• We Read 150 Privacy Policies. They Were an Incomprehensible Disaster. Have you ever really read and understood an entire privacy policy? Our analysis showed the average policy took 18 minutes to read and required a university-level reading ability.

• 6 Places in Europe Offering Shelter From the Crowds How good is sharing a magical travel moment with hundreds of other tourists jostling for the best view? Skip the obvious destinations for these equally beautiful alternatives, minus the hordes.

... And Over To You

In last week’s Australia Letter (Australia: Relaxed, Sunny and Secretive?) we asked you whether the federal police went too far in seizing records and documents from journalists. We received a record number of responses, so thank you greatly for your passionate and smart contributions. Here’s a selection of some thoughts you contributed:

Under the guise of ‘national security’

It’s not just a question of the Australian Government going too far in seizing records and documents from journalists. It really is a question of how/why the Australian people have allowed this to occur. Why have we let the government and their agencies have these extraordinary intrusive, anti-democratic powers. Under the guise of ‘national security’ the government has either been granted or taken power far beyond what is reasonable and necessary.

— Ken Volpe

Individual versus community rights

Australians are more comfortable with government than Americans. There’s a libertarian streak that exists Down Under especially with the descents of the settlers of the Bush (and in Queensland in general) but it’s nothing like the Don’t Tread on Me sentiments that pervade America nationwide. It’s much harder to sue in either Australia or Canada compared to the U.S. There are fewer lawyers per capita!

So I’m not so surprised about the government raid on the journalist’s office. Your point of view, which strikes me as very liberal American, comes through quite clearly in the reporting. It has as well in other pieces you’ve written (especially on race relations in Oz). I’m probably more in sympathy with the Aussie balance between individual and community rights, so I find your tilt irritating at times.

— Lawrence Diller

An Australian Bill of Rights?

We need protection for journalists and their sources. At least the warrants on which such raids are legally based should be scrutinised, approved and issued by a judge of a superior court, in this case the Federal Court of Australia. This needs to be legislated immediately. And then a Bill of Rights protecting journalists and their sources.

— Michael Green

When secrecy becomes routine

Australian government’s use of secrecy seems to have escalated since 9/11 and those forms of secrecy previously used only in war time and justified in terms of national security are now used routinely and daily. The secrecy about off-shore matters and refugees is a case in point, and Australians have accepted that secrecy in a shamefully docile manner along with the extraordinary cruelty toward refugees. Men like Dutton revel in the power that gives him as did John Howard. Australian democracy is in trouble in my view.

— Bronwyn Davies

What if the “proper channels” are broken?

In Australia, we like everyone to go through the “proper channels,” the last channel being the press which usually reports on court and administrative decisions rather than investigate itself. But, what if the proper channels are inaccessible or broken? Then the weak have to live with injustice in silence and the strong get impunity, make millions and keep doing what they were doing.

— Kay Wilson