Push for Australians' web browsing histories to be stored

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/push-for-australians-web-browsing-histories-to-be-stored-20140317-34xtr.html

by peterkelly • 12 years ago

117 47 12 years ago

smh.com.au

javajosh2• 12 years ago

The federal spying agency is supported by the Northern Territory Police, Victoria Police, Australian Federal Police, Australian Crime Commission and Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, who all say they are in support of a data-retention regime.

Just once I'd like to see a law-enforcement agency somewhere in the world and do the unexpected: come out for individual liberty, and against invasive data practices. It would be remarkable because this data represents leverage that the cops can use against, well, anyone, and so to give it up as a matter of principle would be a laudable position.

Another interesting thing about this quote is that it so blatantly gives lie to the notion that any of this power is used, or is even intended to be used, for national security. No, this data is going to be used by cops on the street. It's going to be used as leverage, and as an insurance policy: if they beat you up, they do a background check and see if you did something wrong. If you did, they offer to reduce charges on those grave offenses if you agree not to charge the department with brutalizing you. If it wasn't for all that data, where would the poor old police have the leverage to strike such a deal? They'd have to go to all the trouble of actually getting warrants and seize your data, which is of course an undue burden on the police. Much better to have it all stored and waiting for use.

gregsq• 12 years ago

I'm afraid to say that in Australia the reaction to these privacy and personal rights issues has been lethargic and frankly lazy. Under some circumstances, a lowly under educated clerk with no security clearance of any kind can, with the approval of a single supervisor, access data such as metadata for a variety of reasons. The reaction of the vast majority of the population is complete political apathy.

Australia began it's modern europeanised existence as a police state, and I honestly don't think that it's evolved through law beyond that initial modality.

It has never had in it's constitution the expectations on rights of the citizen that underpin the US constitution.

It's unlikely that there'll be much resistance from the public to these proposals.

majika4• 12 years ago

You complain that the public's reaction to these issues has been lethargic and lazy, but then the rest of your post reads as an obituary of freedom in Australia.

I, for one, am sick of this defeatist attitude which I see all too often from (small-l) liberals in Australia.

Australians have fought against authoritarianism, and we need to continue to fight. We stopped the Internet filter, we pirate more than any other country, and we have Green party representatives in both houses of the national parliament.

I think a Bill of Rights is non-democratic in Westminster-judicial societies. Whereas in the US the judicial branch is somewhat accountable to the people, in the UK, Canada and Australia, the people's will is only expressed in parliament. So, if the Australian parliament amended our constitution with a bill of rights, it would be handing power from our elected representatives to our non-elected High Court judges.

Furthermore, bills of rights are only superficial in protecting rights - they are always subject to the whim of the culture and society in which they operate. Canada has a bill of rights [0] supposedly protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right, yet "discriminatory speech" is illegal (e.g. a comedian discriminating against homosexuals [1]).

[0] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/page-1.html

[1] http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/06/20/comedian-dinged-for...

Sure, "discriminatory speech" has been ruled illegal in Australia too [2], but my point is: what's the point of a bill of rights, then?

[2] http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/29/bolt-decision-irresponsi...

Or, another example, look at how well the US' Fourth Amendment is protecting Americans from mass surveillance. I would posit that the reason the US has maintained more freedoms than other countries isn't thanks to its Bill of Rights, but thanks to their cultural belief in the importance of liberty. (or maybe its their distrust of government oppression of liberty? I can't tell)

So, as an Australian, I have no problem with not having a bill of rights. If we become a republic, and our High Court judges are then accountable to us? Maybe. But I'll want to hear from respected law professors before making my mind up. See [3] for a good discussion, and links to reading material.

[3] http://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/q7xhm/what_are_the_a...

Anyway, more on-topic, I do agree with you that Australians need to step up their game to fight against authoritarianism. I don't agree that what we need is a bill of rights, and I do think we still have hope as a society.

brc• 12 years ago

I agree with most things you have posted in this thoughtful comment, specifically to do with the lack of need for a bill of rights in a Westminster democracy (which most people do not understand).

However, characterizing having Greens party members in parliament as some sort of measure of liberalism made me do a double-take. The Greens are many things, but small-l liberal they most definitely are not. While they include policies on populist measures such as internet filters which appeal to their young voter base, they also include many, many policies which are an anathema to people interested in freedom. They were a large backer of government regulation of the press, they have many policies which bring in serious regulation of many industries and frequently talk of population caps. They even have an ex-soviet for a Federal Senator. There is no true liberal party in Australia, especially not the Greens.

Having said that, the new LDP senator will be worth watching to see what is said and what is voted for.

XorNot• 12 years ago

Well so far it hasn't happened. In fact it hasn't even reached the point where it might be seriously turned into law. I'd say it's getting the exact level of reaction it deserves, since we keep winning on the issue.

People will get more active when it looks more likely to go before parliament.

vacri5• 12 years ago

Yes, we should be more like the 'free' US, what with their frequently paramilitarised police and 'free speech zones', law-enforcement drones and police kicking down doors because "I smelled pot", and an incarceration rate five times higher with people doing considerably longer sentences (despite the consitutional requirement for no excessive punishment).

Australia is not the bleak wasteland you paint it as, and it's not a police state. Using this kind of hyperbole does no-one any favours. Do you really think that Australians fear their neighbours like the people in East Germany did? The PM recently said that the government broadcasting agent should not be so negative about the government and should be more like it's cheer squad. He was pilloried by the private press for saying such a thing.

I'm interested to know what privacy and personal rights you think the US has that Australia doesn't. The US has 'bear arms', true. It has slightly greater private freedom of speech, but in practice slightly worse freedom of speech for the press.

As for the content of the constitution, that's not the way we do law. Just because the US shoves every silly thing into their constitution (or at least tries to), it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist for us if it's not in our constitution. We have shitloads of law outside the constitution. Hardly surprising, since in the US, you only require politicians to amend the constitution, but in Australia, you need to hold a referendum. And even in the US, the vast bulk of nattering about the constitution is just grandstanding - a law is a law. Being in the constitution simply makes it harder to repeal. Not being in the constitution doesn't make it any less legally binding, just easier to strike down.

wavefunction• 12 years ago

Also, two entire states in America just legalized cannabis completely, Australia does not share land borders with its neighbors, and the US Constitution requires no "cruel or unusual punishments" which is different from "excessive."

Those are just three points to the generalized rubbish you've posted in support of whatever argument you're making. I don't say this to be mean but to cut to the quick and point out you're not posting anything particularly insightful when you gloss over inconvenient realities in either Australia or America.

hyperion2010• 12 years ago

Wow. Do they have any idea why librarians refuse to keep records of who check out what book? This is a billion times worse.

poulson• 12 years ago

Is there any legal protection for users' reading lists in libraries? Because it would be wonderful if someone could set up a legal online library which would extend such protections onto the internet.

dictum• 12 years ago

You bring a point I hadn't thought of yet: aside from illegal downloading, you can't buy an ebook anonymously.

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

That's not all they're proposing, but also to be able to decrypt everything, from both users and companies:

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/375286,attorney-generals-new-w...

It's almost like Australia was watching UK, and all of the sudden they realized UK is getting too far ahead of them in becoming a totalitarian state, and they can't let UK win the race! If it wasn't so sad and terrifying, it would almost be fun to watch which of the two becomes a police state the fastest.

Unfortunately, potentially millions of lives will be affected by increasingly more draconian laws in these countries, whether they realize it or not (like with censorship, when it becomes hard to know what you're missing out on, because you don't know what's been censored).

dobbsbob• 12 years ago

Democracy rapidly disappears at this point. Parties can use the data to identify areas of the population who are unlikely to vote for them and target them with robocalls and false mailings that instruct them their voting poll address has changed, or the date for voting has changed in order to prevent them from voting at all. Blackmail is also an option, so is discrediting opposition when you have access to watch them 24/7.

By the time anybody figures out shenanigans went down nothing will come of it because everybody involved will deny, and any elections authority that could have investigated will be gutted, de-funded and dissolved to make sure nothing comes of it. If irregularities are recognized then they will simply put together a bullshit reform package, call it the 'Fair elections act' and it will be anything but fair

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-would-dise...

hkphooey• 12 years ago

In a strange way, it's good that people don't get to vote. With voter apathy and declining turnout in many countries, might as well encourage people to stop voting.

