news Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has called for critics of the Federal Government’s proposed new data retention and surveillance package to take a “cold shower” and stop insulting in “hysteria” over the controversial proposal.

The Federal Attorney-General’s Department is currently promulgating a package of reforms which would see a number of wide-ranging changes made to make it easier for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor what Australians are doing on the Internet. For example, one new power is a data retention protocol which would require ISPs to retain data on their customers’ Internet and telephone activities for up to two years, and changes which would empower agencies to source data on users’ activities on social networking sites. Another power would see it made illegal for Australians to refuse to decrypt their data, and warrants are also to be simplified and streamlined.

In general, the package has attracted a significant degree of criticism from the wider community over the past few months since it was first mooted. Digital rights lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia has described the new powers as being akin to those applied in restrictive countries such as China and Iran, while the Greens have described the package as “a systematic erosion of privacy”.

In separate submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into the reforms, a number of major telecommunications companies including iiNet and Macquarie Telecom, as well as telco and ISP representative industry groups, have expressed sharp concern over aspects of the reform package, stating that “insufficient evidence” had been presented to justify them. And Victoria’s Acting Privacy Commissioner has labelled some of the included reforms as “being characteristic of a police state”.

The Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative and free market-focused think tank, wrote in its submission to the parliamentary inquiry on the matter that many of the proposals of the Government were “unnecessary and excessive. “The proposal … is onerous and represents a significant incursion on the civil liberties of all Australians,” wrote the IPA in its submission, arguing that the data retention policy should be “rejected outright”. And one Liberal backbencher, Steve Ciobo, has described the new proposal as being akin to “Gestapo” tactics.

However, in an interview on ABC Radio Melbourne yesterday with host Rafael Epstein, Roxon played down the proposal.

“… there’s been a lot of reporting of this that’s been incredibly inaccurate,” said Roxon. “What the Government has said is that our Federal Police, our intelligence agencies have asked us to consider some reforms in this area. They’re very contentious ones. There’s a difficult balance to be struck. Instead of us just saying, yes, and rushing those into the parliament, we’ve referred it to the parliamentary committee, the Joint Intelligence Committee. No decisions have yet been made.”

“But what they’re asking for is not what has been reported. It’s not to keep a record of every website that’s visited. It’s not to keep the content of every email. It’s not to force people to give their passwords to police. It’s actually keeping what’s called metadata; so, a record potentially of the time that a phone call is made, the time or fact of an email being sent. Something that our law enforcement agencies can already do, where they suspect crime. All we’re debating is whether or not there should be a requirement for telecommunications companies to keep that information for a certain period of time.”

Roxon said there was a “sort of almost hysteria” that had been created, that the Government was “going to be in your head virtually for everything you ever use on the computer”.

“All I’ve been very clear about, and said this again yesterday, is I don’t want new technology to create a safe haven for people who are intent on committing crimes or causing enormous risk to the community,” the Attorney-General added. “I don’t want there to be some no-go zone. So we’ve got to see how our laws are keeping up with new technology and to ask the question whether they need to be updated or not.”

“But I really do think people need a little bit of a cold shower with this because the Government has not yet made the decision. It’s why we’re having the inquiry so we can have the debate, test the ideas, see if there’s an appropriate balance. And we’ll only make our decisions at the end of the year when the committee gives us their report.”

opinion/analysis
Roxon’s comments this morning illustrate that the Attorney-General does not quite understand the reasons why so many organisations — dozens of them, in fact — have filed strongly worded protests against the Government’s proposed data retention and surveillance laws.

It is a rare day indeed when the free market Institute for Public Affairs and the Greens are in agreement about an issue, or when you receive 170 submissions to a parliamentary committee on a proposed piece of legislation, almost all universally damning the proposal. The fact is that the Government is currently proposing an unprecedented level of surveillance on the Australian population, which will be default result in a massive database on their online activities, ranging from telephone calls to every email sent and received and even social networking sites.

It’s not “hysteria” if a government privacy commissioner describes a government proposal as being akin to a “police state”. It’s not “hysteria” to point out that ISPs such as AAPT have already had their databases compromised, and that this new huge database would likely be compromised as well. It’s a warning — a warning to a Labor Government which has consistently tried to impose Internet control over the Australian population over its terms in Government, from mandatory Internet filtering to data retention to criminalising people who decline to decrypt their data for law enforcement agencies to examine.

And it’s a warning that Roxon would do well to start taking more seriously. This issue is not going to go away.

Image credit: Timeshift9, Creative Commons

Tweet

1. Dan
   Posted 06/09/2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Surely this should be the pic at the top of the page Renai

   http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2012/09/04/3609274/Gall-AH-Pope-cartoon5-9-12-20120904213028189405-600×400.jpg

   • Renai LeMay
     Posted 06/09/2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Heh I would publish that if I had permission to do so ;) Great comic.

2. seven_tech
   Posted 06/09/2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

   While I agree that most groups (not all) have been fairly dispassionate about their disagreement with these proposals, this statement from Roxon is one that I think people really need to sit down and look at:

   They’re very contentious ones. There’s a difficult balance to be struck. Instead of us just saying, yes, and rushing those into the parliament, we’ve referred it to the parliamentary committee, the Joint Intelligence Committee. No decisions have yet been made.

   Emphasis added.

   The point is, several media outlets have jumped all over these proposals, even going so far as to say the government is trying to pull a shifty on us and get it through parliament, cause the Opposition hasn’t yet come out one way or another properly. Whereas this Inquiry is the very point of the whole thing- it has been setup to see if these proposals are relevant, or if they do go too far.

   While I don’t agree that everyone who disagrees with this proposal is “hysterical”, far from it, I do believe people need to realise this is an inquiry, not a debate of law on the floor of the House of Reps. There is a long way to go before these proposals can even hope to become law.

   A proper Coalition position on them for a start….or they won’t ever be made law if they reject them and the Greens too….

   • TechinBris
     Posted 06/09/2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

     Nicely put seven_tech. Ditto.

3. Wayne
   Posted 06/09/2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Why do politicians think that they can control the Internet? A simple Proxy or VPN would render their draconian legislation useless. Also how would all this information be stored? Do we have databases, hardware and software to cope? Methinks , no.

4. Myke
   Posted 06/09/2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

   $10 says Roxon doesn’t have a cold shower when someone leaks her data.

   • Renai LeMay
     Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

     +1

   • seven_tech
     Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

     I’ll pay you $10 to get that picture out of my head!

     • James
       Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

       She’s got nothing to hide, so she’s got nothing to fear. Right?

       I guess she only has curtains on her windows to show off her love of fabrics, too.

       • Scooton
         Posted 07/09/2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

         Maybe we should put her and those who want this put through in the Big Brother house for 2 years so they can see what the invasion of privacy is like.

5. James
   Posted 06/09/2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

   Yes, it’s been referred to PJCIS. Yes, it is “only an inquiry”. However, when the AG flipflops on the government’s opinion of the AGD’s discussion paper, when both houses of parliament ram through the Cybercrime amendments leaving the population open to whatever insanity the USA’s paymasters (hollywood, mostly) want to treat as *criminal* offences rather than civil, then of course people are going to assume that the AG’s “inquiry” will report that the vague and overreaching ambit claims should be implemented asap.

   I do not have any confidence in the AG’s ability or will to reject what the AFP/ASIS/ASIO lobbyists embedded in her department keep telling her about how desperate their need is to @!#$!@#$!$ us all over “in the name of security.”

   • seven_tech
     Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

     @James

     No offence, but I’d class THIS attitude as “hysteria”:

     when both houses of parliament ram through the Cybercrime amendments leaving the population open to whatever insanity the USA’s paymasters (hollywood, mostly) want to treat as *criminal* offences rather than civil

     There is NO change in law made by these new amendments that enables ANYONE to treat pirating as a criminal offence. Read the summary on the laws:

     http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22legislation/billhome/r4575%22

     It is ALL about warrants and ONLY in specific circumstances (proven or evidence predicted criminal behaviour) which does NOT include piracy.

     This is exactly the sort of “hysteria” the AG is talking about. People jumping to whatever conclusions they want to suit their POV about these proposals.

     • seven_tech
       Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

       Oh and also, they weren’t “rammed” though. It’s been kicking around for a year….

     • James
       Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

       The USA is also a signatory to the European Convention on Cybercrime. They have form in extracting people from signatory nations in order to face criminal sanctions for *linking to but not actually providing* copyrighted content.

       I have a real problem with the provisions in the Cybercrime legislation which make it active for offences that carry the death penalty. The ALP and LNP combined to reject the Greens’ amendments to remove that provision. I wrote to all the Queensland senators about it when I realised the legislation was up for a vote. I got *one* response, saying “thankyou, I’ll pass on your concerns.”

       That’s not hysteria, that’s fact.

       • seven_tech
         Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

         They have form in extracting people from signatory nations

         I’m certain they do. They’re the US. Do you really think our government would just allow it they tried it with a dozen people?….These amendments make NO difference to the extradition laws of our country.

         I have a real problem with the provisions in the Cybercrime legislation which make it active for offences that carry the death penalty.

