Data retention policy treats all Australians as potential criminals
- 29 October, 2010 17:46
- Comments 5
The Attorney-General (A-G) department’s proposed data retention plans would make all Australians crime suspects, Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, said at a Senate Committee enquiry.
The controversial data retention plan was ousted in June and would require all ISPs to log and keep every user’s Web browsing history information.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) highlighted the importance of data retention in various investigations, particularly in child pornography cases.
AFP assistant commissioner, Neil Gaughan, described how retention of IP addresses by ISPs helped in the agency’s Operation Centurion in 2008 which lead to the execution of 340 search warrants, 140 arrests and 400,000 child pornography images seized. The investigation also saved four children that were at risk of child abuse, he said.
“Without the metadata being retained, the AFP cannot do those types of investigations because we won’t have that information to backtrack on,” Gaughan said. The data would also aid murder investigations handled by State and Territory agencies, he added.
While Senator Ludlam commended the AFP for providing a practical example of how retained data would aid investigations, he had concerns over how the policy would turn every Australian into a crime suspect.
“From a law enforcement perspective, we would all be walking around with video cameras attached to ourselves,” he said. “Is anybody willing to acknowledge there are very important privacy implications in effectively treating the entire Australian population as suspects in unknown or unprosecuted offences just in case any one of us at any given time turns out to be a child abuser?”
The Senator was also troubled by the Attorney-General department's lack of engagement with civil libertarian and privacy organisations during the data retention consultation process.
The A-G department representative, Catherine Smith, said the department had consulted with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and did not approach organisations beyond the AFP and telecommunications industry because the data retention proposal is still a work in progress.
Senator Ludlam pointed out the Privacy Commissioner was less than complimentary of the data retention plan.
“It was more uncommitted rather than uncomplimentary,” A-G department representative, Wendy Kelly, said. “We were consulting to come forward with a proposal we had not yet developed. To take something up to a broad range of people before we had a view would be inappropriate.”
In regards to the heavily redacted consultation papers obtained through a Sydney Morning Herald Freedom of Information Request, Senator Ludlam criticised A-G department for creating a shroud of secrecy over the issue.
At the time, the department made a statement claiming the redactions were made to to prevent “premature unnecessary debate”.
“In good faith, rumours flourish in a vacuum and you have created a vacuum,” Senator Ludlam said. “That is why people are asking ‘Well, what is this all about? It sounds important’.
“If you don’t trust us to tell us what it is you are doing, why should we trust you to have all this data in the first place?”
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- MSP Guides for effective Endpoint Management Solutions
- Smart Cloud: Move Beyond monitoring to Holistic Management of Application Performance
- Smart Cloud Provisioning: Low Cost and highly Scalable Entry Point into Cloud Computing
- Cloud and Co-Location Solutions
- Virtualization and Consolidation Solutions
-
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
Richard
1
If only there were 226 Ludlams in parliament instead of just one. It just feels like he's one man speaking for all of Australia, but nobody is listening. Welcome to 1984.
Peter
2
Richard, your totaly right. If only. Unfortunately the world of politics doesnt always favour those who should be in charge and those who are right. Instead we get halfwit tools like Stephen Conroy who will jump for just about anybody except the people he represents. The whole data retension proposal will benefit nobody except for those who abuse the system. Ministers who want to take out those who oppose them. Big business that want to take out potential threats to their monopolies. All that will happen is that everyone will move their traffic to an encrypted VPN service and thus make all their net traffic unmonitorable. So when something actually bad happens and the government needs to check out a potential terrorist (you know, with a warrant), they wont be able to no matter how hard they try.
Richard Ure
3
Is this some plot toe restore Australia Post's business lost to email? If the AG proposed steaming open people's snail mail and copying it or recording one's borrowing history at the library, would there be an outcry? And if keeping digital communications is justified, why not postal material?
The STASI at its peak did not have these powers or abilities.
Don
4
As a system integrator and internet/intranet security consultant, I have big concerns with en-mass data retention without any controls. Of cause it will lead to abuse. I see it over and over in my job!
There are ways that IP's can retain data that is flagged as criminal activity whilst letting all other data go. The problem is that there are certain people in government, including public servants, who have no clue about the technology they are dealing with (Including the NBN) and are making decisions only to justify their positions and salaries.
Of cause, police and certain government operatives would love to play big brother "just in case" but that leaves us in about the same situation as the Soviet Union when the KGB did the same thing and China's current Peoples Republic that we are so alarmed about.
When are the public going to stand up to these archaic plans. We are in charge...not the politicians!
And while they don't listen, it just gives IT people like myself more opportunity for work making sure that browsing for our clients is secure.
BTW criminals know the way around the system so who is getting caught in this net??? You guessed it...the innocent public!
Richard Ure mad a good point in the past post. The secret police are probably already going through our post and data matching everything that they can for each of us!
Rekrul
5
Is the government going to cover the costs of storing all this extra data? Or the police?