Australia kind of leapfrogged past the US and even the UK in terms of a soft tyrannical take over. I found it surprising, but as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns) the changes have been moving very quickly.
You are making a mistake in assuming the Australian culture is the same as US culture. It's one our own commentators have actually started doing too.
Australia has never had the same views on freedom and rights that the US has. It has always been understood that there is a compromise between personal freedoms and state control. An example of this is that we don't have a Bill or Rights, we don't have a Freedom of Expression, in fact there are no "rights" in our federal law at all. (We are a signatory to the UN human rights convention and one of the territories has rights legistlation which complicates things a little, but in general when an Australian mentions their rights they have no idea what they are talking about).
So this isn't a recent tyrannical takeover and raising guns as an issue is completely irrelevant. Hell, we started has a prison colony where everyone had to obey orders and there has never ever been a serious movement of Australians employing violence against their own government. What we have is a misstep by a government regulator that has very little idea what it's doing. The IT press are whipping up the rage to try and ensure that this is an election issue, for at least a day or two. The major parties will probably move strongly to avoid it becoming a problem for them and the regulator will be put back in it's box for a few years.
Rather than an encryption gateway, having your email client handle encryption avoids the problem of man-in-the-middle attacks between the gateway and the client.
I don't have much reason to encrypt, but Thunderbird has my certificate installed and does my digital signing. This is not unusual for a modern email client.
It's pretty nasty when a company 'giving away razors to sell blades' starts trying to make money off of the razors too. The Kindle was originally Amazon's way to jump-start their ebook and streaming services. Now they want to be a tablet player too. Greedy.
But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.
I think he meant the people doing everything they can to maximize profits from content.
And trying to 'maximize' the 'minimal' legal authority that exists to support their positions.
And trying to maximize their eroding monopolies.
Right, I had figured that was who it meant, but I'm not sure I understand how that makes them 'content' maximalists. Is it just a typo like someone else suggested and it should read 'copyright' maximalists instead? If that's not it, then it seems a bit ambiguous. I want as much content as possible to be out there, wouldn't that make me a 'content' maximalist too?
Actually, you're 100% right. I think I was trying to decide between the phrase "content cartel" and "copyright maximalists", so my aging brain settled on "content maximalists". Would you change that to "copyright maximalists" for me, please
Content maximalists? In context it's obviously supposed to refer to Viacom et al, but I'm not sure what that means. They want maximum content? Doesn't quite sound right.
It means the big old school content "gatekeeper" companies, and their trade groups like the MPAA, RIAA, ASCAP, etc., whose economic power is being eroded by digitalization and the internet, and who are fighting back by taking extremist positions in defense of their copyright ownership.