Without jumping to Orwellian conclusions – (lets remember, this is only a proposal at this time) – this concept would have massive implications for society in this country, should it ever come to pass.

Imagine you are a professional wrestler, with an image of power and aggression to satisfy your fans. You are rippling with muscles, and you shine you muscles with baby oil before every bout, and women just love you for your oozing masculinity.

However, secretly in your own home, you enjoy looking at pictures of little pink pussycats, wearing linen bonnets. No harm in that, but knowing that it might harm your public image, you prefer that it not be public knowledge.

So you keep it to yourself, and carry on with your wrestling career.

A year from now, a system administrator at your ISP, having a bad day, is threatened with the sack from his or her job. In an attempt to stave off the inevitable, they illegally take a copy of the ISP browsing history of all customers of the ISP. Including yours. Covering several years of your online activities.

A few days later, the administrator loses their job, but still has a copy of the logs at home. Enraged for losing their job, they collate the logs user-by-user.

They notice your logs, and your frequent visits to “littlepinkpussycatsinlinenbonnets.com” and – (probably correctly) – deduce that you are into that. As revenge on their former employer for losing their job, and against you for beating up their favourite wrestler the week before, they release the log of your activities onto an internet forum.

Your public image is severely compromised. You could seek an apology and compensation, but the “truth” is already out there, and can never be taken back.

Should you have refrained from entertaining yourself online with a subject you are interested in, just because the information might become public someday?

No – your right to privacy has been infringed, because although my example is a bit “out there”, the mere collection of such data opens the possibility for the abuse of that data.

The government may swear that they will have “checks and balances” in place to protect it, however you can never guard against everything. Does a traffic light turning red actually FORCE a driver to stop?

Any person with access/exposure to the data has the potential to abuse it – and you can never guarantee that someone with a grudge to bear won’t use the data for evil purposes.

Sure, they would face consequences, but the deed is done. The information is out.

The government say they would just be following a similar model to that which is in place in the EU. Who says the EU is right about this?

Our government may think it is a good idea to keep this data, and certainly there would be advantages for law enforcement agencies if such data was collected and kept.

But the data would exist. Data that exists can be leaked, stolen, and/or abused.

What “little pink pussycats” do you have in your closet?

Some blogs are attacking this as some kind of heavy handed human rights violation. Huh?

This is simply not true, because if you actually READ the first article, his passport was briefly taken from him because it was showing signs of excessive wear. This is normal practice, as passports that are apparently worn need to be properly inspected to ensure that the wear is not a result of tampering or forging, or that it will not be susceptible to such in the future. The article even states that his passport was returned to him “after about 15 minutes”. It also states quite clearly that “passports are routinely taken from travellers for short periods by immigration officials if they are damaged”.

Apparently he was told that “it was about to be cancelled”. Yes, absolutely – the current issue of his passport would be cancelled due to the passport being excessively worn. Again, standard procedure – all he has to do is have it re-issued. This makes him a political prisoner, does it?

Of course not – Assange is just taking the opportunity to blow the incident out of proportion for some cheap and easy publicity. Wikileaks is responsible for good work in many areas, but sometimes won’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

This seems to me like another such instance.

Hmm…here’s how it appeared on the homepage:

The newspaper has been running this campaign to publicly name a convicted rapist and killer of an elderly Frankston woman ten years ago, who now lives in Geelong. A crime for which he was tried, convicted and sentenced. Despite the fact that he has served out his sentence, the Advertiser has publicly put him back on trial, just because he’s living in Geelong.

And it would appear that they have had some measure of success.

She said her client,was not in court as he feared for his safety. “My client has received death threats and his life is in jeopardy and I don’t say that in overkill,” Ms Simpson said.

Well done. You’ve made this man a prisoner in his own home, and put his life at risk. You’ve publicly trialled and convicted him with your promotion of vigilante justice. I thought you were a newspaper? You should report the news, not make it.

I notice after a healthy debate on yet another story on the subject yesterday, that you’ve closed comments on today’s article. What were you afraid to hear?

Disgusting.

You can tighten up the liquor licensing laws, and penalise licensees for breaching the rules, but people will always find alcohol. Even without alcohol, people with socio-economic problems (such as the unemployed), or simply people who’ve just “had a bad day” can react with violence to what some might see as trivial triggers.

Nobody can ever understand the personal situation of every person on the planet. Depression is a major factor in the day-to-day lives of many people. Crime is often the resort of desperation. Bullying across all parts of the community – schools, workplaces, and online in particular – is a common manifestation of this desperation and frustration.

The local major media outlet – The Geelong Advertiser – has in the last couple of years mounted and supported a strong campaign against bullying in all its forms, especially after a number of incidences of suicide amongst the teen population in the city, after they had suffered prolonged bouts of bullying from peers.

The campaign has had many successes, and has gained a national profile. The plight of Elijah Vetmah is a particularly heartening message to come out of the campaign.

Bullying in all of its forms should not be tolerated under any circumstance. This is the message The Advertiser in particular has been taking to the public. I congratulate them and wholeheartedly support them for doing so.

Stop press!!! In recent days, The Advertiser has mounted another campaign.

It was recently discovered that a convicted murderer and rapist – who was a minor at the time of the offence, and as such has had his name suppressed – is living in Geelong, in the suburb of Belmont.

Undoubtedly, the crime committed by this person was heinous, vile and disgusting. However, it is important to remember that there is a sequence in the wheels of justice, a sequence that has been followed in this case.

He committed the crime; it was investigated by police; he was charged with the crime; he was committed to stand trial; he was convicted of the crime before a jury; he was sentenced for his crime; he served his sentence; he was released.

As far as the justice system goes – as it currently stands – he has paid his debt to society. I’m not saying the sentence was adequate or inadequate. I’m not trying to say he should or should not have been released. I most certainly do not condone what he did.

But the man has “done his time” for his crime.

Why is it then okay for The Geelong Advertiser to start a vocal online campaign to have this man named? What will naming him do, apart from starting a vigilante vendetta against him in the local community? Whether or not the man has been rehabilitated in jail, his sentence is complete, and he now has the right – (despite what some think) – to get on with his life. He will still live with the crime for the rest of his life.

This man probably just wants to get on with his life. What gives The Geelong Advertiser the right to put this man on trial – a very public trial – for a crime he has already been put on trial for, been convicted of and punished for? They have absolutely no right!

Perhaps he should have been left in jail for longer. I believe that he probably should have been put in jail for longer. But, Geelong Advertiser, you can’t complain about this, when the legal system ruled on this case ten years ago. Mount a campaign for tougher sentencing, or better yet, report the news instead of trying to create it.

For a newspaper so active and vocal against bullying, this online campaign to name this man sounds an awful lot like bullying.

This evening’s 17:29 Southern Cross to Marshall was cancelled. So what you ask? Well, it’s more the circumstances that caused it’s cancellation, and the subsequent “customer service” experience that’s really gotten up my nose.

Here’s the video again:

And here is the advertisement that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today from HSBC, who state “We spend more time looking at your assets!”: