news The Federal Parliament has rejected a number of requests from interested parties to extend the short deadline for submissions to an inquiry into a wide-reaching package of legislative reforms proposed by the Federal Government which the Greens have slammed as constituting a “systematic erosion of privacy” in Australia.
The package of reforms which are being promulgated by the Federal Attorney-General’s Department include a number of modifications to four pieces of legislation; The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, the Telecommunications Act, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and the Intelligence Services Act. Information released by the Attorney-General’s Department suggests that that the changes are extremely wide-reaching. For example, the Government is seeking to modify aspects of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act that relate to the legislation’s privacy protection clauses, tests for issuing warrants, oversight arrangements and information sharing provisions between agencies, for a start.
Instead of law enforcement agencies being forced to request multiple different types of interception warrants, the legislation would be modified to allow authorities to request a new more comprehensive centralised type of warrant with multiple powers. The interception regime — which allows authorities to request Internet service providers and telcos to intercept the communications of their customers — would be extended to some types of service providers not currently covered by the legislation.
Provisions under the ASIO Act for the intelligence agency to request warrants are to be modernised and streamlined, and the agency is to gain the power to disrupt a target computer for the purposes of accessing the information on it — or even to access other third-party computers on the way to the target machine. The Government is also interested in establishing an offence which would allow Australians to be charged with failing to assist in decrypting encrypted communications.
Also on the cards is a data retention protocol which would require ISPs, for example, to retain data on their customers for up to two years. This is an idea which has proven controversial in Australia over the past several years.
On July 9 this year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is to examine the proposed reforms, noted it had consented to commence an inquiry into the package, and was requesting submissions from the public into the package until 6 August this year – a window for submissions of only one month.
Subsequently, the Australian division of the Pirate Party wrote to the committee secretariat requesting an extension of the deadline, noting that “given the gravity, complexity and sheer volume of proposals and implications arising from the proposals, the window of a mere month for public comment and submissions to the Inquiry is far too small for any meaningful or considered response to the Terms of Reference.”
According to emails since published by the Pirate Party, the committee secretariat immediately wrote back denying any deadline extension.
“The Committee appreciates your interest in the inquiry and would welcome a submission from you,” wrote committee secretary Jerome Brown to the Pirate Party. “I regret to advise, however, that your request for an extension to 30 September 2012 to lodge a submission cannot be accommodated. Should you wish to make a contribution, the Committee encourages you to lodge a submission by the due date so that the members can have the benefit of your views on the proposed reforms, along with those of other interested parties. If you are unable to lodge a submission by 6 August, the Committee may still consider submissions presented shortly after this date.”
Pressed on the matter, Brown acknowledged the committee had received a number of emails written in identical terms – all requesting a 30 September extension.
“The Committee hopes to report by the end of the calendar year and, in order to achieve this, will need to press ahead with analysing submissions, conducting any hearings, preparing its report and so on. The Committee would naturally prefer to allow submitters more time, but unfortunately this isn’t possible on this occasion,” he added. “It is also preferable that all submitters, or at least as many as possible, have their submissions lodged at the same time so that all views on specific issues can properly be taken account of as they are examined.”
Pirate Party Australia secretary Brendan Molloy wrote back to Brown, taking issue with the committee’s approach.
“Considering this report will likely end in a recommendation to modify existing legislation significantly beyond the current provisions, in ways that will affect the day to day lives of every single citizen, I think it is cavalier to expect that a reasoned, responsible and considered analysis could be completed in such a short time frame,” he wrote.
“Something worth considering is that more time is currently being spent on a copyright review than this entire national security review, while the impact of this review will have much larger consequences than the worst possible outcome of a copyright review. If the committee truly cares about the public input on matters that will certainly affect them, now would be the time to do the responsible thing and extend the deadline for your report, and give more time for a reasoned response from all Australians.”
the proposed reforms have already attracted significant criticism from the Government’s parliamentary partner, the Greens. In a statement issued last week, Greens Senator and Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam warned the package of reforms would further expand already pervasive government surveillance powers.
“The Australian Greens will make a submission setting out our belief that Australians have a right to privacy online,” said Ludlam. “Anyone who cares about the systematic erosion of privacy should also make their voices heard through getting their submissions in by the August 6th deadline. This inquiry will likely be used to again expand the powers of spy agencies when Australians are already under a phenomenal amount of government surveillance.”
opinion/analysis
One month is a ridiculously short amount of time for the Australian public to respond to this extremely wide-ranging inquiry. As I wrote last week:
“In my opinion, a number of these legislative reforms are the nightmarish stuff that George Orwell’s extremely prescient book 1984 are made of.
Any one of the proposals in this huge surveillance package which the Attorney-General’s Department has proposed could be the subject of its own independent inquiry. Data retention, mandatory decryption of private data, the ability to remotely penetrate computer systems (even unrelated systems) to gain access to evidence … it’s all fairly Orwellian, and it’s all in this package. This whole process needs to be as public as possible. If you are at all interested in protecting your own privacy or even just preventing the Government from being automatically able to see whatever information it wants at any time about any Australian citizen without due cause and process, I recommend you get involved in this process and make a submission to this inquiry.
In addition, I recommend you contact your local MP about this matter, as this is a package which is sadly likely to be supported by both sides of Parliament — it is extremely unlikely that the Greens or the Independents will be able to block it.”
gee, that sounds “transparent” – please excuse the buzz word
The buzz word is
“game saver” coined by Michelle Obama
Everyones using it
Mmmm, not really good enough guys. Yeah, ok, you’ve got a deadline. But this is people’s data you’re playing with.
However, saying that, the Pirate Party appears to be acting as if the Committee will simply ignore the submissions anyway and decide to grant ultimate powers to the government. That’s not the case. The committee are there to decide if these changes are necessary and prudent.
But it IS ridiculous that they don’t extend the submission deadline by a measly month and a half.
I’m sure Renai is watching closely lotek.
I am indeed. And Lotek has now been banned.
I don’t understand what the government hopes to achieve here. I’ve read other news articles about why law enforcement thinks it is a good idea, but I really have to wonder. Surely if there are really bad people out there planning terrible things then they will know about these changes and take precautions so that their activities cannot be traced back to them. So that just means that we’ll all be paying extra (either as consumers if the industry is made to pay or as taxpayers) for ISPs and telcos to store all this data, with very little to show for it in terms of a more “safe and secure” society.
As with the stupid internet filter idea, I really hope that there is a ground swell of complaint against these changes such that the major parties start to take notice and actually do what they are paid for, that is to represent their constituents. I guess its obvious why they don’t want this thing to be in the public eye for too long.
@WhatsNew
” Surely if there are really bad people out there planning terrible things then they will know about these changes and take precautions so that their activities cannot be traced back to them.”
“Chatter” on networks is how governments pick up possible threats. This indicates that those who “threaten” do use ordinary communication methods easily tracked. The government wants the option of listening into specific channels and computers, if necessary, to ascertain the likelihood of the threat that was detected.
“This indicates that those who “threaten” do use ordinary communication methods easily tracked. The government wants the option of listening into specific channels and computers, if necessary, to ascertain the likelihood of the threat that was detected.”
And once these changes are in place the bad people out there will continue to “use ordinary communication methods easily tracked”? Wow, that was too easy.
“And once these changes are in place the bad people out there will continue to “use ordinary communication methods easily tracked”? Wow, that was too easy.”
They do now choose to use the less secure options, when there are other more secure options. That was what I was saying? How will this change with new laws that don’t ACTUALLY affect the fact that less secure options are still tracked?
In other words- Criminals often underestimate the need for security. eg. Assuming by logging in and talking on Skype, which is encrypted, but not unreadable, that they are safe, whereas in fact , they aren’t. How else have governments the world over foiled terrorist plots? If all those terrorists were using uncrackable secure communications, they’d never have known…..
