Roxon just a front for department, says Newton

74

news Prominent network engineer and commentator Mark Newton has accused the Federal Attorney-General’s Department of using the Attorney-General of the day — whether Labor or Coalition — as a front for its long-running data retention and surveillance plans, which he said dated back to the Howard Government.

The Federal Attorney-General’s Department is currently promulgating a package of highly controversial 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.

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, who has acted as a spokesperson for the proposed reforms, has appeared to waver back and forth about whether she supports them, making statements from different points of view to the media over the past several months. This morning, Roxon published a letter to the Editor of the Herald Sun newspaper stating that she was “not backing or opposing” any of the proposed reforms.

However, according to network engineer Mark Newton, who has been a vocal commentator on matters of digital rights in Australia over the past several years and who worked as a network engineer at ISP Internode from 1998 through 2011, Roxon’s participation in the debate only hid the real players.

“The document is a wish-list of proposals that have been floating around police forces and Attorney-General’s Department bureaucrats for years,” Newton wrote in a submission (PDF) responding to a discussion paper on the reforms published by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, which is currently holding an inquiry into the issue. “Indeed, the Data Retention proposal discussed herein dates back to the Howard Government.”

Newton wrote that every now and then, departmental bureaucrats would float these kind of data retention and surveillance reforms “up like trial balloons”. Usually, he added. “their proposers judge that the winds aren’t blowing in the right direction, and they pop down again until the next opportunity to try them on. It’s almost as if the proposals’ owners float them every time we swear-in a new Attorney General, just to see if he or she is credulous enough to give them a permissive hearing.”

“To the credit of our previous Attorneys General, the more contentious proposals detailed in the Discussion Paper have been unable to advance,” Newton wrote. “But that doesn’t mean that they’ve gone away. The Department has a longer memory than any of its Ministers, and can rely on the amnesiac effect of the “brain transplant” they receive whenever there’s a change of government or a front bench reshuffle.”

Newton is correct in that a number of the proposals currently being debated have been examined by the Attorney-General’s Department for a number of years.

The data retention component, for example, dates back at least half a decade. In mid-2010, for example, Roxon’s predecessor as Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, was forced to comment on the issue after his department’s data retention plans were controversially leaked to the media. At the time, ISPs involved in the discussions said that the issue had been being debated between the department and the telecommunications industry for several years.

Newton said that Roxon should be praised for bringing the proposals out into the open. “Not only are they now receiving the widespread public scrutiny that they’ve previously been denied, but future Attorneys General will no longer be ignorant of history when they are sworn in, and will be less susceptible to manipulation from their departmental staff,” he wrote.

Newton’s comments that the Attorney-General’s Department has sought to prevent public scrutiny of the data retention proposal in general are accurate.

In mid-2010, for example, the Attorney-General’s Department heavily censored a Freedom of Information request which would have disclosed key details of the proposal. At the time, departmental official Claudia Hernandez wrote that the sections had been blacked out because it could lead to “premature unnecessary debate” and that in addition, she considered that its release would be “contrary to the public interest”.

Greens Communications Spokesperson and Senator Scott Ludlam said in a statement that the excuse was “extraordinary”. “Why is the department making such an effort to keep this information hidden?” he asked.

Later, in October 2010, senior AGD public servants Catherine Smith and Wendy Kelly, who have been active in working on the data retention proposal, proved extremely reluctant to release any information about the proposal, in public hearings held by the Senate’s Environment and Communications Committee.

A key point which Ludlam pressured Smith on was the matter of where the proposal had originated — at the political level or organically within her department. “Presumably the Attorney-General didn’t wake up one morning to discover that you’re investigating data retention?” he asked. Under sustained questioning Smith said she didn’t recall where the proposal had originated — as it had been around for a long time.

Ludlam told the public servant and her colleague that it was clear their project had not been driven from the political level. He appeared amazed at the level of secrecy around the project, noting that to get any information about it, a Senate inquiry had to be initiated, and the media had to put in freedom of information requests. “Rumours flourish in a vacuum, and you’ve created a vacuum,” he said. “If you don’t trust us to tell us what it is you’re doing,” he added, “why should we trust you to do it?”

In addition, from January through May 2012, Delimiter sought information on the proposal under Freedom of Information laws, specifically targeting information held by senior AGD bureaucrats such as Smith, assistant secretary of AGD’s Telecommunications and Surveillance Law Branch, and Kelly, director of the same branch. In general, the department has consistently signalled that there was too much information on the issue of data retention as a whole to easily be able to respond to the wide-ranging FoI requests which Delimiter had filed, seeking to ascertain what the Government is actually proposing with the scheme.

And then, suddenly, in May, the proposal was released as part of the wide-ranging tranche of new surveillance powers currently being debated by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security.

Newton noted in his submission to the committee that from his position as a regular citizen, it seemed as though very little of Australia’s national security apparatus was controlled by rationality. “It’s mostly controlled by fear: We pay people in ASIO, ASIS, and other acronym-laden organizations to dream up awful scenarios and play, “What if?” games with them, and the end result is that we have a National Security policy that’s dominated by whomever has the most pathologically overactive imagination,” he wrote.

“We’re in an era where violent crime is at its lowest rate in Australia since the second world war. The worst example of terrorism in Australia which ASIO can muster is a collection of mentally disturbed wanna-be’s prosecuted over four years ago. Australian organized crime seems like a big deal, but only if you leave your skepticism at the door.”

“We’re a fundamentally safe country: Politically stable, prosperous, confident. The kind of place where a house break-in still makes the nightly news, because break-ins are so rare that they’re newsworthy. There is no better time than the present to start reassessing the nature of the relationship between the polity and the police. Given that we are so safe and so crime-free, do we need to keep giving more and more surveillance powers to law enforcement and intelligence services?”

opinion/analysis
I’ve been dealing with the Federal Attorney-General’s Department consistently now for several years, and peripherally before that, and I have to say that there is a great deal of evidence that Newton’s argument in his submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security that each current Attorney-General is manipulated by their department is correct.

The data retention proposal currently being debated by Australia’s politicians and commentators does not really have anything to do with Roxon. It dates back to before Roxon was appointed, and likely even before her predecessor Robert McClelland was appointed when Kevin Rudd won Government in November 2007.

It seems that the proposal originated in talks between the Australian Federal Police, which has consistently pushed for more powers in this area, and the Attorney-General’s Department, which has largely supported pushes by the AFP and other law enforcement and security agencies such as ASIO for greater access to telecommunications data. In the mix has been Australia’s ISPs and telcos, who are typically involved in these kinds of discussions only under Non-Disclosure Agreements.

It is accurate to say that the Attorney-General’s Department is the organisation behind these proposals — not the current or even the former Attorney-General. Nicola Roxon simply does not understand the gravity of the proposal she has put forward — because it was largely handed to her as a fait accompli deal between law enforcement agencies and the Government.

This is a very sad state of affairs. Neither Catherina Smith, nor Wendy Kelly (from the Attorney-General’s Department) were elected by Australian voters. Neither was the AFP’s top cybercrime cop Neil Gaughan. And yet it appears that it is these kinds of bureaucrats who are primarily setting policy frameworks in this area. Like Newton, I find this to be a most undemocratic and disturbing situation.

74 COMMENTS

  1. Good read Renai. I’ll have to take a squiz at the full submission from Newton, he sounds like a well read and well balanced commentator on this issue.

    I for one certainly didn’t think about the origins of the proposals, but this now makes it a lot clearer that it is the bureaucracy and not the polity making up these proposals.

    Another good point of view came up yesterday with an article suggesting that if the proposal goes out with a very broad brush (heavy powers) it would be akin to ‘grooming’ the public to accept an increase of some level in snooping/reduction in privacy

    • Newton is very well read and knowledgeable is his field of expertise. But well balanced, no.

        • To be fair, that’s like saying Labor is more balanced talking about the NBN than the Coalition.

          Those on their own side will always appear more balanced, even if they aren’t. I say this in general- I freely admit I have little knowledge of Newton.

          • “Those on their own side will always appear more balanced, even if they aren’t. I say this in general- I freely admit I have little knowledge of Newton”.

            Mark Newton was an engineer with Internode and contributed significantly to the debate on mandatory ISP filtering. His revelations were obviously an embarrassment to either the Government or the Public Service and efforts were made to pressure Internode in to stopping him engaging in that debate. Mark always made it very clear that his opinions were not necessarily the opinions of Internode. The effort to silence him failed. He subsequently appeared on TV coverage of the issue and was quoted in the press.

            I first encountered Mark on Whirlpool 4 years ago and quickly learned to respect his opinion. He generally used arguments that were evidenced based. If he was stating an opinion then he made it clear it was his opinion. Apart from being informative Mark was also happy to share his knowledge and his sources to increase awareness of the issue. On the rare occasion he made an error he was more than willing to acknowledge it.

            I haven’t always agreed with Mark but I do respect his opinion and would urge anyone reading anything he has written to consider it carefully. I have no idea what his political inclination is because I never saw anything that indicated a bias towards one particular party.

      • second that. for network-engineer, he has very strong (and often paraded as “expert”) opinions on a whole range of issues that have little to do with network engineering.

      • People’s view of balance is normally prejudiced by their own balance on what is and what is not. I generally try to go by a neutral point that if in generality the person, whether correct or incorrect, has the best interest of the greater part of their Society, with the highest and best interests of the fellow Citizen, also they look to protect the vulnerable and the less fortunate that cannot protect themselves against those who would seek to gain advantage of them for personal profit, then that person is well balanced and admirable. Those who operate outside of that are less balanced and either predatory or megalomaniacal and are less desirable. Disagree?

        • @TechinBris

          Sounds good in theory. But many people are very good at hiding their agendas.

          I find the best way for balance is widely reading. It’s not perfect, but it gives you a better pile of knowledge and opinion to form your own.

          Problem is, most people don’t do this. They listen to whatever the newspaper tells them and say “yay or nay” depending on how they’re feeling that day. Once an opinion is formed, however rudimentary and ill informed, it is exponentially harder to change.

          • I call those people Sheeple. Too hard to think for yourself and of course they avoid anything that could lead to a conclusion they are complicit in anything that could be wrong in the Universe, whether by action or inaction of input by them. Simply put, avoid responsibility for anything. They are incredibly annoying, always must be correct and dare I say, Sociopathic, though not in a pathological sense most of the time. They are easily herded along by promises they never realise.
            Tragic really.

      • Reading his full submission – lengthy as it is – I can see he’s quite passionate about privacy and the right to it. Citing some very good references of media beat ups on “terrorism” and using some pretty good evidence, he does make quite a good argument.

        That I support the right to privacy doesn’t mean I agree with everything he’s said, but the evidence is there in the submission. While it is clear he’s very anti-surveillance, he does make a good argument to balance the arguments as laid out in the discussion paper.

        It would have been good if he gave it to someone to proof though, there are some paragraphs that made no sense and a couple of typos that change the meaning of sentences, but that’s bound to happen to a submission representing the thoughts and opinions of an individual. Still worth a read if you have a spare 30-45 mins, if only to educate yourself on the issues before the ALRC

      • @Michael:

        Balanced? Your statement is as balanced as the Feds “we need to keep all your data to save you from… umm… things”

  2. Wow talk about unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, it is all John Howard’s fault!

    • Where did anyone attribute this to Howard? The only thing I can see that even references this is:

      “Indeed, the Data Retention proposal discussed herein dates back to the Howard Government.”

      … which wasn’t an attack, just an assertation that this is how long the proposals have been kicking around. I don’t think Mark Newton’s the one with conspiracy theories here. Not everything is an attack on a political party.

  3. “We’re a fundamentally safe country: Politically stable, prosperous, confident. The kind of place where a house break-in still makes the nightly news, because break-ins are so rare that they’re newsworthy. There is no better time than the present to start reassessing the nature of the relationship between the polity and the police. Given that we are so safe and so crime-free, do we need to keep giving more and more surveillance powers to law enforcement and intelligence services?”

    This I find VERY VERY disturbing.

    Do you stop locking your door because your house hasn’t been broken into? Do you carry around massive amounts of cash in the city cause you’ve never been robbed?

    I recently had my phone stolen from out of my hand, in the middle of the day in a train carriage with 5 other people in it. Fortunately he didn’t expect me to chase him and I got it back. My new Nexus 7 spends most of its’ time locked in my bag unless it is in my hands and I’m gripping it tight.

    This is only petty crime, but the fact is, simply saying “it’s fine, we don’t have any terrorists, we don’t have to listen to security agencies” is dangerous, imprudent and in fact, down right dumb.

    Do we need massively larger surveillance measures? Perhaps not. Do we need no more at all in this digital world, in a country that is STILL high on the hitlist of global terrorist groups? THAT way lies monsters. I’m sorry, but that was a very silly comment to make IMO and it destroys alot of the balanced argument Newton makes.

    • Protecting yourself against real threats is prudent; protecting yourself against imaginary threats is foolhardy.

      • @Steven

        Who decides which are the real threats? Do you know? I certainly don’t. And who’s job is it to know?….oh, that’s right our national security agency, ASIO…..

        I’m not saying their aren’t people that bolster their own importance through paranoia- that’s why governments can fire people…..

        • Who decides? Intelligent people. People with the capacity for critical thinking. You decided that having your phone stolen was a real threat so acted to reduce the risk of it happening again. Courts decide if criminals represent a real threat to society and act to reduce that risk.

          ASIO are virtually unaccountable for their actions – why would we give them even more power to combat threats that have never eventuated?

          “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

          • The absence of terrorist plots in Australia isn’t evidence that ASIO need more power; if anything it shows that (if they’re doing anything at all) their use of existing powers is a sufficient deterrence.

          • @Steven

            The absence of terrorist plots in Australia is likely a combination of many things. Actions by ASIO included. Simply saying “they’ve done nothing that has prevented a terrorist to attack Australia” is wilfully ignorant in my eyes I’m sorry. You have no evidence of that.

          • Who said “they’ve done nothing that has prevented a terrorist to attack Australia”?

            We have a legal system in this country – if someone is caught planning a terrorist act, they are prosecuted and given their day in court (and the press report on it).

          • @Steven

            Who said “they’ve done nothing that has prevented a terrorist to attack Australia”?

            You did- you insinuated it:

            ….if anything it shows that (if they’re doing anything at all) ….

            The justice system is corrective. ASIO are preventative. The justice system won’t charge someone with plotting a terrorist attack UNLESS someone like ASIO (or other law enforcement) catch them first. That is their job- to prevent. It’s not much good throwing someone in jail AFTER they’ve bombed the Cityrail system and killed hundreds of people….

          • No, I didn’t insinuate anything. I merely refused to concede that absence of terrorist acts means that they ASIO are the ones that prevented them.

            “The justice system won’t charge someone with plotting a terrorist attack UNLESS someone like ASIO (or other law enforcement) catch them first.”

            Exactly – the absence of court cases is as good a proof as anything else that ASIO aren’t catching terrorists (possibly because there aren’t any terrorists to catch).

          • @Steven

            See, what we have here is a classic example of Glass half full/Glass half empty.

            You believe the reason there are no terrorists is because there aren’t any. I believe there aren’t any because of a combination of our inherently more secure country (as you’ve mentioned) AND from teh work of ASIO and overseas intelligence organisations cooperatively.

            Oh and by the way, there are plots and court cases:

            http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/aussie-tourists-target-in-bali-terrorists-plot/story-e6frfq80-1226304633454

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-16/trio-sentenced-to-18-years-jail-over-terror-plot/3734742

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-20/benbrika-suppression-lifted/2907796

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-15/five-sydney-men-jailed-over-terrorism-plot/331532

            That was with just a quick search on Google. And they’re all in the last 5 years. (the 2nd one has been ongoing since 2004)

          • No, I believe that a dramatic expansion of powers needs to be justified, not just acceded to.

            “Oh and by the way, there are plots and court cases”

            Did you read those links? One was about a plot in Indonesia, the other three were about the same solitary plot Mark Newton referred to in his submission.

            I would much rather see Australia follow Norway after Breivik rather than US after 9/11…

          • @Steven

            No, I believe that a dramatic expansion of powers needs to be justified, not just acceded to.

            Which is precisely what this inquiry is for….

            One was about a plot in Indonesia

            Targeting Australians at a well known Australian Nightclub

            the other three were about the same solitary plot Mark Newton referred to in his submission.

            Did YOU read those links? As far as I can see, the 2nd 2 are connected, but separate cases and the last has nothing to do with them…

          • There are terriorist supports here, I remember during the IRA conflict they were recruiting and raising money here in Australia.

          • Are you deliberately misunderstanding him?

            Why did you produce a “quote” that he never actually said?

          • @James Q

            The quote was paraphrasing what he was insinuating- that ASIO had little to do with why there were few terrorist threats to Australia

          • And you cannot prove that they have been doing anything…

            Impasse (and ASIO are unlikely to come clean on whatever they have been up to).

            On the balance, draconian invasions of privacy should only be allowed where there are significant and demonstrable repercussions for not doing it (Belfast in the 80’s was a good example of a police state where public safety required many invasions of privacy including full body searches on demand etc).

            We are not Belfast in the 80’s.

            The ultimate conclusion is that if we have not seen a significant threat, it either does not exist, or ASIO has been so successful countering it with their current resources and abilities that no extra resources are actually required.

          • “The ultimate conclusion is that if we have not seen a significant threat, it either does not exist, or ASIO has been so successful countering it with their current resources and abilities that no extra resources are actually required.”

            +1. Bears repeating.

          • @Steven

            Who told you ASIO are unaccountable? They are accountable to the government. And as has been seen in the past, the media find things in this country, whether they’re meant to or not. This is not the US- ASIO don’t operate under a black budget- everything they do is recorded. Many people just aren’t classified as suitable to hear it. There’s a reason for that- panic. You’d be surprised some of the things ASIO deal with….

            And you automatically assume ASIO are unintelligent? You have a very low opinion of our government services indeed. Do you truly believe th majority of ASIO overseers are unintelligent and paranoid??

          • @Steven

            They ARE virtually unaccountable. How do you find out why your passport was cancelled?

            The government would’ve been made aware of the circumstances. Just because you aren’t, doesn’t mean it’s a big cover up. It could be, but more likely it was a MISTAKE, as it was in this case.

            ASIO routinely search without search warrants, detain without charge, and any number of other things

            Routinely? What, you hear about MAYBE a dozen cases a year….out of the MILLIONS of Australians and immigrants and visitors….yeah, that’s routinely….

            You’ll also note that I didn’t claim that ASIO were unintelligent…

            No, you insinuated again by saying :

            Who decides? Intelligent people.

            Suggesting ASIO aren’t intelligent, because I said it is ASIO who decides what is a threat…

          • “The government would’ve been made aware of the circumstances. Just because you aren’t, doesn’t mean it’s a big cover up. It could be, but more likely it was a MISTAKE, as it was in this case.”

            You’re free to believe that…

            “Routinely? What, you hear about MAYBE a dozen cases a year….out of the MILLIONS of Australians and immigrants and visitors….yeah, that’s routinely….”

            LOL, as if we hear about every unlucky victim, when often the victims themselves are unaware.

            “No, you insinuated again”

            You are mistaken. I said that intelligent people assess risks – my point was that ASIO are definitely not the only people capable of deciding what’s good for us plebs.

          • @Steven

            You’re free to believe that…

            I am. And until I have evidence otherwise, I’ll continue to believe what the facts tell me.

            LOL, as if we hear about every unlucky victim, when often the victims themselves are unaware.

            You appear to be moving into simple conspiratory thoughts now. You’re just replying I’m ridiculous to believe what the facts have so far told me….that’s called conspiracy theory….

            I said that intelligent people assess risks – my point was that ASIO are definitely not the only people capable of deciding what’s good for us plebs.

            No they aren’t. But it doesn’t mean they don’t contribute or manage those decisions or that intelligent people don’t work there. That is their job- The Australia Security & Intelligence Organisation…..

          • “You appear to be moving into simple conspiratory thoughts now.”

            No, I’m not. You may like to hunt down a TV show called Law and Disorder that aired on SBS a few years ago – it may open your eyes.

          • One final thought – if ASIO got caught every time they conducted a warrant-less search, do they sound like the sort of people you want looking after your “security”?

          • I love a well reasoned, intellectual exchange of robust viewpoints and while I find myself almost always in agreement with seven_tech on a wide range of issues, I think this time his somewhat naive perspective on this topic and ASIO etc has been exposed by Steven. Cheers to you both.

          • @Damien

            Cheers. I always love a good debate. If I’ve failed to convince you, fair enough. I just don’t see very much evidence that ASIO is out of control and I don’t believe I’m naive in believing that ASIO ISN’T the CIA or the FBI- ie completely above government control a lot of the time. That isn’t to any they couldn’t be, but I don’t see us rampaging around randomly arresting hundreds of people a year for no apparent reason. One or two here and there, yes, but they are criticized heavily and are often mistakes.

            By all means, if people can give me some examples of mistakes they’ve made that show complete ineptitude I’m happy to have a look (no ‘what about no WMD’s in Iraq!!’ Please. That was lead by the Americans and I truly believe ASIO was duped and was the government….not to say Howard’s pally nature with Bush had nothing to do with it either….) Otherwise I will continue to go on the evidence they have provided which is several terrorist cell plots in or to do with Australia over the last 10 years.

          • “That isn’t to any they couldn’t be, but I don’t see us rampaging around randomly arresting hundreds of people a year for no apparent reason. One or two here and there, yes, but they are criticized heavily and are often mistakes.”
            So one or two is okay, but hundreds isn’t? Is the number of acceptable “mistakes” absolute, or relative to the number of apparent successes? Do you think your opinion would change if you or someone you know was one of these “mistakes”?

            “By all means, if people can give me some examples of mistakes they’ve made that show complete ineptitude I’m happy to have a look”
            Here’s a few examples of “mistakes” and abuses of power.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wilkie
            http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/read-all-about-it–soon-it-will-be-a-crime/2005/10/27/1130400311075.html
            http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/20/asio-reels-in-a-g-line-on-illegal-fishing-hook-line-and-sinker/
            http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4025808.html
            http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1652867/Indefinite-detention-challenged-in-High-Court

            “(no ‘what about no WMD’s in Iraq!!’ Please. That was lead by the Americans and I truly believe ASIO was duped and was the government”
            You might like to have a chat with Andrew Wilkie (or a read of his book, or a watch of the documentary I mentioned yesterday)…

    • “Do we need massively larger surveillance measures? Perhaps not. Do we need no more at all in this digital world, in a country that is STILL high on the hitlist of global terrorist groups? THAT way lies monsters. I’m sorry, but that was a very silly comment to make IMO and it destroys alot of the balanced argument Newton makes.”

      I think that Bureau of Crime statistics figure have shown a reduction in crime figures over the past decade. This has been attributed to reduced unemployment for one thing. The Police are always happy to tell us about the crime wave that is engulfing our society. Usually accompanied by a request for more resources.

      Is Australia still high on the hit list of global terrorists? If we are relying on the intelligence services that reliably informed us that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” then I have considerable skepticism.

      I don’t think Mark Newton was advocating leaving the house unattended with the door wide open. What he was saying in my opinion was do we really need to have iron bars on every window and entry backed up with armed security guards and a guard dog. Does the threat warrant this intrusion and expense?

      We already have interception laws in place in Australia. If the law enforcement agencies want them strengthened then surely they should be required to provide solid evidence that this is really required and it is not just them “pipe dreaming”. I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation.

      • We already have interception laws in place in Australia. If the law enforcement agencies want them strengthened then surely they should be required to provide solid evidence that this is really required and it is not just them “pipe dreaming”. I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation.

        ^This. IF the evidence is there, it should be considered, rationally and decently. SOME may have to be done behind closed doors- ASIO cannot make public much of its’ intelligence. However, the general debate and specific reasons for each of these circumstances must be given. That is not a blanket allowance for just saying “classified” when someone tries to ask why.

        So far, it is difficult to see such evidence. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist- just that it hasn’t been shown or explained properly if it does. I will reserve judgement until towards the end of the inquiry.

    • I think what Mark Newton means is that is historically safe in the statistical sense. Sure you might say ‘but I got mugged yesterday!’ but if you were to look at the statistics for injuries per capita caused by assault compared to say 20 years ago, you might find its lower now than then.
      Obviously, just because a danger is lower or unchanged does not mean you stop precautions altogether. Just imagine if they treated road toll deaths like deaths from terrorist attacks, would anyone be allowed to drive a car? There are magnitudes more people getting killed and maimed violently on the road but it doesn’t make such sensational news. Its a standard threat/risk analysis, which is best based on hard data rather than media fuelled irrational fear and best mitigated with some sense of proportion and economy.

      • @John

        I agree that is what he was trying to say. But he didn’t annunciate it properly to me and it gave the wrong impression.

        I agree that, statistically, terrorism in Australia is almost non-existent. And we do need to be spending more on prevention of domestic fatalities from other means. I just believe that ASIO has a significant, if overall small in the global scheme of things, part to play in intelligence gathering, monitoring and terrorism prevention in Australia.

    • No-one is suggesting that we stop locking our doors to protect ourselves appropriately against existing threats. What some of us are saying (Mark Newton and myself included) is that no credible argument has been made that we really *need* to supplement our door locks with an electrified fence, a moat, attack dogs, and armed guards carrying out ubiquitous search-and-seizure on passersby.

      Full disclosure: I put in a submission to the Inquiry, republished on my blog for anyone who cares to read.

      • @itgrrl

        I don’t think keeping data (whether it be for 2 years or 2 weeks) on the fact you’ve sent an email or made a phone call that CANNOT be accessed without a warrant being issued IS over the top. But that’s me.

        Also full disclosure, I also made a submission. It should be available to download from the inquiry page, otherwise:

        http://db.tt/a1SrN1WB

        • “I don’t think keeping data (whether it be for 2 years or 2 weeks) on the fact you’ve sent an email or made a phone call that CANNOT be accessed without a warrant being issued IS over the top.”

          It’s not as simple as *one* email or *one* phone call. It’s *every* email and *every* website and *every* phone call for the past 2 years, time-stamped and cross-linkable with credit and bank histories, available for data-mining and profiling by anyone who has access, and you CANNOT be *certain* that such access will always involve a warrant.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp
          http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

          Target discovered it could statistically predict when a customer was pregnant, even before their parents knew, just from tracking changes in their shopping habits at a single chain (e.g. Target’s). What might someone be able to predict, when they have access to years of not just your shopping habits but your web and email and phone habits and everyone else’s as well?

          And how much would such a datamine of an entire nation’s electronic activities be worth to interested parties, political or otherwise? How could you, if you represented the Australian public, guarantee with any confidence that such a datamine would not be compromised, let alone subverted, now or in the future? It’s not like Bradley Manning was some James Bond double-oh secret agent. He was an analyst with the rank of private and serious psychological issues. And yet… well, read his wikipedia entry, if you even need to.

          • This to me is an important element. Why does it need to be kept for everyone. If there is a reason for “interest” in an individual, then by following due process they can easily request that individual’s detail be kept. Why however is it required of everyone.

            Are my driving habits recorded in case I do 5k over the limit? Should it be?

            And that is not even considering the sheer cost of doing it. Storing all of this information even only for 2 years is mind boggling.

          • “How could you, if you represented the Australian public, guarantee with any confidence that such a datamine would not be compromised, let alone subverted, now or in the future?”

            And the ISPs and telcos are supposed to keep all this data at their fingertips. Going on past performance, it’s only a matter of time before a part, or the whole, of such a surveillance database is leaked, sold, or stolen. It’ll be a magnet to criminals, loonies, and the disaffected.

    • Unless I misread it, Newton’s argument was more “if the current powers work, don’t add new ones” which is quite different to “if the current powers work, take some away” which you’re implying when you suggest no longer locking doors.

      • @James Q

        Perhaps a bad analogy on my part. A better one is perhaps, we have a dead bolt and a chain lock. A dead bolt has always kept people out before, but if the chain lock is there and used, it may be unnecessary….but it may not too.

        It is whether the chain bolt is overkill and the inconvenience it could cause and perhaps the danger too(fire) that must be balanced against whether the increase in security is needed.

        • NO, The reason the chain is there is so you can particially open the door and look the terriorist in the eye just before they blow your head off.

  4. The whole Wiki-Leaks saga has raised a disturbing truth to us all, those we trust with the law are not trustworthy and don’t deserve our trust. Do we turn a blind eye to it in fear? If we do, then we deserve every injustice that is metered out against us.
    Do we allow our Governments to hide behind Bureaucrats who will not tell their Boss the details requested? I know if I did that, I’d be fired. Yet it seems some have been given an indemnity that few in this nation ever get. For a Government Department to withhold information from our Parliament, well I can only suggest that if we have this, it should be dismantled and neutralised immediately. Who can say what detriment they could do with their privilege status to our Nation! To withhold it IS detrimental to the Citizens who are the Government and Parliament of Australia.
    I wonder why Catherine Smith and Wendy Kelly haven’t found themselves on charges of Treason for not supplying the information requested to the Nation. The only reason I can come up with is no one dares as something big and nasty is protecting them on this matter. That means they know what it is. What could be so big and nasty that our own Parliamentary Departments, Ministers and Senators tremble in fear?
    I think there is more to keep an eye on than what we see here. It is more of knowing what was not said, than said and extrapolating the answers from that. They are obviously under some other Master than us.
    From whence this push, for an outcome came, something wicked this way comes.

    • @TechinBris

      From whence this push, for an outcome came, something wicked this way comes.

      This “push” has been happening for years. That’s what Newton has been saying. It wouldn’t surprise me if it is the same people from within the departments pushing it- after all, they don’t change during every election and the slate is essentially wiped clean each time for them to try again.

      I agree we need to be scrutinising these people. Is what they’re saying relevant or just paranoid? How we manage to do that is the tricky part….they will hide themselves well if they have something to hide.

      I’m of the opinion no one should be allowed to serve as a managerial position in a government department for more than 10 years (7 years?). This would clean house occasionally, allowing rotten wood to be automatically purged. Good luck getting that through though….

      • Yes I can see that it would be nigh to impossible to have a statute of limitations of control any particular Governmental Organisation. You might have a fantastically brilliant person running a Department, but unfortunately, everything seems to always have to revolve around the lowest denominator, so we’d have to lose the brilliant Manager and open ourselves to the possibility of an idiot. You have a few crooked people and because of them, everything around becomes a drama. We should have a system of justice that would protect us from such, but we have been lazy and allowed it to be compromised by wealth and power so that it is mainly toothless, except to those without wealth to buy the justice desired.
        So what we have is a system created to fail, as it has been engineered to do. Who did this? It’s obvious and your right, it has been going on for some time. But they are very powerful and that is a scary thing for most people, who normally have loved ones and know how ruthless the foe is. For that reason, things will get worse, much worse, before we repeat history again to try correcting the mess. I can only hope we finally grow up, but history shows whenever we let juvenile selfishness prosper for any reason, we are doomed to fall. All of us. *sigh*

      • oh my god, seven_tech… thank you, thank you, thank you…. i have been secretly saying this to my self for years.

        it is those bloody public servants that create australia… not the pollies… and do these public servants – the ones that make big decisions, not the ones that do the actual work….do they have criminal records checked, children checks done… mmmmm… thank you…for typing this…i thought i was the only one that thought like this…..

