| | |
|
GillianWhiteSecondPaper 4 - 13 Jan 2013 - Main.GillianWhite
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Mandatory data retention in Australia: will this proposed assault on privacy come to pass? | | | 2. Political and legal responses | |
<
< | The good news is that the consultation and parliamentary committee process may result in data retention being put on the political back-burner. An election is likely to be called around August 2013, and since there is no draft legislation, it is unlikely to be an issue that the minority Labor Government will want to push through just prior to an election. Leaks suggest a number of conservative (Liberal party) parliamentarians oppose? " target="_top">http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-mps-hit-out-against-data-retention/story-fn59niix-1226471898912][oppose]] the idea. | >
> | The good news is that the consultation and parliamentary committee process may result in data retention being put on the political back-burner. An election is likely to be called around August 2013, and since there is no draft legislation, it is unlikely to be an issue that the minority Labor Government will want to push through just prior to an election. Leaks suggest a number of conservative (Liberal party) parliamentarians oppose the idea. | | | Interestingly, there are opportunities for unusual coalitions to coalesce against any draft law. The broadly ‘left wing’ [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pjcis/nsl2012/subs/sub146.pdf]
[Greens]] party, the GetUpadvocacy group (grassroots leftish lobbyists) and lawyers have made their human rights concerns clear. However, it is only in combination with industry’s arguments that the government has not thought through the implications of data retention that this dissent could have real political bite.
Industry’s argument is that data retention will be costly and, if the government doesn’t directly pay, then this will be passed onto the consumer. Perhaps a campaign that your internet costs will increase because the government wants to spy on you could work political wonders? This line could see an unlikely, but potent, coalition between Greens and conservatives, which could be enough to kill the law. | |
<
< | Industry has also argued that there are security risks associated with mass storage. To underscore this concern, it is alleged that ‘Anonymous’ hacked an ISP’s data to demonstrate these security risks. This is a controversial tactic, but it is something that industry has seized on in parliamentary inquiry submissions about the untold risks of data retention. | >
> | Industry has also argued that there are security risks associated with mass storage. To underscore this concern, it is alleged that ‘Anonymous’ hacked an ISP’s data to demonstrate these security risks. This is a controversial tactic, but it is something that industry has seized on in parliamentary inquiry submissions about the untold risks of data retention. | | | | |
<
< | Although there is potential for coordinated dissent to hinder this policy, the introduction of some form of mandatory data retention over the medium term appears a real risk. Government could introduce a similar scheme in the future – saying the issues were of detail, not substance. Australia is always keen to align itself with the national security priorities of the US and other Western nations. This issue is no exception. Australia has shown a willingness to cooperate with other nations to provide collected data. In 2012, Australia ratified the Council of Europe’s Convention on CyberCrime? and passed a law enabling agencies to provide foreign law enforcement agencies with existing and prospective telecommunications data held or generated in Australia, ahead of a warrant. We cannot assume that information will only be provided to democratic nations, or for purposes that Australian citizens would condone. It is hard to find any moral high-ground about China spying on its citizens, when countries like Australia continue to remove all the road-blocks from this occurring in their own nation and enshrine laws to provide this information to other nations. | >
> | Although there is potential for coordinated dissent to hinder this policy, the introduction of some form of mandatory data retention over the medium term appears a real risk. Government could introduce a similar scheme in the future – saying the issues were of detail, not substance. Australia is always keen to align itself with the national security priorities of the US and other Western nations. This issue is no exception. Australia has shown a willingness to cooperate with other nations to provide collected data. In 2012, Australia ratified the Council of Europe’s Convention on CyberCrime and passed a law enabling agencies to provide foreign law enforcement agencies with existing and prospective telecommunications data held or generated in Australia, ahead of a warrant. We cannot assume that information will only be provided to democratic nations, or for purposes that Australian citizens would condone. It is hard to find any moral high-ground about China spying on its citizens, when countries like Australia continue to remove all the road-blocks from this occurring in their own nation and enshrine laws to provide this information to other nations. | | | Unfortunately, if mandatory data retention is introduced, there is no reasonably arguable legal ground for challenging the laws. Laws are not invalid merely because they conflict with Australia’s international obligations. Australia has no express or implied constitutional rights to privacy, or to be free from search and seizure which is either unreasonable or not authorized by warrant. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |