make me uncertain of the future.
Again! I hope you know what you are all doing. The world is going around and around in a pointless circle. My children see it, I see it and I think only a handful of us can see the car crash before it happens. All I hear is second hand pre written information and do you think this will keep you in line and be profitable as a human being in this world today. As you can probably guess, my mind thinks faster than I can type, so this is my true disability

Information Technology also creates a paradox regarding fraudulent activities. For example, availability of new technology can help prevent credit card fraud, however it can also create new opportunities for some individuals to act in a criminal manner. But what about our privacy as well? How much does our credit card really reveal about us? And to whom?

Credit card facilitators (commonly embodied in the Visa and MasterCard brand) have a strong relationship with the adoption of new technology. It seems that they have learnt to evolve with the trends of their user and have particularly benefited from movements incorporating e-commerce. It could also be argued that it is the credit cards themselves that are driving trends and pushing users to adopt their system. In reality it is probably a bit of both.

Credit issuers would need to be wary that in a world where human administration has been largely replaced with computers, that this does not create a window for criminal activity, almost as soon as an avenue has seemingly been closed off. The prevention of corruption is an important factor if a largely service based entity wishes to be perceived as reliable, transparent and trustworthy.

Modern credit card banking is reliant upon electronic record keeping and an extensive transaction network. It also benefits from an information-based and market driven society that is willing to adopt new trends in e-commerce, fueled by the Internet and an individuals infinite needs and wants. If technology drives these factors, then its good for firms in the business of profiteering from the credit card. Recently history would suggest so. http://credit-union-loans.com/origin-of-credit.htm

The question is, are consumers ultimately paying for credit cards, credit unions, and online banking etc with their privacy (credit transaction records, datamining, credit rating etc)? And what is the role of the government in all this?

Haven't had a chance to read it all, but there's a discussion paper related to the Australian Law Reform Commission's current inquiry here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/dp/72/

It's worth noting that the Government's briefing book for its current term activities includes the following: "Major changes to Australia’s privacy laws can be expected after the ALRC delivers its
final report in 2008." (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BriefingBook42p/BriefingBook_2007.pdf page 124).

As a result, I think the Senator's concerns about what will happen to privacy legislation after the Democrats have left the Senate may be a little premature.

This bird has too be kidding right?

Why do ya all head down too the Federal Court in Sydney on the 28th March, 2008 and see what info technology abuses have done.

It's public record ... from Google of course ... who else.

David asks?

The question is, are consumers ultimately paying for credit cards, credit unions, and online banking etc with their privacy (credit transaction records, datamining, credit rating etc)? And what is the role of the government in all this?

Yes David they are ..... and you would all be surprised just to find out how.

Anyway ... 28th March .. Federal Court Sydney ... be there or be square ...

Federal Politicians of all persuasions are to be congratulated for their efforts in stopping Australia having the equivalent of an Australia Card. We should especially acknowledge the great work of the Democrats. This has been an example of our system working well. The overwhelming "administrative" tendency is for organisations - (with all the best intentions) - to create a single identifier for each person. The Access Card was (is) a not so subtle attempt for this goal to be realised.

The critical fact that many politicians understand is that we MUST not have a single repository of information about a person because that leads to unnecessary control and surveillance. A centralised database is an inevitable emergent property of a system with a single identifier for a person.

It turns out that a single repository of information about everyone would be an efficiency nightmare. The shelving of the Access Card is great news for the efficient operation of our country. Our electronic systems now enable us to identify ourselves with voice, photographs, video, iris scans, etc. whenever needed. It turns out that this sort of identification is rarely needed in practice but when needed can today be efficiently supplied. It also turns out that our David Jones Card is sufficient for our David Jones transactions, Medicare Card for medicare etc.

Once again a pat on the back to our politicians from all sides of the political spectrum for looking after the interests of their electorates.

I note from JOJO's comments above that maybe he or she knows more about what is going on than we "as normal people" do, as regards to our privacy in the world of e-commerce.

My question being, "Who in big brother land" is checking the checkers who are supposedly responsible for placing relevant info on our Credit Files?

A classic example being how hard it is for people to remove a bad listing on their Credit Report when it shouldn't have been listed in the first place.