Bin Laden was about the only guy who got it right- he sent his video messages on USB stick by hand-courier. That’s the ONLY way to ensure security of the data….and even THEN the courier was tracked….
I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing anymore. I can understand the temptation to log everything such as phone calls (i.e. phone numbers of both parties and the date/times of conversations but not actual recordings) and sms messages (including content of messages?) that people make, their emails(?) and perhaps the websites they visit, as this allows law enforcement to retrospectively analyse their activities and build up profiles/associations and so forth, but can’t bad people just “borrow” a mobile phone that doesn’t belong to them or perhaps use an open wifi connection for internet access in order to avoid having (some of) their activities tied to them? Even the criminals with low IQs would catch on to this eventually?
Despite what you say, seven_tech, I’m still struggling to see the (long term) value in these changes, and there would want to be some considering the downsides.
“but can’t bad people just “borrow” a mobile phone that doesn’t belong to them or perhaps use an open wifi connection for internet access in order to avoid having (some of) their activities tied to them? Even the criminals with low IQs would catch on to this eventually?”
Yes, but those mobile calls are still monitored and that WiFi connection is still traceable by IP address to that location and then security cameras can give them the person. This is the “chatter” I was talking about. Some smart ones do catch on….but you’d be surprised at the number who didn’t!
“Despite what you say, seven_tech, I’m still struggling to see the (long term) value in these changes, and there would want to be some considering the downsides.”
There are definitely downsides. There always are when you’re talking privacy vs surveillance trade offs. But I think the question here is, what are the benefits compared to the downsides. In this case, IMO, because the changes seem to be mainly aimed at streamlining the system and talking about data retention (data already exists, they’re just talking about how long it’s required to be logged) the downsides are confined to people needing to be careful about what they say on the internet, in terms of privacy data being misused. But this is just sensible anyway.
The benefits are that the people who ARE the target of these changes will be more easily tracked, more easily located and more easily apprehended. What happens after that is a question for the justice system, which probably also needs changes to reflect the digital world. But I do see the benefits in these changes.
I understand people’s apprehension- what we do in our own home should be our business. But the fact is, if you use the net, at home, it isn’t anymore. That’s a fact of life. It’s the balance between surveillance to keep the people safe and the privacy of the people that’s important. I, personally, don’t think these changes tip that in favour of surveillance, but bring it back closer to being level.
And what really irks me, its not about national security, child porn, the sanctity of Allah etc. Its all about Hollywood and everyone is being conned.
Eh? How do you get that?
These law changes don’t actually help copyright advocates at all. Unless you mean the data retention? But that CANNOT be used in cases of simple Piracy under current laws. THAT would be covered by the copyright talks going on now and THOSE are ridiculous. You want government coverups, look at those.
“But that CANNOT be used in cases of simple Piracy under current laws.”
Has there been anything in this legislation that prevents third party access to those logs. I would have though once they exist all it would take is a request to a judge to access those records.
Can you please point out under the proposed legislation that forbids the provision of data to a third party … oh that’s right it was strickly allowing the provision to a third party.
DrE
DrE
As far as I know, that ability already exists. It was challenged by iinet partly (although that was mainly to do with an ISP being sued for a users actions).
It is certainly possible with MORE data retention that more access will be available. However, a judge still controls that access. The fact there is access available to a LONGER period of data makes no difference if you’re legally not allowed to access it. I’m all in favour of strengthening copyright privacy laws to prevent 3rd parties (studios or AFACT type groups) having access to data that is not their business to have access to.
THESE changes are specifically to do with law enforcement and security departments having access. If they allowed 3rd party access easier, I would be against it. But I can’t see that they do? I’m happy to be corrected?
@seven_tech
“Yes, but those mobile calls are still monitored and that WiFi connection is still traceable by IP address to that location and then security cameras can give them the person. This is the “chatter” I was talking about. Some smart ones do catch on….but you’d be surprised at the number who didn’t!”
