Government stifles debate on web browser history retention
- 23 July, 2010 13:44
- Comments 9
The censored documents from the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland's, department.
The Government has purposefully stifled debate on its controversial plan to record the web browsing history of every Australian Internet user by greatly censoring its consultation paper.
The move came in response to a Sydney Morning Herald Freedom of Information (FoI) request to see the Government’s consultation papers on the issue. The 16-page document was returned with the vast majority of the contents blacked out.
The documents concerned were provided to a select group of ISPs and industry bodies. They outline the Government's intentions on the issue and understanding of the data retention issue while proposing what information to retain and for how long.
In a written response to the SMH, a legal officer from office of the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, claimed while the public deserved to influence the processes of government these documents would not be in the public’s interest.
“I consider that release of such documents may lead to premature unneccesary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making,” legal officer, Claudia Hernandez, wrote to the SMH.
“The material is exempt [from release] because, in my view, its release would disclose recommendations, deliberations and consultations that have been made…in the course of, and for the purposes of, the deliberative processes of this Department and the government as a whole.”
According to Australian Greens Communications spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam, the Government was just playing semantics. He said a Senate Committee would look into the issue when Parliament resumed.
“This excuse is extraordinary,” he said in a statement.
Why is the Department making such an effort to keep this information hidden?
“Instead of playing semantics the Government should allow an open discussion in the development of the best possible policy regime.”
iiNet chief regulatory officer, Steve Dalby, said the documents in no way endangered national security and that the documents should be released to the public. While iiNet was provided with an original copy of the paper, it could not release it citing non-disclosure arrangements.
“I’m very disappointed in that response,” he said. “That the industry was invited to learn about this information and provided with the briefing at the exclusion of the rest of the community is not right.
“I would suggest that it’s in everybody’s interest that they release the information provided to the small group of companies more broadly.”
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- McAfee Whitepaper: Building the Business Case for Privacy
- Choice and Control: Considerations for Developing Enterprise Cloud Strategies
- Cloud and Co-Location Solutions
- MSP Guides for effective Endpoint Management Solutions
- Smart Cloud Provisioning: Low Cost and highly Scalable Entry Point into Cloud Computing
-
Telstra restructure a correct step: Paul Budde
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
-
Barracuda Networks raises free capacity of Copy.com to 15GB
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Elwood
1
And so it begins. This will be what the internet will look like after the election, only in hardcopy.
They say that the filter won't include government or political items of interest, but they do this?!
David
2
Oh look, they continue to play games and treat citizens as idiots. What a surprise. "premature unneccesary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making". What a crock. Any excuse to cover things up. Yep, they won't last.
Harquebus
3
"[The Government] is committed to open government based on a culture of engagement, built on better access to and use of government held information, and sustained by the innovative use of technology,"
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/220413,open-government-invites-filter-discussion.aspx
Stuart
4
What shocks me about this is how brazen it is, and how little the mainstream media seems to care. The thing that really worries me is my suspicion that a lot of Australians don't care - are we really that docile and stupid as a nation? It's frightening.
Dennis
5
@Stuart
Yes we are and no different to Americans.
Peter
6
Not in the public's interest? What a load of rubbish. A total disgrace and a solid reason not to vote for these monkeys in the election. Unbelievable.
Vote for anybody but Labour!
Geoff Hansford
7
This is clearly a continuation of government attempts to keep debate about internet filtering and monitoring out of sight and out of mind so they don't lose any more votes in the upcoming election than they already have.
They are running scared that the internet debate will move from the tech press into mainstream media coverage.
Elijah B.
8
I don't see why I should trust the government when it's perfectly obvious they don't trust us.
The 20th century saw Communism as the big boogyman, with it's repression, spying on its citizens, and keeping government out of the hands of the people; now we see trends in our own government that would have made Stalin a very happy man. An internet filter, ACTA, the free-trade agreement with America, copyright law changes, and more, and now this browsing surveillance plan are all deals done behind closed doors and are imposed upon the great unwashed as a fait accompli. These are all examples of the almost routine exclusion of citizens from decisions making process that will still impact on them.
I'm not convinced that a change of government will change anything of substance, as the permanent top-level public servants who advise on policy remain the same, and the ministers typically don't know their subject. Add to that the over-regard for the sectional interests who lobby for their exclusive advantage, and the exclusion of the people from the decision making process will continue to increase, I think.
Sean
9
Last time I looked, Australia was still a Democracy not a Dictatorship, right?
It looks more and more like Australian politics is heading the same way as the US, with it's whoever has the deepest pockets makes the laws.
People like Brian Burke must be rubbing their hands with glee right about now.