        • There are some scary people out there brunsli….

          I met one of these public “servants” working in an Community group. They were ex public-service by then, thankfully. I disagreed with them on some key ideas for the group, which they had only just joined, of which I had a lot of influence at the time. They proceeded to dig up an error in judgement I’d made years earlier, use it to do everything on the verge of slander my name and have me kicked out and almost jailed….because I disagreed….

          Needless to say, it is not the politicians of this country who have the real power and do the real politics….it is their direct underlings who have the control….See Peta, Tony Abbott’s PR manager….

          • ooooohhhhhh…what nasty little critters they can be then….

            it is as if some of these ‘advisors’ etc., get off on being a polles helper…the power and they stay around longer too…who would want to be a minister… i’ve decided they are all pretty immoral and unethical…otherwise they would get a real job…meow…

  5. I really do not understand such actions by politicians…
    We still condemn the Nazi’s and live in fear that ‘they will re appear again, yet these politicians are no worse in my eyes… they want to treat fellow humans as in-humanely as possible.
    And while this may seem a sexist comment…I often wonder a) are these female pollies just pawns for their male corporate counter parts who really pull the strings, or b) really this evil in their actions etc…. god help their children is b is the real answer.
    Dear old australia still lives in the convict world of its past and bows down to the rest of the world and follows it….

  6. Roxon bugged me as Health Minister with the way she talked about ehealth as purely a good thing, without much acknowledgment that many patients would feel uncomfortable with their information being online and would withhold information from their doctors as a result. She doesn’t seem to have much concept of privacy or of ownership of your own data.

  7. SevenTech, riddle me this.

    ASIO stands for Australian SECRET Intelligence Organisation…

    Exactly how would you know that they are under control? If they’re doing their job properly, you’ll never know a thing about it. And that’s the problem, we aren’t made aware of the threats, we don’t know the full story of what they are doing and whether it’s justified. We have to trust… Trust the pollies that tell us we’re supporting paedos if we don’t like internet filtering, right?

    And the thing is, trust is earned and a two way street. They don’t trust us, they want extraordinary powers to create a history that they can go back and visit at any time. It’s a complete destruction of the presumption of innocence because the sheer act of recording everything we do infers that we are all criminals in waiting.

    This is some info on wiretapping in the US.

    https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/wiretapping-protections

    You’ll notice the courts over there consider wiretapping (and data retention is a form of wiretapping) a very serious invasion of privacy and have restricted it significantly compared to regular searches…

    It does not matter that they aren’t allowed to peak at it without a warrant, that it would exist at all would already be a gross breach of our privacy…

  8. @seven_tech
    “We have no black budget”
    It wouldn’t be very black if it was published and we knew about it, would it?

  9. @ seven_tech

    “The US has a Black Budget….how do we know about it?”
    Because they couldn’t keep it secret forever? They did continue to deny its existence and then minimise the size of their black ops funding for some time.

    “That’s just Strawman sorry.”
    Stawman to what? I didn’t make any argument, but if I did it would be that absence of evidence of something is not proof that it doesn’t exist. While I also believe there is little unaccounted funding to these agencies, we won’t really know unless we are proven wrong eventually.

  10. Compared to quite a number of other countries, we have a darn safe, stable country.

    When the worst headline is a bunch of people escaping brutal conditions in a leaky boat, you have to question why ASIO and the AG are so very keen to exert control.

    We are falling into the US-centric notion of “panic” over every moving shrub incase it holds several terrorists

    And perhaps some terrorist-ninjas. They’re very sneaky, you know, very hard to find, but they ARE there, right, so we’ll dispense with privacy and reason to, well, HUNT DOWN THE TERRORIST-NINJAS.

    Like @seven_tech; I’ve had items stolen. Twice, in fact. Does that mean I am now DEATHLY afraid and panic every night that the front door will be kicked in by TERRORIST-NINJAS—err I mean thieves?

    No. What I do know is that there will always be an element in the community that seeks to harm, be it on purpose, or through desperation.

    And I do know that there will always be terrorism in some form. It’s asymmetric warfare and that’s older than recorded time.

    But does that mean I should just lie-down and presume that the federal police, ASIO and government departments have MY best interest at heart? Really?

    Mark isn’t really saying anything new; these policies have existed in some shape or form for decades. Really, it’s just the target, and the transport, that’s changed.

    Once it used to be the red-menace. The commies are going to steal all the women and children!

    Now it’s suspicious looking bearded men on the internets. There’s a lot to be said for resisting such fear. Rather than embracing panic and damning the populous to ever increasing control.

    Because that has always, always ended well, yes?

Comments are closed.