You’re assuming that a bad person would use the same phone or the same location each time they make contact though. The smart ones (which are the ones to be worried about?) would probably create and share information on what not to do. Bear in mind that we’re not talking about suspects under real time surveillance here (i.e. the kind of surveillance that is much harder to avoid), as I’m sure there are already procedures and laws in place to allow that where it is warranted. We’re talking about wholesale collection of data on communication activities on the slim chance that it might be useful to law enforcement one day. The precautions required by bad people to avoid being caught up in this data collection would not be too taxing I wouldn’t think e.g. will ISPs only be able to track emails that pass through their own servers? Certainly it is unlikely an ISP would be able to record anything in relation to email traffic sent through the likes of gmail, especially when https is used.
This being the case, why bother at all when there are costs and risks for the rest of the community in having this data collected and stored by ISPs and telcos?
“There are definitely downsides. There always are when you’re talking privacy vs surveillance trade offs. But I think the question here is, what are the benefits compared to the downsides. In this case, IMO, because the changes seem to be mainly aimed at streamlining the system and talking about data retention (data already exists, they’re just talking about how long it’s required to be logged) the downsides are confined to people needing to be careful about what they say on the internet, in terms of privacy data being misused. But this is just sensible anyway.”
I think there are a lot more downsides than you mention. I saw the SMH story where an ISP source estimates that the costs to store the data could run in the hundreds of millions of dollars. There is also the security risk that this data might be abused. Who will have access to it? Hopefully it will only be Australian law enforcement and not just anyone working for an ISP? Will access to the data be securely logged like it is in most IT systems used by law enforcement? Will a person have the right to know who has looked at their data? Given that the data can imply guilt by association, what protections does an innocent person have that they will not be falsely accused of something and have to defend themselves in court? What if the data is stolen or leaked on to the internet (even due to incompetence)?
Even with all these concerns, I still think it likely that this kind of data retention will not help in catching “the big fish”. As you admit yourself, the “people needing to be careful” will just adapt to it. So there is no upside in the long run.
“The benefits are that the people who ARE the target of these changes will be more easily tracked, more easily located and more easily apprehended. What happens after that is a question for the justice system, which probably also needs changes to reflect the digital world. But I do see the benefits in these changes.”
Well, I’m sorry but I still do not. As I said originally, I really hope that Australians voice their concerns to politicians in time so that we do not get stuck buying into this lemon of an idea.
@WhatsNew
You’re certainly looking well at this WhatsNew and that is a breath of fresh air. Many people just look at “Government calling for more surveillance and data retention” and immediately jump to “The gov’ment wants me private data to put me in jail!”
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think one of the ways I’m different from many people I know is in the way I look at government. Most people look at it as a Behemoth- a giant lumbering about with no idea what the little guy wants/needs and controlled by some monstrous head that is impervious to all criticism.
The government is PEOPLE. It is RUN by people, it is SERVING people and it is PROTECTING people. It is only as strong/incorruptible as it’s people. I see these people as doing, mostly, the best they can. There are ALWAYS selfish and even evil people out for personal gain, but mostly, the government is about people serving people.
This is probably a VERY optimistic and sometimes nieve view. But if you believe and promote the best in people, you are likely to get the best OUT of them. That is NOT to say I take everything the government says as truth- in fact, usually the opposite, as it’s PR is usually…..flexible with it’s meaning of truth. We need TRANSPARENCY in all these things. THAT is what I disagree with- opaque inquiries and closed door meetings. This inquiry is a HUGE step up from what we’re seeing in the copyright sphere. At least this inquiry is public and is eligible for submissions.
By all means, make a submission. I will be, saying as long as these measures, if approved, are HEAVILY scrutinised (I would ask for oversight and regulation to be put in place) that they should be allowed for the good of protecting the people. That is my view, but you’re perfectly entitled to your own, from what I can see, quite reasonable and well thought out view.
@WhatsNew
Just FYI
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/83436251/Submission%20to%20the%20Inquiry%20into%20potential%20reforms%20of%20National%20Security%20Legislation.docx
That’s my submission. It’s not detailed, just emphatic.