         I guess this a personal belief. I happen to agree. But we don’t make the laws of other countries and if you commit a crime in another country (like Indonesia or yes, even some US states) that mandates the death penalty as sentence, there is nothing in the new amendments that change, as I said before, our adherence to extradition to another country to face crimes like that. The fact that they cover crimes that CAN invoke the death penalty in some countries, or just life imprisonment in others, is not the fault of the amendments. It is other countries laws which we cannot change.

6. James
   Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

   One other thing – the legislation is activated for offences that attract at least either a 3 year prison term or the death penalty. Earlier legislation woke up for a 7 year offence.

   There is a current linking case in the UK which is indicative of how the Cybercrime legislation could be used here:

   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_O%27Dwyer)

   The Southern District Court in New York has charged O’Dwyer with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years.

   • seven_tech
     Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

     @James

     That doesn’t automatically grant the US rights to have them extradited. Each case is overseen and judged on an individual case nature.

     http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/10.html

     This is the “Extradition agreement” between the US and Australia. Nowhere is Copyright infringement mentioned.

     • seven_tech
       Posted 06/09/2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

       The thing that allowed O’Dwyer to be Extradited was the very controversial Extradition Act 2003:

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

       This Act does not cover Australia as we have not ratified it. Therefore this sort of extradition cannot take place in Australia.

       • TechinBris
         Posted 07/09/2012 at 8:57 am | Permalink | Reply

         Seven_tech, I think you’ll find there is a resigned, but annoyed swell of pessimism throughout the Australian population, that our elected Parliamentarians really don’t give a stuff about us and that we will be sold out for the convenience of keeping Uncle Sam happy with us no matter what.

     • Michael Wyres
       Posted 07/09/2012 at 8:32 am | Permalink | Reply

       Yet.

7. Mark
   Posted 07/09/2012 at 9:23 am | Permalink | Reply

   Aside form the obvious issues with retaining data as plainly seen by the release of the AAPT database, I’m tired of politicians from all sides of politics telling the population “Trust us, it’ll be fine”.

   Sooner rather than later it quickly stops being fine and becomes as debacle.

8. Matthew
   Posted 07/09/2012 at 10:16 am | Permalink | Reply

   And the debate as always is being pushed in many countries at once

   http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/jimmy-wales-threatens-to-encrypt-wikipedia-if-uk-passes-snooping-bill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+All+content%29

   Wikipedia will do exactly the same to Australia if we pass a similar bill

9. Bern
   Posted 07/09/2012 at 12:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

   This is the crux of the issue:
   “It’s actually keeping what’s called metadata; so, a record potentially of the time that a phone call is made, the time or fact of an email being sent. Something that our law enforcement agencies can already do, where they suspect crime.”

   So, the police, AFP, and ASIO all currently have the ability to get this data where a crime is suspected.

   Why, then, do we need expand this to collect data on everyone, where no crime is suspected? Just to save them the hassle of getting a warrant?

   Or will we find this database being used by, for instance, the IFPI or AFACT to prosecute individuals for copyright infringement? (which they allege is being carried out by vast swathes of the Australian population, and about which they really couldn’t be bothered gathering enough evidence to persuade a judge to issue a warrant)

10. Poo2
    Posted 07/09/2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hmm the balance – one one hand there are plenty of real terds of human beings doing some really devious and malicious shit – from white collar crime, to drugs / weapons etc…

    And yet we say we want to pay for protection, and to have a reasonably just and crime free society.

    While there is some merrit in some things, there is not in others, and the typical masturbation frenzy of the shit heads in journalism with their “Me too” stories, about how “The Government” is out to track your every skin cell and toilet flush….

    Well I think you can’t have it both ways, you can’t piss and moan about people emptying your bank accounts, and then say “The gummit” is not doing anything about the pricks stealing from you, by failing to keep “them” under surveilance.

    One of the things about crime, “We the nice people” is that the absolute clear majority of shop lifters are married, white, around 35 years old, with one or two kids.”

    So who hasn’t never ever stolen anyting, or “borrowed things” (however loosly you construe that), or gotten something for nothing?

    Many small business’s go bankrupt because of employee theft.

    The “crims” are not the junkies, doing time in gaol – by and large, it’s all of us, whether it be by ethics, obedience or theft.

    We are all guilty.

    We need to change the crime and punishment model from ostracisim to inclusion.

11. Poo2
    Posted 07/09/2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I think Nicola Roxon is totally HOT…… Beautiful and smart…..

    Gorgeous… loosing the plot..

    Must leave web page.

12. geektopia
    Posted 07/09/2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    “Another power would see it made illegal for Australians to refuse to decrypt their data”

    Ok, here’s a hard drive that’s been filled with random number, and over here is an encrypted hard drive. Can you tell the difference?

    Are we to be jailed for our inability to provide a decryption key for a string of random numbers?

