[LINK] The net according to Cerf (at Davos)
rick at praxis.com.au
Mon Jan 29 10:43:37 AEDT 2007
Stewart Fist wrote:
> Howard writes:
>> We need the legislators - to impose serviceability requirements on
>> computer users and to enforce ISPs to police those laws. It would have
>> a spin-on effect of generating service work in the IT industry, and
>> should be linked to the licencing of IT practitioners.
> <large snip>
>> Flatter government, not fatter government; abolish the Australian states.
> How do you reconcile these two statements ?
In Howard's defense, I would say that
(a) flatter government does not mean we do not enact further desperately
needed legislation; and
(b) flatter government implies less bureaucracy imho, not less legislation; and
(c) flatter government could well mean less "unneeded" legislation.
Regarding point (c), a respected judge in Canada reviewed the Canadian Criminal
Code back in the 1970's (or so) and found it could be reduced easily to 1/10th
of its current size. It would take a lot of will and a lot of rewriting to do so.
Why for example is there a law outlawing the pilfering of lobster from lobster
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services
People who enjoy eating sausage and obey the law should not watch either being made.
-- Otto von Bismarck
More information about the Link