The hardest thing to resist, the what ifs. Drives me bonkers.
Honestly, can I say something true about ASIO? Am I allowed? Think about it and how bad this shit is going to get.
Why did Lotek get banned Renai?
Publishing personal insults towards other readers. It was a pretty obvious violation.
How do I make submission to this enquiry? Do they require any particular format or can I just write them a letter expressing my outrage at this?
For Your Information Cam:
pjcis@aph.gov.au
That’s the email they recommend.
This is the website: http://apo.org.au/call/inquiry-potential-reforms-national-security-legislation
Who the hell do these politicians think they are? I can’t believe they have the audacity to try something like this. Say no to the nanny state.
“Those who surrender freedom for security deserve neither”.
Full quote should be: Those who surrender freedom for security will lose both, and deserve neither.
I always come to these things far too late…
IMPO, the biggest problem here is our lack of formal definition for the rights and freedoms of Australians. In the USA, whenever new laws are being discussed (or have sneaked through attached to some unrelated bill) they have a framework for discussion and a comparative benchmark called the American Constitution that quite clearly and explicitly lays out the rights, freedoms and protections of American citizens. While this is far from a perfect system, at least it affords Americans explicit rights that are very hard to overturn.
In most other countries in the world (Australia included) such rights are not enshrouded in law. The result is the only rights we do have are those in Common Law, which unfortunately don’t hold much sway when there are specific Federal laws that contradict them. As Australians, many of us believe we are protected by laws that simply don’t exist, such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression and fair use. We don’t even have laws protecting the identities of sources for journalists here (so no wonder so few critical issues actually come to light before they erupt into major scandal here).
When discussing laws that seek to address the right of governments and their agents to seek, obtain, extract and analyse data of a personal and private nature of citizens of their country, it is imperative that the rights and freedoms of those people are represented by an equally strong, impartial and incorruptible platform, the most obvious being constitutional protections in law. Once such a benchmark is set, it becomes comparatively easy to evaluate laws proposed by the state that seek to increase its inquisitive powers, and vastly more difficult to expand them. It is also fairly easy to see where such legal changes are reasonable and don’t negatively impact on the fundamental rights of citizens, and thus can be passed into law for the good of the nation without undue hardship to lawmakers.
I do understand your views, seven_tech, you idealistically believe the best of our politicians and lawmakers, and there’s much to be said for fundamentally believing that people are good, just, honest and doing the best they can. Unfortunately history doesn’t paint such a rosey picture. Governments the world over have grossly over-represented the interests of a tiny minority that control the majority of wealth and power, to the vast detriment of the citizens of their nations. When it comes to enacting new laws, powerful, well funded groups are able to bring their views to bear in ways that individuals simply cannot and never will be able to. The catch-cry of status-quo apologists is the people have a say because they live in a democracy, but a democracy only pays lip service to its constituents when the only choices they have are between two major parties that are functionally identical and represent the interests of the same corporations, lobby groups and wealthy individuals.
Our best hope, as individuals, at this time, short of scrapping our whole system of governance and law, is to enact protections for our rights and freedoms constitutionally, in a way that cannot be overridden or undermined by any sitting government.
Lol. That’s quite the epic post Trevor. Not that I can talk. I’ve had one or two of those myself :D
I agree in principle with most of what you’re saying however:
“…We don’t even have laws protecting the identities of sources for journalists here”
We do now interestingly. Such as Peter Slipper’s case in the news is just now testing these laws. I think, IMO, in this case, they should be waved, but that is not for me to decide.
We do have Freedom of Speech Laws written in our constitution. But you are right in that they are not ENSHRINED as they are in the US. There are situations where that is a bad thing, such as that lovely one “the right to bear arms” which causes them so much grief. But human rights SHOULD be enshrined as you say.