13. Plover
    Posted 07/09/2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I thought the proposal was for ISPs and other service providers to retain the data, which would still only be provided to the police or ASIO after a warrant had been issued. That’s a bit different from the “massive database” concept in your analysis above.
    The discussion paper is here:
    http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/index.htm

    • seven_tech
      Posted 07/09/2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

      @Plover

      Precisely. This is only relevant to access if a warrant has been issued. And people are kidding themselves if they think warrants are easy to get for anything.

      Fact is, I’m not sure about these proposals- but I do know they need this inquiry to talk about them openly. And waffling on about the “symptomatic destruction of our privacy” is not useful debate. We all degrade our own privacy- any time we use the net. We just want someone to blame when we realise it.

14. Stephen
    Posted 07/09/2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So having said “What’s everyone worried about, our law enforcement agencies need these powers”, she’s saying “calm down, it isn’t set in stone” (yet)?

    Is that supposed to calm the 73% of Australians who “deeply mistrust” politicians? Maybe we should start placing bets on whether the legislation does end up getting through parliament – I reckon the odds would be pretty high.

    But this isn’t just an issue in Australia – who is really pushing this legislation, and who really wants to use the data?

15. Toro
    Posted 07/09/2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    How horrible that Roxon tries to label valid concerns about draconian snooping laws as “hysteria”.
    Ciobo is making me seriously consider going back to voting Liberal.

    • TechinBris
      Posted 08/09/2012 at 2:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Silly. Are they not just another Wolf dressed up as a Lamb? There are aother choices and if you don’t have one you can stomach, then none of them. Read up and you will see that is a choice. Your not allowed to actively promote it, but it is legal. Not too many know of it.

16. James Q
    Posted 09/09/2012 at 9:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It seems more and more like Roxon is too stupid to understand the impact of the proposals from the bureaucrats below her.

17. Plukka
    Posted 10/10/2012 at 8:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Crap Roxon, Crap!!!

18. Plukka
    Posted 10/10/2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Roxon, Stop being a puppet.

• • Topic
  • Voices
  • Posts
  • Freshness
• • iPad mini giveaway draw

    Started by:  midspace in: Everything else

  • 2
  • 4
  • 21 hours, 53 minutes ago

     midspace

  • PolitiFact goes out of its way to support Turnbull

    Started by:  Karl in: National Broadband Network

  • 1
  • 1
  • 1 week, 6 days ago

     Karl

  • Article on 'Ultraviolet'

    Started by:  ray73864 in: Everything else

  • 3
  • 4
  • 2 weeks, 5 days ago

     ray73864

  • 77TB a month on fibre

    Started by:  Karl in: General telecommunications

  • 1
  • 1
  • 3 weeks, 4 days ago

     Karl

  • Malcolm Turnbull, Time Traveller

    Started by:  quink in: Everything else

  • 2
  • 4
  • 1 month ago

     Karl

  • Surface sells out … of its tiny amount of stock?

    Started by:  Renai LeMay in: Gadgets

  • 4
  • 4
  • 1 month ago

     douglasrose

  • Coalition fraudband plan summary…

    Started by:  Hubert Cumberdale in: National Broadband Network

  • 4
  • 5
  • 1 month, 1 week ago

     JamesH1

  • NBN Is A Question Of Reliability

    Started by:  JamesH1 in: National Broadband Network

  • 1
  • 1
  • 1 month, 1 week ago

     JamesH1

  • Renai asked:

    Started by:  Tinman_au in: National Broadband Network

  • 1
  • 1
  • 1 month, 1 week ago

     Tinman_au

  • What Happened to Whirlpool posts

    Started by:  MikeK101 in: Everything else

  • 2
  • 2
  • 1 month, 3 weeks ago

     Bob.H

  • Conroy/Turnbull NBN Debate Next Week

    Started by:  zephram in: National Broadband Network

  • 1
  • 1
  • 1 month, 3 weeks ago

     zephram

  • Blocked from posting? Let me know

    Started by:  Renai LeMay in: Everything else

  • 2
  • 2
  • 1 month, 3 weeks ago

     Abel Adamski

  • Falsehoods of the day

    Started by:  Karl in: National Broadband Network

  • 4
  • 5
  • 2 months, 1 week ago

     Anonymous

  • Is IBM selling its Network Services Division to Telstra?

    Started by:  Renai LeMay in: Everything else

  • 1
  • 1
  • 2 months, 2 weeks ago

     Renai LeMay

  • 10 Terabit NBN plan? Yes please :)

    Started by:  daniel996 in: National Broadband Network

  • 2
  • 2
  • 2 months, 2 weeks ago

     Karl

•