Let voter turnout drop to single digit percentages. It would be hard for anybody to claim that the elected person had any kind of mandate. The news headlines would be farcicial, "Prime Minister elected, wins 55% of the popular vote, on 7% turnout"

Of course in Australia they currently fine you if you don't vote. Perhaps in future they'll make it a criminal offense and put people in prison for not voting!

vacri5• 12 years ago

I think you don't understand the Australian voting process very well. Australians are not as accepting of robocalls as Americans are (and with mobile phones becoming the norm, robocalls get expensive); the voting date is hard to fake since everyone has to vote at the same time and there are media blitzes about the date itself; and polling addresses are meaningless, because if you don't go to one of the ones for your electorate, you can go into a polling station anywhere in the country and record a vote, it just takes marginally longer. If you try and make it so that voters have to queue for 8 hours to lodge a vote in order to marginalise them, people will give up and go to another polling station. People here complain bitterly if they have to wait an hour to vote.

If someone did try the voting date switcheroo and succeeded in stopping a sizeable portion of people from voting, the most likely outcome - apart from the scandal - would be that the Australian Electoral Commission would call for a repeat of the voting for that electorate. By-elections happen all the time; it's not something that would be procedurally unusual.

Blackmail is still an option though, and still a good reason to oppose the law.

vacri5• 12 years ago

This is hardly a draconian law. It's an unwanted, unpleasant law, sure, but 'draconian'? You make it sound like a nightly 8pm curfew.

Homunculiheaded• 12 years ago

"The techniques of the police, which are developing at an extremely rapid tempo, have as their necessary end the transformation of the entire nation into a concentration camp. This is no perverse decision on the part of some party or government. To be sure of apprehending criminals, it is necessary that everyone be supervised. It is necessary to know exactly what every citizen is up to, to know his relations, his amusements, etc. And the state is increasingly in a position to know these things."

- Jacques Ellul "The Technological Society" (1964)

javajosh2• 12 years ago

Great quote, thanks. Never heard of him before, but definitely a man ahead of his time. Here's another cherry:

"it is a fact that excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener; they drown him. He cannot remember them all, or coordinate them, or understand them; if he does not want to risk losing his mind, he will merely draw a general picture from them. And the more facts supplied, the more simplistic the image"

- "Propoganda" (1965)

noclip• 12 years ago

I'm curious as to what it is about Australia that makes these obscenely invasive schemes tenable to the public. It's clear that surveillance agencies in representative governments all over the world want and pursue these kinds of capabilities, but almost none are brazen enough to advocate for them openly. Even fewer can do so and reasonably expect a nonzero chance of success.

cptn_brittish• 12 years ago

Australia generally ignores most of what happens in parliament feeling they have other things todo which are better as it normally feels like we have elected five year olds to run our country.

mercer• 12 years ago

Why do you think this is? I mean, assuming you think this is more the case in Australia than it is in other places.

declan• 12 years ago

This is not unique to Australia. It could happen here in the U.S. Here's a story I wrote in 2010:

FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited / "The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years..." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html

Other proposals that have circulated around DC officialdom have included mandatory data retention requirements aimed at social networks, sites that accept photo uploads, domain name registries: http://news.cnet.com/Politicos-mull-data-retention-by-Web-ho... http://news.cnet.com/Congress-targets-social-networking-site...

Of course these proposals are being advanced by politicians and bureaucrats who have only the vaguest glimmerings of an idea of how the Internet works (and even less of an appreciation for the limits the Constitution places on the federal government).

pserwylo2• 12 years ago

For those interested, this was also brought up in 2012 [0]. Among 44 different things that were requesting comment, was this, tucked away in section 15c [1]:

"tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts"

One of the main reasons it didn't end up going further was likely due to the fact so many Australians wrote to the inquiry expressing their concerns [1]:

"The Committee received 240 submissions and 29 exhibits. Three submissions were received in largely identical terms from some 5,300 individual members of the public. These submitter's expressed opposition to the reform proposals, particularly the proposed mandatory data retention proposal."

The part you will be interested in is "Chapter 5 - Data Retention" [2]. In it, the committee came to the conclusion that there wan't enough information provided in the terms of reference to make a proper judgement. However they talk about how it is of obvious interest to the law enforcement agencies, and obvious problem to civil libertarians. They commented on how it is up to the government to choose how to make a decision and take into account these two opposing views.

This is actually the first time I participated in a democratic process, beyond voting, and was pleasantly surprised to find out (only this morning during a more detailed read through the report) that they quoted my submission! [2 (Box 1)].

It is sort of the opposite to voting, where you feel "how can I make a difference". If you take the time to write in to such an inquiry, then it is highly likely that your opinion will get taken seriously.

[0] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...

[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...

[2] http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...

majika4• 12 years ago

That's really encouraging. I reposted your comment to Reddit [0] - is that alright?

By the way, your third link is broken. It should be:

http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/hous...

This is why defeatism annoys me. There are things we can do to fight this, and we should be doing them.

[0] https://pay.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/20mk33/asio_and_...

pserwylo2• 12 years ago

Yeah, go for it. That is indeed the correct link.

It's funny, because I was happy to read the coverage about the overwhelming amount of letters they received regarding data retention. However I was really dumbfounded when they mailed my a physical book with the contents of the report in it, rather than just emailing a link to the PDF or something. Lo and behold, it actually turned out to be useful for me to sit down on the couch this morning and thumb through after reading this new headline about the topic.

thomasfromcdnjs• 12 years ago

If any Australian developers are interested in campaigning and raising awareness against these policies, visit http://taskforce.is and send me a message - Thomas

spamTheFuck• 12 years ago

Let's all just start spamming the fuck out of Australia.

Australian citizens should be equipped with tools to just spam the fuck out of their own ISPs, with absurd useless requests, as a form of civil disobedience.

Did I say the words "spam-the-fuck-out-of-it" enough in this post? No? SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF THAT SHIT.

Doesn't matter if they've performed analysis on the total possible consumible bandwidth, per subscriber, per ISP, and budgeted storage allocations times a hundred.

JUST SPAM THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYTHING AT ALL TIMES. FUCK THIS BULLSHIT. DON'T BEHAVE.

jff• 12 years ago

From most Australians I've spoken to, it won't take much spam action on their parts to exhaust their (expensive) Internet plans' (very small) data caps.

maegget• 12 years ago

$59.99 for unlimited ADSL2+ - not really that expensive

majika4• 12 years ago

Very relevant: http://flagger.io/

Flagger is a browser add-on that automatically puts red flag keywords (like bomb, Taliban and anthrax) into the web addresses you visit. Install Flagger and help us send a message: government surveillance has gone too far.

fuzzywalrus• 12 years ago

Seems like a good time invest in Australian VPNs...

Schwolop• 12 years ago

I'm a little concerned that the RSPCA has warrantless access to my browsing history already. Aren't they a volunteer organisation that promotes animal welfare?

andyjdavis2• 12 years ago

That jumped out at me too. I have no idea why they are included in this. Are they going to start trawling access records looking for "animal cruelty how to"?

cxx• 12 years ago

It seems as if english speaking countries are on a race to the bottom to see who can get to 1984 first. It's hard to see if this is just incompetence or the creepy fantasy of power-hungry thugs.

mysteriousllama• 12 years ago

Has anyone else pondered what would happen if knowledgeable people were to help Australians perform a civil protest in the form of a resource consumption attack?

Even with data caps in place I'm sure one could perform quite a few requests/second continuously for an entire month.

Multiply that by (hundreds of?) thousands of protesters and the logging system could be overwhelmed. Especially considering such a system would likely be badly implemented by the lowest bidder.

Even if it were not overwhelmed, the requests could be tailored to trigger as many false-positives as possible.

computer• 12 years ago

Are you suggesting to commit computer fraud in an attempt to break government security systems, thereby giving terrorists and pedophiles free roam?

victorhooi• 12 years ago

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not? Lol.

kaliblack• 12 years ago

How many cases have their been where they had a suspect and not having the last 2 years browsing history allowed the suspect to avoid conviction?

andyjdavis2• 12 years ago

I really wish they provide some data like this even if it is anonymized or whatever. It would possibly make it less instantly repugnant if they could actually point to even a handful of cases where not having this data directly lead to a loss of life or similar.

contingencies• 12 years ago

Australia makes, in some of its data retention programs, a case for a distinction between "storing" and "temporarily retaining" information. This is certainly the case with the EU/Australian agreement over here: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/information_on_pnr_agreem...

The problem is that when one wing of government 'temporarily retains' something, local intelligence agencies will tap the cables and keep it forever.

Push for Australians' web browsing histories to be stored

Related Stories