I don’t believe governments CAN’T be evil. That would be ignoring history. And I also don’t believe they can’t be manipulated- the current arguments surrounding both the MRRT and the NBN can show otherwise. But I DO believe that we as a people control these ultimately. We showed that in the way we voted a hung parliament.
We could very well be headed for another one. Labor have lost countless stolid votes to the Greens (hence the furore against preferences for them at the moment) and the Libs are losing National supporters to independents as those National supporters become disenfranchised with the fruits of their political alliance. The old “Left and Right” politics is being eroded. Unions house less than 35% of workers now, down from 70% in the 70’s and 80’s. Only with proper policy systems and good governance will parties get in now. Look at German Government. They are almost ALWAYS in minority now. And they have the strongest and most productive economy and country in Europe, if not much of the world. It is a pity they had to go through so much suffering to get there.
My point is, it is about balance. I, personally, do not believe these law changes disrupt that balance towards the government. I have said as much in my submission. IMO it actually rights it AWAY from overprotecting those who DO need watching. But they MUST, as you say, have clear, transparent and strong oversight. THIS, oversight by the people direct, is what keeps governments honest.
My posts are rarely short, which is just one reason I don’t post very often – I simply don’t have the time to write what I’d like to (and I don’t have the time to read all the follow-up posts when they can run into the hundreds of comments, which is just rude, and I don’t like being rude).
For the sake of argument, I’d like to address just one aspects of these proposed changes: data retention.
If the data retention policy had negligible costs associated with it, was vastly in the public interest, could be guaranteed to be safe from potential abuse or misuse of the data and can be quantifiably proven to improve not just the effectiveness of law enforcement, but the capturing of dangerous criminals and disruption of their imminently fatal activities, then it has some reasonable basis.
However, far from a negligible expense, retaining complete access logs for every single person for two years will be very expensive and challenging for ISPs, a cost that will either be worn by the government (ie taxpayers as a budget expense), or will be passed on in the form of higher fees by the ISP (so us, again).
Not only is it not clear that such a measure is in the public interest, I think it is obviously -not- in the privacy interests of Australians to have their every digital movement available for scrutiny by the government. Numerous child porn and copyright violation busts in the US in recent years have shown that law enforcement can and will assume that the Internet connection subscriber at a particular premises is the person responsible for every bit of data that comes down that pipe, and they will kick down your door, ransack your house, impound your computers and lock you in jail before asking questions. In fact, even after a thorough HDD analysis shows that the persons responsible were not those arrested, US law enforcement has, on occasion, still not returned seized property. And this is a country where they specifically and deliberately protect the rights of their citizens in constitutional law. Australia does no such thing, and yet you think it’s sensible and reasonable to hand them the keys to our movements, thoughts and lives without installing any checks and balances?
Not to belabour the point, but in order to be in the public interest, the measures proposed would have to both provide substantial benefit while also -not- being detrimental. Yes, stopping criminals bent on destruction and murder is a -good thing-. But we’re not living in an action movie.
If you want to stop or reduce crime, locking people up after the fact is a bandaid approach that cannot hope to fix anything – in fact, sticking lots of criminals together for a long time just leaves you with better trained and better connected criminals. To reduce crime, you need to remove the incentives for crime, and that comes about through social change. If you want to eliminate terrorism, you need to remove the motivations for terrorism. Given that the vast majority of the world’s terrorists are militant Islamists, you need to understand the basis for their beliefs and why they choose this course of action. This is an area that Australia is simply unable to address at the moment because everyone is too afraid of the consequences of opening up that discussion, but the reality is that avoiding it only prolongs and exacerbates the problem.
Then, of course, we come to the question of misuse of all this collected data. Ostensibly this will only be available to law enforcement under a court sanctioned warrant, but such a honey-pot of data will be irresistible to ASIO and AFP data mining operations, and our close ties with the USA mean it is likely the CIA will be allowed to take a peek at the data every now and again (assuming they’re not simply given back-door access from the beginning). I don’t know about you, but I’m an IT consultant and over the years I’ve occasionally had to clean up the mess left on computers after they’ve been compromised by malware, and sometimes the Internet history and logs have recorded access to all kinds of nasty web addresses. None of which were user initiated – browser hijacks can point you in any direction they want, as can trojans and zombie controllers. While I’d like to assume law enforcement would be aware of such things and avoid ‘false positives’, I’ve both met and been on the receiving end of law enforcement at times and… well, let’s just say, the smartest cookies don’t end up in the government’s cookie jar. I’d go so far as to say, in my experience, it’s usually only the worst cookies that are left lying around to be picked up by govt recruiters, and usually by then they have something to prove. I’m really not comfortable with the idea that one day I could be locked up, half my house confiscated because some logs somewhere recorded a compromised device connecting to material deemed ‘unsuitable’ from one of my networks. Oh sure, they may let you go after a few days and may even give your stuff back, and some of it may even still work, but I’d prefer to avoid the whole experience from the start, thanks – stay off my networks, stay away from my data, keep your nose out of what I’m doing because it’s none of your #%#@ing business! Ahem.
The final item is, of course, evidence that shows us that such measures will realistically help law enforcement improve their ability to apprehend dangerous criminals, that wouldn’t have been discovered and arrested by some other (traditional) means. I am reminded of the millions of CCTV cameras sprinkled throughout the UK and the tragic statistic that after all that money and after all the power those cameras give the British govt, the annual number of criminal arrests has not significantly increased, nor have the number of crimes committed annually been significantly reduced.
If the Australian govt gets their way and enacts these laws I’ll simply purchase a connection through a protected VPN. Not because I’m a criminal, not because I have anything to hide, but simply because what I do on the Internet and what my family does is simply not anyone else’s business. And if I’ve thought of using a VPN to bypass these logs, so has every reasonably savvy Internet criminal. And before long, so will every dullard, once the brainy folk of nefarious intent teach their less cluey brethren.
So in the end, you have an extremely expensive data retention scheme that costs everyone a lot of money (and time and energy) that can’t possibly be successful at catching and recording the activities of real, professional criminals, because they will simply use every-day technology that entirely circumvents it. So the -only- thing it will be useful for is as one of the world’s most comprehensive data warehouses of user activity. Such a honey-pot of data would be very, very valuable on the open market. And not at all like a red flag to a bull for the professional cyber criminal. Given the recent spate of high-profile hackings of supposedly secure systems, what chance do you think the Australian govt has of ensuring their disparate network of ISPs who are actually collecting all this data can keep it secure?
This policy is a bad idea from every angle. I understand what they’re trying to do, but they’re coming at it from the wrong angle, without enough research, and without the skills to actually pull it off.
*cringes* I need to proof-read before I post – the typos and mangled grammar in there are shocking >.<
Lol. I always try and read mine before posting….or end up cringing too!
You certainly reiterate some concerns I have.
I think ultimately my point in all of this is- This is an INQUIRY. It is, supposedly, independent. Hence, why we can submit to it. The various departments will be able to submit. As will Privacy advocates and the public. It is SUPPOSED to be about recommending whether to go ahead with it.
IF, the committee find that it IS prudent to go with SOME measures, I also assume they will advocate the setting up of a group whose goal IS to be oversight for said changes. If this is NOT recommended….I’ll be changing my mind VERY quickly. A government without oversight is not a government- it is a dictatorship. In that case, you’ll see me in the front row of protests.
And let’s face it, THAT is what we are lucky to have in this country- the freedom and ability to protest and MAKE ourselves heard. It is politically damaging protests on a large scale. Usually damaging enough that the government abandons or AT LEAST modifies its’ plans. We are at least lucky enough to live in this sort of free society.
I will be watching VERY closely what this inquiry submits as recommendations. And if they aren’t recommending total transparency and oversight, along with the proposed changes, I will be VERY much in favour of making a VERY loud, annoying and outraged noise.
I every time used to read piece of writing in news papers
but now as I am a user of internet thus from now I am using
net for content, thanks to web.
Comments are closed.